North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
It is not about statistics, it is about DNS system behavior - if domain do not exists, I wish (and I must) to know it. By this, SiteFinder violates all Internet addressing system. > > 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 >
|