Re: [ga] Some Wild-Card Questions
- To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [ga] Some Wild-Card Questions
- From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
- In-reply-to: <NFBBLJNJELIAEBHKGJNMKEHMGKAA.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Because the ICANN Board may be required to address this issue in the
> I will not comment publicly at this time. Listed below are some of
> questions that I have identified as relevant in my personal analysis,
> which I would like input from the community.
The answers to all those questions should be obvious to anyone outside
The more important question is "why is the Board so incompetent"? Are
they merely firefighters, waiting for the internet to burn down,
instead of being *proactive*? The Board *knew* this was coming, as I
pointed out on multiple occasions:
"that the ICANN Board should move with all haste to stop this abuse, by
passing a vote saying:
gTLD Registry operators WILL return NXDOMAIN for ALL DNS queries for
which there is not a REGISTERED domain name."
ICANN has had *2* Board meetings in this time-frame, on the 9th and
yet the abuse by Verisign continues.
Instead of spoonfeeding you the "answers", invest a few minutes like
*informed* *professionals* do, and read the reaction at just a few of
"The DNS is not supposed to be a best-guess service, yet VGRS has
turned .com and .net into this just before IDNA is to be an RFC. VGRS
should not be allowed, through its monopoly on the .com and .net gTLDs,
to destroy the coherence of the DNS for its own short-term profit.
ICANN should demand that VGRS immediately stop giving incorrect answers
to any query in .com and .net, and should instead follow the IETF
standards. If VGRS refuses, ICANN should re-delegate the .com and .net
zones to registries that are more willing to follow the DNS standards."
" In the case where a web page is returned, the IAB is particularly
concerned that the page contains guesses about what domain might have
been the target. Part of this concern arises because the domains which
are presented are not consistent from platform to platform and the
inputs which result in a particular response do not seem to follow the
expected standards. The greater part of the concern, however, comes
from a fundamental bias against presenting multiple choices to a DNS
query, even mediated by an HTTP-based application. The DNS is not a
search service, and presenting speculative mappings based on HTTP
inputs is not the service that the registry is expected to provide."
Some of these are dated JANUARY 2003! Is ICANN asleep at the wheel?
ICANN is *inviting* government intervention, because they are simply
not up to the ball. Already, users and network administrators are up in
arms. Are you waiting for Verisign's PR team to reply, or what?
I suggest that the US government should use this as a further example
of ICANN's need to be held to a greater standard of accountability, and
folks should support the legislation that is currently proposed at:
Board members should look in the mirror, and ask themselves whether
they are part of the problem, or part of the solution. It would show
honour for many of them if they would simply tender their resignations,
after an honest assessment of that question. I was watching the movie
"Gladiator" the past couple of nights on CBC, and one quote by Maximus
that resonated was:
"What we do in life echoes in eternity."
Board members that preside over the demise of Internet standards and
forsake their guardianship over the public resource will be stained
with that for an eternity, and earn their true place in the halls of
Board members should be subject to recall, like in the California state
government. How many of the existing ones would have survived even a
few weeks, had they been able to be recalled, based on their continuing
incompetence? What checks and balances, if any, besides the judicial
system, are in place to hold ICANN accountable??