| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
VeriSign Responds to SSAC on SiteFinder Report
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 6 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
If they agree with Vixie that *.com and *.net are matters of policy, then were they operating within their mandate to implement a global policy change without consultation in the first place?
Other than that, the above extract of the report seems to be a good example of "ad hominem" and its close relatives. Nowhere do I see criticism of arguments; only of processes and people.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
|
|
|
I gotta say I hate VeriSign with a passion and I'm no fan of SiteFinder but if the SSAC report is an example of the best that committee can do then we're in real trouble if cyberterrorists or scriptkiddies decide to pingflood the root servers back to the stone age (I've described somewhat cryptically how to do that successfully here previously). I mean really, the best SSAC can come up with is that SiteFinder broke some spam filters. Too bad, what is the RFC # on spam filters anyway? Or that it was in English only. Tsk tsk, sorta like ICANN for much of its existence. Or that it broadened an already existing use from the suchlike of .museam which were limited in scope (except that the unlimited in scope .tv, for just one example, had been doing this for years without an internet meltdown). Or, worse still, it interfered with the likes of MicroSoft Network and America OnLine which were already providing a similar service. The horror, the horror. This is one more document out of ICANN on a par with ICP-3, going far beyond their mandate, not surprisingly getting most of it wrong, and thankfully due to be ignored by all but the normal lamers and hangers on. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
Ah, as I said in the begining the whole Sitefinder thing was just reflexive VeriSign bashing. Indeed those sys admins whose organizations found it offensive were rapidly routing around it when it was pulled ... in the good, standard internet culture way. The only offense in my book by VeriSign in the whole episode was springing it on the community without the traditional 60 or 90 days warning... and that was driven I'm pretty sure by VRSN's pre-emtive fear of the VeriSign hating atmosphere.
=====================
been there, done that
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
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
|
