Verisign vs. ICANN

Mon Jun 21 02:35:18 UTC 2004

Hmm; this is technical argument. If you request bookk.com domain, and such
domain do not exists, you must know it.
if you wish to get 'best match', your can programm client to ask something
like

  bookk.com-search

or

  bookk.com-search.microsoft.com

or

  bookk.com-search-in-russian.relcom.net

(additional service).

Notice, that unwanted service (search in Verisign) violates ALL this cases,
making impossible flexible,
competitive processing of such requests,

Just again - DNS design, by RFC, do not include someone who thinks for you
and guess, whcih exactly name are you requesting. I request 'A for
bookk.com' , answer may be 'This is it' or 'NOT, DO NOT EXISTS' only.

 So, this is not political - this is technical ; Verisign wish to violate
Internet, ICANN refuse to allow it, Verisign get angry and pay for shameless
lawyers (no one lawyer can be shamefull).

Other items from this lawsuite may have another classification (I did not
investigate), but for 'name guess' service, it is 100% clean - this is
violation. Internet is based on numerous compromises (such as TCP slow tart)
and numerous rules (such as DNS resolver, MTU size, AS path propogation and
so on) and it is very unwise to allow commercial company violate any rule
without overall agreement.

The best solution, btw, could be to dismiss Verisign as a .COM registry -
they was granted a permission to register, violate rules, so what.. no
permission anymore. Unfortuinately, this is too unrealistic by political
reasons. ICANN is nort obligated to grant this permission to Verisign
specifically.

> Hi Alexei,
>  I do not believe there is any technical spec prohibiting this, in fact
that DNS
> can use a wildcard at any level is what enables the facility. I think this
is a
> non-technical argument.. altho it was demonstrated that owing to the age
and
> status of the com/net zones a number of systems are now in operation which
make
> assumptions about the response in the event of the domain not existing...
>
> Steve
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
>
> >
> > (read it only today, so sorry if I repeat something).
> >
> > The technical roots of the problem are: proposed services VIOLATES
internet
> > specification (which is 100% clean - if name do not exist, resolver must
> > receive negative response). So, technically, there is not any ground for
> > SiteFinder - vice versa,
> > now you can add client-level search SiteFinder (MS did it, and it took
LOONG
> > to turn off their dumb 'search' redirect) so allowing
> > competition between ISP, browsers and so on.
> >
> > Anyway, please - those who knows history and can read this 'official'
> > English (little bored) - I am sure, that we can find many
inconsistencies in
> > the filing; it may be reasonable to provide a set of independent
_technical_
> > reviews, showing that ICANN plays a role of technical authority, just do
not
> > allowing to violate a protocols. For the second case (waiting lists), it
is
> > not technical issue, but it is anti-competitional attempt from Verisign
as
> > well. I can ask my Russian folks to review it as well (dr. Platonov,
Dimitry
> > Burkov) but I am not sure, if it is of any use... Anyway, good review,
> > explaining history and revealing real ICANN role, should be done.
> >
> > If VeriSign wish to deploy services - they must put thru new RFC first.
> >
> > PS. I am excited - Vixie as a co-conspirator... Vixie, you can be
proud -:).
> >
> > Alexei Roudnev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > PV> Date: 18 Jun 2004 05:58:00 +0000
> > > PV> From: Paul Vixie
> > >
> > > PV>         Paul Vixie is an existing provider of competitive services
for
> > > PV>         registry operations, including providing TLD domain name
> > hosting
> > > PV>         services for ccTLDs and gTLDs, and a competitor of
VeriSign
> > for
> > > PV>         new registry operations.  [...]
> > >
> > > I'm missing something.  By what stretch of whose imagination does
> > > root nameserver operations compete with a registrar?
> > >
> > >
> > > Eddy
> > > --
> > > EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
> > > A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
> > > Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
> > > Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
> > > Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > DO NOT send mail to the following addresses:
> > > davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net
> > > Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>