Anything I/we can do to help the cause? Bob Martin 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
I'm having fun figuring out how altering BIND (since I assume that is the basis of their arguements) rises to the level of conspiracy... IANAL, obviously. ** Reply to message from Bob Martin <bob@buckhorn.net> on Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:54:20 -0500
Anything I/we can do to help the cause?
Bob Martin
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
-- Jeff Shultz A railfan pulls up to a RR crossing hoping that there will be a train.
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Jeff Shultz wrote:
I'm having fun figuring out how altering BIND (since I assume that is the basis of their arguements) rises to the level of conspiracy... IANAL, obviously.
I read you loud and clear. I believe most rational people among us do, see below. .... <sarcasm> Oh my, a vendor that actually listens to the cryout of its customers. That cannot be tolerated. </sarcasm> This, in my own humble opinion, climbs slowly but surely to the levels of being ridiculous. Paul did exactly what any good vendor would do. If many customers or users asked for a feature, the vendor would issue the feature. It is the administrators choice to use the feature. As such, it is not the vendors fault in any way. After the courts drop this one as well, I am curious what will be the next Verisign idea. They (read: their lawyers) have proved themselves to be full of bright ideas (that lead to a dead end due to irrationality), and I am curious to see what's next. happy sailing, --Ariel
** Reply to message from Bob Martin <bob@buckhorn.net> on Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:54:20 -0500
Anything I/we can do to help the cause?
Bob Martin
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
-- Jeff Shultz A railfan pulls up to a RR crossing hoping that there will be a train.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
-- Ariel Biener e-mail: ariel@post.tau.ac.il PGP(6.5.8) public key http://www.tau.ac.il/~ariel/pgp.html +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
i've watched (or maybe helped) a thread susan didn't like morph into a different thread that susan's probably not liking much either. hit D now. oh well, i warned you. ariel@fireball.tau.ac.il (Ariel Biener) writes:
... This, in my own humble opinion, climbs slowly but surely to the levels of being ridiculous. Paul did exactly what any good vendor would do. If many customers or users asked for a feature, the vendor would issue the feature. It is the administrators choice to use the feature. As such, it is not the vendors fault in any way.
verisign's first amended complaint (now reachable at www.icann.org, i'm told) does not mention BIND or patches to BIND at all. but For The Record, it was not simply end-user demand that drove "the wildcard patch". end-users have often asked for things that were protocol violations and been told "no" -- for example, the alternate root whackos with their "multiple root patches". of course BIND is very free as software goes -- it's not GPL'd or anything -- so it's perfectly forkable as codebases go. ISC cherishes its relevance, and the thing that caused "the wildcard patch" to be published was the very real threat by several very credible people to fork BIND unless there was an official patch "Real Soon Now". THAT is why there was a "wildcard patch." patrick@ianai.net (Patrick W Gilmore) writes:
... Have the roots recurse and put a wildcard in for anything that does not resolve. > Makes Paul a ... well, not a competitor, 'cause that would imply they were in competition. If the roots put in the wild card, the GTLDs cannot compete.
i have absolutely no influence over the content of the root zone. i can't even get an AAAA RR added for the glue NS used by 50 or 60 TLD's. but if i had any influence over the root zone, i would use it to prevent a wildcard from ever being added. (i like my nxdomains straight up, no ice, no soda.) hrlinneweh@sbcglobal.net (Henry Linneweh) writes:
... It is amazing that one psrson Paul Vixie could be so intimidating that he must be intimidated and maligned as a conspirator in order to eliminate him as a potential threat because of his knowledge.....
i'm not sure verisign cares whether they intimidate me or not. they just need to prove that a conspiracy is restraining competition, in order to prevent their complaint against icann from being dismissed. which means they had to declare that somebody was a co-conspirator, and i was available. this is not about me at all, other than by proximity -- it's about icann. -- Paul Vixie
Bob Martin wrote:
Anything I/we can do to help the cause?
Bob Martin
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
OK, I have obviously missed something here... I know that the courts dismissed the original complaint against ICANN, but what has happened since, and what is this about some conspiracy? Are they trying to say that users of the anti-SiteFinder BIND patch are conspirators? Thanks! Jon Kibler -- Jon R. Kibler Chief Technical Officer A.S.E.T., Inc. Charleston, SC USA (843) 849-8214 ================================================== Filtered by: TRUSTEM.COM's Email Filtering Service http://www.trustem.com/ No Spam. No Viruses. Just Good Clean Email.
In message <40D30F9E.256311EC@aset.com>, "Jon R. Kibler" writes:
OK, I have obviously missed something here... I know that the courts dismissed the original complaint against ICANN, but what has happened since, and what i s this about some conspiracy? Are they trying to say that users of the anti-Si teFinder BIND patch are conspirators?
No -- but the easiest thing to do is to read the amended complaint, which is linked-to from ICANN's home page. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
see http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/18/0334236&mode=nested On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Jon R. Kibler wrote:
OK, I have obviously missed something here... I know that the courts dismissed the original complaint against ICANN, but what has happened since, and what is this about some conspiracy? Are they trying to say that users of the anti-SiteFinder BIND patch are conspirators?
-- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<--
participants (7)
-
Ariel Biener -
Bob Martin -
Jeff Shultz -
Jon R. Kibler -
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law -
Paul Vixie -
Steven M. Bellovin