[63645] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Verisign on Process
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Howard C. Berkowitz)
Wed Oct 8 20:51:22 2003
In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEGNHCAA.davids@webmaster.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 20:42:11 -0400
To: nanog@merit.org
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 5:23 PM -0700 10/8/03, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Is it possibly time to suggest that perhaps ICANN should
>> call for formal separation of regiSTRAR functions from
>> regiSTRY functions, and stipulate that stewards of record
>> for regiSTRY functions not participate in regiSTRAR roles?
>
> Already done -- read the contact between ICANN and VeriSign.
>
>> Certainly it's been shown to be very difficult to resist
>> the temptation to extend editorial control over what entries
>> get placed into the DNS records as a regiSTRY if you also
>> happen to be able to increase the profits from your regiSTRAR
>> role.
>
> Sure, but you could also do it to increase the profits from
>your registry
>role, which seems to have been the intent of SiteFinder.
>
>> If the functions are stipulated to be kept separate,
>
> They are.
>
>> then we have a much better opportunity to engage a system of
>> checks and balances, to self-limit potential future abuses
>> like this.
>
> How would that stop a registry from, for example, adding a
>wildcard record
>that goes to pages sold to the highest bidder? Registry functions are
>supposed to be wholly ministerial. VeriSign doesn't get that and ICANN is
>going to have to force them to -- probably more than once.
>
> DS
