Anything I/we can do to help the cause?
Bob Martin
yes..... I almost missed this one. There are few entities for which i have more contempt than ICANN. But verisign heads the more contempt than ICANN list by several orders of magnitude. in my estimation it would like to control telecom by control of the numbers associated therewith. In addition to the present issue which owen de long described here masterfully last fall, verisign's alliance with EPC global at some point in the future could give it huge power in supply chain rfid numbering systems. Finally there is something doing in the voip area that i am not clear on at all but which i didn't like the sound of when i read the description. I am tying to stay away from this cesspool. It brings no income - only grief. But, knowing what i know, i am remiss if i don't stick my head up here. I go waaayyyy back with network solutions to 1994 actually and i keep damned good archives. If I can assist Paul or the anti-verisign part of this case in building the details of the history of who did what to whom, I gladly will do so
Quoted from different thread:
(note that verisign has amended their complaint against icann (since the court dismissed the first one) and i'm now named as a co-conspirator. if you reply to this message, there's a good chance of your e-mail appearing in court filings at some point.) -- Paul Vixie
-- ============================================================= The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Report on economic black hole of best effort networks at: http://cookreport.com/13.04.shtml E-mail cook@cookreport.com =============================================================
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
There are few entities for which i have more contempt than ICANN.
But verisign heads the more contempt than ICANN list by several orders of magnitude.
I'm reminded of the dot.sig: "The IRS is auditing the NRA. I haven't had this much trouble picking sides since the Iran-Iraq war." -- Bill Maher, "Politically Incorrect" -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@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
cook@cookreport.com (Gordon Cook) writes:
in my estimation [verisign] would like to control telecom by control of the numbers associated therewith.
...
... I am tying to stay away from this cesspool. It brings no income - only grief. But, knowing what i know, i am remiss if i don't stick my head up here.
I go waaayyyy back with network solutions to 1994 actually and i keep damned good archives. If I can assist Paul or the anti-verisign part of this case in building the details of the history of who did what to whom, I gladly will do so
that's an interesting offer for several reasons. i meet many people in my travels who weren't domainholders when the system was first commercialized and so they do not remember any of the times network solutions overstepped internic's charter in order to, for example, unilaterally impose new terms in the domain change templates. in fact most people don't know what a domain change template was, or what internic was, or who GSI was or who SRI was. and without that knowledge, it's easy to mistake the icann/verisign legal battle as "turf related". i know of any number of nose-holding fence-sitters who only tolerate icann (or consider icann relevant) because icann is somehow keeping verisign from abusing their monopoly -- and who feel betrayed every time icann fails. i know folks who are still angry with icann and with us-DoC for ever signing the current .COM registry agreement -- the one verisign says is too restrictive and claims icann is violating. there's a huge amount of history that's required before anybody should draw conclusions or form opinions about icann or verisign. however, it would have to be written up by someone who is not an ambulance chaser before it could have any effect on unbiased objective observers. -- Paul Vixie
cook@cookreport.com (Gordon Cook) writes:
in my estimation [verisign] would like to control telecom by control of the numbers associated therewith.
...
... I am tying to stay away from this cesspool. It brings no income - only grief. But, knowing what i know, i am remiss if i don't stick my head up here.
I go waaayyyy back with network solutions to 1994 actually and i keep damned good archives. If I can assist Paul or the anti-verisign part of this case in building the details of the history of who did what to whom, I gladly will do so
that's an interesting offer for several reasons. i meet many people in my travels who weren't domainholders when the system was first commercialized and so they do not remember any of the times network solutions overstepped internic's charter in order to, for example, unilaterally impose new terms in the domain change templates. in fact most people don't know what a domain change template was, or what internic was, or who GSI was or who SRI was. and without that knowledge, it's easy to mistake the icann/verisign legal battle as "turf related". i know of any number of nose-holding fence-sitters who only tolerate icann (or consider icann relevant) because icann is somehow keeping verisign from abusing their monopoly -- and who feel betrayed every time icann fails. i know folks who are still angry with icann and with us-DoC for ever signing the current .COM registry agreement -- the one verisign says is too restrictive and claims icann is violating. there's a huge amount of history that's required before anybody should draw conclusions or form opinions about icann or verisign. however, it would have to be written up by someone who is not an ambulance chaser before it could have any effect on unbiased objective observers. -- Paul Vixie
participants (3)
-
David Lesher -
Gordon Cook -
Paul Vixie