Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government The Internet News

Verisign's Lawsuit Against ICANN Dismissed 190

Posted by michael from the too-bad-so-sad dept.
emtboy9 writes "Internet domain name registry VeriSign just can't seem to convince anyone that redirecting misspelled Web addresses to its own site is a good thing. A federal district court judge on Thursday threw out VeriSign's legal arguments that ICANN's ban on this tactic amounted to a violation of U.S. antitrust law. VeriSign, which runs the master database for .com and .net addresses, had argued that its competitors had succeeded in stymying VeriSign's plans for its Site Finder service by providing advice to the board of directors of ICANN, or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verisign's Lawsuit Against ICANN Dismissed More

Verisign's Lawsuit Against ICANN Dismissed

Comments Filter:

  • This seems familiar... (Score:5, Funny)

    by romper ( 47937 ) * on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:23AM (#10089362)
    VeriSign responded by issuing a press release stating that the federal court system doesn't really exist, and that all other domain registrars must purchase a license from VeriSign to continue to sell domain names or face litigation.

  • yes.. because it was... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by joeldg ( 518249 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:24AM (#10089372) Homepage
    "a service to the community"

    Those guys actually tried to pull that...

    I wonder how much stake overture had in that.. No journalist has ever approached them to find out their role in that story.

    a service indeed..

  • plagiarizing (Score:4, Informative)

    by avdp ( 22065 ) * on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:25AM (#10089385)
    emtboy9's writeup is not much of a writeup. It's word for word the first 3 paragraph of the article without giving CNet credit for it. That's kind of a no-no to me.
    • Luckily our eagle-eyed /. editors caught it before they posted it.

    • Re:plagiarizing (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      As almost no one reads TFA around here, he probably thought that he could get away with it.

    • Re:plagiarizing (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Why is this modded 'informative'??? It's quite clear he's ripping off this comment [slashdot.org].

    • Re:plagiarizing (Score:3, Informative)

      by Souffle ( 2155 )
      This is actually standard practice in Slashdot postings. So, apparently not a no-no to many people. Not saying it's right, only that I see it all the time.
      • I've seen quotes - a sentence here and there - between quotes. I have not seen (and I am an avid slashdot reader) the whole text being lifted from an article without attribution. Perhaps I have not looked hard enough.
    • I'm not in any means saying that plagarizing is the right thing to do, but I think its pretty easy to tell which of the writeups are just quotes from the article itself. Many articles have a foreward for readers to read, so that they can tell if they will be interested in reading the article, which is what I see "quoted" most of the time. But when people do that they should cite the original source so that kudos go to the right people. Its just the polite, and right thing to do.

      I've seen my own comments j

  • it seems like the courts are getting things right lately (see also: SCO). It's a long time comin'.

    Maybe the knowledge of the judges, lawyers and whatnot is finally catching up with the times, and they are displaying some comprehension of the high tech fields on which they're ruling.

    One can only hope this trend of understanding continues.

    • One can only hope this trend of understanding continues.
      and extends to the patent office.
    • Maybe the knowledge of the judges, lawyers and whatnot is finally catching up with the times, and they are displaying some comprehension of the high tech fields on which they're ruling.

      Maybe the lawyers are catching up, but it has always been a requirement that a judge make a decision based on law. If he makes a decision you don't agree with, then somewhere there's a law that you don't agree with. If he makes a decision that you DO agree with, it's because there is a law somewhere that you DO agree with.

      I wish people would stop demonizing judges, or putting them on pedestals. They don't have much wiggle room for a "good" or "bad" decision. Their function is to interpret the law, even if they don't like what it says. All they can do is mitigate the damages according to what is allowed by law.
      • How right you are. I watched a Judge return a verdict of "not guilty" because the law did not support the prosecutions case. She went on, however, to verbally tongue-lash the defendant for doing something that, while not "illegal," was certainly amoral and of questionable ethics ('twas a white-collar case).

        Judges in the the US are bound not only by the statutes, but by the interpretations of those statutes by higher courts. SCO, to choose a random example, is having their head handed to them because they have neither law nor fact on their side. IBM has both and they know how to use it.

      • Is it "always" however? I do not think we can say that a judge makes a decision, always, based on some pre-existing law. We do have precedents, and in the case of the Internet - which is still fairly young - we may not have many precedent cases.
        Judges have been known to go against pre-existing common laws and law based on differing circumstances, though this can be related to my first point.

      • Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Cali Thalen ( 627449 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:53AM (#10089655) Homepage
        Judges make decisions based on their OPINIONS of th laws as they understand them, if they bother to know or research the laws in teh first place (which I assume most do, though not all).

        Assuming that the laws they're basing their decisions on in the first place are just, that's a decent system. If the original laws are crap, then you get new crap laws based on the old ones (until someone finds the lot unconstitutional and throws them out).

        Judges are human, just like the rest of us. They have good and bad days, they come in varying degrees of intelligence, and varying degrees of ignorance. And they aren't cookie-cutters when it comes to their decisions...their understanding and experience can easily affect their judgements.

        • Yes, a judge is giving his opinion. However, he has to justify that opinion in his findings, or an appeals court will throw it out. Thus his ruling must be based on LAW.

          No, judges are not cookie cutters. It's very difficult for them to know all laws in the area of which they make judgments. That's why we have lawyers. If a lawyer can't correctly argue the case, then the judge may make a decision that could later be overturned. But to say that judges are understanding technology better is a bit silly. It's the lawyers who have to make their case and argue the law in their favor. The judges decision is constrained to that which is on the books, and that which was presented in court.
        • Think of the Constitution and all subsequent case law as a so-so design for an initial release, then patch after patch being applied with never once a trace of a major upgrade: US Law version 1.99999999999a Alpha
      • The problem is that judges are human, and humans are subject to stupendous lapses in judgement. Interpretation of law works great when Judge A is about to comprehend and interpret accurately. It would be a mistake to assume that they do in all cases, so I would argue that holding them accoutable for bad interpretation is necessary. A judge that takes a good law and interprets it badly is a lousy judge, just as one that takes a bad law and interprets it in a way that makes it not-so-bad is a good judge.
        • Whether a law is good or bad is subjective. Holding someone accountable for a reading of law that you do not agree with is ludicrous. If you don't like the law work to change the law. Whether a judge is good or bad is going to depend on which side of the ruling you happen to be on.
          • You've missed the point and made assumptions. I don't use "good" or "bad" in a moral sense. It is entirely possible that a law is bad, in terms of quality. Bad law can lead to interpretations which violate more important principles such as constitutions or charters. Bad law is vaque and open to misinterpretation. It is entirely possible for language in any given piece of law to be objectively bad.

            Of course, it is possible for good law, i.e., well-written law, to lead to the same violations of rights

    • Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by urlgrey ( 798089 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:51AM (#10089648) Homepage
      Logic and common sense prevailed here indeed.

      If only this same judge could magically get even five minutes with the patent folks and teach them a thing or two about a thing or two.
      "Ok, folks, there are two
      new rules for awarding a patent. They are:

      "First, the idea can't have already existed in the outside world before you saw this idea. This means you'll have to do research. I suggest you try Google.

      "Second, the idea has to have merit. This means you'll have to do research. I suggest you ask at least two other people this question: 'Does this idea: [insert idea here] suck?"

      That's it. Meeting adjourned!
      We should be so lucky. :-|

      ----

  • Wait a minute... (Score:5, Funny)

    by response3 ( 751852 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:28AM (#10089424)
    www.goolge.com = www.verisign.com. Huh? Or even worse, www.reallynastygirls.com = www.verisign.com !! Oh the horror!
    • www.goolge.com = www.verisign.com

      I'm dyslexic, and it actually took me 3 or 4 tries before I could tell what was wrong with that ;-)

  • Would work... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by omghi2u ( 808195 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:31AM (#10089450) Journal
    This would work if a third-party site that had lists of registrars went up...

    But then VeriSign wouldn't make as much money!

    • Re:Would work... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eln ( 21727 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:35AM (#10089502)
      Yah, there's a certain irony in Verisign suing someone through the antitrust laws. Allowing Verisign to purchase Network Solutions, and in fact letting Network Solutions run as a for-profit company in the first place, were some of the stupidest decisions in the history of the Internet.

      • Re:Would work... (Score:3, Informative)

        by slungsolow ( 722380 )
        They're no longer together so its not really that big of a deal anymore. At the time there was no precedent for companies like Verisign and Net Sol, so they just went with the flow.

        If it wasn't for that other company stepping in and purchasing net sol, they'd probably still be together.

        Hell, verisign still owns a minority interest in net sol and its subsidiaries.
      • One might ask the question why other TLDs have been allowed to get away with this for 3 years prior. .WS was the first one to do this IIRC.

      • Yes because I loved paying $100 for domain name a year back when it was non profit. Now I only have to pay $8, I wish for the old days again.

        • Re:Would work... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by rs79 ( 71822 )
          You never paid $100 a year, ever. Check your facts.

          There was an "intellectual infrastructure" fund levy added by the NSF - this was to keep the IETF process "pure" in light of more commercialization of the various I* organizations. It was to be used for paying people to attent conferences, research, stuff like that. Congress pilfered it and spent it on Internet2 benefitting the organization headed by the newly appointed head of ICANN. Just coincidence I'm sure.

  • Misspellins (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:34AM (#10089492)
    I for one, wish that all misspellings in URLs would just automatically go to a porn, casino or other site that tries to hijack your home page and/or install spyware. It would save millions of dollars to the poor companies who provide these services.

  • Coming soon... (Score:5, Funny)

    by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:36AM (#10089506) Homepage Journal
    Sorry! Your request for "www.icann.org" was not successful. The domain may not exist or may be a bunch of jerks that won't let us get away with world dominations.

    Please visit <a href="http://www.verisign.com/">this super awesome site</a> to find what you're looking for.

  • I know it will be modded redundant, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wolfemi1 ( 765089 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:38AM (#10089526)
    ...Given the sheer number of spurious lawsuits I've been seeing on here, this comes as a great relief to me that one large one is being thrown out of court. Thank you, US justice system!

    Boy, I don't get to say that too often....
    • It is somewhat amazing when common sense breaks out isn't it? Almost scary.

    • ...Given the sheer number of spurious lawsuits I've been seeing on here, this comes as a great relief to me that one large one is being thrown out of court. Thank you, US justice system!

      Unfortunately, your happiness with the US justice system is ill-founded. From the article:

      "What this means is the case will be heard in a California state court," said Tom Galvin, vice president of VeriSign's government relations group. "And while the venue will change, our objective to gain clarity regarding ICANN's approp

  • What? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cr0y ( 670718 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:39AM (#10089543) Homepage
    Maybe someone can fill me in, I have been following this, but I still don't get how one company can control all the .com and .net domains....Isn't that illegal?

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)

      by rs79 ( 71822 ) <hostmaster@open-rsc.org> on Friday August 27, 2004 @12:34PM (#10089997) Homepage
      The National Science Foundation originally funded all registration services for IPs and Domains. They bid it out and NSI won it. At the time the net was largely US academic and R&D and fell within the aegis of the NSF.

      When Stephen Wolff privatied the NSF backbone and uunet, sprint etc had an excuse to exist, Wolff simply overlooked the fact the domain/ip stuff was still in government control.

      The original plans were to create lots of others NSI's. Postel in 96 wanted 300 new TLDS to compete with NSI; tradictionally the net solves problems of monopoly by the creation of additional resources, not regulation, but, the trademark attornies saw ICANN as a convenient stranglehold and combined with the tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars big busines have paid for washington lobbyits to exert influence there is no real competion for NSI, jsut additional sales channels. Unless of course you think .coop, .museum and .pro are even remotely viable.

      It's unfortunate that todays decision, while highly regarded, asssits ICANN in it's feature creep; it's scope is supposed to be a narrow technical mandate, and they've prevented NSI from doing what dozens of other tlds have done for years.

      TO find the real motivation behind this, and no it's not NXDOMAIN - follow the money.

    • Re:What? (Score:2, Informative)

      by _Wagz_ ( 799293 )
      What VeriSign was originally supposed to do was manage the .com, .net & .org domain extensions. In and of itself, that isn't a monopoly service, all they had to do was make sure registrars didn't double-dip on domain addresses and things like that. It wasn't until VeriSign bought Network Solutions, however, that a conflict of interest came up. *Then* VeriSign became both the manager of the gTLDs and it's own customer.
      • What VeriSign was originally supposed to do was manage the .com, .net & .org domain extensions. In and of itself, that isn't a monopoly service, all they had to do was make sure registrars didn't double-dip on domain addresses and things like that. It wasn't until VeriSign bought Network Solutions, however, that a conflict of interest came up. *Then* VeriSign became both the manager of the gTLDs and it's own customer.

        Sorry, you're a little backwards. Network Solutions operated the Registry for .com a
    • Maybe someone can fill me in, I have been following this, but I still don't get how one company can control all the .com and .net domains....Isn't that illegal?

      There has to be one central Registry for each TLD, to make sure different people can't register the same domain, and to operate the authoritative nameservers for that TLD. The .com and .net TLDs were originally created by the US government, and the US Department of Commerce is the organization ultimately responsible for managing them. Since the C
      • The .com and .net TLDs were originally created by the US government,

        Nope.

        and the US Department of Commerce is the organization ultimately responsible for managing them

        Tangentially. Congress is responsibe, it's delegated to the DoC.

        Since the Commerce Dept would prefer not to handle this themselves

        They wouldn't know how.

        they contracted with a private company (Network Solutions)

        NSI was doing this years before the DoC got their grubby paws on it.

        Since this wasn't going so well and different o
  • If you get a domain wrong, the god damn browser should take you to google or whatever search engine you specified under some settings within your browser.

    Its not like it would be that hard to do.
    • Like internet explorer does? Hell, where do you think Verisign got the idea?

    • If you get a domain wrong, the god damn browser should take you to google or whatever search engine you specified under some settings within your browser.

      Yes, the browser should be able to do something like what you describe. MSIE does, and I'm pretty sure somewhere out there are Mozilla/Firefox extensions to do the same thing. It would be even better if the browser can do it in a configurable way - let you pick the search engine, let you turn the feature off if you want to see the error messages, and

    • If you get a domain wrong, the god damn browser should take you to google or whatever search engine you specified under some settings within your browser.

      Its not like it would be that hard to do.

      It is if Verisign returns a page which contains a code saying that the correct page has been found, but instead substitutes its own content (which is what it is doing).

      Phillip.

  • best example of this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chuck Bucket ( 142633 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:46AM (#10089594) Homepage Journal
    or the best example provided *because* of this is http://www.whitehouse.org/ [whitehouse.org]. Moce, very moce!

    CB

  • I miss return codes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dekks ( 808541 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:50AM (#10089634)
    I find it more and more difficult to tell whether a site of pages exists anymore with moves like this. It used to be if a page wasn't there I'd get a nice 404 or if the site didn't exist I'd get a 502 etc. I use firefox at home, but at work we use I.E and if I type in a URL that doesn't work I get taken to msn search page, does that mean the server is down, doesn't exist or what? If I look for a page that doesn't seem to be there, instead of a 404 I get told page unavailable unless the site has their own custom not found page, does this mean it doesn't exist or its not available? Its the dumbing down of the Internet.

    • Re:I miss return codes (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tweezer ( 83980 )
      You can easily customize such actions in IE. Go to Tools|Internet Options|Advanced Under the Browsing section uncheck the "Show friendly HTTP error messages." Under search from address bar click the "Do Not search from the address bar" button.

      Then you can have your return codes back the way you want.
    • 404 error pages are served by the server corresponding to the domain you typed in. if the domain doesn't exist (i.e. doesn't point to a server) then you get the msn search page or the VeriSign thing in the past.

    • Re:I miss return codes (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ancil ( 622971 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:59AM (#10089703)

      we use I.E and if I type in a URL that doesn't work I get taken to msn search page, does that mean the server is down, doesn't exist or what?

      Tools -> Internet Options -> Advanced -> Search from the Address bar -> "Do not search from the Address bar" -> thank you; drive through

    • Re:I miss return codes (Score:2, Interesting)

      by MBoffin ( 259181 )
      In IE, there are options to turn off "friendly" error messages and let the server (not IE) serve you its own error page. It doesn't stop the server from making a "pretty" error page for you, but at least it will stop IE from giving you a generic "friendly" error message.

      Tools -> Internet Options -> Advanced -> Browsing -> Uncheck the "Show Friendly..." boxes

    • Re:I miss return codes (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pknoll ( 215959 )
      It used to be if a page wasn't there I'd get a nice 404 or if the site didn't exist I'd get a 502 etc.

      Only if the server was resolvable, you mean. In the event of an unresolvable URL, what *I'd* like to see (and no browser in my experience has ever done this) is pop up an error:

      ERROR: The URL [http://badurl.com] could not be processed because [badurl.com] could not be resolved. DNS returned: NXDOMAIN

      I remember meaningful error messages, too. I wish there were more of them. Just tell me what happen

      • Meaningful error messages (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rs79 ( 71822 )
        I've always wondered by a browser couldn't chase the dns to provide a more meaningfull diagnostic. For example:

        "No such domain exists" - the TLD servers returned NXDOMAIN

        "The domain exists but the authoritative servers are unreachable" - domain has been properly delegated by the parent zone but the nameservers are off the air

        "The domain is not set up properly" - the domain has been properly delegated and the authoritative nameservers answer with proper NS records but no A record can be found.

        And so on a

    • Re:I miss return codes (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tokerat ( 150341 )

      While this is an inconvinience ( a "service" according to VeriSign, heh), this wasn't the major problem that a fundemental change to the top level DNS hierarchy was causing.

      According to RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1) [w3.org], each response to an HTTP request is responded too with first a status code, then content [w3.org]. Therefore, all VeriSign had to do to fix the 404/502 problem would be to return all SiteFinder pages as status code 404. (Disclaimer: I am not aware if they actually did or not). If that was implemented, browsers c

  • I think I speak for everyone on the planet.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by bani ( 467531 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @11:55AM (#10089669)
    ...when I say,

    fuck you, verisign
    • Typical! It's a troll just because the OP swore. Get real, mods, Verisign very nearly removed one of our weapons against spam, the non-existent domain rule. Now, does that not seem to be a very good reason for making the OP's post our slogan of the day, or does the Verisign DNS hijack have some obscure benefit that I didn't see?
      • Verisign caused a lot more damage than just to email. Any application that needs to determine the validity of a domain name broke. The solution, which was already being implemented in various places when Sitefinder went down, was to use a caching or forwarding nameserver locally and special-case the address of Sitefinder... make it look just like "no such domain" to any applications. Then if you're using a routing firewall you program it to NAT any other servers DNS requests to the root to go to one of your own DNS servers, and Sitefinder vanishes.

        This would have indirectly lead to a benefit, because it would make it that much easier to switch to an alternate root by changing your own configuration in one place, or otherwise ignore other "cunning schemes" Verisign might come up with.
        • Love the logic. I hadn't actually thought about it like that. I've been using alternate root servers for a long time now. Whilst the .biz cock-up is a minor annoyance, the thought that if everyone did the same petty companies like Verisign and even ICANN would rapidly become insignificant amuses me ;o)
        • Verisign caused a lot more damage than just to email. Any application that needs to determine the validity of a domain name broke.

          Hi Peter;
          One other possible answer is "you can't rely on NXDMAIN"; you couldn't before NSI did this of course as at the time 13 other TLDS were dong it from as far back as 3 years prior. Perhaps another heuristic was indicated? Perhaps "what does this tld do with a known bad name query" ?

          There is also a non-zero faction of people that found the "service" usefull. "Did you mean
          • One other possible answer is "you can't rely on NXDMAIN"; you couldn't before NSI did this of course as at the time 13 other TLDS were dong it from as far back as 3 years prior.

            Yes, yes, and there's SLDs and 3LDs that had used wildcard A records long before that. I've got an SLD that does it, for that matter.

            But... there's a big difference between a TLD that's been handed off lock stock and NS records to a vanity domain registrar, that's run as a private company, that might as well be a SLD as far as its
            • (I spelled "NXDOMAIN" wrong. Gosh, what a shock, that's not what I expected at all.)

              Ok, it's the wrong way to do it. But it could be made to work. (cf. Clarks law)

              Verisign certainly had the ability to do it as evidenced by the fact they did do it.

              ICANN setting policy is the larger issue here and while I'm inclined to agree with you on the technical issues the question arises is it better to have Verisign win to keep ICANN within their intended scope? That's a tough call.

              If it turns out one day ICANN dr
              • But it could be made to work.

                Not by Verisign. By Microsoft, yes, but not by Verisign. Verisign can not do it without breaking existing systems, because it is technically impossible for a DNS server to tell whether a request is the result of an HTTP request or an SMTP request or anything else.

                Verisign certainly had the ability to do it as evidenced by the fact they did do it.

                They don't have the ability to do it right. And they don't have the right to do it wrong.

                ICANN setting policy is the larger issu
                • I don't get it Peter, you say you wildcarded a domain but NSI can't without seeking approval. Why the difference? The relevany RFC says it applies to all levels.

                  As for keeping NSI in scope show me where it says they can't do this.

                  So you got rid of the wolves?
                  • The difference is that I own the domain I wildcarded. When smeone looks up a name, and follows things back to me, they get the right person. To use the canonical example, if I spam, I'm the one who's responsible, and if someone spams in my name I'm the one who's hurt.

                    Verisign doesn't own the domain they wildcarded, they're not responsible for damage, they're not capable of it. Good lord, man, you want to talk about a slippery slope: if NSI or Verisign owns "com" then they are *entitled* to do all the nasty
      • or does the Verisign DNS hijack have some obscure benefit that I didn't see?

        Yes, it limited ICANN's powers to it's original intended technical focus, not policy. There's more trademark attornys inside the ICANN machine than you probbaly realize, and if ICANN controlls damn near everything something like this [songbird.com] should make you a little nervous.

  • As I understand it... (Score:5, Informative)

    by YouHaveSnail ( 202852 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @12:06PM (#10089756)
    ...Verisign essentially won a contract to maintain a couple of the most important top level domains for ICANN (on behalf of the rest of us). Verisign took that essentially as a grant of monopoly power over all unassigned domains in those TLD's, and thinks that it therefore has the right to point all requests for such unassigned domains to its own site.

    ICANN then said to Verisign: "Oh no you don't. Your contract is just to maintain a couple of databases. You don't suddenly own the net." And so, predictably, Verisign went to court to plead it's so-called case. Just as predictably, they lost.

    It's nice when things work out like they should.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @12:08PM (#10089784)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • At least that's what I remember it being called.

    When private corporation accounted for over half of what was and content on the Internet.

    I think it was 1997 or 1998.

    Sniff.

  • This was decided on the law, not the technology (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dfl ( 808355 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @01:03PM (#10090266) Journal
    I don't think this case had much to do with the underlying technology, or even the benevolence / malevolence of the parties.

    I'd make a confident guess that the "basis" for this suit is a Supreme Court opinion from the 80s ("Hydrolevel") saying basically that standards-setting organizations can't allow themselves to become a tool for conspiratorial members who have an anti-competitive agenda.

    VeriSign tried to make a case that ICANN's decision reflected a bias in the structure of the organization. That's really a question about the ICANN bureaucracy and the objectivity of the decision-making process. Obviously the judge approved of ICANN's actions. But I don't think that approval has anything to do with the actual merits of the decision, but rather the procedure used to reach it.

  • So, when other registrars try get ICANN to do something, it's bad but when Verisign tries to get ICANN to do something, it's good?

    Buzzzzzzzzzz! We're sorry, but that's incorrect.

  • Does ICANN still get cut of the reg fee? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Em Ellel ( 523581 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @05:56PM (#10092659)
    If so, it seems they should simply send Verisign a bill for infinate number of domains. (Is there a limit on how long a domain name can be?)

    I can just picture the look on the face of the Verisign employee opening a bill with a big infinity sign in the amount column.

    -Em

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.

Close