... Unfortunately, SiteFinder did not have such a destructive effect as we had all wanted it to have. ...
that apparently depends on what you wanted and what you consider destructive. to me, as a domain holder under .COM, the damage was latent, coming in the form of "unacceptable business risk". as long as i know that my competitors would have to actually register "nearby" names in order to steal business from me, then i know (a) their costs are linear with my risk, and (b) i can find out what they're doing and perhaps even who they're paying to do it. in the presence of a wildcard and paid advertising, (a) no longer holds and there is no way to do (b). if sitefinder returns, i'd expect to have to find a new parent domain, who has no wildcard-like keyword system, just for risk management reasons. some domain holders might prefer to manage this risk by paying verisign extra money to get all the nearby keywords, but i'd consider this blackmail and i'd rebrand my offerings out of .COM and .NET, and i expect that many other domain holders would feel (and do) the same. ultimately i'd expect domain registration fees in wildcard-free TLDs to cost more than domain registration fees in wildcard-containing TLDs. also, to me, as a domain holder under .com who uses my domain for more than just a web site, i can't tolerate the lack of RCODE=3 when a "nearby" name is used by mistake. verisign promised not to use the connections for anything nefarious, but they are not a public-benefit corporation and if they thought that the best way to return value to their shareholders was to keyword-search e-mail that was sent to them by mistake, then they would be stupid NOT to do so. (this has been called a strong argument for all TLD registries to be required to be public-benefit corporations... foxes guarding chicken houses, and so on.)
So while SideFinder was not as destructive as we might have thought or hoped, ...
i wasn't hoping for anything in particular. but sitefinder was incredibly damaging, and its return would mark a sharp uptick in my risk management costs, and there's no way you could say it wasn't "destructive" based simply on your local network traffic analysis. simply put, i would have chosen a different TLD if i'd known that wildcard processing was going to occur, and i do not recognize verisign's right to unilaterally change the terms under which my domain's delegation data is served.
Paul Vixie wrote:
also, to me, as a domain holder under .com who uses my domain for more than just a web site, i can't tolerate the lack of RCODE=3 when a "nearby" name is used by mistake. verisign promised not to use the connections for anything nefarious, but they are not a public-benefit corporation and if they thought that the best way to return value to their shareholders was to keyword-search e-mail that was sent to them by mistake, then they would be stupid NOT to do so. (this has been called a strong argument for all TLD registries to be required to be public-benefit corporations... foxes guarding chicken houses, and so on.)
Just image if Versign one day would find out that they can implement some sort of "ad-word" or "adsense" program where it will redirect you directly, or with a ten second delay, to the site of the highest bidder for the closest matching keyword. Type "example.com" which does not exist and get redirected to "evilempire.com" who bought the keyword "example". Great, isn't it? PS: I will patent it myself to prevent Versign from doing this. -- Andre
On Aug 16, 2004, at 3:08 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
PS: I will patent it myself to prevent Versign from doing this.
And if they do, what's to stop the root operators from doing this. Remember, there are 13 IPs no one can get around - no other "TLD" to register your domain name. Flipped on its head, what's to stop the root operators from circumventing anything Verisign or any other TLD operator does? -- TTFN, patrick
patrick@ianai.net (Patrick W Gilmore) writes:
PS: I will patent it myself to prevent Versign from doing this.
And if they do, what's to stop the root operators from doing this.
the root server operators don't act collectively.
Remember, there are 13 IPs no one can get around - no other "TLD" to register your domain name.
according to the whackos, we are the "legacy root" operators, and folks ought to feel free to point their resolvers at any of the "alternative root" operators instead. YMMV.
Flipped on its head, what's to stop the root operators from circumventing anything Verisign or any other TLD operator does?
root server operators don't control the root zone, they only publish it. some combination of itu (via the iso3166 process), icann/iana, ietf/iab, and us-DoC are the folks you'd go to if you wanted a toplevel wildcard. -- Paul Vixie
On Aug 16, 2004, at 4:13 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
patrick@ianai.net (Patrick W Gilmore) writes:
PS: I will patent it myself to prevent Versign from doing this.
And if they do, what's to stop the root operators from doing this.
the root server operators don't act collectively.
While correct, your statement does not answer the original question. :)
Remember, there are 13 IPs no one can get around - no other "TLD" to register your domain name.
according to the whackos, we are the "legacy root" operators, and folks ought to feel free to point their resolvers at any of the "alternative root" operators instead. YMMV.
Let's confine the discussion to the 99.99% of us who use the Internet .. uh .. "normally". (Best description I could think up.) I mean, they are called "whackos" for a reason.
Flipped on its head, what's to stop the root operators from circumventing anything Verisign or any other TLD operator does?
root server operators don't control the root zone, they only publish it. some combination of itu (via the iso3166 process), icann/iana, ietf/iab, and us-DoC are the folks you'd go to if you wanted a toplevel wildcard.
Actually, the root server operators absolutely do _control_ the root zone in very obvious operationally relevant ways. Whether that control could be used - improperly or not - to, say, insert a wildcard record strikes me as much the same question as the Verisign action which started this thread.... -- TTFN, patrick
And if they do, what's to stop the root operators from doing this.
the root server operators don't act collectively.
While correct, your statement does not answer the original question. :)
i consider it directly responsive. one of the ways to keep a root server operator from doing something, statistically speaking at least, is to tell them that some other root server operator is doing it.
Flipped on its head, what's to stop the root operators from circumventing anything Verisign or any other TLD operator does?
root server operators don't control the root zone, they only publish it. some combination of itu (via the iso3166 process), icann/iana, ietf/iab, and us-DoC are the folks you'd go to if you wanted a toplevel wildcard.
Actually, the root server operators absolutely do _control_ the root zone in very obvious operationally relevant ways.
Whether that control could be used - improperly or not - to, say, insert a wildcard record strikes me as much the same question as the Verisign action which started this thread....
you will never find a more tightly woven hive of independence and diversity. the only things all 12 operators have ever been able to agree on are that (1) the root zone should be published with maximum reachability and uptime, (2) the root zone should not be edited by the root server operators, and that, finally, (3) there should never be a (3). -- Paul Vixie
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:17:48PM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Aug 16, 2004, at 3:08 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
PS: I will patent it myself to prevent Versign from doing this.
And if they do, what's to stop the root operators from doing this.
Remember, there are 13 IPs no one can get around - no other "TLD" to register your domain name.
Flipped on its head, what's to stop the root operators from circumventing anything Verisign or any other TLD operator does?
we'd have to agree on what to do... and thats been problematic for years. or one could view it as the core strength of the root server system (theres a misnomer:) of course, if a majority of the root server instances decided to make the change, then we have inconsistancy in the authoritatve data - which is -REALLY- bad.
-- TTFN, patrick
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote:
PS: I will patent it myself to prevent Versign from doing this.
Wouldnt it be beautiful if a bunch of people patented the hell out of various ways to exploit dns wildcarding, thus preventing verisign from doing anything useful with it at all... -Dan
Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote:
PS: I will patent it myself to prevent Versign from doing this.
Wouldnt it be beautiful if a bunch of people patented the hell out of various ways to exploit dns wildcarding, thus preventing verisign from doing anything useful with it at all...
It would only be useful if those people were also in a position to vigorously defend said patents when (and if) they were infringed. / Mat
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote:
PS: I will patent it myself to prevent Versign from doing this. Wouldnt it be beautiful if a bunch of people patented the hell out of various ways to exploit dns wildcarding, thus preventing verisign from doing anything useful with it at all... It would only be useful if those people were also in a position to vigorously defend said patents when (and if) they were infringed. / Mat
If the patent is strong enough, wouldnt some patent attorney be willing to defend it on a contingency basis? With the potential $$ in a patent violation judgement against verisign, I would think attorneys would be all over it. -Dan
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 04:01:46PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
If the patent is strong enough, wouldnt some patent attorney be willing to defend it on a contingency basis?
With the potential $$ in a patent violation judgement against verisign, I would think attorneys would be all over it.
Patent violation can be easily gathered, but the penalty is always based on the lost revenue, which must be documented and validated. In short, if you want to make money selling your patent to someone then you must have a valid business that loses money so that your lawsuit against them will have teeth. -- Joe Rhett Senior Geek Meer.net
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Joe Rhett wrote:
If the patent is strong enough, wouldnt some patent attorney be willing to defend it on a contingency basis? With the potential $$ in a patent violation judgement against verisign, I would think attorneys would be all over it. Patent violation can be easily gathered, but the penalty is always based on
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 04:01:46PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote: the lost revenue, which must be documented and validated. In short, if you want to make money selling your patent to someone then you must have a valid business that loses money so that your lawsuit against them will have teeth.
So the attorney creates an IP holding company to which the patent is assigned, and the company offers to license the patent to Verisign. When Verisign refuses, they get sued for lost revenue. There are companies whos entire revenue stream revolves around licensing patents / litigating. This is quite normal. -Dan
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Joe Rhett wrote:
In short, if you want to make money selling your patent to someone then you must have a valid business that loses money so that your lawsuit against them will have teeth.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 12:46:07AM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
So the attorney creates an IP holding company to which the patent is assigned, and the company offers to license the patent to Verisign. When Verisign refuses, they get sued for lost revenue.
The holding company must be making money from the patent to demonstrate the value of the loss. It can't be a silent owner -- these have been fairly routinely tossed out of court as meritless.
There are companies whos entire revenue stream revolves around licensing patents / litigating. This is quite normal.
Yes, but they use complicated techniques of licensing and subcompanies with demonstratable revenue to achieve those goals. It's not as simple as was suggested here. -- Joe Rhett Senior Geek Meer.net
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Joe Rhett wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Joe Rhett wrote:
In short, if you want to make money selling your patent to someone then you must have a valid business that loses money so that your lawsuit against them will have teeth. On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 12:46:07AM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote: So the attorney creates an IP holding company to which the patent is assigned, and the company offers to license the patent to Verisign. When Verisign refuses, they get sued for lost revenue. The holding company must be making money from the patent to demonstrate the value of the loss. It can't be a silent owner -- these have been fairly routinely tossed out of court as meritless.
Do you have an example of such a case? -Dan
participants (9)
-
Andre Oppermann -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Dan Hollis -
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine -
Joe Rhett -
Matthew Sullivan -
Patrick W Gilmore -
Paul Vixie -
Paul Vixie