RE: [ga] ALAC statement on resolution of non-existing domain name s
Jeff,
--- "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I would advise a more objective issues statement, that starts with
> the
> issues rather than starting with the conclusion that you are seeking
> evidence to prove.
When Neustar comes out with paid jingles for misdialled phone numbers,
and a WLS so we can speculate on toll-free numbers, then perhaps we can
take you seriously. Otherwise, you're just trolling, on behalf of the
gTLD registries. It doesn't surprise me that Verisign has someone else
doing their dirty work....cowards. I know they read this list, too, as
I get lots of hits from Verisign IPs in my personal website logs (hint:
use a proxy). Or, perhaps it's their beautiful secretaries, seeking out
a real man, instead of the cowards that roam the Verisign halls....
If this wasn't a big issue, explain this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19860-2003Sep16.html
"The Internet Software Consortium, the nonprofit organization that
develops BIND software for Internet domain name directories, is writing
an "urgent patch" for Internet service providers and others who want to
block customers from a new Site Finder service from VeriSign Inc."
Also, explain why Verisign hasn't responded to the issue on the NANOG
list at:
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/
"Verisign brain damage", "What are they smoking", and "Verisign
Insanity" are just a sample of the threads...
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/