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.
It never ceases to amaze me that some companies will move forward with actions that they know will give them a horrible reputation. Does the potential for short-term financial gain outweigh the benefits of a good long-term reputation? Verisign, SCO, and Postini come to mind as examples. I can't stand the current spam filtering/AV email service that we use right now (Mailwatch...ugh.), but should we change to Postini--a supposedly superior service--knowing how slimy some of their actions have been? That's a rhetorical question, of course, but I think it makes the point. I prefer to do business with good companies with good products, not bad companies with good products. John --
At 10:34 AM -0600 6/18/04, John Neiberger wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me that some companies will move forward with actions that they know will give them a horrible reputation.
Hmm... I'm not going to try to defend Verisign (or ICANN for that matter), but will note that the decision to engage in litigation is often not optional... In many areas of law, failure to act to diligently against infringement can effectively preclude you from pursuing legal recourse in the future. So, companies can find easily find themselves having to file legal actions simply to maintain their right to do so. Also, while drastic, filing suit doesn't preclude adults getting together and working out the the matter before anything makes it to court. It's legal action without any real meaningful attempt to meet and settle in advance which deserves a bad reputation. /John
Also, while drastic, filing suit doesn't preclude adults getting together and working out the the matter before anything makes it to court.
Having been a part of a few large lawsuits here, I can say that many judges will force at least a conversation between signatories of both parties (not just attorney's) before getting to trial. It even helps sometimes. -v
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, John Neiberger wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me that some companies will move forward with actions that they know will give them a horrible reputation. Does the potential for short-term financial gain outweigh the benefits of a good long-term reputation? Verisign, SCO, and Postini come to mind as examples.
Hmm the volumes and costs involved are more than a short term financial gain imho, I'd say this represented long term large income and pretty easy money too. (imho) I'd also say that you overestimate the bad reputation.. the nanog community isnt that large when you consider the global market using verisign for various services, and often commercial decisions to use verisign are made by non-technical folks not on nanog if i was a commercial vp at verisign, i'd probably be thinking in a similar manner, they are in a unique position and unique sales points means big money in this marketplace Steve (anti-flame disclaimer - i'm not a commerical person, and my logic only outlines the reasoning behind having as neutral a body as possible operating these kind of services)
participants (4)
-
John Curran -
John Neiberger -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Vincent J. Bono