fwd: Re: [registrars] Re: panix.com hijacked

Sun Jan 16 17:46:06 UTC 2005

Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:

>...
>I'm particularly enamored by Ross' notion of what is going on on NANOG.
>
>------- Forwarded Message
>
>From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross at tucows.com>
>  
>
>I don't see what you are looking at - .net and .com point to the same 
>place with no indication of anything awry...of course, I'm late to the 
>game and the DNS probably tells a different story...
>
>  
>
This fellow is pretty confused, as from here (Michigan via Merit) the
DNS has pointed to different places since yesterday.

>>Looks like this may be among the first high-profile unauthorized
>>transfer under the new transfer policy.
>>    
>>
>
>Looks like a bunch of guys on the NANOG list engaging in a lot of 
>conjecture without the benefit of a lot of facts.
>
>  
>
Ah yes, those pesky facts.  Hard to get many facts without cooperation
of the offending parties, now isn't it?

All we have to go on are the actual DNS and whois responses returned
on the 'net.  Facts enough for most of us.  Maybe the only facts that
matter operationally, as a matter of fact.

Since he somehow missed the fact that the DNS changed (what was *he* 
looking at), upon what did he base his opinion?

>>Maybe there needs to some sort of emergency reversion where at least the
>>nameservers can be rolled back immediately while the contesting parties
>>sort it out.
>>    
>>
>
>Might be interesting - what criteria would trigger the process?
>
>
>  
>
Unauthorized change in the DNS asserted by any previous registrant.

-- 
William Allen Simpson
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32