NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
t byfield <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
t byfield <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:32:41 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
[log in to unmask] (Fri 09/19/03 at 09:13 AM -0400):

> Hi, this message is from a former NCUC member who believes we should pay more
> attention to the VeriSign redirection of domain names to a search site. This
> has been a hot controversy and will be discussed on the Council next week. I
> assume that most of us are against this practice, altough the issue of how
> much authority ICANN has to do anything about it remains less certain. The
> ALAC has taken a position against it. Please provide me with your opinion.

my own view is that VRSN's (one could just as easily spell it VRS'sN
by their logic) is completely beyond the pale. the response has been
universally negative, including ISC's near-overnight patch to BIND.
this one's a no-brainer: the NCUC should condemn the act per se and
pointedly note that the mere fact that it could happen without any
consultation casts a very bad light on VRSN's fitness for its role.

ICANN cannot run and hide by saying 'we don't have the power to regu-
late or interfere with this' -- not after subjecting us to years of
blabla about 'technical coordination' and 'security and stability'
rhetoric. if VRSN's actions don't lie squarely where those two realms
intersect, nothing does -- and ICANN has no mandate or purview.

cheers,
t

ATOM RSS1 RSS2