Verisign Responds

Matthew Richardson matthew-l at itconsult.co.uk
Tue Sep 23 19:21:00 UTC 2003


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Paul Vixie <paul at 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-----



More information about the NANOG mailing list