[62360] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ICANN - Formal Complaint re Verisign
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rachael Treu)
Wed Sep 17 19:44:31 2003
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:47:41 -0500
From: Rachael Treu <rara@navigo.com>
To: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309172201560.30456-100000@pop.ict1.everquick.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
So...what, if anything, has been heard along the lines
of feedback/defense/repartee/retort/explanation/spin
doctoring/screams of terror from Verisign under the
crushing weight of this solid ochlocratic beatdown?
Given the below, was wondering if anyone, conversely,
has heard any ardent professions on Verisign's part of
commercial or vendor agnosticism or assurances of this
being "for our own good?"
(Aside from the "Terms of Use" rhetoric on the sitefinder
page, that is...)
Honesty is the best policy, but insanity tends to be a
better defense. (Not sure where commercial motivation
falls in that regard...)
--ra
--
K. Rachael Treu, CISSP rara at navigo dot com
..sic itur ad nauseum..
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:05:04PM +0000, E.B. Dreger said something to the effect of:
>
> PH> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:50:18 +0300
> PH> From: Petri Helenius
>
>
> PH> If I remember correctly, Verisign person stated in an
> PH> interview that they estimate that it will be worth up to
> PH> $100M annually.
>
> I'm willing to suffer that sort of burden to, uh, help make the
> Internet a better place. Where do I sign up?
>
>
> Eddy
> --
> Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
> Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
> Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
> Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita
> _________________________________________________________________
> DO NOT send mail to the following addresses :
> blacklist@brics.com -or- alfra@intc.net -or- curbjmp@intc.net
> Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
