Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ICANN Gives VeriSign 36 Hours to Pull Sitefinder

Posted by michael on from the or-else-we'll-say-stop-again dept.

Froomkin writes "ICANN this morning announced that it sent VeriSign an ultimatum: pull sitefinder by tomorrow evening or we'll sue. Details and links to discussion of the contractual and legal issues in ICANN Throws Down the Gauntlet to VeriSign on Sitefinder at ICANNWatch." Update: 10/03 19:29 GMT by M : Verisign blinked.

12 of 449 comments (clear)

  1. Now we wait and see... by NivenHuH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What will happen when VeriSign doesn't do anything tomorrow? Is this just another "scare tactic"?

    --
    Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
  2. The big question is by jon787 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What if Verisign ignores this just like they ignored everything else? They are in a position to seariously mess up the DNS system.

    --
    X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
  3. Nice by ruiner13 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "If VeriSign does not comply with this demand by 6:00 PM PDT on 4 October 2003, ICANN will be forced to take the steps necessary to enforce VeriSign's contractual obligations."

    I'd be interested to see what those obligations were. If it is as bad as that sounds, I wonder if VeriSign could lose their Registrar priviledges as a result. This could have huge implications, and could help small(er) registrars get a leg up (finally) in the .com and .net domains. I guess only time will tell.

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

    1. Re:Nice by fliplap · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh I'm sure Verisign would put up with that. You have to remember what allows verisign todo wildcarding, the fact that they still manage the root servers. My guess is that if ICANN tried to pull something like that (which they're not dumb enough todo) Verisign would either:

      A) Say "fine, I'm going home, and I'm taking my root servers with me"
      or
      B) Give ICANN the finger, and keep on doing what they're doing.

      My vote is for B.

  4. T-Shirts! Get your VeriSlime T-shirts here! by wayne · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I forget where I saw these, but someone is selling two versions of VeriSlime t-shirts:

    VeriSlime t-shirt "No Values to Trust"
    VeriSlime t-shirt "The Abuse of Trust"

    --
    SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
  5. It's FRAUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Anyone noticed what they're using to redirect people who go to www.sldkfjdsdlkfgjsdlkjf.com? They use an HTTP 302 code. Ever looked that up? http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10. html:
    10.3.3 302 Found

    The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI. Since the redirection might be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header field.


    When you say HTTP/302, you're saying the resource they're looking for exists somewhere else, in this case sitefinder.verisign.com. That is a lie. It is a gigantic, automated lie perpetrated automatically on the entire world. It's a class action suit waiting to happen.

    wget www.ssdlfkjsdf.com
    --04:51:57-- http://www.ssdlfkjsdf.com/
    => `index.html'
    Resolving www.ssdlfkjsdf.com... done.
    Connecting to www.ssdlfkjsdf.com[64.94.110.11]:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
    Location: http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url=www.ssdlfkj sdf.com&host=www.ssdlfkjsdf.com [following]

    LIARS
    It's fraud.
  6. Mabye, but... by StringBlade · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If you give ICANN the power to create and implement the law without the need to use lawsuits, then you're effectively loading the gun with which to shoot yourself in the foot!

    What happens when ICANN fully realizes this power and makes changes to the obligated behavior of TLDs and uses their power to force change that may not be in the best interest of everyone concerned (read: ISPs and end users).

    Of all the lawsuits flying around this year, this one is actually valid and should occur with extreme prejudice.

    --
    ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
  7. Re:Not sure, if that is a bad thing or not.. by quantum+bit · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The "information superhighway" should be like the physical highway system in the U.S. It should be planned and maintained by the government.
    ...and we all know how well that works. I can see it now. "As a part of the 'Internet Improvement Project', the root name servers will be unavailable from 9 A.M. to 7 P.M. the week of 11/10 - 11/14."

    Either that or "Various ports closed ahead".
  8. If I were a developer for Mozilla.... by argmanah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would be very tempted to have all requests that come back as sitefinder.verisign.com display a DNS resolution error instead.

    Yeah yeah, I know 2 wrongs do not make a right, but it would definitely send a clear message to Verisign. They need to realize that in order for techologies to work, people need to work together. No one holds all the power; anyone can come and screw you at any given time. That's why everyone needs to play nice, because the alternative is everyone loses.

    --
    Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
  9. There actually is at least one useful application by KILNA · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have found a couple common misspellings of my domain that are still available. By looking at the contents of the sessions on my site I see that the users who come in on certain misspellings actually stick around a bit. Either they ended up on my site by accident and liked it, or sitefinder actually helped me (and them) out by pointing them to the correct site. I don't currently have enough visitors from those misspellings to justify purchasing them, but Verisign has just given me a free service that is of at least some value.

    I agree that it breaks DNS, and that it is an unfair use of their position (just imagine when they start removing non-Verisign registered domains from the list of suggestions!). Generating lists of domain misspellings in referer logs is certainly in Verisign's best interest, since some users will want to scoop them up.

    But it's not all bad, just mostly bad.

    --
    Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
  10. Verisign broke archive.org by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Archive.org will no longer return pages from sites whose domain is not assigned. The problem is that archive.org checks the current "robots.txt" file for the site, and will obey it. Verisign's tampering causes archive.org to read "http://sitefinder.verisign.com/robots.txt", which reads
    • User-agent: *

    • Disallow: /
    thus causing archive.org to reject all requests for old sites.
  11. Re:Ya gotta read the article ... by brre · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The way I read it, ICANN is saying that for this and all future changes, Verisign has no default go-ahead, and must instead first convince ICANN for each change that it won't break anything. In short, Verisign changes are now viewed as guilty until proven innocent.

    I have to guess that if Verisign had made a less blatant, stupid, change, its changes would still be viewed as innocent until proven guilty.

    Or, "fine, from here on in, mister, you gotta prove to me why you SHOULDN'T have detention"