I support what ever can be done to bring Verisign into line...
I have reviewed the link (above) showing the dramatic effect of Verisigns
"e-jack" and wonder whether there may be a parallel to the similar situation
were Worldcom highjacked telephone traffic in the US to route it via Canada
in order to "deceive and defraud AT&T into paying termination fees."
Doesn't this action unnecessarily generate revenue and costs for networks
which send and receive traffic to/from verisign.com
site... Who is winning
here anyone besides Verisign...
From: Keith Davidson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 08:30
Subject: Re: [nznog] Email for domains hosted by 2day.com
Was thinking more about ICANN, actually. There
doesn't appear to be any
mechanism to guard against the mistake that affected 2day.com
. I realise
it's .com we're talking about, but it did affect .nz users as well.
What Veri$ign wants, ICANN provides - and I've never seen the reverse occur.
Is it really a good idea to have a single point of
failure like this?
NZNOG mailing list