RE: [registrars] Is Verisign breaking its contracts??

["Donny Simonton" <donny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I can agree with you completely.  I have been watching the Alexa rankings
for verisign.com, but never thought about looking at the
networksolutions.com rankings.  Nothing like a 3 month change of 3,958,710%
for networksolutions.com.  Even thawte.com has seen a nice size increase in
traffic this week.

Definitely is starting to smell more like a scam to me.  At this point what
would stop them from removing all zone information and sending all domains
to sitefinder.  Anybody know where I can buy a registry and try one of these
scams, this could be fun.

Donny

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jean-Michel Becar
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:30 PM
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [registrars] Is Verisign breaking its contracts??
> 
> Dear RC,
> 
> Comparing the traffic at verisign.com and networksolutions.com for the
> past days gives us a very nice picture of how the SiteFinder give a
> large advantage to the registrar nsol.
> 
> Look at that page
> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=6m&size=medium&ur
> l=verisign.com#top
> 
> It'S clear the SiteFinder of Verisign gives a huge amount of traffic to
> nsol....this is unacceptable.
> How can we stop that ?
> 
> As an ISP I think I will recommend to patch our DNS servers to block
> that famous IP address but this will be a drop in the ocean.  Verisign
> behaviour is here completely outlaw.
> 
> Jean-Michel Becar
> GMO Senior Architect
> 
> Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> 
> > On 9/17/2003 8:28 AM Elana Broitman noted that:
> >
> >> Hi Ross - I appreciate your concern about delay if this gets
> >
> > > "polished," but per my earlier email, you have 2 days to accept
> > > "friendly" amendments.
> >
> > Perfect -this completely deals with the concerns that I outlined to
> > Jim yesterday. Thanks for the clarification.
> >
> >> I would like to suggest an amendment meant to be friendly in
> >
> > > that it would be designed to signal our significant concerns
> > > with this VeriSign service and to push for ICANN to stop it,
> > > while at the same time not being overly broad and generic so as
> > > to alienate all registries (which have 25% of the Council vote).
> >
> > Fair. I would clarify that this is, as Vixie rightly summarizes, an
> > issue concerning expectations. .tv users expect wildcards in their
> > DNS, com users don't. Its the mismatch between the current reality
> > that's causing the problems (borked software, end-user support
> > hassles, intellectual property concerns...etc.)
> >
> >>
> >> Here is the rewrite I would suggest:
> >>
> >> "Whereas the VeriSign Registry has launched a new service that
> >
> > > potentially risks the stability and security of the domain name
> > > system and undermines competition in the registrar and registry
> >
> >> sectors without any apparent prior notice or consultation,
> >
> > > the Registrar Constituency strongly recommends that the GNSO Council
> >
> >> advocate that ICANN require the VeriSign Registry Operator to cease
> >
> > > this new service and return an NXDOMAIN response for DNS records
> > > that do not exist and that in all > cases and forbid the VeriSign
> > > Registry from including wild-card entries in gTLD zones until
> > > such time as the Supporting Organizations provide input on security,
> > > stability and competition issues, and ICANN staff ensures that any
> > > such service would be in compliance with the VeriSign Registry
> > > Agreement."
> >
> > The only problem that I have with this is that it misses my intent
> > around expectations - ie - I don't expect wildcards in .biz anymore
> > than I do in .com, but it is exepcted behavior in .museum. I hear your
> > concerns about the 25%, but I'd like to try and work your proposed
> > amendment slightly more in order to ensure that we don't just set the
> > stage for wildcards popping up in another zone tomorrow.
> >
>