North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: data request on Sitefinder

  • From: Henry Linneweh
  • Date: Mon Oct 20 17:42:58 2003

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Oh boy, well first and foremost the root servers and database are
owned by the public because they were paid for from the TAX-BASE.....
 
Second and foremost the technology to redirect web pages and ips is
not new or innovative, kiddies used to do it on  IRC, to redirect to porn
sites and get paid for every redirected hit, starting in the 1996,1997 time frame.
 
Network solutions on more than one occasion caused an incredible stir
when they adjusted pricing and had to role back the price, court ordered.

I think some of you were here and remember that ruckus.
 
In the public interest and the interest many businesses, Verisign
should divest itself completely and just become another company doing
business across the backbone.
 
I see serious troubles ahead, imagine a client of a client who has
lets say 3,000+ servers on-line and new list of clients is added and
there is a typo and all 3,000 servers are redirected with 10's of
thousands of clients, each with the potential to sue in both directions.
 
Gentlemen and ladies this is simply not a well thought out idea, I
don't care how many PR firms get involved they are simply there for
the money, with no clue to the potential harm.
 
I think the leadership here needs to formulate a public posture and present it's case and
it's alternative solution that the NSP community can live with and rapidly adapt to as a working acceptable model.
 
Henry R LInneweh
Sr Design Systems Engineer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com
iQA/AwUBP5RUdsiimYc7OT3DEQJ1TgCfftP4aRJDmOxXr5QB04a6nt9Z7ZYAoNdM
72ro5GzJw/dxSrlhMaC6iEMR
=i8Ms
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com> wrote:

A number of people havce responded that they don't want to be forced to
pay for a change that will benefit Verisign. That's a policy issue I'm
trying to avoid here. I'm looking for pure technical answers -- how
much lead time do you need to make such changes safely?


--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb