Verisign Sues ICANN Over SiteFinder 395
camusflage writes "Yahoo's running a story about VeriSign suing ICANN for holding up Sitefinder. Choice quote from VeriSign: 'This brazen attempt by ICANN to assume 'regulatory power' over VeriSign's business is a serious abuse of ICANN's technical coordination function.'"
Sorry, but I have no choice (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sorry, but I have no choice (Score:5, Funny)
"This brazen attempt by the SEC to assume 'regulatory power' over Enron's business is a serious abuse of the SEC's oversight function.'", said one insider.
Re:Sorry, but I have no choice (Score:5, Funny)
Ahhh, the old slashdot tradition of whacky, unbelievable, totally impossible April Fools' Day stories. I never get tired of them! Every year, Slashdot produce stories so totally ridiculous that...
What? What? What's today's date!?!? Oh dear god no...
Re:Time to cast your votes for the Verisign CEO. (Score:5, Informative)
Forbes CEO Approval Ratings [forbes.com]
:rolleyes: (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice and misleading explanation right there. We're talking about a 'search engine' that impacts any internet application querying a non-existent domain. Once again, the "THE INTERNET IS ONLY THE WEB" mindset that low-grade tech journalism seems to be stuck in is preventing people from realizing the destructive nature of something as profound as adding a wildcard to major TLDs.
Errmm... Last I checked, regulating internet infrastructure with regards to assigned names and numbers is ICANN's job. Anything less than a "brazen attempt" and they would be failing at enforcing the RFCs and other regulations they've been entrusted to enforce. Since when do Verisign's business interests trump this?
At least they respond to complains with action, instead of stonewalling anyone who disagrees with them, as Verisign so eagerly did when the SiteFinder controversy first broke.
Screw Verisign. I've seen plenty of companies with brazen, my-way-or-the-highway attitudes, but this one is entrusted with managing a major international public resource, and have been caught with their pants down abusing that trust. To whine like this is a sign of just how out of step Verisign really is. Frankly, they deserve to have all authority over the root servers taken away from them before they do more harm in their quest for profits.
Re::rolleyes: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re::rolleyes: (Score:5, Informative)
2) Public DNS names must be globally unique. This one isn't nearly as obvious as addressing, but it's still clear once you think about it, and is even enshrined into one of the RFC's on the subject.
Given that we require uniqueness, someone has to manage the systems to check that uniqueness and dole out addresses (both IP and names). That task fell to ICANN, who have since sub-contracted that work out to other entities. But still, someone has to run the central database, or there'd be chaos.
Re::rolleyes: (Score:5, Informative)
Incorrect. Addresses need not be unique at all,
Indeed one can make very good use of non-unique addresses. Quite a few of the IP addresses for the root DNS servers (eg those operated by ISC) are assigned to multiple different computers, diversely located geographically. Go google for "anycast". The 6to4 relay service also uses a public, non-unique address (ie anycast) for the 6to4 gateway.
Any stateless network service can be deployed using anycast addresses.
Re::rolleyes: (Score:4, Informative)
Tim
Re::rolleyes: (Score:4, Informative)
Define a logical server? Providing a unique and coherent service? No, that isnt needed. You could use anycast for anything such that you are directed to the topologically closest host. (where "topologically closest" is defined by routing). Eg, you could setup an anycast address for "PGP public key server", or "web proxy" or "SMTP server", etc. Indeed, let me clarify my remark on statelessness - it is easiest to use anycast for stateless services, however one could use them for stateful services too, provided one had control over the stability of the topology. (eg a corporate, geographically diverse network, where topology changes were infrequent, could use anycast addresses to direct mobile users to the closest host providing a service).
Two different servers (probably owned by different people) having the same address wouldn't work too well, how would you say which one you wanted to talk to?
You dont, that's the entire point of anycast. Instead the routing domain picks the best host for you.
Re::rolleyes: (Score:5, Informative)
Re::rolleyes: (Score:4, Funny)
So that's where all these IANALs [astrian.net] come from! I was wondering that.
Re:Dynamic configuration (Score:5, Informative)
Re::rolleyes: (Score:4, Informative)
Every domain name server has a list of root IP addresses, this is where he can find the ip address of the server that knows about 'org' and other domains.
The servers in that small list get a lot of traffic. Some are owned by the US military, other are owned by universities, etc. It's undoable for most for-profit organisations to fund such a machine (typically mainframes are used) or even its internet connection.
We do need a central authority to regulate the IP address ranges and adherence to RFCs such as the one in question here (DNS) that form the back bone of the internet, at least until we have something better.
In this case the ICANN has done its job, thankfully. Perhaps it's not a completely lost cause after all.
Working with... (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if Tom Galvin and Darl spend late nights together working on clever metaphors to use in press releases related to their lawsuits...
Re:Working with... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, considering that the expression "nibbled to death by ducks" isn't anything new, I'd say not.
No, wait. If he's learning from Darl, then next thing we're going to see from Verisign is a lawsuit against Robert Campbell, J. Michael Straczynksi, and anyone else who hasn't paid $699 to use the expression...
Re:Working with... (Score:4, Funny)
No, I'm sure they hire people to be clever for them.
Re::rolleyes: (Score:5, Informative)
Your comment is otherwise excellent, but this line deserves correction. Verisign does *not* have control over the root servers*. ICANN does. This is an important distinction because control over the root servers is what gives ICANN it's authority. What Versign DOES control are the so-called 'GTLD' servers, which serve the
*footnote: Verisign does, however, operate 2 of the root servers, A and J. In fact, Verisign operates them quite well, and in co-operation with the other root-server operators. But all root servers have the same data, provided by ICANN. The list of root servers (and who operates them) can be found here [root-servers.org].
Non-Existant .com & .net names (Score:5, Insightful)
Since we have just bankrupted Verisign, then a legitamate company can take over their job of controlling the GTLD servers for
Re::rolleyes: (Score:4, Informative)
a lot of people don't know this but verisign's root server isn't the only game in town, these root servers [wikipedia.org] offer many alternatives. If enough people make an end run arround their monoply, their authority will diminish as well as any brazen behavior. If you need instructions on how to do this OpenNIC [unrated.net] has detailed instructions.
Re::rolleyes: (Score:5, Interesting)
Last I checked, regulating internet infrastructure with regards to assigned names and numbers is ICANN's job.
Yeah. I don't know what's going on in these verisign people's minds.
I remembered them stopping the service because of ICANN issuing warnings and threatening to sue. It's not like ICANN literally forced them to shut that nasty service down (they should have that power, by the way).
Incorrect DNS responses for non-port-80: Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
- If a customer's Port 80 web application sends Verisign a DNS request for a missing site, and Verisign responds with a pointer to Sitefinder, and the customer's application sends an HTTP:80 request to Sitefinder, and Sitefinder responds with a web search page, it's greedy and not correct, but mostly harmless and sometimes helpful.
- If a customer's Port 443 Secure Web application sends Verisign a DNS request for a missing site, and Verisign responds with a pointer to Sitefinder, and the customer's application sends Sitefinder a request, it's potentially a serious security breach (though not usually, because usually the connection fails before anything important gets sent.)
- If a customer's email application sends Verisign a DNS request for a missing site, and Verisign responds with a pointer to Sitefinder, and Sitefinder's email application rejects the connection, it's broken in ways that are mildly to seriously annoying.
- And if some other application (even HTTP on port!=80) that Sitefinder doesn't support sends Verisign a DNS request, and Verisign responds with a pointer to Sitefinder, that's badly broken.
If Verisign can't tell the difference between the applications which it helps and the applications it breaks, which they can't, they'd better not go breaking things, and if they break them they should be fired.Re:Incorrect DNS responses for non-port-80: Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Also they really needed to fix their site for other port 80 stuff. Simply returning large html pages is broken if the client only does wap for example
Wow. (Score:3, Funny)
I'd would say... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a cheap ploy to get billions of hits to a VeriSign controlled page.
I have 0 respect for Verisign...they have long established they will discard customer concern for any perceived increase in money.
Re:I'd would say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd would say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'd would say... (Score:5, Insightful)
A True Battle of Evils (Score:5, Interesting)
In my own personal view, I do hope ICANN emerges from this lawsuit as the "victor". If VeriSign were to win its request for an injunction against ICANN, and on the broader claim that ICANN "unlawfully transformed itself from a technical coordination body to the de-facto Internet regulator," I feel it would have far-reaching implications for all of us. It would effectively muzzle ICANN and give VeriSign free reign to do as it pleases with the Internet -- at least until a legislative change was made, such as making ICANN into a government regulatory agency similar to the FCC. Mind you, that might be a good thing. It might force the Bush administration's conservative laissez-faire approach to Internet governance to get a dramatic overhaul and become more regulatory. Another plus to ICANN becoming a taxpayer-funded government regulatory body, it could keep its acronym and be enshrined into law as the Internet Commission for Assigned Names and Numbers. Or, it could become the Internet Naming and Numbering Agency -- or INNA.
Nonetheless, this will be a bitter battle.
It also has high stakes for VeriSign. If VeriSign is unsuccessful, it will almost certainly ensure that the dot-net gTLD is redelegated to a new operator later this year.
My take,
Doug
P.S. Copies of the complaint:
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/veris
and
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/verisign.compla
Re:A True Battle of Evils (Score:4, Insightful)
a US-gov-controlled internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having said that, I don't think making it a gov't institution would solve anything. There have been many situations where gov't regulation has helped us, but when has the gov't taken over a previously private role and done a better job?
Although the free market can't solve every problem, this seems like a case where elegant legislation might make the difference. Now, Verisign has a monopoly on .com domain registration. But why should they? Shouldn't that position be open for bidding? Or have term limits? If a company only has a short window of time in which it controls domain registration, or if there are repercussions for abusing its power, that company will likely be cautious about enacting drastic infrastructure changes of the type Verisign is implementing.
(By the way, people often use the $ as a derogatory marker for an entity they don't like, such as Micro$oft or the Church of $cientology, so why not Veri$ign as well?)
Re:a US-gov-controlled internet? (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't that an oxymoron these days, you know, like military intelligence or jumbo shrimp?
Re:a US-gov-controlled internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to private transport, where none of the costs are hidden? Pretty much every form of transit, public, private, mass, or individual, suffers from the same problem. You think the cost of mass transit is hidden in the taxes we pay? Have you any idea how incredibly hugely more everybody pays to support the highway system? Cars are the most highly subsidized form of transit in existence outside of space travel. Similarly, all those airports we build cost a hell of a lot of money - most of which usually comes from public bonds. There are very few transport systems that are actually privately funded - practically all are publicly funded in one way or another (I would say oceangoing transit has been kept mostly private, but historically many ships have been partially funded by governments, especially lately, and modern seaport facilities cost huge amounts of money, meaning most of those are largely or partially publicly funded).
So yes, public transit does hide its true cost behind a tax structure to some extent, but so does pretty much every form of private transit (how many sidewalks and bikepaths do you know of that were paid for by private companies?).
Re:A True Battle of Evils (Score:4, Insightful)
> such as making ICANN into a government regulatory
> agency similar to the FCC. Mind you, that might be
> a good thing.
So you are looking forward to being required to get a license for your Web site and a permit for your mail server? I'm sure Verisign will be ready to expedite the application process for their customers.
Re:A True Battle of Evils (Score:5, Interesting)
I know it's bad to restrict people like that, but DAMN that would make the internet a paradise (if regulated properly) especially the 'permit for your mail server'. In fact, tell me again why this is bad? We've proven ourselves to be incapable of managing our servers responsibly so far...
-matt
Re:A True Battle of Evils (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, how would you determine who gets a permit? Doesn't pass spam? Ok, how about sending unpopular political views or "dangerous" information.
It might seem nice but I think the best bet is to work on the technical aspects of the problem rather than legislating ourselves into smaller cages. Just a thought . . .
Re:A True Battle of Evils (Score:4, Insightful)
<sarcasm>Why would you want the French government to control the Internet?</sarcasm>
Seriously, the Internet needs to be controlled by the UN or something like that.
Re:A True Battle of Evils (Score:5, Funny)
Or, it could be the Internet Naming and Numbering Agency for Good Addresses, Delegated Domains, Aliases and Displayed Archives to Vehemently Investigate Dispute Allegations.
There. INNAGADDADAVIDA. Has a catchy ring to it, hmm?
Why isn't Verisign getting fired? (Score:4, Interesting)
If they are being paid to do a job, they have to do the job they way they are told to do it, or quit/get fired. Right? Why is this any different just because the employee is really a multi-billion dollar corporation?
Since when does "the right to innovate" equate to the right to rewrite job requirements?
Verisign? ICANN? Abuse? (Score:5, Funny)
Thats funny.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thats funny.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Verisign is a dinosaur. Time to take them down. They're both incompetent and dishonest.
We're suing you (Score:5, Funny)
My prediction... (Score:5, Insightful)
My bets are on the lawyers...with 100 to 1 against the people...
Re:My prediction... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My prediction... (Score:5, Funny)
{
this.parent.
}
Same song, different bird (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait. I get spam from Verisign (and their subsidiaries) all the time.
Re:Same song, different bird (Score:5, Funny)
They were on the list of evil companies before now.
Ducks. Yeah. (Score:5, Funny)
"Working the ICANN process is like being nibbled to death by ducks," said Tom Galvin, VeriSign's vice president for government relations. "It takes forever, it doesn't make sense, and in the end we're still dead in the water."
Yeah. Nibbled to death by ducks. That sounds good.
Mallard Ducks [www.nmr.nl].
Well, we can dream, at least...
Re:Ducks. Yeah. (Score:4, Funny)
"Working the ICANN process is like being in deep space with a broken hyperdrive and a pair of arguing Wookies" said Tom Galvin, VeriSign's vice president for government relations. "It takes forever, it doesn't make sense, and in the end we're still dead in the water."
Re:Ducks. Yeah. (Score:5, Funny)
Making a typo in the Verisign process is like being beaten to death by spam.
Do they really not get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lose Verisign (Score:4, Insightful)
What most see (Score:5, Informative)
SiteFinder and non-geek disconnect (Score:5, Insightful)
Even in this article, which is reasonably technically sophisticated, Verisign's SiteFinder is almost invariably described in terms which suggest it was just a helpful service for lost souls (people who'd typed a wrong URL) instead of being recognized for what it is, an aggressive land grab and a ridiculous abuse of monopoly power.
It's not like newspapers are in VeriSign's pockets or anything. Why is that so few of them seem to understand how bad what VeriSign did is?
Re:SiteFinder and non-geek disconnect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SiteFinder and non-geek disconnect (Score:5, Interesting)
There was an article in the Dutch newspaper Metro a while ago, reporting on research findings that claimed 85% of Dutch individuals and corporations saw virus protection as the responsibility of ISPs. This is a ridiculous preposition, considering that virii spread just fine without ISPs, and ISP don't and shouldn't have any business restricting what traffic goes to my network.
I wrote a letter to the paper explaining this, blaming the spread of virii on people using faulty software, from suppliers negligent to release patches, and users not applying them. I also mentioned alternatives. The posted the letter (omitting the alternatives; sadly, as I don't like pointing out problems without proposing solutions), and I hope it has helped people gain some more insight. I intend to post the letter (and a translation) on my website.
The papers just reflect general society (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, there's a significant number of people who hold the notion that knowing "how things work" somehow makes you some kind of commoner or blue collar schmuck, and unfortunately many of these people are in high-visibility leadership positions and they pass these attitudes down to their followers, spreading the misguided notion that ignorance of technology -- ANY technology -- somehow is evidence of your superior social or economic standing.
So I actually can't blame newspapers, other than that they're just reflecting the general ignorance of the general population (plus all the usual problems with in-depth facts and information gathering daily news media have).
I think it's up to us or some geek advocacy group to work the PR hard on this so that the news media gets a better idea of what's actually happening and how it hurts the internet. We know that Verisign will be more than willing to work THEIR PR resources to get their side of the story out.
Reform ICANN! (Score:3, Interesting)
Problems like this are forseeable (Score:3, Insightful)
This is where the problem is. Why is a business running these domain names? That seems like a conflict of interest to me. There needs to be non business regulatory commitees that run it. The issue certainly can't be finding money to do it.
Even though its a little annoying that Verisign wants to show their sitefinder, as a business, they have every right to do it.
This discussion reminds me of something on slashdot a while ago that I can't find that was something like "10 common misconceptions about the internet". The whole point was that the internet is just a network of computers, its that simple. This simplicity will vanish before our eyes if we have businesses running it.
Re:Problems like this are forseeable (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Problems like this are forseeable (Score:5, Informative)
Since it's NOT their page. foobar4575368389.com is NO more verisign's page that it is anyone else's since the domain is not registered.
sitefinder is not the problem. The problem is the default DNS entries which redirect connections to sitefinder.
VeriSign used their access to the DNS they host *on behalf of ICANN*, to gain visibility for their sitefinder crap.
Appart from being highly unfair to search engine competition, and ethically wrong, it also brings lot of technical issues for any protocol (which HTTP is only one of them) used on the Internet.
Page? What page? (Score:5, Insightful)
ICANN isn't claiming any such thing; all they're saying is you must administer DNS to the RFC specifications.
In fact, my guess is that ICANN doesn't care at all about siteminder.
Is it really that hard to understand?
Why do we need Verisign? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, I realize that doing that would not be so straightforward, but such an effort would send a message...to Verisign and to anybody else that would try this kind of crap. Self-healing network, heal thyself!
Re:Why do we need Verisign? (Score:3, Informative)
What is relevant is that they also control the gTLD root servers for
They've even got a contract for it...
The solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Be sure to make the change modular so we can remove it when Verisign pulls their head out.
Duel (Score:5, Funny)
Fighting back? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that the thousands of sysadmins, ISP admins and so forth who read this site and feel the pain of Verisign's greed have an option here - alter our local DNS registries to point www.verisign.com etc to 127.0.0.1. Given enough people doing this and their business will start to feel the pain.
It would be a fine twist to this whole mess, and perhaps drive home to the PHB's at Verisign exactly how annoyed this makes those of us who understand the ramifications of their actions.
Re:Fighting back? (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember folks, we use DNS because it's useful. If it stops being useful, we can stop using it just as quickly.
Re:Fighting back? (Score:4, Insightful)
One argument they could use... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:One argument they could use... (Score:5, Insightful)
They still return a 404 error, or at least, they're supposed to. Get Mozilla Firefox, download the Live HTTP headers extension, and you can verify this for yourself. Also, this is typically within a domain that does exist - it's just the page doesn't.
Or maybe a web domain speculator will buy up a domain name, and use that to forward you to their search engine. Verisign could argue they're doing something similar.
Ahh, but SiteFinder works even for domains that have NEVER existed. This means that Verisign is squatting on an almost-infinite number of domain combinations, which they haven't paid a cent for. As scummy and dispicable as webspammers are, this is scum and villany on a grand scale. Worse, it's scum and villany at a very low level - it doesn't just break HTTP, it breaks FTP, SMTP, and a host of other DNS-dependent protocols, AND it affects everyone running a DNS server by loading their cache tables with garbage.
ICANN (Score:5, Funny)
Verisign: ICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANN!
Wait a sec (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't ICANN hold SOME authority over VeriSign about DNS? Can't ICANN just "pull the plug" and tell VeriSign to go take a hike while they find someone more competent to take care of the root DNS servers? I mean, this is getting more or less ridiculous and as far as I understand it, would severely hamper several spam-fighting techniques used, possibly other things as well.
Besides, isn't it possible to get rid of the whole root DNS server idea in the first place? The attack on the root servers a few months ago didn't do much damage but it made clear that IF the root server went down ( granted, for extended periods... ) that the internet would be flat on it's arse unless we started using IP adresses. ( Which doesn't solve the problem because of absolute linking used on some websites... Though it would allow other uses again like FTP, SSH, etcetera. ) So why not a root DNS p2p network then? Still the root idea as used for DNS now, but instead of querying a set of dedicated root servers, DNS servers lower in the hierachy would query a root p2p network instead. Give ISPs a server with access to the network, same thing for registrars & co and someone decides to be a prick with DNS records, have ICANN throw them off be severing all communications with the other party's DNS servers.
Re:Wait a sec (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wait a sec (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, they can. And that's why when ICANN threatened them--back when Sitefinder was first turned on--that Verisign listened. Because, yeah, ICANN controls the root, and all authority flows from the root. (the root servers, that is)
As for your p2p root idea, well... To be blunt, it's a bit naive. First off, where does this p2p network get it's data? Remember, one of the critical ideas behind DNS is that the view is always consistent, there are no conflicting records. As in, www.exmple.com ALWAYS points to the same place, no matter who you ask. There is only one correct answer. (misconfigurations can prevent this, obviously, but that's the design of DNS). So you have to be worried about poisoning, authenticity, you have to trust this network. No current p2p network has my trust.
I give more reasons, but basically, the DNS system is set up right now with 46 root servers [roots-servers.net] (count 'em). These are generally a cluster of professionally managed servers, dedicated to a single, pretty simple task: Serving the 2000-odd records in the root zone, or returning a failure. That's it. Any suggestion of a p2p network, for it to be accepted, would have to show that this proposed ad-hoc network could provide the same performance and reliability that the current system does. Not to mention re-writing all this software that assumes DNS functions in it's current state.
To summarize, sure it SOUNDS like a good plan, but for it to actually be considered, it probably has to have actual technical details. And it wouldn't hurt if it came from someone more qualified than Armchair Internet Architect, such as you or I.
Missing the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello, rest of the world here (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess not.
fuck em, use the newest bind (Score:5, Funny)
Why is this still an issue!? I don't understand! (Score:5, Insightful)
They have abused their position, they are completely untrustworthy, and they are now suing the very body that (I would assume) allowed them to have this power in the first place.
I want Verisign's power of DNS revoked: Now. What is the inherent barrier? Why are they still allowed to intentionally fuck over the globe?
Does no one have the revoking power? Is inertia on their side? What is going on that gives them this power?
Re:Why is this still an issue!? I don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
to put it bluntly
a perpetual contract
Verisign doesn't have a perpetual contract on the com/net gTLDs. Their contract on .net expires in 2005 and .com expires in 2007. The already lost .org to PIR [pir.org] last year, so it is plausible that they may lose .com and/or .net as well.
However, be careful what you ask for. PIR has proven themselves to be even more incompetant than Verisign. It was nice to see them move to EPP [coverpages.org], but if they had messed up a .com transition as much as they messed up the .org transition you'd have been crying on your knees to bring Verisign back.
Regardless, SiteFinder still stinks.
CNET is also covering the story (Score:4, Informative)
Damn ICANN! (Score:5, Insightful)
Methinks this would be somewhat similar to the US Government making all roads not privately owned lead to a government business.
I know, that sounds REALLY stupid - the government would NEVER do that. It's moronic to even think of something like that - but, essentially, is that not exactly what Verisign tried to do?
This also stinks of anti-competative monopolistic activity - as there are other 'site-finding' services out there. Such as Google, AltaVista, etc al... Yet Verisign would be the _only_ company able to perform a service utilizing this method - as they would be illegally tapping into property they do not own - unregistered domain names.
Stupid ICANN, what were they thinking! They act like they have "responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions."
audacious ta-tas (Score:5, Insightful)
"They say ev'rything can be replaced,
Yet ev'ry distance is not near.
So I remember ev'ry face
Of ev'ry man who put me here.
I see my light come shining
From the west unto the east.
Any day now, any day now,
I shall be released."
- Bob Dylan, "I Shall Be Released" [bobdylan.com]
Our response to verisign (Score:5, Funny)
"*ahem* Fuck you."
"You may direct your questions towards the wall behind me."
Copy of letter just e-mailed to Verisign CEO (Score:5, Insightful)
I was dismayed to hear that Verisign has launched a lawsuit against ICANN over the termination of the Sitefinder service.
I realise that I am only one person, but hopefully you will receive sufficient numbers of messages in similar vein that you will reconsider this action. It can have only one outcome, and this will not be good for Verisign or its shareholders.
ICANN is a regulatory body specifically tasked with ensuring that the cooperative standards which embody the Internet are administered for the common good.
Verisign, being in a unique position of trust, introduced a service that rendered the entire domain name mechanism broken.
Although the service provided may possibly have been useful for web users, the Internet is most emphatically not just the web. By ensuring that nonexistent domain name lookups succeeded, Verisign circumvented the error handling provisions of a large number of IP-based software products.
You will have noticed at the time that the immediate response from many ISPs was to immediately place local detection and blocking of Sitefinder, in order to restore correct functionality to these applications in accordance with accepted practice. This caused a considerable amount of effort and cost to the businesses concerned, and is therefore a legitimate target for regulation, and the regulatory body in question was the ICANN.
To attempt to sue a regulatory body for doing its job correctly and effectively is, I am afraid, unlikely to show Verisign in a good light.
Again, I urge you to reconsider this action.
Yours,
Sean Ellis
Software Developer
--------
Pots and Kettles (Score:4, Funny)
"Working the ICANN process is like being nibbled to death by ducks," said Tom Galvin, VeriSign's vice president for government relations. "It takes forever, it doesn't make sense, and in the end we're still dead in the water."
Sounds like the last domain transfer I did away from Versign.
STUNNING! (Score:5, Insightful)
Verisign should lose all control & responsibility of any TLDs for this, it's just amazing that they could attempt to undermine internet infrastructure like this and then brazenly turn around and sue the regulators.
They have no shame, it's time to farm TLD administration out to people who are at least slightly rational.
Time to think about DDoS (Score:4, Interesting)
"Which invalid random URL do you want to visit the next millisecond?"
It seems ICANN have contempt for their duty (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't seem to understand that they're only supposed to sell and administed a bunch of
I still can't figure out why they're so spectacularly misguided as to think that this service responsibility gives them the unilateral right to screw with the World's internet infrastructure, and sue the only regulatory body in place to stop their shenanigans.
How does Verisign get its role providing DNS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Its clear that Verisign is irresponsible and can be expected to keep trying to abuse its position running the GTLD servers for .com and .net.
As I understand it, ICANN delegated this role to Verisign, so ICANN ought to be able to take it away.
Can anyone explain the terms of the current delegation? Is there are contract that will expire in a few years? Did Verisign somehow acquire permanant rights?
Charter (Score:5, Insightful)
The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN:
1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are
a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS");
b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and
c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.
2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.
3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions.
From the Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Govt. establishing ICANN, Section II (Purpose), Part B (Purpose):
a. Establishment of policy for and direction of the allocation of IP number blocks;
b. Oversight of the operation of the authoritative root server system;
'nuff said.
So let's sue Verisign (Score:5, Insightful)
Since most non-tech people seem to think that the Internet is the web, let's take the web angle in a very simple way.
I have a web site. A potential customer mistypes my domain name in his browser.
1. Without site finder he gets an error and realizes he has mistyped the address, so he corrects the error and comes to my site.
2. With site finder, he comes to a confusing Verisign page. From there on, who knows where he will get. Probably not to my site. Versisgn is unfairly taking business from me.
And what about email? Badly addressed email is replied to with a bounce message. What happens when it goes to Verisign?
Refining on these ideas, I'm sure domain owners with good lawyers could start a class action suit against Verisign.
(I'm glad that in my country, domain names are managed by a monopolistic body [switch.ch] controlled by the state and some universities. It is cheap, fast, simple and efficient, and there is not a single advertisement when registering or managing domain names)
Verisign is wrong - and here's why (Score:5, Informative)
They are in violation of the part of the
Sitefinder breaks otehr search engines (Score:5, Insightful)
Verisign should have their contract yanked, as soon as possible. No ifs and or buts.
Let Verisign win and reactivate sitefinder... (Score:5, Insightful)
technical coordination function (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing in the DNS RFCs suggests that a compliant DNS server can return arbitrarily chosen answers in response to a DNS question regarding an unknown domain. In fact, doing so clearly violates RFC 1035 section 4.1.1, which specifies that the response code 3 ("name error", also known as NXDOMAIN) should be returned for that case.
How can Verisign personnel seriously claim that there is nothing wrong with SiteFinder?
In my opinion, Verisign already breached their contract to operate the registry when they instituted SiteFinder the first time, and ICANN and the Commerce Department should have started a process to award a new contract to a different registry operator. The wholesale fee of $6/domain/year that Verisign gets is ridiculously large to begin with, which makes it seem even more unprofessional that they deliberately sabotage the registry operation to try to make even more money.
The outcome doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way VeriSign can win this is to specify as "damages" for winning that they get to operate
-Todd
Re:ICANN will fold to Verisign... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know.. I think I like Verisign better than (Score:5, Insightful)
I, on the other hand, like MS better than Verisign.
If I don't want to use IE, I [opera.com] don't [mozilla.org] have [konqueror.org] to [mozilla.com]. I am not forced to use their product or to see their ads if I choose differently.
Having a poor browser does not break any other Internet applications. This does.