- Test - lists.nanog.org

Photos from today's ICANN SSAC meeting on SiteFinder in DC
by Declan McCullagh 07 Oct '03

07 Oct '03

They're here: http://www.mccullagh.org/theme/icann-verisign-meeting-oct03.html I double-checked everyone's names and affiliations but I could have made an error. If I did, please let me know. Thanks, Declan

1 0

sitefinder technical discussions
by Mark Kosters 07 Oct '03

07 Oct '03

In the interest in gaining more community review and comment, a discussion list has been setup to discuss factually-based technical issues and solutions surrounding the operational impact of wildcards in top-level domains on Internet applications. VeriSign technical people will participate in discussions that are within the scope for this mailing list. The list is sitefinder-tech-discuss(a)lists.elistx.com To subscribe or unsubscribe the usual "-request" convention works. Send a message to: sitefinder-tech-discuss-request(a)lists.elistx.com Put "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. Regards, Mark -- Mark Kosters markk(a)verisignlabs.com Verisign Applied Research

6 5

Re: Photos from today's ICANN SSAC meeting on SiteFinder in DC
by John Neiberger 07 Oct '03

07 Oct '03

>>>> Declan McCullagh <lists(a)politechbot.com> 10/7/03 3:58:33 PM >>> > >They're here: >http://www.mccullagh.org/theme/icann-verisign-meeting-oct03.html > >I double-checked everyone's names and affiliations but I could have >made an error. If I did, please let me know. > >Thanks, >Declan Is it just me or does it look like most of the Verisign guys have bloodshot eyes? :-) Seriously, this reminds me of something I wanted to point out earlier. Unless I've missed some of his recent posts, it appears to me that Matt Larson from Verisign has been straightforward with us when he was allowed to be. I doubt he was required to post here so I'm guessing he felt that it was necessary to give us what details were available as soon as he was allowed to do so. I'm obviously not aware of his circumstances but I have a feeling that he's closer to being 'one of us' than 'one of them', and if that's the case then kudos go out to him for posting here at all. It wasn't necessary but he seems to have done it knowing that he'd take a lot of heat. If that is the case, someone should hire him away from Verisign and free him from his bondage. <g> John "Then again, I might be wrong, in which case there's always Purgatory..." --

1 0

[MEDIA] McLaughlin Defends Site Finder As 'Innovation'
by wayne 07 Oct '03

07 Oct '03

As seen on /. http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5086769.html Mark McLaughlin, senior VP of Verislime, has an editorial on news.com claiming that ICANN is stifling innovation and forcing the internet to stagnate. The PR machine is out in force and painting anyone who disagrees with them as anti-capitalistic loonies. -wayne

4 3

Verisign's public opinion play
by Kee Hinckley 07 Oct '03

07 Oct '03

Take your blood pressure medicine before reading this one. http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5086769.html Apparently our objections stem from our lingering resentment over the commercial use of the internet. In case you're wondering who the author is, since neither the bio on the page or Verisign's site is helpful. Mark McLaughlin is a former lawyer who moved into Marketing and Biz Development (Caere, Gemplus, Signio and then Verisign payments). -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.

13 15

fyi: an example individual response to Verisign spin
by Jeff.Hodges＠KingsMountain.com 07 Oct '03

07 Oct '03

Subject: [IP] Yesterdays WJS article on Versign http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200310/msg000… tml ------- Forwarded Message Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:45:48 -0400 To: ip(a)v2.listbox.com From: Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> Subject: [IP] Yesterdays WJS article on Versign >Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:17:34 -0700 >From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker(a)brandenburg.com> >Subject: Today's WJS article on Versign >To: newseditors(a)wsj.com >Cc: Nick Wingfield <nick.wingfield(a)wsj.com>, Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> > >Re: Nick Wingfield's article ><http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106519977252395300,00.html?mod=dartTecht… ay> > > >Hello, > >"VeriSign's critics, of course, see it differently, accusing VeriSign of >undermining the collectivist culture of the Internet, through which engineers >hash out key changes to the network through standards groups. Unlike the Web >and e-mail, which have become thoroughly commercialized through advertising, >the low-level Internet routing software that VeriSign altered with its new >service has remained relatively insulated from efforts to make a profit." ... > >Although notably better than most of the articles on this topic, Mr. Wingfield >still managed to buy Verisign's spin, both its erroneous facts and its >erroneous perspective. > >First of all, the service that Verisign runs has been for profit for as long >as it has run it. That's roughly ten years. In addition the problems caused by >Verisign were not just in the eyes of "technologists". > >Second of all, consider the service they suddenly changed in terms of its >equivalent in the world of telephone. Imagine dialing a non-existent number or >asking 411 for the number of a non-existent entry, and not being told that >there is no listing. Instead, you are given a phone number that feeds you >advertising. Would you view this as "a valuable navigational aid for users who >might otherwise hit an online dead-end?" Probably not. > >The problem, here, is not a culture-clash between commercial ventures and >naive technologists. Verisign contracted to provide a critical infrastructure >service that maps domain names to Internet addresses. The only "clash" is >between responsible and irresponsible approaches to providing that service. If >Verisign cannot operate it at a profit, without breaking it, there are others >quite willing and able to do the job. > >d/ >-- > Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com> > Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com> > Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253> -------------------------------------- Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ------- End of Forwarded Message

2 1

Re: Verisign's public opinion play
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 07 Oct '03

07 Oct '03

>I think this list may be a very good choice of where to construct >such a response. Are you being paid by Verisign? A "constructed" response is the worst thing we could do. Everyone should write their own responses in their own words based on their own experiences or their own skills and knowledge. That's the only way to demonstrate that Verisign was wrong, wrong, wrong. A "constructed" response is pure politics and only demonstrates that a certain opinion is shared by a bunch of people with no basis in fact. We don't need to trumpet our opinions; we need to document and publish the facts of the matter. And this list is definitely not the place to discuss writing a letter of protest. If political activity is your bag, then try http://www.meetup.com --Michael Dillon

6 8

ftp.cisco.com broken ?
by Ezequiel Carson 07 Oct '03

07 Oct '03

hi, can you resolve ftp.cisco.com? [root@localhost /]# ping ftp.cisco.com ping: unknown host ftp.cisco.com [root@localhost /]# something is wrong here.... ezequiel.

9 9

RE: CCO/cisco.com issues.
by Sean McPherson 07 Oct '03

07 Oct '03

<SNIPPAGE> >We're continuing the work the issue, and would be grateful if operators >would check for 40-byte spoofed TCP headed towards 198.133.219.25/32 and >trace/block it as warranted. Your patience and understanding are greatly >appreciated. > >Thanks! > >------------------------------------------------------------- >Roland Dobbins <rdobbins(a)cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice Roland, Are these spoofed addresses from any range specifically in relation to the 'real' source address (ie, are they spoofing other IPs in the same subnet or CIDR range, a specific known range, or just random routable addresses)? I've run some netflow filters and have seen some traffic (very small amounts) that could match the very simple 40-byte payloads to that /32 traversing out of a few customers' gear, but I was hoping to not have to start digging into traffic to see if it originated in the 'right' places if you already had any ideas. That said, I don't want to ignore the fact it's not much traffic, since with enough zombied machines, a lot of 'trickles' forms a flood! Thanks, Sean McPherson nanog <@ is the at sign> seanmcpherson dotcom

1 0

Re: Verisign's public opinion play
by Brandon Butterworth 07 Oct '03

07 Oct '03

> we're only upset because Verisign makes money off of this. I'm sure that is a factor too. Verisign have a contract to operate a shared registry, as a monopoly is unreasonable, but hijack it to make a different service that nobody else gets to bid for running. If such a service were a feasible use of this public resource there'd be an open process to bid for running it and some of the rewards would go to public services in return for that lease brandon

1 0