[IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

Mon Feb 23 18:43:40 UTC 2004

Paul, you have no problem support the corrupt ICANN monopoly.
The colonists and minutemen were called their day's name for 
"whackos" as well. You have the right to speak without
being shot for your opinion because those "whackos" fought
and died to make it so. Just remember that the next time
you fling that word around.

ICANN is a threat to freedom on the internet. There is no
technical reason why there cannot be 1,000's of TLDs
out there, except that it foils someone's monopoly 
stranglehold on one of the few chokepoints of the internet. 
The biggest threat is from WIPO which is trying to
control the namespace and use it as a fulcrum to 
enforce their narrow intellectual property interests.
WIPO has no place in the namespace and its UDRP
is just a method for rich and powerful interests to
steal domains from poor people, especially those in
less-than-well-to-do countries. I will never stop 
fighting against that kind of thing, nor will others 
in this struggle. 

There are many people who have been working against
this unacceptable state of affairs for many years, myself
included and I will not let you mis-characterize our
struggle.

John Palmer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Vixie" <vixie at vix.com>
To: <nanog at merit.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 12:22
Subject: Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

> 
> nanog at riva.net (Randall Pigott) writes:
> 
> > I am curious what the operational impact would be to network operators
> > if, instead of Verisign using SiteFinder over all com and net, Verisign
> > or their technology partner for SiteFinder began coercing a large number
> > of independent ISPs and network operators to install their form of DNS
> > redirection at the ISP-level, until all or most of the end-users out
> > there were getting redirected.
> 
> It would be no worse than NEW.NET or any other form of DNS pollution/piracy
> (like the alternate root whackos), as long as it was clearly labelled.  As
> an occasional operator of infrastructure, I wouldn't like the complaint load
> I'd see if the customers of such ISP's thought that *I* was inserting the
> garbage they were seeing.  So I guess my hope is, it'll be "opt-in" with an
> explicitly held permission for every affected IP address (perhaps using some
> kind of service discount or enhancement as the carrot.)
> -- 
> Paul Vixie
> 
> 