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).
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
I don't know if this is a related move or not, but I just received an email from Verisign that they are selling NetSol. A snippet: Dear Valued Network Solutions(R) 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. Please be assured that Network Solutions continues to be committed to providing superior products and customer service to our more than 4 million customers. You have seen evidence of this commitment in the numerous enhancements we have introduced over the last 18 months. This commitment remains strong today in our 600 employees, each focused on providing you with a superior customer experience. On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
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
James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up@3.am http://3.am =========================================================================
At 3:18 PM +0100 10/16/03, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
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.
This point just became moot. Versign is selling the registry business. Network Solutions is being spun off. They retain the back end DNS. http://www.verisign.com/corporate/news/2003/pr_20031016.html?sl=070805 -- 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.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote:
This point just became moot. Versign is selling the registry business. Network Solutions is being spun off. They retain the back end DNS.
They're selling the _registrar_ business off. They retain the _registry_ and the associated stuff to the back end DNS. One might well suppose that VeriSign is somewhat keen to be permitted to run Sitefinder as, when you come down to it, its a tidy little money spinner for impressively little effort to point traffic to it. Particularly if the money coming in from the registrar side is drying up.
http://www.verisign.com/corporate/news/2003/pr_20031016.html?sl=070805
--==-- Bruce.
The back end DNS is the registry service. What you are saying they are doing is selling the REGISTRAR business and keeping the REGISTRY. Or did I miss something? Owen --On Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:46 AM -0400 Kee Hinckley <nazgul@somewhere.com> wrote:
At 3:18 PM +0100 10/16/03, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
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.
This point just became moot. Versign is selling the registry business. Network Solutions is being spun off. They retain the back end DNS.
http://www.verisign.com/corporate/news/2003/pr_20031016.html?sl=070805 -- 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.
At 9:19 AM -0700 10/16/03, Owen DeLong wrote:
The back end DNS is the registry service. What you are saying they are doing is selling the REGISTRAR business and keeping the REGISTRY. Or did I miss something?
No, that's correct. I just can't keep them straight in my fingers (and neither can Verisign, they are renaming the REGISTRY. "This Registry business was recently renamed VeriSign Naming and Directory Services" -- 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.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
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.
FWIW, I still do as it is faster than google. I bet that that there are more people like me. Also, some browsers add ".com" if your URL doesn't end in ".something". Others cycle through a list of possibilities, but there ".com" is always the first on the list. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of credibility given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably existed for quite a bit longer than a .biz or .info. Although looking at that list I might note that I probably would include .us with .com and .net, despite it's very recent deregulation, or perhaps because of it. Relating back to this thread, I have to conclude that because of this, and the fact that .net/.com makes up the majority of the registry this needs to be watched very carefully, and preemptive action taken should verisign make an anouncement, to suspend their registrar contract. On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:54:15 +0200 (CEST) "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <henk@ripe.net> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
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.
FWIW, I still do as it is faster than google. I bet that that there are more people like me.
Also, some browsers add ".com" if your URL doesn't end in ".something". Others cycle through a list of possibilities, but there ".com" is always the first on the list.
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
-- Andrew D Kirch | trelane@2mbit.com | Security Admin | Summit Open Source Development Group | www.sosdg.org
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:16:53 CDT, Andrew D Kirch <trelane@trelane.net> said:
I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of credibility given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably existed for quite a bit longer than a .biz or .info.
Most of my spam points back to .com addresses. Not much credibility generated there... There's sufficient churn on the bottom-feeding .com's that it's not a reliable indicator. Now you want *stability*, look for a site that's got a .arpa other than in-addr.arpa :)
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:16:53 CDT, Andrew D Kirch <trelane@trelane.net> said:
I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of credibility given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably existed for quite a bit longer than a .biz or .info.
Most of my spam points back to .com addresses. Not much credibility generated there...
There's sufficient churn on the bottom-feeding .com's that it's not a reliable indicator. Now you want *stability*, look for a site that's got a .arpa other than in-addr.arpa :)
On the other hand, in our spam filters, we have a content filter block on the string ".biz" followed by a slash (I'm spelling it out because I don't think I've whitelisted this list). It works surprisingly well. Out of several tens of thousands of blocks per week on that rule, we get, perhaps, 3 FP reports. Which is an acceptable level of FPs given the overall effectiveness. Most of them are resolved by advising the sender to not end http://foo.bar.biz site-level URLs with a slash.
participants (9)
-
Andrew D Kirch -
Bruce Campbell -
Chris Lewis -
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) -
Kee Hinckley -
Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com -
Owen DeLong -
up＠3.am -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu