Re: Verisign vs. ICANN

["Alexei Roudnev" <alex () relcom net>]

It is not about statistics, it is about DNS system behavior - if domain do
not exists, I wish (and I must) to know it.
By this, SiteFinder violates all Internet addressing system.


> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> > (and if the idea that kc or woolf could be depended upon to parrot
> > somebody else's point of view caused you to laugh so hard you spewed
> > coffee all over your keyboard while reading the above tidbits, then
> > send the repair bill to verisign, not me.  i'm just the messenger.)
>
> Unfortunately, SiteFinder did not have such a destructive effect as we
> had all wanted it to have. Statistics in our network showed no
> significant increase in dns traffic. Especially if you compare it
> against things like SoBig:
>
> http://www.xtdnet.nl/paul/spam/graphs/versign.png
>
> So even though my own hunch was wrong, I feel I should still publish
> the data. If you only publish data when it serves your goal, you lose
> your objectivity and your opinions become worthless as well. So I
> won't be blaming kc of woolf for not confirming what isn't there but
> what we really wanted to see.
>
> So while SideFinder was not as destructive as we might have thought
> or hoped, obviously it is still one of the most stupid ideas that
> the NetSol/Verisign monstrosity came up with. If they cannot seperate
> their Registrar from their Registry business, then ICANN should
> break their contract and find a proper party to host the Registry.
>
> Ofcourse, in my dreams I have the money and all the girls too.......
>
> Paul