RBAK> I run DNS servers.  I haven't seen any adverse effect.  What adverse effect
RBAK> should I be seeing?

The process size of your nameservers should be larger, it will be
storing a bunch of garbage records that verisign has spewed into it.

But that's a small thing... In addition to that:

Some of our clients have let their names go on-hold and thought that
some other company (verisign) had swiped their name... phone call...
ka-ching!

Some of our clients have told us that they wanted to register a name,
but they thought it was already taken because there was a website
attached to it (a website that looks somewhat similar to what the
namesnakers put up when they get names after the 40 day on-hold
period). ka-ching.

Some clients have registered names with us, and then went to test them
out only to find that they are pointing to another company. ka-ching.

All of the above increases our tech support costs to the benefit of
verisign.

Take a look at this very likely scenario:
http://www.byte.org/blog/random_bytes/_archives/2003/9/15/2842.html

Oh, and if you're an access provider:  Your bandwidth costs will go up
to display verisign's webpages to your customers.  webpages that will
waste your customer's time and degrade their experience.

When I make a typo in a name, I want to be told by my browser that
such a name does not exist, I can then easily remove or add the
offending letter instead of deleting the verisign url (which BTW
brought me to a *privacy invading* site) and retyping the whole bloody
thing in again.

Oh and troubleshooting dns/mail/connectivity issues got just a bit
more fun now...  We pay, verisign profits.  sounds fair huh?

I could go on, but if all of the above didn't exist, I would still
oppose this atrocity based on the manner in which they rolled it
out.  They did not consult the internet operators, the registrars, the
registrants or the general internet public.  They just did it.  And
after an outpouring of negative sentiment, they kept on doing it, they
could care less about the internet, they just want to *MAKE MONEY FAST*

As Elliot said, they were given stewardship over .COM/.NET :
http://enoss.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2003/9/22/3067.html and they
have proven themselves unwilling to act as stewards, they are acting
as if those zones are their own piggy banks, the net be damned.  I
think those zones should be removed from their "stewardship" pronto:
as in yesterday.

Verisign is bringing in ~ 180 million dollars per year to run
something that many people on this list could run better for 1/10th
the cost and still make a profit. You'd probably even put in some
effort to do simple things like make realtime updates to the zones
happen, but why expend effort to *do your job* when you can spend it
trying to figure a way to piss off the entire net and snub your nose
at them?

Holy cow! It's Friday! I think I need to take a chill-pill. :-)
-joe

Reply via email to