RE: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service
All, I hate to agree but he is right. With companies like godaddy out there. Does it make sense to pay Verislime money to fund sitefinder and our headaches? To change this: what else can we do to prevent this? Does the last BIND version truly break sitefinder? Later, Jim ->-----Original Message----- ->From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:mfidelman@civicnet.org] ->Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:24 AM ->To: nanog list ->Subject: 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). -> ->Miles -> ->
He's right, and we should actually take our business elsewhere. Unfortunately, we can't. They have a monopoly. No matter what registrar we use to register our domains, that registrar is paying the part of Verislime that is inflicting this on us to run the REGISTRY for .com and .net. The only way to actually vote with our feet is to get ICANN to start working on finding an alternative registry and cancel their contract with Verislime. This will be difficult, awkward, and, may introduce short-term instabilities in the network. I suspect Verisign will not participate in an orderly hand-over of the necessary data without a court order, in spite of the provisions in their contract requiring them to do just that. Owen --On Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:31 AM -0400 "McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett@msmgmt.com> wrote:
All, I hate to agree but he is right. With companies like godaddy out there. Does it make sense to pay Verislime money to fund sitefinder and our headaches?
To change this: what else can we do to prevent this? Does the last BIND version truly break sitefinder?
Later, Jim
->-----Original Message----- ->From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:mfidelman@civicnet.org] ->Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:24 AM ->To: nanog list ->Subject: 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). -> ->Miles -> ->
ICANN threatened legal action before, effectively. Are they doing anything this time? On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:56:47 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
He's right, and we should actually take our business elsewhere. Unfortunately, we can't. They have a monopoly. No matter what registrar we use to register our domains, that registrar is paying the part of Verislime that is inflicting this on us to run the REGISTRY for .com and .net.
The only way to actually vote with our feet is to get ICANN to start working on finding an alternative registry and cancel their contract with Verislime. This will be difficult, awkward, and, may introduce short-term instabilities in the network.
I suspect Verisign will not participate in an orderly hand-over of the necessary data without a court order, in spite of the provisions in their contract requiring them to do just that.
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:31 AM -0400 "McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett@msmgmt.com> wrote:
All, I hate to agree but he is right. With companies like godaddy out there. Does it make sense to pay Verislime money to fund sitefinder and our headaches?
To change this: what else can we do to prevent this? Does the last BIND version truly break sitefinder?
Later, Jim
->-----Original Message----- ->From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:mfidelman@civicnet.org] ->Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:24 AM ->To: nanog list ->Subject: 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). -> ->Miles -> ->
-- Jeff Shultz Network Support Willamette Valley Internet tech@wvi.com
participants (3)
-
Jeff Shultz -
McBurnett, Jim -
Owen DeLong