Re: [sitefinder-tech-discuss] More problem than they're worth.

[Donovan Hill <alt@lazyeyez.net>]

On Tuesday 07 October 2003 10:48 am, Owen DeLong wrote:
> --On Tuesday, October 7, 2003 9:20 AM -0700 Donovan Hill <alt@lazyeyez.net>
>
> wrote:
> > Sitefinder Timeline:
> >
> > 1. The unilateral implementation of the wildcards in the .com and .net
> > TLDs.  2. 6 hours later the change is announced on NANOG.
> > 3. ICANN requests that Verisign remove the wildcards.
> > 4. Verisign refuses
> > 5. ICANN resorts to threatining Verisign with a breach of contract and
> > cancellation of contract
> > 6. Verisign capitulates -
> > http://www.verisign.com/corporate/news/2003/pr_20031003.html
> > 7. CNet posts a piece written by Mark McLaughlin (VP of Verisign)
> > http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5086769.html?tag=nefd_acpro
> >
> > I think it's time that ICANN declared that Verisign's contract is more
> > trouble  than its worth and just not renew it.
>
> Not renewing it is not sufficient.  It doesn't expire for a _LONG_ time
> (2006 if I recall correctly).  At this point, it is important for ICANN
> to begin actively seeking a replacement contractor for the REGISTRY.
> It is important that we work to change ICANN policy to require that
> the REGISTRY not be allowed to operate as a REGISTRAR, and, must be
> a not-for-profit entity.  Further, any entity with strong ties to a
> REGISTRAR should be strongly discouraged.
>
> As to the rest of your message, while I largely agree with it, vitriol
> will not help us counter the perception that Verisign is trying to create.
> Please consider the public image aspects of how you say things and try
> to put forth a professional criticism based on the facts.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Owen

I didn't know about the 3 year extension. Given that fact, I concur.