Chuck in response to marty schwimmer wrote: >Most of your suggestions are doable but there are also ways to get around >them which is what the speculators do. > >Chuck > I offer a rose and a brickbat. First the rose: Chuck, let me first applaud your presense on these lists. Should have happened long ago....glad it has now. Let me note a couple of things. I have not followed every note in this thread. however, earlier this morning I saw the following bashing of NSI sent out to a very large (read only) mail list by a very senior network figure. The .com artists, NETWORK SOLUTIONS, got hit with more nasty > hacks by domain name speculators. People are now reserving > .com addresses, sitting out the thirty days before you have > to pay up, and then - just before NSI's automated system > releases the domain again - bludgeoning the Internic servers > with thousands of new reservation requests. That lets the > speculators hold domain names indefinitely without paying a > penny. It also crashes NSI's servers, as the more worthy (or > less sneaky) domain masters have discovered. Network > Solution's answer has been intriguing: instead of devising a > more sophisticated reservation system (genuine name & > address authentication? PGP registration? actually holding > people to the requirement that they have valid DNS > servers?), they've simply deleted the "Status" and "Last > changed" fields from the whois database without telling > anyone. You'll note that this a) potentially busts other > programs, b) doesn't solve the problem, since the domain > name speculators already *know* when they reserved the > domain. Network Solutions - placing the emphasis on neither. The sender of this message is a participant in *THIS* list. He forwarded to his personal list this message sent to him by another senior and well known individual without comment. Now I have plenty of biases of my own. But having said that will go on to say that the bias of the sender in passing it on basically without comment to his readers (reputed to number in the many thousands) was extraordinary. The slam cited above portrays the same old arrogant in your face NSI attitude that predated your arrival here. If the sender even looks at the headers from the IFWP list he should know that NSI has assigned you to answer questions and interact on an intelligent basis with your critics. THAT IS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT IN MY OPINION SHOULD HAVE ACCOMPANIED THE ABOVE NSI SLAM. I complained privately at 11 am today to this person. So far no response. Now admittedly he can do what he chooses. free speach, editorial prerogative and all that... i should know shouldn't I? Still given the very senior status of this person i would hope that he would ackowlege and encourage a significant change in behavior on NSI's part rather than ignore it. <SIGH> Now having said this the brick bat: I honestly suggest that your reply to marty schwimmer isn't adequate. As we watch and observe what you and NSI do, we should be granting you a brief honey moon as we decide whether this change in NSI behavior is genuine or only an illusion and a sham. for the time being I'd like to give NSI the benefit of the doubt. Having said this i would suggest that NSI needs to start to seriously implement all doable suggestions rather than dismiss them by saying that speculators would just get around them. you really need to declare war on the speculators... you need also to convince your executive suite to increase the amount of resources devoted to this kind of network dialog. i'd like to see you guys demonstrate how well you have finally learned the lesson of network dialogue that ICANN still thinks that it doesn't need to bother with. >> Is NSI able to identify a "robo-filing?" The domain-policy list seems to >> contain anti-spamming software - would the process be similar? In other >> words, can software quickly detect when a template has been recently sent >> from the identical location with identical information? Can NSI simply >> amend its registration agreement to ban robo-filing and then block >> applications from email addresses which continue the process? >> >> >> >> At 02:07 PM 1/24/99 -0500, you wrote: >> >Don't take my comments below to mean that I don't think the idea has >> merit. >> >I am just trying to flush it out further. >> >> Please don't flush out my ideas, the oceans are polluted enough already. >> >> > >> >> >> -- >> DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY" >> For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP" > > >-- >DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY" >For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP" *************************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet What Happened to the White Paper? 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ICANN a Sham. (updated 10/25/98) See (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/whorules.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com *************************************************************************** __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
