nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
From: bmanning () vacation karoshi com
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:46:49 +0000
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:17:48PM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Aug 16, 2004, at 3:08 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote:PS: I will patent it myself to prevent Versign from doing this.And if they do, what's to stop the root operators from doing this. Remember, there are 13 IPs no one can get around - no other "TLD" to register your domain name. Flipped on its head, what's to stop the root operators from circumventing anything Verisign or any other TLD operator does?
we'd have to agree on what to do... and thats been problematic for years. or one could view it as the core strength of the root server system (theres a misnomer:) of course, if a majority of the root server instances decided to make the change, then we have inconsistancy in the authoritatve data - which is -REALLY- bad.
-- TTFN, patrick
Current thread:
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Vixie (Aug 09)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Wouters (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Michael Loftis (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Vixie (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Vixie (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Andre Oppermann (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Patrick W Gilmore (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Vixie (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Patrick W Gilmore (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Vixie (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Michael Loftis (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN bmanning (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Wouters (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Dan Hollis (Aug 16)