Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(March 1999)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: InterNIC is History
From: Vince Sabio <vince @ humournet . com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:51:21 -0500
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg @ monkeys . com>
Cc: List-Managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <510.922263429@monkeys.com>
References: Your message of Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:47:07 -0500. <v0311070eb31e0c1fa3c3@[207.252.88.49]>

** Sometime around 03:17 -0500 03/24/99, Ronald F. Guilmette said:

>In message <v0311070eb31e0c1fa3c3@[207.252.88.49]>, 
>Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com> wrote:
>
>>In case you haven't realized it yet, the InterNIC is now history;
>>Network Solutions, in an attempt to build brand identity, has moved
>>all of the InterNIC functions to www.networksolutions.com ("The Dot
>>Com People" -- ugh). The whois telnet server at rs.internic.net is
>>history, though distributed whois is still available.
>
>I'm not sure which WHOIS server _you_ are talking about,

Port 23 -- the CLI server that has for years been available at the
standard telnet port.

>but the normal
>WHOIS server (port 43) run by Internic still seems to be alive and well
>and answering queries as of five seconds ago.

That's what I referred to as the distributed whois server -- which, yes,
is still running (thank glub).

>I will be PLENTY pissed too, when and if they actually _do_ stop servicing
>whois queries.  I wrote a fairly extensive world-wide domain name lookup
>program (see http://www.imrss.org/cgi-bin/dnw.cgi) that relies on that
>being there, and working.  If they take it away [*] ...  which they pro-
>bably _will_ be stupid enough to try to do at some point... then I have
>a feeling that I won't be the only one who will get mighty pissed about
>that.

Oh, people are mighty pissed _already_. I'm on a mailing list at ISOC,
and I can assure that the current changes were not well received. But
yes, if they kill distributed whois, the backlash will be incredible.

I used to like NSI (I don't personally have a problem with someone
having a contract-mandated monopoly), but their recent actions are
souring that. It is clear that they are repositioning themselves in the
market, but seem to be leaving the net.veterans behind in the process.
I'd think that they could have it both ways.

>[*] NSI _is_ obviously now trying to remake itself into a more competitive
>more commercial animal.  As part of this makeover, I _do_ expect that at
>some point they will say again... as they have tried to say in the past...
>that their data base of data on all .COM domains is in fact a juicy
>``intellecutal property asset'' that they will not share, in any way shape
>or form, with anybody.  The absurdity of this position with regards to the
>ongoing smooth functioning of the net should be obvious... to anyone outside
>of NSI at least.

Agreed.

__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio            Boy & His Sabre: <http://www.insane.net/tsc/Vince/>
vince@humournet.com            Stop Internet Spam! <http://www.cauce.org/>




Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: InterNIC is History
From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
Next: Re: InterNIC is History
From: Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: InterNIC is History
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
Next: Re: InterNIC is History
From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com