Oki all, Delivery of RC mail to me is fairly desultory. Apparently there is an earlier thread. Post-Rome the very purpose of the RC seems to me to be doubtful (advocacy for registrars other than NetSol+4), and post-Elana the process of the RC left me disinterested. I'm particularly enamored by Ross' notion of what is going on on NANOG. Cheers, Eric ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org Delivery-Date: Sun Jan 16 11:14:04 2005 Return-Path: <owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org> Received: from greenriver.icann.org (greenriver.icann.org [192.0.35.121]) by nic-naa.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0GBDxgx036293 for <brunner@nic-naa.net>; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:14:04 GMT (envelope-from owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org) Received: from greenriver.icann.org (greenriver [127.0.0.1]) by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0GEx1Qg006202; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:59:01 -0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j0GEx0hJ006201; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:59:01 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: greenriver.icann.org: majordomo set sender to owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org using -f Received: from pechora.icann.org (pechora.icann.org [192.0.34.35]) by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0GEwxrw006198 for <registrars@greenriver.icann.org>; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:59:00 -0800 Received: from tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.4]) by pechora.icann.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j0GEwBA16293 for <registrars@dnso.org>; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:58:11 -0800 Received: from [192.168.2.101] ([67.71.54.206]) by tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP id <20050116145857.SKGA1836.tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net@[192.168.2.101]>; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:58:57 -0500 Message-ID: <41EA80BF.7020608@tucows.com> Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:57:03 -0500 From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com> Reply-To: ross@tucows.com Organization: Tucows Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Jeftovic <markjr@easydns.com> CC: Registrars Constituency <registrars@dnso.org> Subject: Re: [registrars] Re: panix.com hijacked References: <Pine.LNX.4.58L0.0501160024320.11253@c3po.easydns.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58L0.0501160024320.11253@c3po.easydns.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org Precedence: bulk On 1/16/2005 12:29 AM Mark Jeftovic noted that:
There's a thread on NANOG to the effect that panix.com has been hijacked from Dotster over to MelbourneIT and it has pretty well taken panix.com and its customers offline, see http://www.panix.net/
I don't see what you are looking at - .net and .com point to the same place with no indication of anything awry...of course, I'm late to the game and the DNS probably tells a different story...
Looks like this may be among the first high-profile unauthorized transfer under the new transfer policy.
Looks like a bunch of guys on the NANOG list engaging in a lot of conjecture without the benefit of a lot of facts.
Maybe there needs to some sort of emergency reversion where at least the nameservers can be rolled back immediately while the contesting parties sort it out.
Might be interesting - what criteria would trigger the process? - -- Regards, -rwr "In the modern world the intelligence of public opinion is the one indispensable condition for social progress." - Charles W. Eliot (1834 - 1926) ------- End of Forwarded Message