RaydrPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-19
Carrollton, TX | closed forum? "deciding in a closed forum how 750 million people should reach the Internet. "
Sounds like what Verisign did. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by Raydr:
"deciding in a closed forum how 750 million people should reach the Internet. "
Sounds like what Verisign did.
Correct, but Verisign is not ICANN.
--
Edwards in 2004 |
|
 rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | said by Matt:
said by Raydr:
"deciding in a closed forum how 750 million people should reach the Internet. "
Sounds like what Verisign did.
Correct, but Verisign is not ICANN.
Then again, all they did to the VeriSign move was say, "bad VeriSign. Very, very bad VeriSign." As far as I know, they made no demand to dismantle Site Finder, which in my opinion, they should have demanded absolutely.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules. Blog is here |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by rchandra:
said by Matt:
said by Raydr:
"deciding in a closed forum how 750 million people should reach the Internet. "
Sounds like what Verisign did.
Correct, but Verisign is not ICANN.
Then again, all they did to the VeriSign move was say, "bad VeriSign. Very, very bad VeriSign." As far as I know, they made no demand to dismantle Site Finder, which in my opinion, they should have demanded absolutely.
Could be me, but this looks like a demand:
»www.icann.org/announcements/advi···ct03.htm
--
Edwards in 2004 |
|
rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | hmmm....hadn't seen that update. I only knew of the first exchange, where ICANN said "don't," and VeriSign said "I don't think so." But it looks from the material at that link you provided that VeriSign had to cease and desist or face legal action from ICANN.
This is definitely good news. As is said in the letter from ICANN to VeriSign, it's not up to a registry operator to make such a fundamental change to the function of such a major system such as VeriSign and DNS respectively. Such a change needs to be announced well in advance, and be reviewed by entities other than their own internal tech. staff.
I think they should be replaced; with whom, I don't know. It's been proven there are other organizations (Neustar for example) that handle other portions of the DNS namespace and can get the job done...no pressing need for VeriSign/Network Solutions.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules. Blog is here |
|
|
|
