nanog mailing list archives
Re: News coverage, Verisign etc.
From: "John Neiberger" <john.neiberger () efirstbank com>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:07:48 -0600
"Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com> 10/8/03 1:54:12 PM >>>In these days of corporate malfeasance scandal coverage, you'd think
that
Verisign's tactics would have whetted the appetite of some bright investigative reporter for one of the major publications.For all that I'm critical of wildcards in TLDs -- I spoke at the meeting yesterday, and my slides are on my Web page -- I don't think there are any issues of malfeasance. No one has been looting Verisign's coffers, they're not cooking the books, etc. I see three issues: is this technically wise, did Verisign have the right to do this under their current contract with ICANN, and should they have
such
a right. I don't see anything resembling dishonesty.
The dishonesty came later in the form of press releases and 'commentary' by Mark McLaughlin. Well, perhaps dishonesty is too harsh a term. Let's be kind and say they are being disingenuous instead. John --
Current thread:
- Re: News coverage, Verisign etc., (continued)
- Re: News coverage, Verisign etc. Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 08)
- Re: News coverage, Verisign etc. Steven M. Bellovin (Oct 08)
- Re: News coverage, Verisign etc. Owen DeLong (Oct 08)
- Re: News coverage, Verisign etc. Curtis Maurand (Oct 08)
- Re: News coverage, Verisign etc. Joe Abley (Oct 08)
- Re: News coverage, Verisign etc. Curtis Maurand (Oct 09)
- Re: News coverage, Verisign etc. David Schairer (Oct 08)
- Collateral damage (was Re: News coverage, Verisign etc. ) Robert M. Enger (Oct 08)
- Re: News coverage, Verisign etc. up (Oct 08)
- Re: News coverage, Verisign etc. Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 08)