Err.. at least in the meeting, the VeriSlime carefully evaded
giving any quantifiable answer as to warning time. I have no idea
what they spun to the press afterwards.
What I observed was they started out cocky...as the meeting went on
and the questioning got pointed, they got snippy and
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
across (though it might also backfire - pushing Verisign to be even more
What I think will be interesting is who has the bind patch this
time around. The first time many companies didn't deploy the bind
patch for reasons ranging from taking a few days to study the impact
to not being able to deploy new software on their nameservers that
quickly to not being able to
Message-
-From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:24 AM
-To: nanog list
-Subject: Re: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service
-
-
-
-Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain
-registrations those of us
-on nanog represent? Contract sanctions
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
across (though it might also backfire - pushing
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
across (though it might also backfire - pushing
)TELLURIAN
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Allen Simpson
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:45 AM
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of
us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
across (though it might also backfire - pushing Verisign to be even more
Verisign obviously doesn't want the Registrar
business, or they would have found out a way
to combine all those accounts when we asked.
You do know they just this morning announced that they're selling the
Registrar business, don't you?
Ray
--
Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) - Technical Director
I don't know if this is a related move or not, but I just received an
email from Verisign that they are selling NetSol. A snippet:
Dear Valued Network Solutions(R) Customer,
Today VeriSign, Inc. announced that it has entered into a definitive
agreement to sell Network Solutions to a new
At 3:18 PM +0100 10/16/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of
us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
across (though it might
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this day and age, people don't guess URLs anymore by sticking .com at
the end of a word so there is no longer any advantage to using a .com
domain name over a .biz or .info or .us.
FWIW, I still do as it is faster than google. I bet that that
I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of credibility
given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably existed for quite
a bit longer than a .biz or .info. Although looking at that list I might note that I
probably would include .us with .com
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote:
This point just became moot.
Versign is selling the registry business. Network Solutions is being
spun off. They retain the back end DNS.
They're selling the _registrar_ business off. They retain the _registry_
and the associated stuff to the back
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
We've been moving all our domains to OpenSRS for a year, but doing it as
they come up for renewal.
, 2003 9:24 AM
-To: nanog list
-Subject: Re: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service
-
-
-
-Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain
-registrations those of us
-on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one
-thing, taking
-all of our business elsewhere might also be effective
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:16:53 CDT, Andrew D Kirch [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of
credibility given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably
existed for quite a bit longer than a .biz or .info.
Most of my spam
The back end DNS is the registry service. What you are saying they are
doing is selling the REGISTRAR business and keeping the REGISTRY.
Or did I miss something?
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:46 AM -0400 Kee Hinckley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 3:18 PM +0100 10/16/03, [EMAIL
the last BIND
version truly break sitefinder?
Later,
Jim
--Original Message-
-From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:24 AM
-To: nanog list
-Subject: Re: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service
-
-
-
-Just out of curiousity, I wonder how
At 9:19 AM -0700 10/16/03, Owen DeLong wrote:
The back end DNS is the registry service. What you are saying they are
doing is selling the REGISTRAR business and keeping the REGISTRY.
Or did I miss something?
No, that's correct. I just can't keep them straight in my fingers
(and neither can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:16:53 CDT, Andrew D Kirch [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of
credibility given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably
existed for quite a bit longer than a .biz or
21 matches
Mail list logo
