[wildcard-comments] Wildcard DNS not required to achieve Verisign goals

["Brian F. Angus" <brian.angus@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear ICANN,
 
This Verisign "Wildcard DNS" issue has me somewhat perplexed.  Verisign
makes the overly altruistic claim that they have implemented the Sitefinder
feature to improve the Internet's "User Experience".
 
They also claim the service is designed simply for the HTTP protocol and
that a number of "faked" protocol mechanisms are used to ensure non-
interference with the non-HTTP protocols.
 
If this is truly the case, then there is no reason why the Sitefinder service
cannot be implemented as a "typical" web based search engine.  All of the
required hooks to convert DNS NXDOMAIN error responses into
appropriate redirects for a variety of search engines exist today.  MSN,
Google, Altavista and selection of others search engines can all be set to
handle the typos to which Sitefinder previously laid claim.  The elegance of
this mechanism is that:

1.      no infrastructure changes are required
2.      the user can choose which service to use

All Verisign must do is register their "new" Sitefinder search engine with the
browser manufacturers (Microsoft, Mozilla, AOL, etc.).   Sitefinder could
then be chosen from the list of available search engines.  Internet Explorer
has a useful ability to select different search engines for different types of
searches.  Verisign's Sitefinder service should be placed on the list for
"Autosearch Settings".  This would give the exact same behaviour as Verisign
attempted with its wildcard effort; however, again:

1.      no infrastructure changes are required
2.      the user can choose which service to use

The only additional requirement is to provide a good service.  If the service
is good, people will use it.  If the service is not good, then there will be no-
one selecting the Sitefinder service from the list.
 
All of the other search engines manage to compete in this manner.  I'm not
sure why Verisign believed it was exempt from this fair competition.  Perhaps
they simply did not want to play on the same level playing field as MSN, AOL,
Google, Netscape, InfoSpace, LookSmart, Yahoo!, AltaVista, Ask Jeeves,
Overture and FindWhat (this list was taken from Internet Explorer's dropdown
search engine configuration listing).
 
Re-jigging the DNS underpinnings of the Internet is not required, sets bad
business precident and is technically disastrous due to the scope of the
actual change being so much greater that the "HTTP" stated goal.
 
The wildcard DNS has with the largest concensus I have ever witnessed been
proven harmful and disruptive to the Internet infrastructure.  Many other more
qualified and more eloquent people have described the technical and privacy
issues related to the Sitefinder service.  I defer completely to them.
 
My goal is to simply raise some additional perspectives and provide "hopefully"
some clarification that Verisign's wildcard DNS nonsense is truly nonsense.  The
fact that the wild card was not necessary to achieve Verisign's goal of a better
"user experience" further illustrates the depth of that organization's ignorance
regarding current Internet technology.  The fact that they tried to "cheat" 
their
way into the main stream search engine market by eliminating user choice
illustrates the depth of that organization's ignorance regarding Internet 
business
practices and ethics.
 

Thankyou,
 
Brian Angus
Netrus Inc.