VeriSign was directed by ICANN to suspend the Site Finder service by
0100 UTC on Sunday, October 5. We requested an extension from ICANN
to give more notice to the community but were denied. We will be
removing the wildcard A records from the .com and .net zones beginning
at 2300 UTC on Saturday, October 4. The former behavior for these
zones (returning Name Error/RCODE=3 in response to queries for
nonexistent domain names) will be in place by 0100 UTC on Sunday,
October.
Matt
VeriSign was directed by ICANN to suspend the Site Finder service by
0100 UTC on Sunday, October 5. We requested an extension from ICANN
to give more notice to the community but were denied. We will be
So now you care about giving notice the community? That didn't seem high on your priority list when you implemented it.
Matt Larson wrote:
VeriSign was directed by ICANN to suspend the Site Finder service by
0100 UTC on Sunday, October 5. We requested an extension from ICANN
to give more notice to the community but were denied. We will be
removing the wildcard A records from the .com and .net zones beginning
at 2300 UTC on Saturday, October 4. The former behavior for these
zones (returning Name Error/RCODE=3 in response to queries for
nonexistent domain names) will be in place by 0100 UTC on Sunday,
October.
It should be noted that this notice has significantly more leadtime to the change (return to normal)
behaviour than Verisign thought neccessary to "notify the community", they seemingly started
to care about lately, when they introduced the wildcards in the first place.
To refresh the memories:
#Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:24:29 -0400
#The wildcard record in the .net zone was activated from
#10:45AM EDT to 13:30PM EDT. The wildcard record in the .com zone is
#being added now.
So my question is, why there should have been an "extension" ?
Why did Verisign ask for an extension in the first place? Would the estimated $250k
daily advertising revenue have anything to do with this? Would Verisign contribute
that towards ICANN in case an extension have been granted?
Pete
to give more notice to the.... hehe.. i think i just wet my pants..
Quoting Matt Larson <mlarson@verisign.com>:
VeriSign was directed by ICANN to suspend the Site Finder service by
0100 UTC on Sunday, October 5. We requested an extension from ICANN
to give more notice to the community but were denied.
Since when does Verisign argue that the community should be given advanced
notice of drastic changes to the .com/.net zones?
Would anybody from Verisign like to explain how extended notice of the wildcard
removal would benefit the Internet community? I'm all ears.
-Adam
VeriSign was directed by ICANN to suspend the Site Finder service by
0100 UTC on Sunday, October 5. We requested an extension from ICANN
to give more notice to the community but were denied.
You don't need an extension, we wanted it to go away as fast as possible.
We will be removing the wildcard A records from the .com and .net zones
beginning at 2300 UTC on Saturday, October 4.
I'm glad things will go back to actually working again.
Yay!
Is this supposed to make us feel sorry for you?
You broke something very important on the Internet, without asking, without
giving any prior notice, and now you expect to get time to give notice that
its going away?
I think I speak for most people when I say "Hell no!"
The community has wanted this horrible POS hack to go away. We don't want
this one day more then necessary.
Tell your superiors to find another way to make a quick buck. The Internet
and the DNS system is not yours to play with at a whim.
*holds up a glass of vodka* Here's to the good guys winning another battle.
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:50:02 -0400
From: Matt Larson <mlarson@verisign.com>
VeriSign was directed by ICANN to suspend the Site Finder service by
0100 UTC on Sunday, October 5. We requested an extension from ICANN
to give more notice to the community but were denied. We will be
s,notice to the community,time to whine to the press,
removing the wildcard A records from the .com and .net zones beginning
at 2300 UTC on Saturday, October 4. The former behavior for these
zones (returning Name Error/RCODE=3 in response to queries for
nonexistent domain names) will be in place by 0100 UTC on Sunday,
October.
Looks like Sitefinder is still running.
Messy source code? Hairy domain database? Why the delay?
Trying to squeeze out a few more bucks before the deadline,
perhaps? Nahhh... of course not!
Eddy
Matt Levine wrote:
So now you care about giving notice the community? That didn't seem
high on your priority list when you implemented it.
The "community" I suspect that they are sensitive about is not NANOG etc.
but the advertisers and the shareholders.
Remember, Verisign is the effective monopigly (sic) issuer of certificates
and the monopoly controller of the largest TLD. Their long term financial
and political power is dependent on these - legitimate or corrupt
applications aside. Having any external body (even a semi-legitimate one
like ICANN) interfere will result in some real fallout for the power
mongers...
Peter
Peter Galbavy wrote:
Matt Levine wrote:
> So now you care about giving notice the community? That didn't seem
> high on your priority list when you implemented it.The "community" I suspect that they are sensitive about is not NANOG etc.
but the advertisers and the shareholders.Remember, Verisign is the effective monopigly (sic) issuer of certificates
and the monopoly controller of the largest TLD. Their long term financial
and political power is dependent on these - legitimate or corrupt
applications aside. Having any external body (even a semi-legitimate one
like ICANN) interfere will result in some real fallout for the power
mongers...Peter
Nah....this has nothing to do with money 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14818-2003Sep28.html
"We have not done anything to impact the stability or the security of the
Internet," said Stratton D. Sclavos, chief executive of Mountain View,
Calif.-based VeriSign. He said many technical criticisms are based on
misconceptions about the service, which he contended complies with all
existing Internet standards.
"We're in the business of innovation to generate new services that our
customers want and to generate new revenue streams," he added.
And which "customers" would those be??
-mval
Mark Vallar [10/4/2003 7:05 PM] :
"We're in the business of innovation to generate new services that our
customers want and to generate new revenue streams," he added.And which "customers" would those be??
Why, the organizations who paid them good money to get redirects from mistyped URLs, I guess. I rather suspect that they'll be wanting their money back from Verisign sometime real soon now.
srs
VeriSign was directed by ICANN to suspend the Site Finder service by
0100 UTC on Sunday, October 5. We requested an extension from ICANN
to give more notice to the community but were denied. We will be
Tis ok. I, as a member of said community, accept the same level of notice as supplied when you made the change.
Regards,
Hank
VeriSign was directed by ICANN to suspend the Site Finder service by
0100 UTC on Sunday, October 5.
This is not true. Verisign was not instructed to suspend the Site Finder
service. Verisign, Google, Yahoo, Altavista, etc. were not instructed to
suspend any form of site finder or search engine service. If you operate
a good site finder, people will use it.
Verisign WAS instructed to remove wildcard entries in .com and .net which
pointed to Verisign's service (and broke several things in the process).
We requested an extension from ICANN
to give more notice to the community but were denied.
Which community? The community to which you gave no notice before
implementing it? The community which has been calling for it to go
away ASAFP from the instant it appeared?
We will be
removing the wildcard A records from the .com and .net zones beginning
at 2300 UTC on Saturday, October 4. The former behavior for these
zones (returning Name Error/RCODE=3 in response to queries for
nonexistent domain names) will be in place by 0100 UTC on Sunday,
October.
Thank you. The sooner the better.
Heres an interesting question Matt, maybe you can provide me with a
worthwhile answer.
Last night, I finally got around to registering a .org domain for my use.
It took only 20 minutes from the time which I registered it, gave it my DNS
servers, and paid for it, to when it was resolveable everywhere in the
world. Thats *20* minutes.
Why does it take NetSol 24/48/72 hours to do the same thing?
I guess it depends on whether your business model involves accepting money
for doing a good job in resolving existent host names, or in accepting money
for resolving non-existent host names....