more on VeriSign to revive redirect service
Err.. at least in the meeting, the VeriSlime carefully evaded giving any quantifiable answer as to warning time. I have no idea what they spun to the press afterwards. What I observed was they started out cocky...as the meeting went on and the questioning got pointed, they got snippy and defensive. Further along, they got a clear tone of desperation in their speech. Their counsel actually stood up and blocked them from answering some questions. As for the ?35? companies they polled; note the number started far higher and dribbled down. I suspect that the reason it was so low was (SURPRISE!) the 35 had to sign NDA's.... -- 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
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). Miles
Miles Fidelman 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).
I get the impression they are still living under the old Bell Motto: We don't have to care, we're The Registrar. A couple years ago when their monopoly was broken, I used it as a threat to try to finally get a report of all the domains on our nameservers. For years I would send requests every couple months, and each and every one was ignored. I sent Verisign a list of ~1000 domains I knew were pointed to us, and said "Can you confirm these are the only ones? If I don't get an answer, I'm moving them all to another registrar." I never got an answer. The final straw that sent us to OpenSRS was the creation of ~1000 unique accounts for us to use to manage those domains, when the old e-mail method went away.... Of course, the passwords were all snail-mailed to our clients, effectively taking away control of those domains from us. Verisign obviously doesn't want the Registrar business, or they would have found out a way to combine all those accounts when we asked. We figure that a company so clueless doesn't deserve our certificate business either, and are pretty happy with GeoTrust.
Verisign obviously doesn't want the Registrar business, or they would have found out a way to combine all those accounts when we asked.
You do know they just this morning announced that they're selling the Registrar business, don't you? Ray -- Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) - Technical Director community internet plc - ts.com Ltd Windsor House, 12 High Street, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 2PJ tel: +44 1865 856000 email: ray.bellis@community.net.uk fax: +44 1865 856001 web: http://www.community.net.uk/
Miles Fidelman 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).
We moved ours long ago (with the exception of a few customers that inexplicably demanded to stay with VeriSign nee NetSol). I expect most network savvy folk everywhere moved, too. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Amen to that. We did as well, except for our customers that re-upped themselves with Verislime. Kevin Bednar Network Engineer Dedicated Support kevinb@tellurian.com (973)940-6126 Personal Service with a :-) Semper Vigilo Tellurian Networks - Le Package Totale http://www.tellurian.com/ 1(888)TELLURIAN -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of William Allen Simpson Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:45 AM To: nanog list Subject: Re: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service Miles Fidelman 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).
We moved ours long ago (with the exception of a few customers that inexplicably demanded to stay with VeriSign nee NetSol). I expect most network savvy folk everywhere moved, too. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Miles Fidelman 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
We've been moving all our domains to OpenSRS for a year, but doing it as they come up for renewal. This has definately inspired not only us, but our customers to do it before the deadline. OpenSRS also offers SSL certs, and we've been moving those away from Verisign too. ========================================================== Chris Candreva -- chris@westnet.com -- (914) 967-7816 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/
What I think will be interesting is who has the bind patch this time around. The first time many companies didn't deploy the bind patch for reasons ranging from taking a few days to study the impact to not being able to deploy new software on their nameservers that quickly to not being able to get management buy in on blocking wildcard records. If Verisign turns the "service" back on without ICANN approval I expect a much larger number of people, and perhaps some larger networks to implement the bind patch this time around. It's unfortunate, as this is not the right way to run a network. When left with no choice, engineers will work around any problem. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
participants (8)
-
Christopher X. Candreva -
David Lesher -
Kevin Bednar -
Leo Bicknell -
Mike Lewinski -
Miles Fidelman -
Ray Bellis -
William Allen Simpson