Verisign vs. ICANN

Mon Aug 16 14:09:09 UTC 2004

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:

> (and if the idea that kc or woolf could be depended upon to parrot
> somebody else's point of view caused you to laugh so hard you spewed
> coffee all over your keyboard while reading the above tidbits, then
> send the repair bill to verisign, not me.  i'm just the messenger.)

Unfortunately, SiteFinder did not have such a destructive effect as we
had all wanted it to have. Statistics in our network showed no 
significant increase in dns traffic. Especially if you compare it
against things like SoBig:

http://www.xtdnet.nl/paul/spam/graphs/versign.png

So even though my own hunch was wrong, I feel I should still publish
the data. If you only publish data when it serves your goal, you lose
your objectivity and your opinions become worthless as well. So I
won't be blaming kc of woolf for not confirming what isn't there but
what we really wanted to see.

So while SideFinder was not as destructive as we might have thought
or hoped, obviously it is still one of the most stupid ideas that
the NetSol/Verisign monstrosity came up with. If they cannot seperate
their Registrar from their Registry business, then ICANN should 
break their contract and find a proper party to host the Registry.

Ofcourse, in my dreams I have the money and all the girls too.......

Paul