[63362] in North American Network Operators' Group
verisign lawsuits need data on "core operation" and "stability"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Allen Simpson)
Fri Oct 3 17:38:57 2003
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:38:25 -0400
From: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Scott Weeks wrote:
> =
> VeriSign also angered the close-knit group of engineers and scientis=
ts
> who are familiar with the technology underpinning the Internet. They=
> say that Site Finder undermines the worldwide Domain Name System,
> causing e-mail systems, spam-blocking technology and other applicati=
ons
> to malfunction.
> =
> VeriSign said the claims are overblown.
> =
> "There is no data to indicate the core operation of the domain name
> system or the stability of the Internet has been adversely affected,=
"
> VeriSign's Galvin said.
> =
> : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40241-2003Oct3.html
> :
Let's see, a "malfunction" is not a "core operation" or "stability".
One of the nice things about lawsuits is something called discovery. =
Gives a chance to get some "data".
We spent thousands of dollars (probably 10s of thousands), had to =
handle 10 times the mail load, had our upstream links completely fill, =
had our mail servers completely fill, lost mail, and lost customers. =
Then, thanks to the yeoman BIND effort, were able to mitigate the =
damage, and gradually bring the mail servers back to their usual state =
of 30% free space.
Now, using news.google.com search, it seems there are a few lawsuits. =
I want them to go to class action status. I want money damages! Any =
other operators want the same?
http://news.google.com/news?hl=3Den&edition=3Dus&q=3Dlawsuit+verisign&b=
tnG=3DSearch+News
3rd Lawsuit Against VeriSign; Seeks Class Action Status
http://www.circleid.com/article/290_0_1_0_C/
http://www.techfirm.com/v-complaint.pdf
Plaintiffs bring this action both on an individual and class basis, and
also on a representative basis as a private attorney general under the
provisions of Section 17200 et seq. of California's Business &
Professions Code, for monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. =A7 2; for unfair competition and trademark dilution under
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. =A7 1125(a); for cyberpiracy i=
n
violation of the Anti- Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"),
15 U.S.C.A. =A7 1125(d); for illegal interception of electronic
communications in violation of Title I of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act ("ECPA"), 18 U.S.C. =A7 2511 et seq.; for unfair, unlawful,
misleading, fraudulent and deceptive business practices in violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; and for
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to
halt VeriSign's illegal acts and practices before those acts and
practices further harm Plaintiffs, the class defined herein, and the
general public.
-- =
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint =3D 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32=
