Re: VeriSign SMTP reject server updated

[Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net>]

> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Matt Larson wrote:
> > One piece of feedback we received multiple times after the addition of
> > the wildcard A record to the .com/.net zones concerned snubby, our
[..]

* ken () cnet com (ken emery) [Sat 20 Sep 2003, 20:35 CEST]:
> I think you haven't "gotten it".  I'm getting the message from you that
> the changes made to the com and net gTLD's are fait accompli.  From the
[..]

I think Mr Larson understands perfectly well the consequences of his
management's decisions.  I believe he is one of the fine people working
for the root servers group, who Paul Vixie recently praised unanimously
in this august forum.

Unfortunately, I have the feeling that questioning Mr Larson about the
policies of his management is about as useful as writing an RFC that
mandates world peace when it comes to effect sorted.

Alternate contacts within Verisign who do have influence on com/net
policy will, of course, be welcomed.


> Is Verisign going to hold the internet hostage to its whims?

To the tune of $100M/year?  Apparently so.


> So let us know why exactly you should be able to redirect any protocol
> you wish to your IP addresses if someone mistypes a domain.

Someone delegated com and net to them.  Simple.  They can also do it
with existing domains, but apparently they're unwilling to take the
backlash that would result from such an action...

Regards,


        -- Niels.