http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1024_3-5079768.html?part=msnbc-cnet&tag=alert
&form=feed&subj=cnetnews
"The agency that oversees Internet domain names has asked VeriSign to
voluntarily suspend a new service that redirects Web surfers to its own site
when they seek to access unassigned Web addresses, rather than return an
error message. "
It's been about 2 days since ICANN requested Verisign to stop breaking.
http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-19sep03.htm
Recognizing the concerns about the wildcard service, ICANN has called
upon VeriSign to voluntarily suspend the service until the various
reviews now underway are completed.
-hc
and now that Verisign is also not allowing zone file access,
another breach of their contract with ICANN, I think ICANN
should send them a Notice of Breach and Intent to Revoke Registry Status
Issue the operation of .NET to Non-Profit A
Issue the operation of .COM to Non-Profit B
Of which one should be ISC.
but thats just my uneducated thoughts.
I agree
In addition I'm not convinced that operated of each GTLD cannot be carried out
by more than one organisation. The only requirement is to ensure the uniqueness
of the data, there are multiple ways of achieving this without havnig to elect
some one as the master..
Steve
Worth noting is the follow-up report:
http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-09-20-dns-wildcards.html
and the response from Russell Lewis:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lewis-to-twomey-21sep03.htm
Mr. Lewis' response is interesting only if you believe VeriSign has the
community's interest in mind by implementing this service. If there was any
indication that the change had a detrimental effect to the Internet, an
Internet-friendly corporation would have suspended service.
This quote is also interesting:
"This was done after many months of testing and analysis and in compliance with
all applicable technical standards"
For such a monumental change, one would think VeriSign would have made a
concerted effort to receive community feedback prior to implementation. Again,
had they the community's interest in mind.
John Dvorak wrote:
and the response from Russell Lewis:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lewis-to-twomey-21sep03.htm
<explenative deleted>! The Internet works perfectly fine for years. They make a change which is confirmed to disrupt service. Instead of restoring the stable state while conducting a review, they feel that they must keep the service as is? This is the problem with a for-profit company. They are keeping it to make money. The truth is that no one would complain about reverting back to the stable condition which everyone has lived with for years. They are complaining now. In addition, the IAB has already published a report that pointed out the various problems. Much discussion has existed on the topic across all the major networking/spam/security mailing lists. It is obvious that they have broken a lot of things. To not revert is to push their own needs; ie. profit.
This quote is also interesting:
"This was done after many months of testing and analysis and in compliance with
all applicable technical standards"
The system is technically within standards. The purpose of the IAB is not only to watch standards, but to also understand common use of the network. Many standards have been changed to reflect common use. A good section of RFC's are about common use. As networks implement standards, there are always incompatibilities and extra's that are added in. As deployment reaches general use, it is one of the duties of the IAB to recognize that such utilization is in place and what the overall effect on the Internet is.
In this case, IAB did state that the wildcard use did break commonly used mechanisms deployed on the Internet, even if it was technically within the standard. This is one reason that it was recommended that the users of the tld be allowed to decide on if a wildcard is appropriate. For .museum, it is appropriate. It's even in their ICANN agreements. For com and net, no such precedent was ever set and complaints from the users of said tld are being ignored. Common use was broken.
-Jack