Re: [correction] Re: [ga] sitefinder is back?

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Martin,
   
  Please fill me in on the difference between your two conceptual phrases. I like them. I would suggest a third - critical service edge. I certainly do not believe that anything other than supply and demand economics "govern" anything to do with the Internet.
  Perhaps you would find reading the initial MOU with ICANN and the USA gov. It really lays out supply side economics. This brings us back to what is referred to as Sitefinder, not using such critical service provider tools is dumb. And of course they are used throughout the industry without any notable interference from ICANN.
   
  ICANN can play with it if they want but whoever uses such terms and programs will just work around ICANN. It is in the MOU that such concepts be supported not diluted.
   
  As for any direct or indirect libel against your integrity, i certainly apologize for any offense actual or perceived. I tend to see comments and not people.
   
  Dr. Eric Hugh Dierker
  

Martin Hannigan <hannigan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  At 11:37 PM 9/19/2006, Hugh Dierker wrote:
>So when and where did sitefinder go - that they came back?
>They have been there all along. Is this surprising?

Hugh:

Do you understand the difference between critical
infrastructure and the service provider edge? You seem
to infer that I am incorrect in my assertion that the
network and service provider border and core are not
governed by ICANN.

I'd like to see something to the contrary so I can form
a better, or worse for some, opinion.


-M<






>
>e
>
>Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
>
>Let's correct a key word, shall we? The key phrase
>would be that you can _not_ relate this to SiteFinder,
>IMHO.
>
>-M<
>
>
>
>
>At 04:06 PM 9/19/2006, kidsearch wrote:
> >http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/03/1359221
> >
> >
>
>
>This is not new news. You *cant* relate it to the SiteFinder
>service since this is inside the borders of the ISP and does
>not impact the global infrastructure. The relationship between
>the provider and it's customers is not governed by ICANN.
>
>It's likely they are using Paxfire. See http://www.paxfire.com/
>
>There are some products coming out around DNS revenue
>capture. If you examine what OpenDNS has done, it's taken
>revenue from the providers. The providers are recapturing
>that revenue. Theoretically[1], you can legitimately drop the
>host routes from something like OpenDNS and redirect them to your
>own solution within the confines of your own network and recapture
>that revenue. We have a new layer developing between the provider
>and their customers within the infrastructure they are
>revenue pirates for all intents and purposes.
>
>-M<
>
>
>[1] There seems to be little reason to believe that there is any
>consequence of dropping a route to another location in a provider
>network, either redirecting it to a similiar provider operated
>service, or dropping altogether. The precedent would be Vixies
>modification of BIND in response to SiteFinder, and the creation
>and adaptation of RBL's. I am not aware of any case law to
>suppor that. IANAL.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
>Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574
>Member of Technical Staff Network Operations
>hannigan@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>Get your email and more, right on the 
>new Yahoo.com




--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff Network Operations
hannigan@xxxxxxxxxxx 



 		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.