] This response will address the IAB commentary, using
] observed operational data to put the issues into context.

Verisign links the question about services OTHER then HTTP/SMTP to their website about sitefinder. Why not a direct link to the information they are apparently referencing? Why not paraphrase? The reasons are obvious. Verisign recommends that impacted parties replace DNS queries with WHOIS lookups. This is an extremely stupid idea. Verisign knows that whois is not designed to handle the load, but I'll bet they figure no one will actually do this. Alternately, the offer that all software be modified to cross check DNS replies against a wildcard lookup. They claim these recommendations are in keeping with Internet standards.

Everytime Verisign says there are no stability problems with the Internet I imagine the Iraqi information minister. If there is no stability problem, then why do you need to provide all this technical information about how people can adapt their already deployed technology to interoperate with your change??

VeriSign Responds to IAB Site Finder Commentary

] VeriSign (Quote, Chart) says it will hold the Internet
] Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) "fully
] accountable" for its actions in forcing the .com and .net
] registrar to close its controversial Site Finder service.

In addition, Verisign is now making empty threats.

VeriSign Vows to Hold ICANN Accountable for Actions

] This is a significant test for the entire community
] because if the community can't find a way to introduce
] new services while reaching a resolution on technical
] matters that might arise, then the Internet
] infrastructure will never improve. It's tantamount to
] saying that the Internet world is flat and therefore
] there is no need for further exploration.

Look asshole, if you were interested in reaching resolution on the technical matters that might arise, you would have proposed your change to the community rather then making a unilateral decision. You would have pre-announced a date for the cutover so that people would be prepared to make any changes that they needed to make beforehand. The only people who are buying into your bullshit are people who own stock in your company and have a vested interest in beleiving in you. The rest of us are simply more and more sure that we are never going to do business with you for any reason. The rest of us aren't your shareholders. We're your customers. And you can rest assured that we are quite capable of continuing to deploy innovative services on the Internet without you.

Tell me why I should do business with a company that was not just forced to settle in a fraudulent marketing scheme, but also made significant, unannounced changes in a critical infrastructure service in violation of your contract without prior notification? Your business is about TRUST, and I'd be CRAZY to TRUST you after pulling a stunt like this!

Innovation and the Internet | Verisign Speaks to the technical community

bucy wrote:
] As Decius has said, now the court proceedings start. Best
] case scenario is that ICANN can get a preliminary injunction
] against Verisign forcing them to turn SiteFinder off. If so,
] it will be very difficult for them to turn it back on.

Well, I was wrong, they backed down. Which means I seriously overestimated them. I presumed that ICANN wasn't going to tell them to back down because there was nothing in the contract that this impacted. I was wrong. Verisign's lawyers must have know this. And their engineers must have anticipated the technical nightmare. If there were no technical problems with this they would have asked for permission. So it must have been clear that things would play out this way. Why do it? Right now they've wasted a lot of money, pissed off a huge number of customers, and, in general, look like assholes. Where is the upside for them? Maybe they ignored their engineers and their lawyers, except for the ones who where telling them that Iraq bought nuclear weapons in Afri.... wait, sorry, wrong issue...

] Does anyone else think its insane that a domain registrar
] should control the master databases? Its a HUGE conflict of
] interest! Why doesn't ICANN (or some other non-profit/NGO)
] run it??

I think its just historical. Its like the Bell System. Netsol ran it, and they let netsol become a business, and then they figured out that there needed to be a competitive environment...

RE: ICANN | Announcement | 3 October 2003

] Seriously, though, I'm interested in figuring out how we
] can build a Net that is a lot less prone to viruses and
] spam, and not just by putting in filters and setting up
] caches to test things before they get into your computer.
] That doesn't really solve anything. We need an
] evolutionary step of some sort, or we need to look at the
] problem in a different way.
]
] I'm not convinced there's not something modest we can do
] that would make a big difference. You have to find a way
] to structure your systems in a safer way. Writing
] everything in Java [a programming language created by
] Sun] will help, because stuff written in antique
] programming languages like C [a widely used language
] created by Bell Labs in the early 1970s] is full of
] holes. Those languages weren't designed for writing
] distributed programs to be used over a network. Yet
] that's what Microsoft still uses. But even Java doesn't
] prevent people from making stupid mistakes.

Juicy intervew with Bill Joy

] MOST electric vehicles work by connecting the wheels to a
] motor. But tomorrow a Dutch company plans to unveil a bus
] in which motor and wheel are one, a refinement that
] promises more miles per charge and a vehicle that is
] safer and easier to maintain.

I always thought this would be smart, though i was never convinced of the economic advantage. you sure better not smack into a curb too hard, b/c that's gonna be one expensive wheel replacement. still, sounds nice, and eliminating all those gears is probably good.

With a Motorized Hub, the Wheel on the Bus Goes 'Round

] VeriSign Inc has named four members of a panel of experts
] to conduct a technical review of Site Finder, the
] controversial domain name redirection system the company
] introduced almost three weeks ago.

Don't let this story split under the radar. Yes, this is Brightmail saying Verisign's service is "OK." (Verisign's service breaks some of Brightmail's competitors.) This is also a member of a panel set to "study" the issue stating conclusions in advance of the "study." Their report will be Verisign's ultimate response to ICANN's study. How laughable will this be?

VeriSign Names Site Finder Review Panel - Computer Business Review

] VeriSign Inc., the firm that operates a key piece of the
] Internet's address system, said it would temporarily shut
] down a new service that makes money off the typos of Web
] users after the Internet's oversight body threatened to
] take legal action against the company.

Yeah!!!

VeriSign Freezes Search Service (TechNews.com)

] For all these reasons, ICANN has today insisted that
] VeriSign suspend the SiteFinder service, and restore the
] .com and .net top-level domains to the way they were
] operated prior to 15 September 2003. If VeriSign does not
] comply with this demand by 6:00 PM PDT on 4 October 2003,
] ICANN will be forced to take the steps necessary to
] enforce VeriSign's contractual obligations.

Yeah!!!!

ICANN | Announcement | 3 October 2003

] Yet another Network Solutions/Verisign deception plot at
] work. My company has a number of names (unfortunately)
] registered with Verisign. So we moved one of them about
] gosh, the beginning of August.
]
] So guess what we get in the email this morning? A dunning notice
] for *not paying* for our domain registration. And an offer to reclaim
] the domin before "it becomes available to the general public".

These guys were sanctioned for this days ago! Four options:

1. Verisign has decided that they are beyond reproach.
2. Verisign has been sniffing glue.
3. Someone is framing Verisign.
4. My computer is controlled by trolls from the underworld.

Verisign back in the fraud?!