Re: Verisign Responds

[Andy Walden <andy () tigerteam net>]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 bmanning () karoshi com wrote:

> > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 bmanning () karoshi com wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 bmanning () karoshi com wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Dave Stewart wrote:
> > > > > > > Courts are likely to support the position that Verisign has control of .net
> > > > > > > and .com and can do pretty much anything they want with it.
> > > > > > ISC has made root-delegation-only the default behaviour in the new bind,
> > > > > > how about drafting up an RFC making it an absolute default requirement for
> > > > > > all DNS?
> > > > >       That would be making a fundamental change to the DNS
> > > > >       to make wildcards illegal anywhere. Is that what you
> > > > >       want?
> > > > no it wouldnt. it would ust make wildcards illegal in top level domains,
> > > > not subdomains.
> > >   really? and how would that work? (read be enforced...)
> >
> > Well yes thats part of the problem. It looks like verisign doesnt care
> > what anyone (ICANN, IAB, operators) thinks. But if we can mandate via RFC
> > it for dns software (servers, resolvers) etc. Then we go a ways to
> > removing verisign from the equation. Verisign can do what they like,
> > everyone will just ignore their hijacking.
>
>       lets try this again... why should a valid DNS protocol element
>       be made illegal in some parts of the tree and not others?
>       if its bad one place, why is it ok other places?
>
> --bill

Because of who is affected by the element. At the TLD level, many are
affected, at the domain level, then its a much smaller subset.

Ultimately, as Randy has already said, it is a business and social
problem. From a business standpoint, why should an organization be forced
to use its own resources to work around Verisign's plan to put more money
in its own packet.