Association of Trustworthy Roots?

Mon Jan 17 03:59:25 UTC 2005

I saw Martians this evening,  just like the movie, but the country song
didn't work.

They -did- have big heads encased in glass.
Go figure.

-M

---
Martin Hannigan
hannigan at verisign.com
Verisign, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog at merit.edu <owner-nanog at merit.edu>
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog at merit.edu>
Sent: Sun Jan 16 19:39:01 2005
Subject: Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots?

Christopher L. Morrow wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Chris Adams wrote:
>  
>
>>If the proper procedure was circumvented in the first place (which
>>appears to be the case with panix.com), then it should be circumvented
>>to repair the damage as fast as possible.
>>    
>>
>
>If it can be proven to have been cicumvented, sure. I don't think anything
>beyond conjecture about that has been said 'publicly' yet, has it?
>
>  
>
Why yes, you must have missed the messages.  The domain owner and ISP
and registrar all clearly stated that they had received no notification,
and had not approved the transfer.  Notification and approval are
required by the process.  Therefore, it was proven to be circumvented. 
QED.

Now, as to the actual mechanism of circumvention, that has not yet been
revealed here.  All we know is that a registry *supervisor* stopped the
workers from finishing their investigation.

Clearly, this .com registry operator is not trustworthy.

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