ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


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

Re: [registrars] Fw: [council] Final Resolution regarding Verisign Registry Site Finder Service

  • To: Registrars <Registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] Fw: [council] Final Resolution regarding Verisign Registry Site Finder Service
  • From: Jean-Michel Becar <jmbecar@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:55:43 +0900
  • In-reply-to: <01fc01c383a2$97fbfb80$9865fea9@corp.register.com>
  • References: <00a201c3838b$598420b0$1902a8c0@HPPAVILION> <01fc01c383a2$97fbfb80$9865fea9@corp.register.com>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030718

As we can see the GNSO council advice to ICANN for that wildcard story is really far from the push we want as registrar. So still wondering if we won't have better a better voice by going directly to ICANN BoD.

The public reaction and comment are obvious for the past 2 weeks I've never heard someone in favor of this wildcard thing and that resolution want to listen first.......why things are taking so long???

I'm asking again the question can we as the RC writes a common letter to ICANN? or one by one as Registrar write a letter each to ICANN?

It's obvious the GNSO council resolution doesn't reflect at all the consensus we could see last 2 weeks which is : STOP that service NOW !!!!

Wondering how we can make this process more accurate.

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



Broitman wrote:

Thank you Ken.  I wonder if our representatives have any explanation
regarding the resolution - namely, "monitor community reaction and
experiences with the new service" -- does this call for the registrar
constituency to provide input regarding its concerns, in addition to the
motion that the constituency had passed?

Thanks, Elana
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Registrars" <Registrars@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 1:34 PM
Subject: [registrars] Fw: [council] Final Resolution regarding Verisign
Registry Site Finder Service


FYI
----- Original Message -----
From: "GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 10:52 AM
Subject: [council] Final Resolution regarding Verisign Registry Site
Finder
Service


[To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

GNSO Council teleconference 25 September 2003.
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-25sep03.shtml

Item 4. Issues associated with Verisign's introduction of wild card
entries
(*.com and *.net in the .com and .net zonefile)


Final Resolution regarding Verisign Registry Site Finder Service
proposed
by
Marilyn Cade and voted on by Council:

Whereas, on September 15, 2003, VeriSign Registry introduced a wild card
service into .com and .net zones that creates a registry-synthesized
address
record in response to look ups of domain  names that are not present in
the
zone. This service changes the routing of traffic by directing traffic
that
would have otherwise resulted in a 'no domain' notification to the
"sender"
to a VeriSign  operated web site with search results and links to paid
advertisements.

Whereas the IAB commentary published its architectural Concerns on the
use
of DNS wildcards on 19 September 2003. (LINK)

Whereas VeriSign Registry on 21 September 2003, responded to Paul
Twomey,
President and CEO, ICANN, acknowledging ICANN's advisory and declining
to
suspend the service until they (VeriSign) has an opportunity to collect
and
review available data.

Whereas the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, 22 September
2003,has
published its recommendations at www.icann.org

Therefore, the gNSO Council:
Supports ICANN's actions to
1) monitor community reaction and experiences with the new service
2) request advice from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee and
from the IAB on the impact of change introduced by the registry service
of
VeriSign
3) encourages broad participation by the community in the upcoming
meeting
hosted by the Security and Stability Advisory Committee

Pledges to
1) Support the recommendation of of the Security and Stability Advisory
Committee, 22 September
2003
2) work cooperatively to ensure full opportunity to fully understand the
service, its implications for the DNS, and any implications for the need
for
policy development within the scope of the gNSO.

The motion carried, 17 votes in support 6 abstaining votes.

GNSO Secretariat










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