McLaughlin Defends Site Finder As 'Innovation'

simeonbeta2 writes "Mark McLaughlin, Senior VP at Verisign, has an editorial up on news.com. McLaughlin casts the debate over sitefinder in terms of 'innovation' versus the status quo and threatens that stifling 'innovation' will lead to a weaker internet." There's more -- read on below.

psimeonbeta2 continues:"Additionally (shades of Darl) he suggests that an anti-capitalism animus is behind the resistance to sitefinder. This despite the known problems that sitefinder caused and despite the fact that breaking the DNS standards may have constituted a breach of contract on Verisign's part. Resistance, he concludes, must be due to some sort of techno-religious fervor.

While Verisign's chutzpah certainly doesn't rise to fiaSCO levels, I find the similar tones in spinning the issues at hand to be truly disturbing. Not only did Verisign screw us by changing how the internet works at a fundamental level, now they purport to be irritated that we didn't thank them for the favor! At least in this case the good guys(cherish this moment, ICANN!) won."

Comments

Utter Crap

[l810c]

He makes this sound like the entire future of the Internet hangs in balance on this decision. Like routing all typos to Verisign is some critically important new technology.

If someone types in a bad domain name, they should get a message that states just that. I don't know if there are any statistics on this, but for me 9 times out of 10 it is a typo. If not, then you can go to the search engine of Your Choice and search for the name.

The decisions made over the next months and years will determine the future growth and vitality of the Internet
Should Read
The decisions made over the next months and years will determine the future growth and vitality of the Verisign.

Re:Utter Crap

[MrLint]

if !known_domain
then redirectositefinder;

Oh my god i just stole verisigns innovation!

Let someone else innovate

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy]

Let someone else "innovate"; someone not trusted to serve the .com/.net root zones without biased interest in the outcome of how it works.

Re:Let someone else innovate

[Ohreally_factor]

Or better, let Verisign innovate, but without the terrible encumbrance of having to administrate the .com/.net TLDs. Give that responsibility to another organization that can handle it.

Innovation?

[Texas Rose on Lava L]

Spammers do a lot of creative things to get their messages through. So, would it be "stifling innovation" to make spam illegal?

There's a difference between actual innovation that benefits society vs. people just finding a way to take advantage of the system.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder

[g0at]

Congratulations.

On the other hand, some of us like having the choice to let the user-agent do that when NXDOMAIN is returned, which uh, it never is with Sitefinder.

(I mean, I like root beer. Therefore, I think that all fast food chains should make it the default, and not provide user choice... after all, I like it.)

-ben

hmmmm

[the_other_one]

This sort of innovation followed by the "This will stifle innovation defense." must surely infringe on a Microsoft business process patent

I smell another lawsuit on the horizon.

In other news

[El]

... street beggars have announced that the "innovation" of pointing loaded guns at the people they are asking for money greatly increases their profits. "Well, we the panhandling industry can't just remain static. They should be thanking us for innovating new sources of revenue" said one street bum as he was being arrested...

Re:In other news

[Anthony Boyd]

El, I have taken your concept and RUN with it. Below is a first-draft parody of the entire editorial. I think some parts are inspired, but other parts could use some help. It doesn't make Verisign's claims look as crazy as they are, yet. Anybody want to take a shot at rewriting my rewrite? I figure we can throw it up on a Web site with a similar look to it, and let the parody stand as a good rebuttal. Here it is.

Hobocorp's decision to launch a new Bum Gun service that gives panhandlers tools and options when they harass people for money has spurred a debate about the future of a safe society. It is a debate worth having, because at the heart of it is whether innovation in a safe society will be encouraged or whether the status quo is good enough. More than 20 million times a day, innocent citizens receive a barrage of requests for cash when they walk or drive by street beggars (such as stopping at a light and having the windshield washed whether requested or not). Those requests for cash can lead to a dead end, with no money given to the beggar in compensation for his efforts.

That's what Bum Gun is about. Instead of begging for cash, its users get an option to intimidate the citizenry, try a holdup or simply assualt the victim. Thus far, people have used these guns more than 40 million times to get the money they want to have.

While similar services have been tested and offered before, Hobocorp's Bum Gun has triggered debate because it hasn't been tried for non-mafia and non-gang related groups. Seemingly ignoring that fact, the police cast a vote last week for the status quo by forcing Hobocorp to shut down the service. We reluctantly agreed and are exploring our options.

The police appear to have bought into claims that our society's safety has broken or will break. Anyone who has lived through it in the last three weeks knows that claim to be false. More likely, the police caved under the pressure from some in the community for whom this is a 2nd-amendment-religion issue about whether guns should be used for these purposes.

For this vocal minority, resentment lingers at the very fact that guns are used for extortion, which ignores the fact that it's a critical part of our economy.

We respectfully disagree with those who, in the name of anti-gun rhetoric, strive to hold society back. Society as we know it today was built by expanding beyond its origins. When clans -- the first known humans to group together -- became prevalent thousands of years ago, its purpose was to provide strength in numbers.

Over the next few millenia, every stage of what we now know as human society caused fierce debate and controversy. By not being afraid to test and try new things, a set of laws and rights was created that now serves as the foundation for commerce and communications.

While the current debate is not the first over the future of society, it is critically important because it could well determine its future development. Our society has been used for many innovative purposes over the last century -- look at what the USA and the European Union have been able to accomplish -- but the reality is society itself, the infrastructure that serves as the foundation, has not significantly benefited from innovation.

This is a significant test for the entire planet because if the world can't find a way to introduce new services while reaching a resolution on legal matters that might arise, then society's infrastructure will never improve. It's tantamount to saying that the world is flat and therefore there is no need for further exploration.

If that is the case, it doesn't bode well for Earth. If beggars and con men are discouraged from exploring the bounds of the law, it will mean less research and development and less investment into firearms and assault weapons. In short, a weaker society.

That should concern the panhandling community, NRA members, thieves and white-collar criminals alike. Less investment means a less-stable gun-lobby long-term, with de

Of course it was innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

It was obviously innovation. Nobody had ever done it before, yes. (Sure there were wildcards in other TLDs, but they weren't trying to provide the service SiteFinder was.)

The thing is, not all innovation is good. In this case, VeriSign innovated, and most people didn't want their innovation.

If they like, they could provide the *exact* same innovation by distributing a fully opt-in browser add-on.

Innovate? Innovate?

[KevinMS]

I just innovated 4 of my domains over to
another registrar.

Re:Innovate? Innovate?

[FattMattP]

I just noticed that VeriSign owns Thawte, who I used to get two secure certificates. My renewal is coming up and they're emailing me to renew. That's $300 each for a two year renewal. $600 total. So I'm going to get new certificates for those domains from someone else.

What convinced me that this was the right course of action is that Thawte's slogan is "It's a trust thing." Well, yeah, it is and VeriSign has shown that it can't be trusted. So I guess I'll give my money to someone else.

Look at it from both sides...

[thecampbeln]

Looking at SiteFinder from the viewpoint of a "stupid user", it's pretty damned neat! I mean, it's kinda like calling the wrong 800 number and the person who answers says "Oh this happens all the time, the number you actually want is...". This is a nice feature!

Now looking at Sitefinder from the technical perspective, it's a scary ass "development". As once again, calling the wrong 800 number, the person could say "Oh this happens all the time, but I know a better place get (insert product/service here)! Try calling...", here in lies the devil!

It would be nice to have the feature in the first instance, but we all know that it will end up being served as in the second instance (besides all the anti-SPAM issues, et la). <rant>Since the CEOs of now are children of the 80's, everything always boils down to the all mighty $</rant>. BUT... is there any way that this idea could be put to good use?

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder

[Jonathunder]

Sometimes I misspell URLs and I actually *like* having a service that attempts to find the site I'm looking for.

So set your browser to do that. Most of the popular browsers will, and you can even chose your search engine.

No need to force that behaivior on every user of every Internet service. The Internet is not (just) the web.

The Internet Will Break...

[FsG]

ICANN appears to have bought into claims that the Internet has broken or will break. Anyone who has used it in the last three weeks knows that claim to be false.

Bullshit. This is clearly written from the perspective of the user, who will click the pretty buttons while completely unaware of what's going on in the background. Instead of asking "anyone who has used it," why not ask a DNS admin or someone who is similarly qualified to make a decision on this point? Those people will tell you loud and clear that this thing indeed caused serious problems.

Re:The Internet Will Break...

[FsG]

A valid point, but I think you misunderstood. My point was that the admins who run the networks (not just DNS admins) are often the only ones who see when something breaks. Users are often entirely unaware of the problems going on in the background, the ones that cause these admins to stay up all night. As long as the buttons still go clickety-click, the users are happy.

DNS admins should have a louder voice on this not because they're "fellow geeks," but because when something goes wrong, they are the first to notice. Therefore, their opinion on the question of "did something go wrong?" is more important.

"End to end" was the innovation.

[dpbsmith]

There's nothing innovative about having the network do centralized processing, and perform those specific functions that Ma Bell or Verisign or whomever thinks it can market and charge money for.

What was innovative was the concept of a network that just provided connectivity, and allowed the users at the network termini to provide the innovation.

To call SiteFinder innovative is like cutting the wings off an airplane and saying that you've created an innovative new form of ground transportation.

"Innovation"

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

"You keep using that word. I believe it does not mean what you think it does." -- The Princess Bride

Standard are there for a reason

[rborek]

They exploited a known feature in the DNS system, and abused their monopoly. There's no innovation there - just an abuse of a government-granted monopoly position. Had they actually proposed something innovative, and proposed it as an RFC (even if it was an Informational RFC), then maybe things would be different. Instead, they decide to do something that was not contemplated by the IAB for the standard. The Internet is built on standards - and sometimes standards can be slow to change because of the sheer number of different systems involved. You can't expect things like DNS standards to change overnight.

Innovation? No, world's second oldest profession

[morelife]

Dude, abuse of power, greed, and lying to the public are not exactly "innovation". Can we please have our "weaker" Internet back? Uh, thank you.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder

[doon]

or even better some of us don't like to have to rewrite tons of scripts that use the DNS system for something besides the web. I mean there is more to the internet then just the World Wide Waste :). When Verisign decided it would do this, I noticed all my domain checking scripts stopped returning NXDOMAINS, and had to be hacked real quick to look for the magic site finder ip, and then before that wonderful Bind patch, had to worry that they would change the magic ip thus breaking my scripts again.

Then to add salt to my wounds, they send me an e-mail saying that my domain name is expired and I should call a friendly Verisign scumbag^H^H^H^H^H^Halesperson to help get my domain back. This was the last domain I had registered on them, and it was moved to OpenSRS 5 months ago. I don't see how someone this incompentant and this greedy should be put in charge of something this important.

Wrong place

[countach]

The problem is not that something like sitefinder isn't a good idea. The problem is that putting it in the root name servers is the wrong place for it. Something like a browser plugin or browser feature is the correct place for it. Users can have the feature, and it may even be good, but this is the dead wrong way to implement it.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder

[ScrewMaster]

Uh ... no. Verisign altered and partially busted a rather critical piece of Internet infrastructure and caused significant problems. The Sitefinder aspect of their "innovation" was only part of it. Billions of lines of code out in the world were written to function with DNS servers that behave in a certain way, to a particular well-defined specification. Verisign altered they way the root servers respond to DNS requests, and they did it unilaterally, without warning, and for profit. That is precisely the kind of mentality we do not want in an entity that maintains systems and equipment that we all depend on.

Suppose your power company decided, all on its own, without consulting you or anyone else, that they were only going to supply 90 VAC to your home or office instead of the usual 120. Some pieces of equipment would work fine, others would simply fail, or even destroy themselves. You would probably not have any idea what the hell was happening. That's pretty much what Verisign did to programs that interact with .COM and .NET domains. There are other ways of providing SiteFinder-like capability with causing worldwide disruption, and if Versign is unable to handle their assigned responsibility it should be given to someone who can.

What Verisign did rocks the foundation of trust that other nations have in America's ability to operate such globally important services. Verisign's upper management needs an attitude re-adjustment, or better yet complete replacement with more ethical businessmen.

Seriously

[tugrul]

I hate M$FT as much as the next guy here, but their autosearch solution was innovative* (* not sure if it was their idea). Without changing how the internet fundamentally works, they chose to render a failed DNS lookup as something more friendly and functional than a limited, rather useless OK popup. Something well within the right of a client application, and easily checked off if it doesn't float your boat. And it only affected those people that voluntarily chose to use their product (don't beat me up on the voluntarily bit).

With Verisign, there is no choice. They took a common community resource that should benefit all equally and biased it in their favor. They were selected as guardians of the system, not burdened with a mandate to "improve it". If they really think themselves clever, have them deploy a new, distinct system and compete for our patronage.

Innovation

[Tony-A]

from dictionary.com [emphasis added]

innovation

\In`no*va"tion\, n. [L. innovatio; cf. F. innovation.] 1. The act of innovating; introduction of something new, in customs, rites, etc. --Dryden.

2. A change effected by innovating; a change in customs; something new, and contrary to established customs, manners, or rites. --Bacon.

Why is everybody assuming that innovation is a good thing? Seems to me it is really a bad thing.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder

[ScrewMaster]

No bluster. I think you just don't realize a. the scope of this issue and b. the potential for future mismanagement. The problem came in because Verisign tried to think for itself, but it doesn't have a license to think! Their job is to competently maintain a prescribed service, not to "innovate", and frankly they failed on both counts. You may consider this no big deal (if you were the admin of a major network you might feel differently, I suppose) but do you really want a bunch of marketing drones making decisions that affect the root servers? That's what happened here, whether you like SiteFinder or not. If they aren't put squarely in their place now, the next time they make some stupid little decision it may have worse impact. Verisign likes to make a big deal out of trust, but they don't understand that trust comes from predictability: the knowledge that a trusted entity will behave in a known way. I (and pretty much the rest of the planet) don't want these people to innovate ... just run the damn servers they way you contracted to run them. And I will tell you this: they are a lot less trusted now then they were before all this foolishness.

As a developer of Internet-aware applications, Verisign already caused me some grief. We had a problem with one of our customer's data acquisition systems failing because they misconfigured the name of a remote server and the software couldn't tell! Ordinarily the software would have simply rejected the bad domain as unknown, but it (and we) had no reason to suspect that a long-time network standard would be violated simply because Verisign's marketing department saw an opportunity. So don't tell me this was no big deal: our problem was repeated the whole world over. I lost the better part of a day over it, and I have better things to do.

If Verisign wants to offer SiteFinder as a service ... fine. Some people might even pay for it. But what they did was utterly irresponsible for a company in their position.

Time to think about ...

[alexandre]

decentralizing the DNS system... or at least promoting alternatives 8)

http://www.opennic.unrated.net/ would be a good start.

Re:Sitefinder not innovative

[ComputerSlicer23]

Implementing it in the DNS isn't "bonkers". Implementing in the _root_ DNS servers, with no warning, no RFC, no discussion, and no debate is bonkers. While I agree that the most appropriate way to do that is in the user agent.

I mean if AOL wanted to put this sort of rule in their DNS server, more power to them. If cox.net wanted to do it, great. If my work wanted to do it fine. If they are prepared to suffer the consequences, and will allow me to route around it, I'm fine with it.

The people who run the core of the DNS system for the two most commonly typed domain names? Gosh darn irresponsible. Just insane. Bonkers. Foolish. Strange. Inappropriate.

I don't mind others breaking their perspective of the internet. However, I have serious issues with people who break my corner of the internet.

Kirby

Innovation

[dmiller]

VeriSlime's sitefinder is innovation is much the same way that the SARS virus is evolution.

Innovative? Try illegal.

[Guspaz]

They break all sorts of applications that rely on proper DNS behaviour, and typosquat EVERY domain name, and they call it innovation?

Hell, there isn't even an entry in sitefinder for every domain, (Try searching for my site, novasearch.net, on sitefinder. No hits.), so it's not even good at the task they purport it to be for!

Re:Innovation

[pVoid]

Cause if your customs are attaching leeches to your veins to cure yourself, you're not exactly in a good place to begin with.

Everything in moderation. It's no use polarizing the polemic.

It should be clear though, that what Verisign is doing is wrong, not because it wasn't done before or some very esotheric reason that only a slashdotter could come up with, it's because DNS is not only used by HTTP (as the ICANN very aptly explained). The very bottom line is that DNS is used by more than just humans. That being said, yet another point against them: DNS over HTTP is used by more than just english speaking people.

It's not the sabotage I mind...

[The Gline]

...so much as the sneaky excuses.

I'm reminded, distantly, of a hoax that took place in the art world in the Sixties. A modern art exhibit was set up at a small downtown (NY) gallery, with about forty paintings, and an art critic for one of the major rags came down to check it out. He started doing this gush to the curator full of the usual ArtSpeak jargon, and then the hoax was revealed: the paintings were all the work of a two-year-old boy. There was a pause, and then the critic shifted gears as if nothing had happened and started gushing about the purity of a child's untarnished perspective!

The more I live, the more I see that people will do absolutely anything to pretend that everything is just hunky dory, even if it means being a consummate horse's ass. VeriSign are just the latest heirs to ass-dom.

Internet Explorer

[truesaer]

The funny thing here is that Internet Explorer already suggested alternatives for mistyped domains on their special 404 page. And their suggestions, based on my use, were usually spot on.

In contrast, sitefinder's suggestions were never even close and it broke protocols to boot. Amazing here that Microsoft could actually have come up with the right solution. I never liked their error pages, but it was only because the error number wasn't immediately obvious. If they had just added "404" or "505" in big letters I would have been happy with them.

Someone ought to tell Verisign that they didn't innovate anything. Microsoft already had this idea, and they did it way better.

The more "innovation", the less invention!

[0x0d0a]

There WAS advance notice.

I'm dubious. I read one of the very first, if not the first, announcements on NANOG, and it was after-the-fact (or approximately at-the-fact). There was certainly not the at *least* six months of warning that would be necessary for a change like this.

Also, has anyone noticed that Verisign and Microsoft, two of the largest tech companies that play the nastiest and are the *worst* at coming out with new tech (actually, to be honest, I don't know Verisign's history well enough to know whether they're historically like this or not) are the ones that *constantly* claim that any interference with their operations would "stifle innovation"?

I don't see Google pulling the "stifle innovation" card. Google's research lab comes out with exciting, helpful, interesting things on a regular basis. I don't see Apple pulling the "stifle innovation" card -- and while Apple may not be the tech luminary that it once was, it still comes out with decent and out-of-the-ordinary products. The only people claiming that their "innovation" is at risk are those who *aren't* innovating.

Forget "Utter Crap", he is a monumental ass

[tugrul]

At first I didn't read the article, figuring that it was just a longer sappier version of the summary posted here. The summary does it no fucking justice.

More likely, ICANN caved under the pressure from some in the Internet community for whom this is a technology-religion issue about whether the Internet should be used for these purposes.

For this vocal minority, resentment lingers at the very fact that the Internet is used for commercial purpose, which ignores the fact that it's a critical part of our economy.

At this moment the veins in my forehead are bulging, and I'm envisioning a fate for this man pulled out of Crichton's Congo.

Apparently this gigantic ass doesn't realize that we are the critical people that make it function as a critical part of our economy. It also happens to be the fucking critical part of putting food on our plates. Somebody needs to get this through his thick head before the next time he hops into his 6 figure car heading back to his 7 figure house.

This unforgivable libel needs to be answered on the pages of news.com, and I think we should be petitioning to get this guy canned. He is not of the moral character I want near the big red button of the Internet.

I need to go cool off...

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder

[owendelong]

Sorry... Maybe the only application you use on the intenet is Web Browsing, and, so you
aren't effected by the things they broke. Lucky you.

However, for those of us that use other applications (email, ssh, IPSEC, etc.), which are suffering
incorrect error messages at best, and, significant malfunctions at worst as a result of this
action by Verisign, it's not a good thing. If you get a 404 page, you're welcome to go to
sitefinder yourself. You're welcome to go to google or any other search engine.

This isn't knee-jerk reactionism, it's response to painful stimuli. Additionally, Verisign made
this change without public review, without public comment, without public notice, and, without
approval from any of the governing bodies (IETF, IAB, ICANN) or the operational communities.
Further, when the governing body that owns their contract (ICANN) asked them nicely, they
refused to fix it. They had to resort to threatening legal action.

I hope this will help you understand the issue a little better and realize that most of the people
making the most vocal reaction are responding to real pain in trying to keep their networks
running. Most of us don't have time to be chicken little.

Owen