[78953] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ICANN on the panix.com theft
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Lesher)
Sat Mar 26 18:07:43 2005
X-Original-To: wb8foz@panix.com
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@nrk.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu (nanog list)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:07:18 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <200503262210.j2QMA8Hj043559@nic-naa.net> from "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" at Mar 26, 2005 05:10:08 PM
Reply-To: wb8foz@nrk.com
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
> nuance.
>
> > ICANN Blames Melbourne IT for Panix Domain Hijacking
>
> ICANN's current RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) lacks a profound
> amount of teeth.
I make no judgement but do note:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/tonkin-to-cole-27jan05.htm
The CEO of Melbourne IT received a call from the the CEO
of panix.com on Sunday. This was referred to the legal
team which informed the CEO of panix.com that Melbourne
IT staff would first need to investigate the authenticity
of the claims made. Staff performed further checks to
authenticate the request, and reverted the DNS information
to its orginal state as stored in Melbourne IT's systems
around 9:30am on Monday. Melbourne IT also received
calls from Verisign staff on Monday morning (AEST).
In other words, they delayed a full day before acting to mitigate
the damage.
I also don't see any discussion on what ICANN was during during the
hijack situation; maybe I missed that part.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
