[71569] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Neiberger)
Fri Jun 18 12:35:25 2004
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:34:31 -0600
From: "John Neiberger" <John.Neiberger@efirstbank.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>>OK, I have obviously missed something here... I know that the courts
dismissed
>> the original complaint against ICANN, but what has happened since,
and what i
>>s this about some conspiracy? Are they trying to say that users of
the anti-Si
>>teFinder BIND patch are conspirators?
>
>No -- but the easiest thing to do is to read the amended complaint,
>which is linked-to from ICANN's home page.
It never ceases to amaze me that some companies will move forward with
actions that they know will give them a horrible reputation. Does the
potential for short-term financial gain outweigh the benefits of a good
long-term reputation? Verisign, SCO, and Postini come to mind as
examples.
I can't stand the current spam filtering/AV email service that we use
right now (Mailwatch...ugh.), but should we change to Postini--a
supposedly superior service--knowing how slimy some of their actions
have been? That's a rhetorical question, of course, but I think it makes
the point. I prefer to do business with good companies with good
products, not bad companies with good products.
John
--
