Quite the opposite. It is a very carefully chosen set of words
indicating that:
1. DNS didn't stop functioning.
2. The internet did not fail to route packets because of this.
It carefully side-steps the other issues raised without looking like it
is ignoring them. Verisi
On 06.10 10:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > "There is no data to indicate the core operation of the domain name
> > system or the stability of the Internet has been adversely affected,"
> > VeriSign's Galvin said.
>
> This means that there are no papers published or
> conference present
> "There is no data to indicate the core operation of the domain name
> system or the stability of the Internet has been adversely affected,"
> VeriSign's Galvin said.
This means that there are no papers published or
conference presentations which detail the problems
caused by sitefinder. A
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 05:53:04PM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
> At 07:17 AM 10/4/2003, St. Clair, James wrote:
> > I would add that what you perceive as a "diverse group" is still a
> >realtively small sub-set of all the internet operations.
>
> Be that as it may, this group is *anything* but "close
At 07:17 AM 10/4/2003, St. Clair, James wrote:
I would add that what you perceive as a "diverse group" is still a
realtively small sub-set of all the internet operations.
Be that as it may, this group is *anything* but "close knit". This is as
unified as I've seen nanog participants on any matte
efit of all netizens. Shame on you.. :-)
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong
To: Allen McRay; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10/3/2003 5:47 PM
Subject: RE: VeriSign Capitulates
Verisign press releases have never been about the facts. Instead it's
about trying to manipulate public perception
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:34:05PM -0400, jeffrey.arnold quacked:
>
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
> :: OK, so was ANYONE on NANOG happy with
> :: a) Verisign's site finder
> :: b) How they launched it
> ::
>
> Disregarding their "implementation issues", the product is pretty good.
JM> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:16:29 -0400
JM> From: Jared Mauch
JM> I wonder if they will still present at Nanog?
JM>
JM> http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0310/dns.html
Perhaps they could give away limited-edition Snubby Mail Rejector
t-shirts; bonus points if the shirts include expect script or is
jeffrey.arnold wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:
:: OK, so was ANYONE on NANOG happy with
:: a) Verisign's site finder
:: b) How they launched it
::
Disregarding their "implementation issues", the product is pretty good.
I've actually used it to fix a few typos, etc... From an end
Verisign press releases have never been about the facts. Instead it's
about trying to manipulate public perception to their side. Verisign has
never expressed any actual concern or even care about how much damage
their actions do to the internet. Any expectation that this would change
in this ci
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:
:: OK, so was ANYONE on NANOG happy with
:: a) Verisign's site finder
:: b) How they launched it
::
Disregarding their "implementation issues", the product is pretty good.
I've actually used it to fix a few typos, etc... From an end user
perspective, it'
We could almost pretend it was because of the NXDOMAIN signs that got
plastered on their HQ :)
From
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/01/212231&mode=nocomment&tid=126&tid=15
wednesday:
Verisign seems to have issu
It also imtimates that they do not believe that ICANN has any right
under current legislation to monitor what actually goes into the zone
file; only the way verisign behaves as a registry. The fact of the
matter is that yes, there is a seperation between those two items but
ICANN most deffinitely h
It may not be a hearing but they can still appeal.
If, during this period, further technical and operational evaluations
of the changes made by VeriSign on 15 September indicate that those
measures can be reinstated, or reinstated with modifications, without
adverse effects, I will ini
"... in an attempt to assert a dubious right to regulate non-registry
services."
This explains everything. They don't believe the stability of
com and net are in any way related to their registry duties.
That quote alone should be sufficient to deny them custody of
com and net.
## On 2003-10-03 15:56 -0400 Sean Donelan typed:
SD>
SD>
SD> > "Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down
SD> > the Site Finder service," said VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin. "We will
SD> > accede to their request while we explore all of our options."
SD>
SD> Uhm
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 04:23:29PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
>
> OK, so was ANYONE on NANOG happy with
> a) Verisign's site finder
Unfair competition, more confusions, broke a lot of stuff, etc, etc , beneficial to
nobody
> b) How they launched it
Here... let's change the way DNS works..
>
>VeriSign said the claims are overblown.
>
>"There is no data to indicate the core operation of the domain name
>system or the stability of the Internet has been adversely affected,"
>VeriSign's Galvin said.
LOL.
VeriSign, woudl you like a copy of all the spams I got b/c you
Outside of one other person on this list, I know no one else personally, so
where do they come up with the "close-knit" stuff? I thought that most of
the traffic I have monitored, re: this topic, has come from a very diverse
and rather large group of people from all around the world who have been
OK, so was ANYONE on NANOG happy with
a) Verisign's site finder
b) How they launched it
Speak up on or off list.
---Mike
At 04:14 PM 03/10/2003, George Bakos wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:59:49 -1000 (HST)
Scott Weeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>VeriSign also angered the close-knit
I wonder if they will still present at Nanog?
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0310/dns.html
- Jared
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 03:44:26PM -0400, Tim Wilde wrote:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40241-2003Oct3.html
>
> And they act like they're the victims. Amazing.
>
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:59:49 -1000 (HST)
Scott Weeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>VeriSign also angered the close-knit group of engineers and scientists
>who are familiar with the technology underpinning the Internet. They
>say that Site Finder undermines the worldwide Domain Name Syste
: "Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down
: the Site Finder service," said VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin. "We will
: accede to their request while we explore all of our options."
:
: How about a public outcry? Did you miss that part? You don't deserve a
: hearin
In the immortal words of Tim Wilde ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> And they act like they're the victims. Amazing.
>
> "Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down
> the Site Finder service," said VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin. "We will
> accede to their request while we e
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Tim Wilde wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40241-2003Oct3.html
>
> And they act like they're the victims. Amazing.
Yep, I told you so :-) I said that before this was over, Verisign would
claim they were the victims and a bunch of hooligans on the West
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40241-2003Oct3.html
And they act like they're the victims. Amazing.
"Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down
the Site Finder service," said VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin. "We will
accede to their request while we ex
26 matches
Mail list logo
