- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Tomatoes for Verisign at NANOG 29
by Howard C. Berkowitz 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

>>>If you are attending NANOG 29, please attend this session and wear a >>>red shirt. >> >>Ahem. Many of us are Star Trek experts, and it will take a LOT more than >>this to get people to wear a red shirt. >> >Huh? I'm somewhat familiar with Star Trek, and, I realize the red shirts >are usually the first to die Right the first time! >> > >Porjecting the movie shows some level of group leadership support. >Stacking tomatoes shows just how much of the community is opposed >to wildcards. I think in this case, a physical show of tomatoes is >more effective. You're right--it's just that I enjoy the movies as one of the worst implementations ever done. Seemed appropriate. The neatly stacked voting pyramid is an excellent idea, especially if there were any media coverage. Sort of reminiscent of the end of Conan the Destroyer, as the torches go out.

1 0

Re: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

>Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of us >on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking >all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point >across (though it might also backfire - pushing Verisign to be even more >agressive at taking advantage of their positioning). There are alternative suppliers for registering domain names and SSL certs. Look here http://referrals.tucows.com/ for registrars that are alternatives to Verisign for .com and .net. Also, give your customers information about the .biz, .info and .us domains and ask them if they would choose those rather than .com. An awful lot of people want .com because they really don't know anything about the alternatives. In this day and age, people don't guess URLs anymore by sticking .com at the end of a word so there is no longer any advantage to using a .com domain name over a .biz or .info or .us. People learn about domain names from advertising or by clicking a link on a web page. In both cases .biz, .info and .us work just as well. And don't forget to hire away all the best people from Verisign to cripple their ability to execute effectively. If they are willing to hurt your business for their own profit, then why shouldn't you hurt their business for your profit? Remember, there is nothing inherent in Verisign's products that makes them better than the competing alternatives. Their only advantage is that their products were there first so people have formed the habit of buying from them without thinking. --Michael Dillon

9 9

OT: Dark Fiber in Portland/Beaverton Area
by Brennan_Murphy＠NAI.com 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

Email me if you are familiar with the fiber landscape (dark/lit) or lack thereof in the Portland/Beaverton areas. Thanks, BM

1 0

RE: [Fwd: [IP] VeriSign to revive redirect service]
by Dan Lockwood 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

OK, so who is responsible for bringing the fruit? Does our registration fee cover that? :D Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of JC Dill Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:05 To: NANOG Subject: Re: [Fwd: [IP] VeriSign to revive redirect service] At 02:56 AM 10/16/2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >Ouch. >http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5092133.html > >VeriSign to revive redirect service >by Declan McCullagh > >VeriSign will give a 30- to 60-day notice before resuming a >controversial and temporarily suspended feature that redirected many >.com and .net domains, company representatives said Wednesday. I'm not going to be at NANOG in Chicago next Monday (October 20th), but if I were, I'd be in the foyer Monday morning with a few crates of tomatoes, selling individual tomatoes. If everyone who attends NANOG goes to the 9:15 session on Monday morning <http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0310/dns.html> and takes a single large tomato into the session with them, that this will make a VISIBLE sign to Verisign. It will make for a great photo opportunity, and turn this issue into something that the ordinary press can more easily explain to the non-technical Internet using masses. I also suggest that people wear red shirts on Monday. Enable the press to write about how Network Operators obviously and visibly *demonstrated* their unhappiness with Verisign. Try "Network Operators are seeing Red over Sitefinder" or "Verisign gets pelted with tomatoes over Sitefinder" as a headline. Note: I'm not actually suggesting that people pelt Verisign representatives with the tomatoes, you could just individually walk up to the front of the room and put your tomatoes in a pile where they can be seen. A pile of 500 tomatoes that are brought there individually, each tomato representing the opinion of a NANOG participant, *will* make an impact. jc

1 0

Re: Verisign to sell Network Solutions
by Mark Radabaugh 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

> >So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry > services > >operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be > owned by > >different companies? > > Yep. And it means that Verisign business is no longer > based so much on serving customers but more on leveraging > various monopoly rights that they have such as ownership > of .com and ownership of the main root CAs whose > certificates are bundled with Microsoft's OS. > > >Isn't that what we wanted all along? > This just gets more interesting. If the sale of the NetSol was in the works for some time (and these things usually take a while) it would mean that Verisign was likely counting on the revenue from Sitefinder to offset the loss of revenue from selling NetSol. They cut off an arm and then shot themselves in the foot. Maybe ICANN can put them out of our misery. It would help explain why Verisign continues to press so hard for Sitefinder despite the firestorm over it.... New Coke anyone? Mark

1 0

Verisign to sell Network Solutions
by Mark Radabaugh 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

This is interesting: Dear Valued Network Solutions® Customer, Today VeriSign, Inc. announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to sell Network Solutions to a new entity formed by Pivotal Private Equity. Mark Radabaugh Amplex (419) 720-3635 begin 666 clear.gif K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``````````"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P`` ` end

8 8

Re: Verisign to sell Network Solutions
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

>So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry services >operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be owned by >different companies? Yep. And it means that Verisign business is no longer based so much on serving customers but more on leveraging various monopoly rights that they have such as ownership of .com and ownership of the main root CAs whose certificates are bundled with Microsoft's OS. >Isn't that what we wanted all along? Uhhh... sort of, but I guess most folks really just wanted the whole domain name business to be handled in an open honest and fair manner. This latest move by Verisign doesn't make any substantial advance in that direction. The fact is that we have created Verisign's .COM monopoly by treating .com domains as the cool thing to have and we are sustaining Verisign's .COM monopoly by not educating our customers and our friends about the alternative domains that are available. As technically skilled people we could also help by developing detailled transition plans to help people shift to a new TLD and then turn off the old one. This isn't as straightforward as just slapping an extra zone into DNS and an alias onto Apache. If you want to get rid of the .com domain name then you need some way of identifying which traffic still uses the old .com domain name and then you need some means of notifying the users to change their own records or address books. --Michael Dillon

3 2

RE: Site Finder
by Brandon Butterworth 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

> What effective action can we take as a collective group to > get the point across that we will not tollerate this type of behavior? Internet death penalty? (at last a topic you can configure your router for) Having been provided a mechanism to catch all those typos what ISP wouldn't want that traffic to go to something they make money from? If you don't want it someone else will pay you for your share of the traffic (saves porn houses buying lots of domains when they can use them for free) brandon

1 0

RE: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service
by McBurnett, Jim 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

All, I hate to agree but he is right. With companies like godaddy out there. Does it make sense to pay Verislime money to fund sitefinder and our headaches? To change this: what else can we do to prevent this? Does the last BIND version truly break sitefinder? Later, Jim ->-----Original Message----- ->From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:mfidelman@civicnet.org] ->Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:24 AM ->To: nanog list ->Subject: Re: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service -> -> -> ->Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain ->registrations those of us ->on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one ->thing, taking ->all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at ->getting a point ->across (though it might also backfire - pushing Verisign to ->be even more ->agressive at taking advantage of their positioning). -> ->Miles -> ->

3 2

more on VeriSign to revive redirect service
by David Lesher 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

Err.. at least in the meeting, the VeriSlime carefully evaded giving any quantifiable answer as to warning time. I have no idea what they spun to the press afterwards. What I observed was they started out cocky...as the meeting went on and the questioning got pointed, they got snippy and defensive. Further along, they got a clear tone of desperation in their speech. Their counsel actually stood up and blocked them from answering some questions. As for the ?35? companies they polled; note the number started far higher and dribbled down. I suspect that the reason it was so low was (SURPRISE!) the 35 had to sign NDA's.... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

8 7