Re: [registrars] [Fwd: Re: Change to .com/.net behavior]

[Siegfried Langenbach <svl@xxxxxxx>]

Hallo,

it seems to me that not only domains which are not registered, but also
domains without entry in NS will be redirected to Veri$ing.

siegfried
with less hope that Veri$ign's subsidary will react properly.


On 16 Sep 2003 at 8:23, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

Date sent:      	Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:23:19 -0400
From:           	"Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
Send reply to:  	ross@xxxxxxxxxx
Organization:   	Tucows Inc.
To:             	registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject:        	[registrars] [Fwd: Re: Change to .com/.net behavior]

> I think Mr. Herbert makes some fair points here.
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Change to .com/.net behavior
> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 01:21:18 -0700
> From: George William Herbert <gherbert@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: nanog@xxxxxxxxx, mlarson@xxxxxxxxxxxx, dcpolicy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: gherbert@xxxxxxxxxxxx, sclavos@xxxxxxxxxxxx, balogh@xxxxxxxxxxxx, 
> lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx, ulam@xxxxxxxxxxxx, registrar-info@xxxxxxxxx, 
> ksmith@xxxxxxxxxxxx, mgallagher@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to make a few evolving observations
> about the wildcard DNS entries which Verisign
> initiated in .net and .com earlier today.
> 
> 1) By all reasonable interpretations, Verisign is now
> operating in violation of the .com and .net Registry
> Agreements.  Specifically, Sect 24 of the main agreement
> for .com and Sect 3.5.3, 3.5.5, and 3.6, 3.8 of the main
> agreement for .net, and the rather blank Appendix X.
> I believe it to be trivial to demonstrate that even
> if Verisign issued an ammended Appendix X, such a wildcard
> entry will exceed the numerical limits specified of 5000
> domains, and that the anti-competitive and code of conduct
> sections will still apply and prohibit this behaviour.
> Explicitly.
> 
> 2) By any reasonable interpretation this sort of change
> should have been clearly announced beforehand to technical
> communities that would be affected, including but not
> limited to NANOG, and was not.
> 
> 3) By any reasonable interpretation this sort of change
> should have been clearly announced beforehand to policy
> communities that would be affected, and was not.
> 
> 4) By any reasonable interpretation of safe and conservative
> operational procedure, when the various technical and policy
> issues which were raised over the course of today were
> made public, Verisign should have rolled the changes back
> out and announced so until such time as at least *proper*
> and extensive announcements were made, preferably until such
> time as Verisign obtained technical community and policy
> community approval.  Verisign has not done so as of when this
> email was being prepared, at least not querying A.GTLD...
> 
> 5) An organization which displays this sort of behaviour
> is not a reasonable candidate from an operational standpoint
> to stand as the manager of any GTLD.
> 
> 6) An organization which displays this sort of behaviour
> is not a reasonable candidate from a legal standpoint to
> stand as the manager of any GTLD.
> 
> 7) An organization which displays this sort of behaviour
> is not a reasonable candidate from a technical standpoint
> to stand as technical manager of any GTLD or the registrar
> coordination processes.
> 
> 8) An organization which displays these sorts of behaviours
> clearly calls into question the operating assumptions about
> fair registrar behaviour in the .com and .net registry
> agreements and thus the entire validity of allowing one
> company to both manage and act as a registrar for those
> domains.
> 
> 9) The apparent complete lack of clue on Verisigns'
> part as to the magnitude of the hornets nest that
> this change would kick over, and its lack of any appropriate
> responses even simply better wider information releases,
> calls into question the suitability of Verisign's staff
> and management structure for operating the key central
> registry functions.
> 
> 10) Given items 1-9, I call upon ICANN to immediately
> launch an investegation into the validity and legality
> of Verisign's wildcard DNS entries; into the operational
> procedures Verisign is using; into the apparent material breach
> of Verisign's .com and .net management contracts; and into
> the suitability of Verisign to remain the .com and .net
> manager in the future and in pariticular the suitability
> of the current Verisign management team for participation
> in that key neutral operational role.  I specifically
> request that ICANN initiate community policy discussions
> as to whether the GTLD management functions should be
> required to be spun off into a separate entity from
> Verisign and not sharing any ownership or management
> structure.
> 
> 11) Given items 1-9, I call upon the Department of Commerce
> to immediately investigate whether Verisign is in material
> breach of its cooperative agreements and whether Verisign
> in its current form and with its current staff are suitable
> to remain manager of the .com and .net GTLDs, and the same
> set of questions I pose to ICANN, in such areas as DOC
> is engaged in policymaking regarding Internet Domain Names.
> 
> 
> -george william herbert
> gherbert@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
>                         -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>