Comments re. VeriSign?s .net bid
Evaluators of the VeriSign .net bid must consider a number of factors that have been overlooked in other comments. 1. SRS Service Unavailability: In its bid, VeriSign claims that it has unparalleled service availability for the registry as compared to competitors. An actual analysis of its reports submitted to ICANN shows several areas where their record is lackluster. For example: a. In just 2001, when VeriSign was the monopoly registry, it took .net down for over 36 hours. b. In 2001 and 2002, .net suffered over 250 minutes of outages (unplanned downtime). In 2004, .net suffered an outage of 1 hour and 23 minutes in April, and exceeded its SLA in May. c. VeriSign can take as much as 5 seconds to respond to a request before it considers itself in violation of an SLA. In comparison, other registries have limits ranging from 400 ms to 1.5 seconds, and consistently meet it. 2. IDN: Many seem to have forgotten that VeriSign launched IDNs in 2001, using a non-standard system (RACE) for encoding these names. VeriSign sold almost 2 million of these ?IDN? names -- that never worked. It is ironic to see this company complain in its bid that these non-working names were not translated properly by another bidder. 3. SiteFinder: VeriSign?s service that broke the Internet and compromised its stability has not been permanently withdrawn by VeriSign. Its CEO continues to lobby against ?technical zealots?, even though the company?s own technologists acknowledged publicly that many services broke when they introduced SiteFinder. VeriSign appears willing to take risks with core internet infrastructure. 4. Apparently Spurious Claims: VeriSign has taken upon itself to attack many of its competitors in its bid, using a combination of seemingly spurious claims and unsubstantiated remarks. For example: a. VeriSign claims that DENIC?s systems ?frequently go offline? and offers as evidence a snapshot from RIPE. Reading the chart, it is clear that it is a snapshot of a point in time, and does not provide evidence of a long-term problem. b. VeriSign claims that Afilias had an ?outage? in September, and refers to a posting by a blog site. Careful analysis of the postings and RIPE monitor logs for that time period, plus the number of domains registered during the time period indicates there was no outage. In an effort to win .NET, VeriSign appears to be willing to resort to FUD and make outright mis-statements. Evaluators should carefully review VeriSign?s claims against its competitors, and look beyond pretty graphics.