Re: Verisign Responds

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>]

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?

Well one point is from http://www.icann.org/tlds/ only domains classed as
'sponsored' previously had wildcards. Domains that are unsponsored including
.net and .com are supposed to operate under policy established from the global
community thro ICANN.

Also this is a specific case, .net/.com have legacy implications and no one 
including Verisign is naive enough to believe that this would have been ok.

This is why they have done it in the way they have without consultation. A 
number of people claim they are acting in breach of their charter with ICANN, 
sure (Randy) this is a social argument, but theres technical ones as well but 
they dont stand up so well in the courtroom..

Steve