| At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
VeriSign Caves, For Now
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 29 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Paint me very surprised. I honestly thought they'd play hardball.
Their release, however, smacks of hypocracy. They're gung-ho about innovation, yet they've stonewalled and helped delay new TLDs, and are foreclosing on the dropping domain market (and its serious innovative offerings) with WLS. To just name two.
--
Ambler On The Net [ambler.net]
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - Re:Wow!
by dmehus
Friday October 03 2003, @12:01PM
|
|
 |
"The service has been well received by millions of Internet users who appreciate getting navigation tools as opposed to the 'dead end' of an error message," added Lewis.
I have yet to hear "One" person outside of VeriSign and Overture say sitefinder is a good idea.
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
 |
Like "most" others who opposed the sitefinder "service", I just want to say thanks to the Internet community for voicing their opinions.
I doubt ICANN would have acted with so much expediency had the community not spoken out so passionately.
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
 |
I think this is a brand new tactic on the part of VeriSign, to categorize it as a "non-registry service".
That seems to escalate things to a new level, in that it seems to be an admission of abusing their monopoly in the Registry for the provision of a NON-REGISTRY SERVICE.
It had been my understanding that previously their position would have been that it would have been categorized as a Registry service, but one that didn't need approval due to it being "free" (i.e. needs no contract amendment). However, giving advantage for the provision of a non-registry service seems to be MUCH WORSE. Suppose that NON-REGISTRY SERVICE was a REGISTRAR SERVICE, for example, and VeriSign abused its monopoly to advantage one of their partners in that space? Can someone say "WLS"?
Clearly, VeriSign's abusive and monopolistic business practises need to be examined at the highest levels of government and by regulators.
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
 |
while the Internet has been used for innovative purposes over the last decade, the core infrastructure has suffered from a lack of innovation
On the contrary, the core infrastructure has prospered from the lack of innovation---at least the lack of semantic/commercial/political innovation in the infrastructure. The basic Internet infrastructure has remained mostly neutral by being primitive, and indifferent to the meanings of the messages. Verisign's introduction of real-world semantics at the infrastructural level of DNS degrades the value of the semantically neutral infrastructure, whether their semantic ideas are good or not. Real world semantics simply doesn't belong at the DNS level.
So, we need to take a step backwards with DNS infrastructure, and provide a system of meaningless handles that are entirely free of meaning. DNS is a portable address service, not a semantically driven "navigation tool." A semantics-free DNS using meaningless handles would provide a neutral infrastructure on top of which Verisign and others could compete to provide meaningful navigational tools and other services.
Bob Frankston has already explained [circleid.com] how an institution running a large name server could put a neutral DNS could online tomorrow, within a 3d-level domain of the current DNS. It's time to just do it.
Mike O'Donnell
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - True
by GeorgeK
Friday October 03 2003, @01:27PM
- Re:True
by cambler
Friday October 03 2003, @01:31PM
- Re:True
by dmehus
Friday October 03 2003, @03:03PM
- Re:True
by cambler
Friday October 03 2003, @06:13PM
- Re:True
by Anonymous
Saturday October 04 2003, @09:29AM
- Re:True
by cambler
Saturday October 04 2003, @10:43AM
- Re:True
by fnord
Saturday October 04 2003, @03:39PM
- Re:True
by dmehus
Saturday October 04 2003, @10:22PM
- Re:True
by Anonymous
Saturday October 04 2003, @07:17PM
- Re:True
by dmehus
Sunday October 05 2003, @01:06PM
- Re:True
by Anonymous
Sunday October 05 2003, @07:46PM
|
|
 |
As of 4PM PST, they are still resolving bogus names. So, maybe they're waiting until the last possible moment to turn it off. Sheesh.
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
 |
"there is no data to indicate that the core operation of the Domain Name System or stability of the Internet has been adversely affected"
Uh...bullshit. My spam-load both at home and at work has tripled since they started mucking about with the DNS, not to mention the trouble I've had with scripts and monitoring systems suddenly breaking.
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |

Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|