|
I
agree again. Except for the exclusion you are giving to " MuseDomo ". If the rules are for
one they should be for all. I agree if Verisign wants to use wildcards for TLD's
then your not for profit no advertising model would be
great.
Kevin
Bilbee
I kind of look at it like this...VeriSign is
only contracted to maintain the registry and they don't technically own the
domain names in question (although they have attempted to claim so in the
past). I believe it to be improper for them to benefit financially from
effectively claiming every un-registered combination and using them
commercially without paying a fee for it. I don't feel this way about
.museum because that isn't a for profit venture and there is no money being
made from the functionality there.
As far as ccTLD's go, I don't like
the fact that some have been commercialized in the first place, however ICANN
is powerless to do anything about this. They can complain, but they
can't stop a country like Togo from doing whatever they want with their
namespace. To protest such activities is useless IMO, just look at the
UN in general, we don't even listen to the UN as a country if we don't feel
like it, so why should Togo on a matter that has so little impact and can be
worked around so easily. ICANN certainly isn't going to impose sanctions
on them :) I believe though that they could find VeriSign in violation
of their contract as a registrar by claiming names for their own commercial
use without paying for them, and they should do just that.
I wouldn't
personally favor going after MuseDomo because they are clearly always going to
lose a good deal of money on a namespace that accounts for just 0.000016% of
all names registered and the functionality isn't being abused, instead, it is
being used exclusively to help in a very tight context (632 potential sites
with a TLD set up to help increase awareness of museums on the Web in
general).
I think the whole idea of wildcarding TLD's isn't purely bad,
just when it is used commercially. I would be all for some
not-for-profit doing this for all domains in order to help Web surfers and to
avoid confusion from default Microsoft IE and AOL functionality which takes
this traffic as their own and opens up a good deal of potential for abuse
(advertising buy.com for amazon.com misspellings for instance). They
could achieve this by simply doing something like returning close matches for
the unregistered domain name, and rank them both by closeness (like
Meriam-Webster) and also by popularity. Such a system could not be
abused and would benefit the Web surfer, and for our purposes, it would be
easy to work around as has already been done. Heck, VeriSign could even
do this as far as the way I see it, just not the way it is being done now as a
for-profit money buys placement sort of
model.
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote:
Agreed.
But,
Reguardless of the size of the TLD, if wildcards are found
unacceptable for gTLD's then .museum should also stop, countries should also
stop. The accaptable rules for DNS should not change due to the fact you are
a country.
Kevin Bilbee
There are two
different classes though of TLD's in question though, gTLD's and
ccTLD's. The only other offending gTLD is the .museum domain, and
efforts to wildcard .biz was stopped by ICANN. Some of the ccTLD's
are being used generically, however it seems that ICANN is going about
this as an issue for the country in question to decide.
Personally,
I believe that the wildcard .museum domains aren't really an issue since
this isn't a commercial domain, and only museums can apply for one and
there are only 632 such names in existence.
In this context,
VeriSign is on it's own, and VeriSign is merely the party currently given
the responsibility for maintaining the registry for .com and .net, and not
the organization in charge of all such affairs concerning that
gTLD.
Hatred for VeriSign should also be shared by Yahoo who is
supplying the backend for the search mechanism to work (Inktomi and
Overture).
I don't give this very long before it gets pulled.
If it doesn't get pulled, ICANN should be forced to go under a total
reorganization.
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote:
Lets start this off with I agree Versign has done things in the past that
were on the shady side. But I also feel that on this issue they are being
targeted because they are the largest TLD operator with a wildcard
implementation.
A good side affect is that if I was receiving spam from a nonexistane
.museum domain MAILFROM would not fail. Would Scott have fixed Declude to
handle wildcards?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Phillip B.
Holmes
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 11:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] VeriGrime
Kevin,
I agree in theory to your point but your argument does not take
the scale of
this situation into consideration. The .com extension is
typically the most
sought after extension. .Net is widely used for ISPs that have been most
affected by operator processes that are / were in place for their users /
network optimization.
This maneuver was not a violation DNS specification. However, this
substantially more serious and market affecting than anything
else that has
happened so far. Lets forget about the hundreds of thousands of
processes it
disabled for a minute and just look at the possible legal violations of
VeriSign's Registry Agreement. There are far reaching ramifications
pertaining the search engine market as well (Hence the 100 million dollar
antitrust lawsuit:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6818688.htm).
What the Verisign petition/lawsuit is saying is if you rob Fort Knox clean
it is not ok, but if you just rob a small town bank you should be able to
walk free.
If Versign's laywers are smart they will get the suit thrown out in bias.
They are not listing or sewing any other TLD owners that are using
wildcards.
I am not the owner of whois.sc. So, I would express your opinion
directly to
them. I posted that for the thousands of sysadmins that have had tens of
thousands of processes break because of the unilateral change made by this
wildcard implementation. I also point out that VeriBlind did this without
ICANN approval. This has also prompted the IAB to release a commentary on
the use of DNS wildcards:
http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-09-20-dns-wildcards.html
This article makes no mention of VeriSign. Instead it says "Problems
encountered in a recent experiment with wildcards"
At least they are being fair and not specifically mentioning a particular
TLD operator. That was my original point.
Today, ICANN has formerly asked VeriSlime to voluntarily suspend the Site
Finder "service" pending an investigation that was ALREADY underway before
the update was released.
Then ICANN should ask all TLD operators to remove their wildcard
implementations. They affect queries just like Verisigns wildcards. Once
again BIAS against Verisign because they are the operators of the two
largest TLDs.
VeriMime has been strangely very quiet. I wonder why.
Best Regards,
Phillip B. Holmes
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kevin Bilbee
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 12:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] VeriCrime
I think for this to stick they need to change the letter to address the
issue of other TLD systems that do the same thing. YOU are TARGETING one
company when in fact others started this before Verisign with other TLDs.
If this is what you actual believe on its technical
merits/violation of the
RFCs then the letter should be expanded to include all companies
that manage
TLD root servers that return and answer for non-existent domains.
Although I think the letter makes good technical points, I think it is
misplaced to reference only Verisign.
I would sign a letter that includes all companies that manage TLD root
servers that return answers for non-existent domain names.
My two cents.
Kevin Bilbee
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Phillip Holmes
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 7:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] VeriCrime
Petition against VeriCrime's abuse of root operation:
http://www.whois.sc/verisign-dns/
Best Regards,
Phillip B. Holmes
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of serge
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 5:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Veriscam
oops
just found something in the archive, please disregard my question
if it was
already explained here in simple tems
i will read the archives and see if i get it :)
|
