Is it possible for the client resolver code to distinguish between a
wildcard answer and an explicit answer?
no.
If this was available, it would mail clients and other things
interested in the specific domain name could get the answers they
want. While other stuff would get the wildcard answers.
right.
What happens when Verisigns monopoly registry agreement for .COM and .NET
expires on November 10 2007?
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/com-index.htm
According to the contract signed between ICANN and Verisign, Zone File
Data is defined as
13. "Zone File Data" means all data contained in DNS zone files for the
Registry TLD, or for any subdomain for which Registry Services are
provided and that contains Registered Names, as provided to TLD
nameservers on the Internet.
A "wildcard" name does not meet the definition of Registered Name in
the Verisign/ICANN contract.
6. "Registered Name" refers to a domain name within the domain of the
Registry TLD, whether consisting of two or more (e.g., john.smith.name)
levels, about which Registry Operator or an affiliate engaged in
providing Registry Services maintains data in a Registry Database,
arranges for such maintenance, or derives revenue from such
maintenance. A name in a Registry Database may be a Registered Name
even though it does not appear in a TLD zone file (e.g., a registered
but inactive name).
Because "wildcard" names are not Registered Names, Verisign appears
to be in breach of their contract with ICANN by including them in the
Zone File Data.
ICANN can seek specific performance of the agreement by Verisign, or
seek to terminate Verisign's contract as the .COM/.NET registry operator
and transfer the operation to a successor registry.
IANAL, ICANN and Verisign should seek the advice of their own legal
advisors.
Quiet honestly I'd like to see all of the GTLD servers given to neutral
companies, ones that ARE not registrars. Verisign is already engaging in a
lot of unfair business practices because they hold the GTLD servers for
net/com. The wildcard SNAFU is just one of their tactics to patch the
financial hole since people have been switching registrars in droves.
> ICANN can seek specific performance of the agreement by Verisign, or
> seek to terminate Verisign's contract as the .COM/.NET registry operator
> and transfer the operation to a successor registry.Quiet honestly I'd like to see all of the GTLD servers given to neutral
companies, ones that ARE not registrars. [...]
frankly i am mystified as to why icann awards registry contracts to
for-profit entities. registrars can be for-profit, but registries should
be non-profit or public-trust or whatever that specific nation's laws allow
for in terms of requirements for open accounting, uniform dealing, and
nonconflict with the public's interest.
Quiet honestly I'd like to see all of the GTLD servers given to neutral
companies, ones that ARE not registrars. Verisign is already engaging in
a
lot of unfair business practices because they hold the GTLD servers for
net/com. The wildcard SNAFU is just one of their tactics to patch the
financial hole since people have been switching registrars in droves.
I've had long discussions with my admin team at the SOSDG on what would be
the best way to prevent stuff like this from happening in the future. We
came to the following conclusion:
* Root servers or any critical DNS servers should not be in the control of
companies. It should be handed over to Non-profit/not-for-profit orgs who
will not be tempted to do the things Verisign has done. We feel
completely comfortable with the root servers being in control of a group
like the ISC or even govt. agencies like NASA.
There is too much at stake here for people to be playing games with TLDs,
especially ones as important as .com and .net.
Of course. Putting trust into big money corporations; look where that got
us. (Hi Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, etc.) They have no respect for public
interest, just the bottom line.. Hell and some don't even care about that.
I don't believe in any one organization running the GTLD servers either. I
believe giving it to two or three would be good. That way if one seems to
do something seemingly stupid, we can effectively negate the perps and move
on.
There are lots of good organizations that can handle (and would be proud to
handle) the GTLD servers. I don't know if I'd throw NASA in that group.
(or any government agency for that matter)
My view would concur with this, these are really old battles starting back in the
netsol days and now the verisign has taken the same short sighted path.
It is time that neutral party is in charge
-Henry R Linneweh
My view would concur with this, these are really old battles starting back in the
netsol days and now the verisign has taken the same short sighted path.It is time that neutral party is in charge
-Henry R Linneweh
I was thinking this earlier this week.
This is a public-trust that should be operated by people
whose sole job is to keep it up and working, not by a dual-role
entity as it is today.
Perhaps we can get someone to make a not-for-profit
for this sole role.
- Jared