ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] Verisign change to operation of the .com DNS lookup service

  • To: "Jean-Michel Becar" <jmbecar@xxxxxx>, "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Verisign change to operation of the .com DNS lookup service
  • From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:02:24 -0400
  • Cc: <wessorh@xxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcN8yPO1xvOPVAuPTg+pdNuKOY6OpgASn10w
  • Thread-topic: [registrars] Verisign change to operation of the .com DNS lookup service

That's an excellent suggestion.  Rick, as CTO, should reach out to them, but if we don't hear from Rick prior to mid-day, could someone else who is technical volunteer.

Thanks

Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
Fax   (212) 629-9309
ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Michel Becar [mailto:jmbecar@xxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:03 PM
To: Registrar Constituency
Subject: Re: [registrars] Verisign change to operation of the .com DNS
lookup service


Anyone talked to the ASO's folks?
This new way of operating the .com .net zones will also have a big 
impact on the network operators and ISP as for example when you want to 
troubleshoot a network problem people will always get answer for any 
domain via a nslookup :-(


-- 
Jean-Michel Becar
Senior Architect
Global Media Online INC.
Tokyo - 150-8512
Tel: +81 (0)3 5456 2687




Robert F. Connelly wrote:

> At 09:51 PM 9/16/03 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
>>> I think a little polishing would not hurt.  Ross, is that okay or do 
>>> you want it presented as is?
>>
>>
>> I'd prefer to move it forward as is. I'm a fan of the whereas etc., 
>> but I'd rather move this forward *now* than wait another day for 
>> polishing...
>
>
> Dear Ross:   Done:-)  Regards, BobC
>
>
>> We could end up tying this up in "procedure" for longer than we 
>> actually have...let's just move forward as is...(and next time, I'll 
>> polish before I move ;)
>
>
>





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>