[62841] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verisign Responds
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Richardson)
Tue Sep 23 14:24:43 2003
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:21 +0000 (GMT)
From: matthew-l@itconsult.co.uk (Matthew Richardson)
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20030923143444.7D0A4139DF@sa.vix.com>
Reply-To: matthew-l@itconsult.co.uk
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com> wrote:-
> > We recommend that any and all TLDs which use wildcards in a manner
> > inconsistent with this guideline remove such wildcards at the earliest
> > opportunity."
> >
> > What else does the IETF need to do here?
>
> issue an rfc. iab is not a representative body, and their opinions
> are not "refereed."
Yes indeed, but one has to ask the question "What about ICANN's
recommendations?" and what they might have to do to have them
implemented.
As an outsider to the politics of ICANN, registries, registrars and
the like, it boggles my mind that Verisign, a company issued with a
contract by ICANN to run a gTLD, should be able to make technical
changes which cause significant breakage (and hence cost the Internet
community to fix/workaround), and should then be quite so
demonstrably unwilling to accept ICANN's polite request.
It seems to me that there must be something seriously broken in the
procedures or contracts that a situation such as this could occur.
The consensus technical view seems to be that the wildcard
introduction has been a destabilising influence and yet ICANN, who
are charged with the responsibility of ensuring the stability of the
Internet, seem powerless to do anything about it.
It's all most bizarre!
Best wishes,
Matthew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAgUBP3CPCwKwLwcHEv69AQGUKwP/dXTWek8Zh2fjGqjLjjhKJSY+y2FPYObI
0Q8o1IgCumuGxPlARDcy4JxZAzGa6NmU5bLyLSfLtJwZoSDeMCyvu4zVDUy5kfMN
As0KrXVrkgEl8eRh1mZrQGdkf3SQIrhYhugAfX5LRBxZwMn3lcFMAhw1qUKJ+km5
IKtSQztc/sM=
=kB7Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
