North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: panix.com hijacked (VeriSign refuses to help)
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: One could almost think this hijack was timed to the release of the ICANN "Requests Public Comments on Experiences with Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy" from Jan 12: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-12jan05.htm -Hank > > Oki all, > > Its dawn in Maine, the caffine delivery system has only just started, > but I'll comment on the overnight. > > You're welcome [email protected] If you'll send me the cell phone number > for the MIT managment I will call wearing my registrar hat and inform > whoever I end up speaking with that Bruce needs to call me urgently, on > Registrar Constituency business. > > Next, put a call into the Washingtom Post. They lost the use of the name > "washpost.com" which all their internal email used, to due to expiry, so > their internal mail went "dark" for several hours. This was haha funny > during the primary season (Feb 6). If they don't get it try the NYTimes. > Put the problem on record. There is an elephant in the room. > > The elephant is that the existing regime is organized around protecting > the IPR lobby from boogiemen of their own invention. They invented the > theory that trademark.tld (and trademark.co.cctld) existence dilutes the > value of trademark, hence names-are-marks, bringing many happy dollars > (10^^6 buys) into the registrar/registry system ($29-or-less/$6, resp., > per gtld and some cctlds), and retarding new "gTLD" introductions, as > each costs the IPR interests an additional $35 million annually. > > To solve their division of spoils problem, is "united.com" UAL or is it > UA?, we had DRPs, which is now a UDRP, and more DRPs for lots of cctlds. > > These [U]DRPs take many,many,many,many units of 24x7. They were invented > for the happy IPR campers, who care about _title_, not _function_. If > the net went dark that would be fine with them to, so long as the right > owners owned the right names. > > Restated, there is no applicable (as in "useful for a 24x7 no downtime > claimant") law in the ICANN jurisdiction. > > And it is your own damn fault. Cooking up the DRPs took years of work by > the concerned interests, and they were more concerned with enduring legal > title then momentary loss of possession. During those years, interest in > the DNSO side of ICANN by network operators went from some to zero, and > at the Montevideo meeting the ISP and Business constituencies were so > small they meet in a small room and only half the seats were taken. After > that point they were effectively merged. IMHO, Marilyn Cade and Phillipe > Shepard are the ISP/B Constituency, and they can't hear you (for all > 24x7 operational values of "you"). > > In case it isn't obvious, the "your own damn fault" refers to a much > larger class of "you" than Alexis Rosen. > > [Oh, the same happy campers are why :43 is broken. They want perfect > data at no cost and w/o restriction. Registrars don't want slamming, > today's owie, and registrants don't want spam (which some ISPs do), > so the whole :43 issue is a trainwreck of non-operational interests > overriding operational interests. Registrars would be happy to pump > :43 data to operators, if we could manage the abuse, instead we get > knuckleheads who insist that spam would be solved forever if ...] > > > There is a fundamental choice of jurisdictions question. Is ICANN the > correct venue for ajudication, or is there another venue? This is what > recourse to the "ask a real person" mechanism assumes, that talking to > a human being is the better choice. > > Bill made this comment: > > > Since folks have been working on this for hours, and according to > > posts on NANOG, both MelbourneIT and Verisign refuse to do anything > > for days or weeks, would it be a good time to take drastic action? > > > > Think of what we'd do about a larger ISP, or the Well, or really any > > serious financial target. > > > > Think of the damage from harvesting <>logins and mail passwords of > > panix users. > > You (collectively) are another venue. When the SiteFinder patch was > broadly adopted to work around a change made at one of the registries, > you (collectively) were replacing ICANN as the regulatory body. ICANN > took weeks to arive at a conclusion about that change, then endorsed > that patch to the deployed DNS, while depricating incoherence in the > DNS. > > [I spent 5 minutes at the Rome Registrar Constituency meeting chewing > Vint Cerf and Paul Twomey in front of about 100 registrars and back > benchers for taking many,many,many,many units of 24x7 to arive at the > conclusion that breakage, or "surprise" in .com was not a good thing.] > > There is a stability of the internet issue. An ISP's user names and > their passwords are compromised by VGRS, MIT, DOTSTER, and PANIX all > following the controlling authority -- the ICANN disputed transfer > process. It isn't MCI or AOL or ... and if it were a bank it might > not be Bank of America ... and if it were a newspaper it might not > be the WaPo. But if size defines the class of protected businesses > under the controlling jurisdiction [1], then Panix's core problem > is that it isn't AOL or MSN or the ISP side of a RBOC. > > I'd be nervous if I were Alexis. Not enough people are running their > cups on the bars to get the attention of the wardens. > > Eric > <registrar_hat="on"/> > > [1] In the US FCC space, the 3-2 decision mid-last month on CLEC access > to unbundled UNE is a "size defines the class of protected businesses" > policy decision. As one of the two dissenting Commissioners noted, it > means the end of the 1996 Act. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. >
|