[Collisions] "controlled interruption" - 127/8 versus RFC1918 space

Paul Stahura paul at donuts.co
Mon Jan 13 15:46:10 UTC 2014

On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:09 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:

>>> Or their helpdesk went into meltdown as zillions of customers complain about getting some weird message about name collisions instead of their usual kitten pictures. From their perspective, somebody else changed something that caused them breakage. I understand that in the US this tends to result in lawsuits. YMMV.
>> Yup, exactly -- *someone changed something*. I believe that it is the
>> responsibility of the organization who made the change (ICANN) to foot
>> the bill. They can recover this from the folk they are making the
>> changes for if they like…

You say if you write code that has a bug, and it works for years, then some other guy comes along, say the OS manufacturer, or a user, or anyone, and makes a change "out there" that activates the bug, *that other person* is liable and you will be able to somehow force them to foot the bill for your bug?  lol!

> Considering who made the change is a tripartite division between ICANN, US Government and root zone operator, there are 3 organizations one can sue. 

IANAL, but wouldn't that be like suing the government when, after new local building codes come out, your house has damage after an earthquake because you built it using the old building code?
You know earthquakes can happen at any time - before or after building code changes.
Name collisions happen every day - for example when .com names expire.  They can, and do, happen even in undelegated TLDs.  Verizon, for example, returns non-NxD answers for *all* names - .com or .xyzzy - *today*.
Good luck with that suit.

> Rubens
> _______________________________________________
> Collisions mailing list
> Collisions at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/collisions

More information about the Collisions mailing list