Verisign Gets Out of the Registrar Biz, Keeps .com Registry

Perianwyr Stormcrow writes "Verisign shot off a message today saying that they're selling off Network Solutions to Pivotal Private Equity (a firm specializing in picking up and turning around 'under-performing' businesses.) Perhaps Sitefinder was an attempt at maximizing shareholder value for the sale."

Comments

I think I speak for everybody when I say

[Rajesh Gupta]

Good riddance !

Re:I think I speak for everybody when I say

[DrEldarion]

They're most definitely still there - It's just that now someone else is handling all the customers. They're still keeping control over the infrastructure and doing all the back-end stuff. They can still screw things up.

-- Dr. Eldarion --

Re:I think I speak for everybody when I say

[inode_buddha]

"... was an attempt at maximizing the shareholder value of the sale."

It's nice to know when all your hard earned dollars and effort are being used as a pawn in somebody's power/money play. I tend to remember things like that.

Hmmm...

[Pxtl]

Umm, do we sing "Ding Dong the wicked witch is dead"... or just panic? I am quite perturbed.

Hooray for the pyram^H^H^H^H^H^H stock market for allowing such wierdness and flagrant disregard for sound business practices become modus operandi in the tech industry.

Re:Hmmm...

[dzym]

Umm, do we sing "Ding Dong the wicked witch is dead"... or just panic?

Panic. Now there are no monopoly issues with them reimplementing SiteFinder. Less things to sue them over to get them to stop the next time they decide to fuck over the Internet "for fun and profit."

Re:Hmmm...

[drakaan]

Maybe not a monopoly, but if they have a 15% stake in a company that they "happen" to redirect tyops to via some "service", that looks like unfair competition to me. Does sound like an attempted end-run around the part of what they did that could realistically hurt them, though...this is WAY too sudden to be conincidence. Oh, yeah "IANAL".

Re:Hmmm...

[Grax]

There would be monopoly issues with anyone implementing sitefinder. The implementation of sitefinder depends upon being able to abuse the .com database.

If company A is the registrar and company B is running sitefinder, company A would still have to be responsible for screwing everyone by putting the pieces in that company B needs to run sitefinder.

Gets out but stays in?

[Brahmastra]

How does it get out of the registrar business but keep .com? Doesn't that mean it's still in the registrar business?

Re:Gets out but stays in?

[jeek]

I think they're no longer dealing with customers... only with domain name resellers.

Re:Gets out but stays in?

[markhb]

There are two parts: the registrar business of signing up domain names (the same as what places like register.com do), which is what is being sold, and the registry business, which is the maintenance of the central .com database and the root server(s). They're keeping the registry side, so the submitter's comment about Siteminder is in error... they still have that side of the operation.

Re:Gets out but stays in?

[turg]

There are two separate roles that Versign has/had here.

1. They are the registry operator who run the core database of domain names for various TLDs, including .com and .net. They do this on behalf of ICANN and the US Dept of Commerce (in the case of .com and .net). This also means they run the root DNS for those TLDs. This is the position that allowed them to create their SiteFinder "service." The registry operator gets information about the domains from registrars.
2. In addition, they are one of the many competing domain name registrars.

Though they acquired both of these functions by buying Network Solutions, they are only selling the registrar business. While this removes a conflict of interest for them, it doesn't do anything for the recent controversy

15% equity

[Loconut1389]

Note the 15% equity stake, means they still have vested interest in sitefinder either way

Eh.

[Gunsmithy]

Verisign, I barely knew ye.

And for that, I'm glad.

Yet another example

[lone_marauder]

Of corporate greed deliberately damaging the public good.

I need remedial lessons. Someone please tell me again why capitalism is good.

Re:Yet another example

[cybermage]

Someone please tell me again why capitalism is good.

Capitalism isn't good. It's just the least bad of the available options tried thus far.

Re:Yet another example

[IWorkForMorons]

Someone please tell me again why capitalism is good.


Capitalism is good because it allows people to gain from their work. Then again, Communism, or whatever other -isms there are, all have they're good points and all work when everyone follows the rules. This shite only starts happening when those who brake the rules are the ones who influence the handing out of punishments, or get the rules taken out completely. Case in point: whatever happened to Microsoft being broken up into smaller companies?

Re:Yet another example

[Anonymous Coward]

I trust a greedy capitalist looking out for his own good more than I trust a career gov't man claiming to be looking out for my good.

Verisign doesn't live in a vacuum. It was a gov't imposed-monopoly that gave verisign the ability to screw up dns.

Whatever you think of capitalism, just remember that the gov't takes your money through taxes whether you like it or not. If a capitalist takes your money, it's because you willingly gave it to him in exchange for something you desire.

Re:Yet another example

[fishbowl]

If I had to stand in line for bread, I'd at least check to see if the line for flour is shorter.

Re:Yet another example

[sirbone]

Here's a good reason why capitalism rocks: China, the former USSR, Canada, etc. If you don't like capitalism, spend a few years in China to try out an alternative. See how you enjoy the shared poverty. (Good luck owning a car over there!) Enjoy living unaccounted for in a jail cell because you went to the wrong wen sites. If you want a lesser extreme, try Canada with their socialism. Then you can wait in line for months to years for non-critical medical procedures that you could have been performed swiftly in the US. Gape on awe at how subsidies artificially inflate demand for frivolous medical treatments and how it makes the market incapable of meeting the capacity of its people's demands. Or you could try living the good old US of A where price caps on the government controlled energy industry caused it to have less money for upgrading infrastructure while artificially increasing consumer demand due to abnormally low prices, encouraging excessive consumption of energy. Here's the formula for that non-capitalistic system: forced increased load + forced less investment capital = government induced failed energy system.

Re:Yet another example

[h00pla]

You assume that what we have in the industrialized world is capitalism. It is not. It is the accumulation of capital in few hands. This is plutocracy. Real capitalism should always try put to as much capital in as many hands as possible.

There's no reason to settle for a "least bad" option. There is a good one and it is called distributivism.

Re:Yet another example

[lone_marauder]

First of all, I've already lost this argument. See this post for the winning point.

That said...

Then you can wait in line for months to years for non-critical medical procedures that you could have been performed swiftly in the US.

What insurance plan are you on? I had to wait half a year in pain to get a hernia repaired on privately secured medical service paid for by privately (and handsomely) paid health insurance. And I get to pay $1000 in deductibles and copayments for my trouble!

Re:Yet another example

[sirbone]

Sounds like you have a pretty crummy doctor and/or insurance company. Excercise your capitalist freedom to change to someone else. Maybe the hospital in the next town over runs a better operation than the one you went to, or maybe Bob's Insurance has less red tape than whatever company you are with. As for the $1,000, you would have paid it every April 15 under socialism, even if you didn't need the operation. Socialialism does not make things free. It only hides the cost so you don't realize how much it hurts your pocketbook.

Also, when you wait that long in socialism you really can't change providers. Sure, you could go to a private insurer if they hadn't been driven out of business by the government's forcibly subsidized monopoly. But you would be forced by the government to pay for the bad service whether you use it or not, so you thus have an explicit incentive to not seek out choice. Thus like many monopolies there is no market incentive for improvement. In fact, less incentive than a capitalistic monopoly since there is even less choice for the people; if I don't like my monopolistic electric bill then I try to use less air conditioning (market pressure on the electric company) or invest in more efficient light bulbs (market incentive for innovation) or look into installing some solar panels on my roof (more innovation). Monopolies suck, but government monopolies are the worst since the people are forced to subsidize them no matter how poor it is. Imagine how stagnant the technology coming out of an operating system monopoly would be if it was Congress using our taxes to create a "free" Operating System of the People with garunteed revenue (taxes) rather than Microsoft trying to stave off Apple, Sun, and Linux lest they lose revenue that was never garunteed for them. Now imagine that for other industries.

Re:Yet another example

[LaCosaNostradamus]

I must then remind you of the limits of your definitions. Capitalism by itself doesn't exist. It exists in a sea of Human currents. And we are finding out how it fares when exposed to the current of immoral and insatiable greed.

To paraphrase Elbert Hubbard, a capitalist is a person with savings and a home. Given the disappearance of savings in America, and combined with the trend of home loans that won't be paid off over the lifetime of the loan, and you end up with very few of these defined Capitalists in America today. Savings and a home imply stability, and stability implies some sort of philosophy of life ... morality, if you will. It's this line of reasoning that compels me to summarize that we need a moral Capitalism.

Re:Yet another example

[jxs2151]

Someone please tell me again why capitalism is good.

Sure- An article

Re:Yet another example

[FrankoBoy]

Social phenomena cannot occur "naturally", since you always start from some social constructs to go to other ones - that's what culture is all about. Even facing some purely physical observations ( "A comet is going to hit the Earth !" ), you will interact with other people according to social habits you already have. Therefore, capitalism, like all -isms, is a social phenomenon and hence can be put aside.

Capitalism is not the mere exchange of goods and services ; capitalism implies property. On the other hand, there have been many places and times in history where things were managed in a purely communal way, where things were shared among the people without restrincting individual rights ( that is, unless someone just knowingly wasted ressources ). Unfortunately, most of these communes got crushed by external reaction ( though some did from internal problems ) ; anarchist Catalonia around 1937 is a great example of all this.

I didn't even have to offer you a counter-example though, it's just fundamental observation : social constructs do not exist as is, and other ways are possible and shall happen sooner or later. Nothing lasts forever.

Re:Yet another example

[Delphinios]

You're incorrect. It is "They're". That would be a contraction.

Re:Yet another example

[lone_marauder]

Excercise your capitalist freedom to change to someone else.

I have two choices with regard to my insurance. Enroll, or not. They were chosen by my employer. My only option is to seek another job, in a field and in an economy where that is impossible (I work in IT). The only way Capitalism could exist in health insurance would be for group rates to be illegal (more government intervention), and for your company to simply provide an insurance subsidy that you could combine with your own funds to buy your own health insurance. Then health insurance providers would have to directly compete for customers (horrors!).

Re:Yet another example

[sirbone]

This is due to socialism. FDR worked hard at price and wage freezes during the war, so to allow people to get "raises" he offered tax breaks for employers to give their employees health insurance. That is where these programs originated. So that is a product of socialism, an attempt by the government to control people's wages. Though no one forces you to enroll in the employer's program. You can select "don't enroll". (And if you can't then your HR department is seriously screwed up!) The problem is that the government still offers tax breaks for these sorts of things, which makes it more expensive for yuo to go elsewhere. If government stopped intervening and gave equal tax breaks for all no matter where they got their insurance then you wouldn't have this problem.

Re:Yet another example

[lone_marauder]

Interesting. I didn't know about that. Thanks.

Re:Yet another example

[JessLeah]

"All have they are good points"?

Idiot.

Re:Yet another example

[IWorkForMorons]

What gets me is three days later and you're STILL quibbling about a bloody grammer mistake. What are you, a geek or an English teacher?

Not what you think

[bitchx]

They didn't sell the .com or .net registery aspect - they still are the registery. They just sold the customer-facing registrar business.

Re:Not what you think

[jniver]

mod the parrent up

RTFA, they are planning on keeping there "core" features which include the digital signatures and the DNS.

Now, talk about a blow to their company if (hopefully when) ICANN removes their control of .com and .net

I wonder what their buisness case is for this..I've never seen step 3 in the buisness case "Watch 50% of your core buisness go up in smoke because you didn't listen to the warnings from ICANN"

Oh well...good ridance I say

Re:Not what you think

[Delphinios]

The problem is, Verisign -Will- make money. What advertiser isn't gonna scramble to get an ad on the sitefinder page or raise their search listing a couple of points higher.

Here, we have a company that has full control over where people go to when they make a wrong turn and don't go where they were intending. Instead of a Dead-end sign (which they can then choose to use google, yahoo, or any other search engine) they're presented with one in front of them.

The core issue is not weather this will be profitable. It will. But it does so by literally stealing hits for other search engines by excersizing Verisign's control on the .com and .net domains (the most used on the internet).

This is where, no matter the complaining of sysadmins or us geeks, the real issue lies. It just put to waste the millions of advertising dollars Yahoo has spent, and the millions of dollars Google has spent to improve it's search engine.

History has shown that human nature will make Sitefinder work by capitalizing on people's laziness. They'll type in the name of the site they're looking for instead of deciding to go to that other search engine they saw on TV or heard their computer knowladgable friends talk about.

All in the family

[CausticWindow]

Who's doing business with Pivotal? Canopy is.

For a second there, I hoped that the ways of Network Solutions were finally going to change.

Oh... they're not gone.

[eneref]

They still retain 15% of the company... and spots on the board at ICANN.

It makes sense.

[Sheetrock]

Verisign seems like they're more interested in performing as a business rather than acting as a steward for the domain registry.

A lot of people seem upset about the whole Sitefinder thing, though, which struck me as kind of wierd. IE popped up a helpful page when a domain wasn't found; what's so bad about the actual domain registrar doing it? Anyway, it seemed like a miniature thing next to some of the other problems people had with them. (Interesting thing I found out; miniature with British pronounciation actually means 'microscopic or smaller' where with English it's just 'small'.)

The point I'm getting to: there are other registrars that seem to do the same thing at the end of the day without all the baggage or cost.

Re:It makes sense.

[iantri]

A lot of people seem upset about the whole Sitefinder thing, though, which struck me as kind of wierd. IE popped up a helpful page when a domain wasn't found; what's so bad about the actual domain registrar doing it?

Because it completely breaks e-mail and other services that rely on a proper response when a domain doesn't exist. For example, spam-blocking tools. They'll bounce the message if the domain in the From: line doesn't exist. With Sitefinder, it always 'exists', so the spam-blocker is less effective.

(Interesting thing I found out; miniature with British pronounciation actually means 'microscopic or smaller' where with English it's just 'small'.)

Huh? Oh, by "English" you mean American English, beacuse that's the only one which is important, right? (What did you think the British (..and Australians, Canadians, etc.) called their language?

Re:It makes sense.

[oolon]

Whats so bad about it? Ok off the top of my head.....

1) I cannot turn it off.
2) Its in English (not the native tounge of the reader).
3) It breaks the autocomplete url functionality because every time I typo a url it is added to my history, where as they are not added when a domain is not found. Making the right sites harder and harder to find.
4) Search engine is paid for adverts.
5) http is not the only protocol on the planet, its just one port of many.
6) Why does verisign have the right to the wildcard, surely this is a valuable commonity and should have been sold off to the highest bidder?

James

Re:It makes sense.

[happyfrogcow]

"what's so bad about the actual domain registrar doing it?"

Again, another person who hasn't read a thing about how networks work. It is this "regular joe end user" type of opinion that Verisign had quoted when trying to say that their actions were justified. Like everyone else who has even the slightest clue about the Internets network infrastructure, I'll say that the Internet does not equal the WWW. There is more to the Internet than just browsing the web.

If Verisign wanted to do what IE did, they could have released a "plugin" for IE, or any other browser, that offered their "service" on a software level, where such functionality belongs.

Stop perpetuating this "It's allright for me, why can't everyone else deal with it" attitude.

Re:It makes sense.

[interiot]

• IE popped up a helpful page when a domain wasn't found; what's so bad about the actual domain registrar doing it?

How many times does this have to be said?

Implementing SiteFinder so it only works for the HTTP protocol is fine... implementing it in such a way that it affects every protocol on the internet is BAD and has unintended consequences. Implementing sitefinder in specific applications so that users have a choice about having it is even better is the best of all worlds.

Re:It makes sense.

[PhilipPeake]

It actually makes no sense at all.

What a browser manufacturer does is up to them. If they want to take any error message and turn it into an advertizing opportunity, thats their choice, people will either use that browser or junk it and use a better one.

What verisign has done is to take away the choice.

Also, you are assuming that the web=the internet. This is absolutely not true. The internet is used for many, many more things than just browsing web pages.

What verisgn has done is to essenially say screw the other users, we can make money from the web browser users, and if it breaks other applications, thats just tough.

The real issue though is the abuse of their position as trustee of the .com and .net servers. they have taken that position of trust, and used it simply to force people to their services (in addition to breaking other services).

They are calling their trustee position "Verisign Directory Services" - it is patently NOT a Verisign Directory, it is not owned by anyone, they just been entrusted with its care and feeding. They have hijacked it (or at least are attempting to).

Unfortunately, there is no real analogy to try to illustrate to you how terrible what they have done is. The usual one of dialing a wrong telephone number and being just connected to directory information is not really that close.

Re:It makes sense.

[NDPTAL85]

The overwhelming majority of the internet is the web and chat rooms. Everything else is tertiary or quarternary at best.

Re:It makes sense.

[happyfrogcow]

Obviously. But since when has the prevailing opinion of a majority been shown to be in the best interest of everyone? Just because you might want to optimize for the most common scenario (http) doesn't mean you can break other, typical but not most common, scenarios.

Re:It makes sense.

[John Hasler]

> Verisign seems like they're more interested in
> performing as a business rather than acting as a
> steward for the domain registry.

What they are selling is the business of selling domains at retail. It has nothing to do with control of .com and .net.

> A lot of people seem upset about the whole
> Sitefinder thing, though, which struck me as
> kind of wierd.

That's because you don't know how the Internet works.

> IE popped up a helpful page when a domain wasn't
> found...

Then let IE keep right on doing so. That's a perfectly reasonable browser feature.

> ...what's so bad about the actual domain
> registrar doing it?

1) It broke all sorts of system software that depended on lookups of non-existent domains failing in the way specified in the relevant standards.

2) It allowed Verisign to take unfair advantage of its special position. If they had just wanted to help end-users they would have set up some sort of rotation that would have sent each successive connection to a different search provider.

> The point I'm getting to: there are other
> registrars that seem to do the same thing at the
> end of the day without all the baggage or cost.

No one else can do the same thing.

Re:It makes sense.

[digitalsushi]

6) Why does verisign have the right to the wildcard, surely this is a valuable commonity and should have been sold off to the highest bidder?

I dont think it should ever have the chance to be sold off to anyone, nor should it exist as an option period.

It's like if the local phone company hooked all the wrong numbers into the switch admin's cousin Vinny --

*dials wrong number*
*answers* "Hey talk to me"
"Hi, is this Armstrong Plumbing?"
"UGh.. yeah I can do plumbing."
"Ah ok. Can I make an appointment?"
"Yeah lemme find a napkin or something to write on"
"What time can I expect you?"
"Well my ma gets home at three so I can grab her car after that"

Re:It makes sense.

[ScottSpeaks!]

You left out:
7) It breaks a lot of spam detection software.

Re:It makes sense.

[Short Circuit]

If you cut out porn, the majority of the Internet becomes email. :)

Re:It makes sense.

[RedHat Rocky]

*sigh*

The problem with sitefinder is that it breaks DNS, not that you get directed to a particular domain.

WWW != Internet

DNS != marketing opportunity

Blocking IP != Correcting the Sitefinder problem

Normally I don't respond to AC, but hey, this really ticks me off.

Re:It makes sense.

[petermdodge]

The problem is that you can switch of a client-side message. You cannot switch off a nameserver-side message. Therefore you have their preference forced on you, all while gaining millions upon billions of domains for free where competitors have to pay around $9 for a single domain to use in a similar way. By way of the Fair Competition Law, they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

If they don't play by the rules, then they should fully expect to face the consequences of their actions.

Key point

[Lizard_King]

For those of you who don't RTFA, here is the key point from the release:
When VeriSign acquired Network Solutions in 2000, it obtained two distinct businesses:

- The customer-facing Registrar business is the world's leading provider of domain name registrations, and an industry leader in value added services such as business email, websites, hosting and other web presence services. The Registrar, which re-assumed the Network Solutions name in January of this year, constitutes the current Network Solutions business that is being sold.

- The Registry business that is the backbone of the global .com and .net domain name infrastructure currently handles over 10 billion interactions per day, remains with VeriSign as a critical component of its business. This Registry business was recently renamed VeriSign Naming and Directory Services and is a core piece of VeriSign's Internet Services Group.


Synopsis: selling customer facing biz, keeping registry infrastructure.

Re:Key point

[mamer-retrogamer]

So, they will no longer communicate with end users (which have been such a pain in the ass for them lately--"why can't users just accept our all-powerful status?") and will instead focus on "improving" the potential gold-mine of Sitefinder and similar technologies.

This company is in the process of being destroyed by its own greed.

Re:Key point

[venicebeach]

I don't understand exactly what this second part is, the part they are keeping - how do they make money handling the infrastructure? Could someone please explain? Thanks...

Re:Key point

[Bastard Operator Fro]

Simple enough... Sitefinder Ads

Re:Key point

[DigitalSpyder]

This is exactly what I was going to post.

The way I read the article, at the end of the day, Verisign is still in control of DNS and the registry.

This is the heart of the matter. If they don't control the root servers or the registry, then they can't bugger it up with lame ideas that break established RFCs.

Oh well. There isn't much we can do about it now anyway. As long as they don't step out of line again and as long as ICANN isn't afraid to lay the smackdown on them when they do, then I'm (relatively) happy....

Re:Key point

[DigitalSpyder]

Actually... I take that back.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33432.html

Someone needs to take away registry control from Verisign. They just have no clue. If this puts them out of business then so be it. I really don't care.

exposure

[scorilo]

so they did sitefinder thingie only to get more exposure. even dumb and controversial decisions will play well with their stock price as long as they bring the press spotlight on them. just look at sco...

Verisign is keeping .com and .net

[NormalVisual]

The title of the article seems to imply that Verisign was only keeping the .com registry. From what I gathered in the article, Verisign's entire registry business (.com and .net) is unaffected. Maybe the new registrar owners will institute reasonable fees - I fail to see why anyone would register through Verisign when you have places like GoDaddy that will give you a domain for less than $20 for two years. :-)

Re:Verisign is keeping .com and .net

[drinkypoo]

Possibly because outside of the gay porn industry, people don't want to explain to their boss why they're continually sending funds to a site called godaddy.com?

Re:Verisign is keeping .com and .net

[Loge]

I fail to see why anyone would register through Verisign when you have places like GoDaddy that will give you a domain for less than $20 for two years.

Well, I used one of those discount registrars for a group of addresses, and I deeply regretted the decision. It turns out the outfit split their service delivery between two separate companies, with two separate web front-ends, separate user IDs, and passwords etc. (which weren't even provided to me when I signed up). Worse, the group doing technical support was overseas, so the responsiveness wasn't great. Then, "whois" never worked on the domain name, just kept timing out. When I complained to technical support, they just kind of mumbled something like "that shouldn't be happening, hmmmm...."

I ultimately dropped them, and moved all of my business to Network Solutions. Sure, it cost me a little more, but I find their web-based management tool to be very usable, and have no complaints about their responsiveness.

Re:Verisign is keeping .com and .net

[Anonymous Coward]

I moved from Net Sol to GoDaddy last week, believe it or not. Not only do they charge a fifth of the price that Network Solutions does, but they include DNS as well as e-mail forwarding and web-forwarding. All for free. You control everything through a web interface, including full control over your DNS zone file.Last I checked Network Solns charged $40/year or so for DNS access. I am so far pleased with the business. The support and the whole situation seems a bit more personal. That and they sued Verisign the day after they went through with this sitefinder bullshit. Yay. How cool.

Re:Verisign is keeping .com and .net

[camt]

Well, I used one of those discount registrars for a group of addresses, and I deeply regretted the decision.

You've obviously never used Gandi.

Sure, it costs me as little as the the discount registrars, *and* I find their web-based management tool to be very usable, and have no complaints about their responsiveness.

-- Cameron

Re:Verisign is keeping .com and .net

[oscarm]

Well, I used one of those discount registrars for a group of addresses, and I deeply regretted the decision.

Can you tell us which one you used instead of painting them all as incompetent? I've used GoDaddy for two years now without experiencing any problems like you described.

Re:Verisign is keeping .com and .net

[cornjones]

don't forget the free basic dns/web/email forwarding.

gandi is exactly what I look for, cheap, reliable, easily manageable.

Of course, reliability is relatively easy considering they aren't really hosting much....

ej

Re:Verisign is keeping .com and .net

[gyratedotorg]

register.com provides the same services at a lower cost.

Re:Verisign is keeping .com and .net

[RedHat Rocky]

I'll plug register4less.com, no problems and they're running on Linux last I checked.

Anything that's part of OpenSRS works for me.

Re:Verisign is keeping .com and .net

[evilviper]

Well, I used one of those discount registrars for a group of addresses, and I deeply regretted the decision.

I think you are just opening yourself up to a flood of "works for me" posts by acting like everyone but Verisign is utter crap, which certainly isn't true.

Then, "whois" never worked on the domain name, just kept timing out.

That may be unfortunate, but it's not as if your DNS address stopped resolving. Annoyance, not armageddon.

I ultimately dropped them, and moved all of my business to Network Solutions. Sure, it cost me a little more, but

It's your right to spend as much money as you want, for any percieved value, but you could have looked for a better registrar, rather than running back to verisign.

Re:Verisign is keeping .com and .net

[whoever57]

Then, "whois" never worked on the domain name, just kept timing out

And your problem with this is....? Unless you like receiving lots of spam sent to the contact addresses listed in the whois.

Is this a Good Thing, really?

[jamehec]

History may prove this to be "out of the frying pan, into the fire".

There are worse alternatives. Let's wait and see BEFORE we break out tnhe Wild Turkey Rare Breed, mmmkay?

Separation as a shield

[Filibustero]

I suspect that Sitefinder and the sale of Network Solutions are related in some way. The "voluntary" suspension of Sitefinder might have been an attempt to maximize the sale price.

More significantly, they may have anticipated the negative reaction to Sitefinder, and decided that one way to prevent people from taking out their anger on the registrar (through lost sales/renewals) would be to make the registrar a separate, "innocent" company.

I hope that someone can stop Verisign, but like spam, I suspect that the technical folks will have to find a way to block it rather than hoping for some governmental body or lawsuit to intervene.

Note, it's not all of Network Solutions...

[dedave]

They're only selling half of the business.

Quote from the press release:

When VeriSign acquired Network Solutions in 2000, it obtained two distinct businesses:

The customer-facing Registrar business is the world's leading provider of domain name registrations, and an industry leader in value added services such as business email, websites, hosting and other web presence services. The Registrar, which re-assumed the Network Solutions name in January of this year, constitutes the current Network Solutions business that is being sold.

The Registry business that is the backbone of the global .com and .net domain name infrastructure currently handles over 10 billion interactions per day, remains with VeriSign as a critical component of its business. This Registry business was recently renamed VeriSign Naming and Directory Services and is a core piece of VeriSign's Internet Services Group.

If I was a gambling man, I'd bet that this is an end-run around ICANNs contract with them to run .com/.net in an impartial manner. Go SiteFinder!

.com, .net, .cc, .tv all Verisigns?

[extrarice]

From the press release:
"
VeriSign's core infrastructure services continue to be organized around the company's two core services areas:

Internet Services Group ....

* Naming and Directory Services - DNS database management and resolution services for approximately 30 million digital identities, including the authoritative directory for all .com, .net, .cc, and .tv domain names. The unit also provides Digital Brand Management Services and DNS Assurance services for large enterprises with complex domain name and IP addressing portfolios. ..."

So, will SiteFinder also cover .cc and .tv in the near future?

Re:.com, .net, .cc, .tv all Verisigns?

[Magic Thread]

.cc is wildcarded right now. I think .tv used to be.

Profit? Buy for $21 billion, sell for $100 million

[Great_Geek]

If you look at the news release, Verisign is being paid US$100 million (in cash plus debt). They bought NSI in March 200 for $21 billion (in stock).

The most intersting thing is that Verisign may actually be profiting from this deal!!!

The $21 billion is stock priced at around $200 each (according to my guess from Yahoo stock chart), so they gave out 10 million shares. Currently VRSN shares are about $15, so they are getting 2/3 of the purchase price back. But they are only selling the "public facing" side of NSI, the actual registry backbone still belongs to VRSN.

So, overall, I would say VRSN did well on this deal. Amazing how stock markets work.

Re:this might actually be a good thing

[KingAdrock]

probably did not expect it to fly as good as they thought it would.

I had assumed that they probably didn't think it would fly as good as they expected it would. Damn I was close.

probably good

[jqh1]

Did you ever deal with NSI or Verisign customer service? I did on several occassions and couldn't help getting the "I'd like to help you, but don't piss me off or I'll turn off the Internet" kind of feeling from the reps.

The business Verisign kept is, of course, absolutely critical, and people operating under the brand and direction of Verisign have irritated me beyond reason in the past. So, reasonably or otherwise, I don't like the thought of that company continuing to run the backbone. Still, it works most of the time, and now I won't ever have to call them to find out why my DNS designations haven't been updated yet.

So I *do* like the idea of separating the retail front from the back room folks. It's always smacked of government sponsored monopoly to have the two together -- maybe the new NSI will actually be a pleasure to work with (and I'll win the lottery and the Cubs will take the series).

Re:probably good

[rudy079]

Maybe Next Year...

on that note... GO SOX

Re:probably good

[markhb]

See my .sig...

(Incidentally, condolences to all the Cubs fans, and good luck to Steve Bartman, the newly-anointed Bill Buckner of the Midwest.)

Re:probably good

[WEFUNK]

Did you ever deal with NSI or Verisign customer service? I did on several occassions and couldn't help getting the "I'd like to help you, but don't piss me off or I'll turn off the Internet" kind of feeling from the reps.

Not only that, but, like many others I recently complained about SiteFinder and several other issues (constant reminders that my domains are about to expire even though I've got years to go). The automated replies mostly just ignored the issues and referred to their FAQ, but the personal replies blamed the problems on VeriSign as though they were a different and unrelated company to Network Solutions (although I think some of these responses came from VeriSign e-mail addresses). Now that they actually are, it will be interesting to see who picks up the credit and blame for these issues. Who gets SiteFinder for instance?

Re:probably good

[evilviper]

It's always smacked of government sponsored monopoly to have the two together

This is the internet we are talking about... It's incredibly difficult to monopolize it. The only reason that Verisign has control, is that they do the job decently, and haven't pissed off enough people to get interest in alternative DNS roots going.

Don't like verisign? Change /etc/resolv.conf to point to someone else.

Re:probably good

[geoffspear]

Back in the good old days of baseball, it was actually impossible for a team to score 8 runs in one play when the ball was hit foul. Since they added those 5 extra bases to the field and allowed anyone on base to keep running on foul balls until the ball is retrieved, the game just hasn't been interesting anymore.

No changes to SiteFinder?

[jbottero]

So really, this will have no effect on SiteFinder, because VeriSign will still be running the registry, and pimping it for their benefit.

Capitalism is fucking great

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

It gives trashmen dreams. Such a thing cannot be underestimated.

Re:Capitalism is fucking great

[micromoog]

Dreams which, when it's discovered are almost impossible to accomplish due to rampant corruption and nepotism, turn to depression and/or anger.

Re:Capitalism is fucking great

[cK-Gunslinger]

Ever heard of "From Rags to Riches" stories? Not all of them are made up or trumped up on the evening news. Societies/economies based on human's own motivation and drive are not bad.

Your key phrase was "almost impossible." Many a fortune has been made on beating those odds. Don't be such a cynic. Not everyone gives up so easily.

Re:Capitalism is fucking great

[muckdog]

Me and Tony are doing very well in the waste Management Business

Re:Capitalism is fucking great

[fishbowl]

>Ever heard of "From Rags to Riches" stories?

For every true rags to riches story, there's a fucton more rags + herculean effort = still rags stories.

There's a guy around here who gives success motivation talks, he's pretty popular on a local level. But I just think it's hilarious, because here's this young, tall, white guy who dresses well and has good teeth, who seems to sincerely believe the source of his success comes from his attitude. It hasn't occurred to him that he had most of the ingredients of being successful handed to him, or that being attractive in the mediagenic sense has done more for his success than his attitude.

Re:Capitalism is fucking great

[IthnkImParanoid]

Totally off-topic, but I think his point was that almost impossible is pretty shitty. I would assume, with personal experience (for what little it's worth) backing this up, that people born to poor families are not, on average, any less intelligent or capable than people born to rich families. Given that, the frequency of "rags to riches" stories over the entire population may be higher than that of an aristocracy, but is still lower than I would expect from a true meritocracy.

Societies/economies based on human's own motivation and drive are not bad.

I would say that any society/economy that fails to take the motivation and drive of individuals into account is destined to fail (communism). However, that does not mean a society that does take those things into account is necessarily good. Think of the impact anti-capitalistic measures (worker safety requirments, equal rights laws) have had, and read about "The Tragedy of the Commons" if you haven't already to see where allowing motivation/drive to run unchecked can be a bad thing.

Re:Capitalism is fucking great

[cK-Gunslinger]

Yeah, I guess I should have qualified my response with the fact that I am a white male from a "real" lower-middle-class family (as opposed to Jack Valenti's "$150k/year middle class) in the south. It shouldn't, but I'm sure it has had some effect on things. I went to public college on academic scholarships, got a decent job, etc.

Anyway, I'm not saying that the system is perfect or even close, but yeah, it is about the best out there today. It could use a lot of improvement, but let's not knock it for that.

Re:Capitalism is fucking great

[drakaan]

What's your point? Success is defined in comparison to those near you, so most people in capitalist America feel average...some feel screwed, some feel well-off. Most of us are *still* better off than large percentages of the population in other countries.

I'm not a young, tall, white guy, and I have probably less talent for acting sincere about something when I'm not, but I do all right. He makes money off of making people think they can do better by having a good attitude (please...come ON), and I make mine by being reasonably smart and dicking around with computers.

People fail to understand that without some sort of ability, talent, or skill at something, herculean effort seldom means success in a monetary sense. Looking good isn't what I consider an ability, but apparently, it works for a lot of people, so does being good with numbers, computers, cars, or scalpels.

Rags to riches stories almost always include some brilliant or overlooked idea that the individual in question capitalized on. The reason they get told is that people like to hear that it's possible, even if they know deep down that they're not going to be the ones in the next story.

Re:Capitalism is fucking great

[enjo13]

As opposed to other, less efficient, systems that give Trashmen no hope of being anything else?

Ya, that's better.

Re:Capitalism is fucking great

[Gunzour]

There's a guy around here who gives success motivation talks, he's pretty popular on a local level.

Does he live in a van down by the river?

here's this young, tall, white guy who dresses well and has good teeth,

Oh... nevermind.

Heh underperforming.

[oolon]

Its underperforming because everyone hates them and wants to move their business somewhere else, now versign get to sit back a just take a cut of every .com/.net reg, while doing very little, though I do admit I prefer the idea of having a neutral registry. I just don't trust verisign and never will again.

James

No love loss here

[macdaddy]

Those guys are a bunch of damned morons. I've actually lost a domain to a forged transfer request. These people are completely inept. No love lost here.

Wildcards

[rufey]

So does this mean that VeriSign will have to pay NSI for every unregistered domain if/when VeriSign puts the wildcard back in?

Revolution

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

And that depression and anger can be harnessed into a force for change. All good.

Re:Revolution

[notque]

And that depression and anger can be harnessed into a force for change

That and rampant violence!

Sitefinder

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

I fail to see how they can ethically keep sitefinder going now that they aren't in the business of registering domains. Will it give you a menu of the umpty-trillion registrars out there now?

Sitefinder is pretty much bound to die, I think.

Re:Sitefinder

[Bonker]

You're accusing Verisign of having Ethics?

Verisign execs realized some time ago that the business of selling domain names wasn't nearly the goldmine they thought it would be, especially when they were forced to relinquish their monopoly on the business and open it up to competitors.

It's very simple. Verisign has no interest in providing services. They want money. If they can get more money by restricting those services to a select few, they can and will attempt to do so.

Re:Sitefinder

[turg]

The primary content of sitefinder was Overture pay-per-click search links. I don't recall the domain registration business being featured prominently, though I'm sure they had a link on there somewhere.

Re:Sitefinder

[whitefael]

I would imagine they are thinking that once they reimplement Sitefinder, they can sell advertising space to all of the .com registrars. If someone wants to be at the top, they have to pay a premium. They'll find a way to make money with it somehow!

Brian
wilkinstech.com

New slogan - "We're not Verisign (but close!)"

[gray_eminence]

A few folks have said already "Hurrah for the end of Verisign's hands in Netsol" but I don't know if I agree.

I would expect for the new owner to act even more aggressively to make their new investment profitable. This seems like one (likely) strategy from a company who turns-around less profitable companies. So it could result in similar junk, under a new name. When someone becomes concerned with track record, they can say "that wasn't us!" and pull similar stuff again.

It doesn't seem that promising, with the exception that the new owner could *potentially* turn the company into one that is worth doing business with. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

The email that got sent out

[Broodje]

Dear Valued Network Solutions(R) Customer, Today VeriSign, Inc. announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to sell Network Solutions to a new entity formed by Pivotal Private Equity. Please be assured that Network Solutions continues to be committed to providing superior products and customer service to our more than 4 million customers. You have seen evidence of this commitment in the numerous enhancements we have introduced over the last 18 months. This commitment remains strong today in our 600 employees, each focused on providing you with a superior customer experience. Today's announcement will not impact the service you receive from us. Network Solutions is the industry's first and largest domain name service provider with over 8 million domain names under management. We will continue to support and enhance a full range of affordable Web related services, including domain names, Web sites, business e-mail, and more. As to the transaction itself, the buyer, Pivotal Private Equity, is a provider of equity for middle market corporate acquisitions. Pivotal focuses on companies in the telecommunications and Internet services industries, among others. The purchase agreement is subject to certain closing conditions, which we expect to be completed in the fourth quarter. To view today's press release and to get additional information go to http://www.verisign.com/corporate/news/index.html. We remain committed to providing high quality services to meet your online needs and thank you for choosing Network Solutions. Sincerely, Network Solutions Customer Service

Does this mean that information will be correct?

[www.sorehands.com]

Does this change means that Network solutions will actually enforce 3.7.7.2 of the ICANN rules that states that the domain must be cancelled if the information is intentionally false? Or will we still have to explain that a phone number of 1111111111 is not a valid telephone number or that 123 Fake street is not a real address?

Will Icann actually get off their ass and sanction Network solutions for allowing this type of registration?

This is what's so bad.

[JoeD]

Repeat after me: THE WEB IS NOT THE INTERNET.

The page that IE pops up is generated locally, by IE, in response to a "domain not found" response by DNS.

With Sitefinder, ANY invalid address was returned as the Sitefinder IP address, whether it was requested by a web browser or not.

Still a major owner

[Camel Pilot]

It might be appropiate to equate Verisign with an mlm but didn't amway sometime get "bought out" by another company, quickstar. Actually the same corporate slime is in charge but with a different less recognizable name. With verisign still holding a large equity stake I think that is what is happening here.

Well that worked well

[Anonym1ty]

Well I guess their latest advertising scheme where they intercepted all bad url requests worked out well for them.

Network Polutions

[Grampa]

Maybe someone will clean up this mess.

Let's face it...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

To most of us in the know, it just doesn't matter. We've all transferred our DNS reg to real companies, that play in the free market and that actually want to keep customers through good service instead of spam and sleeze.

I moved my last 3 domains to joker.com 2 weeks ago in response to the Verislime sitefinder stupidness.

Can't rip people off so they get out? Wimps....

[kolding]

So, the FTC slaps them around for sending fraudulent messages to every domain owner, and they run screaming from the business. When the antitrust suits start raining fire on them, think they'll sell the network backbone business as well? $21 billion investment in NSI, yeah there's a smart move. What a bunch of idiots....

Capitalism is like *nix

[wytcld]

Capitalism is good because it's better to have a number of small, local processes which are honed by those who need and know them best. The local business is the process. Having the course of local business dictated by a distant command structure - whether government or megacorporate - sacrifices the intelligence and agility that come from having it under local control. That's why an OS with a bunch of small daemons and utilities performs more intelligently, dependably and economically than a megalithic one like WinOS.

The "capital" part of capitalism is a structure to distribute working capital to local businesses. Without capital markets, money just associates with power, power just constitutes the state, and it all gets centralized, to the detriment of the overall level of wealth, well-being and intelligence. In prior centuries a privately-owned ship would go to the markets to gather investors for each voyage. This system produced some very smart captains, and excellent - on average - profits.

Capitalism remains true: free local enterprise is better than central control (whether central control is called "the government" or "the corporation") - and a necessary compliment to free individuals' pursuing their lives. Small, not large, companies create all the aggregate job growth in America (back a few years when the government didn't totally favor large corps and starve the small, back when jobs actually increased).

Since Verisign has become such a large corp that its stupidity is showing, they hope to increase the aggregate value by spinning of the public-facing side of domain name sales. This is to compete with the Tucows registry, where the public side is handled by a number of small entrepreneurs (e.g. Jumpdomain). This is actually an example of where trying to please the stockholders results in a move in the right direction.

Mod parent up

[lone_marauder]

Direct hit on my point. I concede the argument.

Verisign can't count...

[Ragnarok21]

"Network Solutions has a strong base of over four million satisfied customers," said J. Jahm Najafi, the Chief Executive Officer of Pivotal Private Equity.

Better make that 3,999,999...I am not a satisfied customer.

Pivitoal group possibly tied to SCO

[harmless_mammal]

I looked at the web page for Pivotal and found that one of the high-ranking members is Rich Sonntag in Utah.

What are the chances that this Sonntag isn't related to Chris Sonntag of SCO?

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me...

-me

Re:Pivitoal group possibly tied to SCO

[happyfrogcow]

They are married.

(hey, if SCO can spread unsubstantiated rumors, so can I)

I hate this "service"

[category9]

My company produces web based orject oriented database software that relies on dns reporting broken domains for some important internal operations.

Site finder totally broke my software and we had to send patches to all our clients who all reported software failure on the same day sitefinder was launched.

As a small business what am I supposed to do about big corporations changing the way the Internet works?

Our software is complient with the RFC's, now we have to be Verisign complient too.

----------
Phil Harvey
Construct Software Limited
Object Oriented Content Management

This business is really tiny

[Animats]

The amusing thing, of course, is that running the registry back end is really just running a modest sized database and some DNS servers. The registry doesn't have to deal with end users, just other registrars, and that's all automated. If everything is working right, the DNS servers don't even get hit that often.

It's only a "billion dollar business" because it's a monopoly and because it's been heavily hyped.

Re:This business is really tiny

[argent]

Keeping in mind ALL the definitions of the word...

``It's only a "billion dollar business" because it's a monopoly and because it's been heavily hyped.''

Well, what do you think they mean by "the value of trust"?

I guess they figured "the value of monopoly" was too obvious. :)

Re:This business is really tiny

[Eric Smith]

The amusing thing, of course, is that running the registry back end is really just running a modest sized database and some DNS servers.

And they make $6 per database entry per year. It's hard to imagine that their operational costs amount to more than 1% of that.

Re:No More sex.com

[Goo.cc]

What I don't understand is why Sex.com is still using Network Solutions as a registrar considering all the problems that they have had. If I was that guy, I would have moved it to another registrar.

maximizing nothing

[kraksmoka]

they kept the infrastructure aspect of netsol's old original business model. what they did in the past, they could do again if they wished.

4 million satisfied customers

[KaiserZoze_860]

"Network Solutions has a strong base of over four million satisfied customers," said J. Jahm Najafi, the Chief Executive Officer of Pivotal Private Equity. "We will continue to provide stellar service, launch innovative products, and build new channels of distribution to accelerate the rate of market growth. This broader set of products will make Network Solutions the one stop shop for web presence services."

Can we get a class action suit for false advertising going?

Would the Satisfied Customers please stand up? Anyone... ?

-KS

Memories

[cve]

I remember the first domain I registered with Network Solutions. $70 for 2 years.

I remember the hours of customer service muzac I got to listen to the first time my domain was hijacked.

I remember the registrar transfer refusal email they sent me. It seems they couldn't stand to see me go.

I remember the fake renewal reminder notices I got when I finally did successfully change registrars.

Ah memories.

Just left Network Solutions for GoDaddy

[Goldenhawk]

>>I fail to see why anyone would register through Verisign
>>when you have places like GoDaddy that will give you a
>>domain for less than $20 for two years.

>Well, I used one of those discount registrars for a group
>of addresses, and I deeply regretted the decision.

There are "discount" registrars, then there's GoDaddy.

I *had* been a committed customer with NS/Verisign for about six years, thinking that they would be more stable, reliable, etc., but when I signed up a couple new domain names a couple years ago, I tried GoDaddy. I've been very pleased with their service over the last two years, and less and less pleased with NS. When this fiasco over SiteFinder broke, I pulled my original name from NS/Verisign and moved to GoDaddy. I'm pleased to say the transfer went flawlessly, and I called NS to let them know exactly why I moved.

Sorry, but I don't consider GoDaddy to be a "discount" registrar - they're a sizable, honest business with much better prices than the monopoly-minded NS/Verisign. My experience with GoDaddy leads me to believe that they understand customer service much better than NS.

Re:Just left Network Solutions for GoDaddy

[NormalVisual]

I also been completely, totally happy with GoDaddy - great service, easy to use and effective online tools, and you can actually get through to the customer service folks in a reasonable amount of time if needed.

I am deeply uncomfortable with this

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

I'd rather have a system by which people can contact me, know authoritatively that the domain is owned by me, but know nothing else. A database that just spews up text and phone numbers is not acceptable anymore.

Can ICANN and Commerce pull the registry?

[mrscott]

Can ICANN and Commerce pull the registry from VeriSign and give it to someone else? Just curoius.

Re:Can ICANN and Commerce pull the registry?

[Wesley Felter]

Theoretically, yes. But in reality both VeriSign and the US government are owned by the same people, so it's unlikely.

What is telnet?

[Morgaine]

Did you ever deal with NSI or Verisign customer service?

I dealt with Verisign customer service some years back, and the memory still makes me giggle, although that's probably to keep from crying.

I was trying to identify a problem with our server certificates after a format change, and I was using telnet and various other normal engineering tools to figure out what was wrong. Some way into our chat which was making curiously slow progress, the Verisign customer service person asked me "What is telnet?".

It's probably better than you think

[Zak3056]

You're forgetting the massive tax writeoff that's probably involved when you take an asset that you purchased for $21B and sell it off for $100M.

Re:It's probably better than you think

[bartwol]

That "massive tax writeoff" would be more aptly described as a $20.9B loss. That so-called "writeoff" simply means they won't suffer the additional wammy of the government making them pay taxes on the money they just pissed away. So there's no good news in this writeoff for Verisign's shareholders; it's only the difference between being massively screwed, and being massively screwed plus some.

<bart

MOD THIS UP

[X]

It's the only way to correct for the submitter's mistake.

To help and to serve

[morcego]

I'm sure they are only doing it to help us, poor users.
Yep, that must be it. Isn't that the only thing they do ? Users first, profits last ?
Don't you just love all this selflessness we get theses days from these big, monopolistic corps ?

Sometimes You Just Suck

[sirbone]

Well it beats communism or socialism where the state forces you down. A slim chance is better than no chance.

Plus I might add that often times failures are due to incompetance on the part of the failed person. For example, the 90% morons managing .COMs businesses in the last decade, the 90% morons coming up with moronic ideas for those .COM businesses, and the 90% morons who actually invested in those morons.

Sometimes the great American Dream of success is out of reach because you just suck.

Re:Sometimes You Just Suck

[Stiletto]

Well, with all those morons out there you must be doing pretty good then, Mister Smarty-pants.

Re:Sometimes You Just Suck

[geoffspear]

Communism is an anti-State political philosophy. If there is State driving you down, the society you live in is not Communist, it's a horrible corruption.

Re:Sometimes You Just Suck

[sirbone]

What you describe is left-wing anarchy, or communism with a small letter c. Big letter C Communism is government that forces the abolishion of private property as per the writings of Marx. Stop by your local Revolution Books and you will see that Communism requires the existance of the State. Of course, either system is oppression. Property is the product of your labour. One must labour to promote one's life. Therefore, denying a right to property is denying one a right to promote his own life. Thus there is no right to your life without property; only the privilege to live if others are generous enough to promote your life. Property is the implementation of rights.

Re:Sometimes You Just Suck

[geoffspear]

I have a degree in philosophy, and I've read Marx, thanks. He firmly believed that the anti-property government (the dictatorship of the proletariat) was an intermediate, non-"Communist" step between Capitalism and Communism. A Communist society would be one in which the government had completely disappeared.

As for property being the product of labor, in Capitalism, capital isn't generated through the labor of the individual who is accumulating capital, it's generated by capturing as profits the difference between your costs (including the cost of paying laborers, who are paid a lot less than they produce) and revenues. The system is designed to make it extremely difficult for an actual laborer to accumulate property, and in a truly Capitalist society it would be impossible. The working class in modern "Capitalist" societies is allowed to accumulate some wealth because of the more socialist aspects of society, such as labor laws and unions that prevent corporations for paying their workers just enough to keep them alive to work. Try telling a sweatshop worker in the Third World that he is creating propetry for himself by working for a dollar a day.

Re:Sometimes You Just Suck

[sirbone]

I think what you attribute to Marx is more in synch with Emma Goldman, though I'm unfortunately not as familiar with her as I'd like...

I'm glad you brought this other issue up! There are three problems with it. One, it implies that those who run businesses don't work. Believe me, they do! Well, not always. You get slackers at all levels of a business, top executives and low level factory workers not an exception. But a well run business will have executives who work their butts off doing complex analyses, calculations, and forecasting that the vast majority of lazy bums off the street could never do.

Second, it gives capitalism a false description. I could go on about labour laws actually hurting things ("real" wages versus received wages by minimum wage induced inflation, minimum wage induced job displacement, etc.), but I think that'd get too far off track. So to stay focused, I'll point out that the quality workers in capitalism will rise up the pay scale. If you are an insurance owner and you see a field sales clerk who brings in triple the sales of any other, you promote that person to central office sales. If he continues to bring in twice as many sales, maybe you decide you want him in your marketing department to sell to the masses. The key is that this quality worker is a valuable partner for the business. If he does not get just compensation then off he goes to another company that will appreciate him. Thus your self interest will force you to reward him. And if he's really talented at not just sales and but also has a strong talent to run a business, he may then eventually run away with some VC to start his own company to run yours into the ground if he is not granted enough power to excercise his talent in your company.

Finally, sweatshops and so forth are largely due to a misclassification of property. Noting that property is the product of labour, ask yourself this: is land the product of your labour? I'm not talking about gardens, buildings, mines, roads and so forth that are created through labour upon the land, but just the raw land itself. The answer is no. Even people like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and the "father of capitalism and private property" Adam Smith have made statements along these lines. Thomas Paine in particular was a very strong advocate of this. This sort of thing leads into a land value tax, where the market value of the land but not the property built upon the land is taxed, but that's another story I won't get into extensivelly lest I write a novellete here. Essentially, capitalism which does not recognize that land can not be classified as property leads to land monopolies that cause sweat shops and so forth. (Similarly, Communism does not recognize that labour products are rightfully owned when in fact they can, a major flaw of that system.) I recommend research into "land value tax" and "geolibertarianism". (The latter is a branch of libertarianism that advocates this idea, but one does not need to be libertarian to advocate land value tax system.) There is also a faction in the Democrats called the Democratic Freedom Caucus that advocates LVT, and there is also the Thomas Paine Network for advocacy within Libertarian circles. Perhaps it's splitting hairs, but I personally would consider a system of free trade that does not classify land as pure property to still be capitalism. The spirit of capitalism is still very strong in that system, and many prominent capitalists of the past have said positive things about it.

Offtopic

[Dan East]

Slashdot's modding is really going downhill. 98 posts, many of which are ontopic and informative, are still modded 1.

Now here we have an offtopic post, totally devoted to why Sitefinder sucks, that is modded 5 - the highest modded post at this time.

Dan East

Re:Offtopic

[oolon]

Yup your probably right, but it was a reply to the parent, and I just could not leave the "it hasn't affected me" line alone, is the only thing running on the internet of importance TCP port 80, let alone SMTP, NNTP and those are still TCP, ... UDP ... Personally I don't care about being moderated, I would much prefer people to reply to me insted.

James

Re:Does this mean that information will be correct

[micq]

Domainsbyproxy.com (a godaddy.com service, iirc) provides this type of protection. I've been registering my domains with it lately, and they put up all their information on the registration, giving you an email forwarding address (yourdomain.com@domainsbyproxy.com) for someone to contact you...

Cautiously optimistic...

[argent]

As I wrote in the TINC documents, the real problem is that because they were managing of the root databases (the registry) and were also competing for access to those databases (the registrar) they had a definite conflict of interest, one that would strain the ethics of companies a good deal more dependable than Verisign.

If this really does eliminate this conflict, and it stays eliminated, this could end up being a good thing.

If it means they now feel free to introduce more "innovations" like Sitefinder, though, that would be bad. Real bad.

The real intention...

[charliefrasure]

ICANN can remove the registry rights from VeriSign, and most likely would have if they hadn't shut down the SiteFinder service.

Personally, I think that this move puts Verisign in a better position to fight for the SiteFinder service. Having sold off the other side of the house, they can raise the argument that a SiteFinder type service is the only benefit of being responsible for a TLD.

This news may not be such a Good Thing.

Long live diversity - an optimistic view

[nv5]

While the change is not that dramatic, it is fundamentally a change for the slightly better. The whole ecology of the Internet is better served when the number of monopolies and incestuous business relationships is being reduced rather than increased.

As DNA diversity helps survival of the species, so does diversity help the survival and prospering of the Internet, since the misbehaviour or malfunctioning of any one party has more or less *limited* consequences, rather than global consequences.

Long live diversity!



p.s. The Sitefinder issue may just create a culture, where more and more sites (one day, maybe even end-users?) run their own secondary and customized DNS, with capabilities to easily override misbehaviours by Verisign or and other registry. Finally, if the registries behave too badly, I don't fundamentally know of a technical reason, why alternative "unofficial" root servers (not really root - but used instead of the real root servers in DNS setups), which behave well couldn't become popular.

It may take a while, but technical knowledge and good ethics can overcome a lot of nonsense.

but not loudly enough ;)

[swschrad]

it's a start. The Community needs the registry to be reassigned as well.

Sitefinder isn't in the part that's being sold off

[Eric Smith]

Perhaps Sitefinder was an attempt at maximizing shareholder value for the sale.

Sitefinder worked by inserting a wildcard record in the .com and .net registries. If Versign spins off their registrar services, that won't include Sitefinder because the registry (which Versign is keeping) does not and can not provide registrars (the part Verisign is spinning off) with the ability to insert wildcards in the registry.

Sitefinder was an abuse of the registry side of the business. Since the registry business is operated under contract to the Commerce Department and ICANN, and Verisign has violated that contract by not operating the registry in compliance with applicable contract requirements (such as releasing expired domains after the grace period) and technical standards (DNS responses for non-existent domains), the Commerce Department and ICANN should cancel the contract and award a new contract to a non-profit corporation. Preferrably one that has demonstrated an ability to provide responsible stewardship of public infrastructure, such as the Internet Society.

The expiration dates for the .com and .net registry contracts are 10-NOV-2007 and 30-JUN-2005; if the contracts aren't cancelled by then, I hope ICANN and the Commerce Dept. at least have the good sense not to renew them, and instead evaluate and choose new registry operators.

It does

[www.sorehands.com]

Your contract with your registrar entitles me to that information. The purpose for having this public is so that one can know who they are dealing with, for service of process, for contact in the case of domain disputes, etc. This is somewhat different from a non-commercial site

Re:Does this mean that information will be correct

[sfgoth]

Why the hell should I give my real name and street address to register a domain name?

I'm allowed an unlisted telephone number. And even if my number is listed, it's reasonably difficult to do a reverse lookup from phone # to physical address. The information is available to law enforcement holding the required legal documents.

For domains, why should this information be public and easily harvested in bulk?

Back at you!

[lysium]

Ever heard of "Win the Lottery" stories? Not all of them are made up or trumped up on the evening news. Societies/economies based on human greed and selfishness are not bad.

==========

commercial is different

[www.sorehands.com]

Stores are required to have their permits/licenses visible. Telephone solicitors are required to identify themselfs.

Why should you be any different when doing business on the web?

Please, no.

[lysium]

Will Icann actually get off their ass and sanction Network solutions for allowing this type of registration?

What -- so the moment you register a domain your email, telephone, and mailbox get flooded with spam? Or so the lurker who doesn't like the political views posted on said domain knows where to find the owner? Thanks, but no thanks. Keep it "broken."

=========

Re:How to get through to Verisign

[orius_khan]

Sign up for spam with the following addresses:
webmaster@verrisign.com ...

That might work, IF the sitefinder server actually accepted mail for any of those domains. However (as of the last time I checked), it doesn't accept mail for ANY addresses at all, not even the correctly spelled versions of their names. So all it would result in is some attempted connections to their mail server which never actually delivered any mail.

Internet != business

[achurch]

Why should you be any different when doing business on the web?

E-commerce is not the entirety of the Internet.

I hate verisign with a passion

[IDreamInCode]

I know this is a troll, but like many of you , I HATE Network Solutions/verisign with a great and absolute passion! I was so relieve when I finally got all my sites away from their servers! Good riddance!

getting out of the commodity market

[ppanon]

Verisign saw the writing on the wall and realized that, in spite of numerous manipulative tactics, Network Solutions won't be able to justify $35 domain renewals for much longer. They've sucked that market for as much as they can but now that they have well established competition in that portion of the business, the cachet of their brand name no longer justifies 500% markups. Instead they'll keep the portion in which they still have a monopoly.

Presumably Pivotal Private Equity thinks they can revamp Network Solutions into a company that is competitive with the other registrars. It remains to be seen if their deal was any better advised for them than the AOL merger was for Time-Warner.

Verisign's Grim Future

[ObsceneProphet]

The idea of Verisign splitting and selling off its Registrar division actually may be a signal of a more sinister corporate game plan. True, Network Solutions can't keep up with all the new discount registrars and it is known that Verisign has wanted to dump NetSol for over a year. Now that the deal is apparently done, Verisign can return to several other duplicitious business efforts like SiteFinder and the even more pernicious WLS (Wait List Service), a joint project with Portland, Oregon-based SnapNames that allows cybersquatters and the like to reserve domain names pending their release from the global registry. When this "service" was introduced about two years ago, it sparked an "anti-trust" outrage from more than a dozen ISPs about Verisign's and SnapNames' "extensive data mining attacks." With the outcry, Verisign backed off. But now with the split, the game's afoot again. Domain name registrants should be very, very concerned about this latest Verisign development.

Good riddance Verislime

[Agent R]

How opportune to coincide with their attempts to shove Site Finder down everyone's throat. I'm betting this sale will mean that Site Finder stays down.

Hopefully the new owner will knock some decent service into Notwork Solutions and not try the dumbing-down of things Verisludge tried.

Re:Does this mean that information will be correct

[Mark Bainter]

I recently figured out a win-win, though. I transferred out of Register.com. Instead of $35/yr., I'm paying $8.95 at Godaddy. I used a piece of the savings (another 9 bucks/yr. worth) to create a Domains By Proxy account.

Yeah, too bad they have an onerous usage agreement.

Re:Does this mean that information will be correct

[Stripes007]

ICANN is not actually in charge of that. Internic is responsible for policing that. You can submit a problem report at this link and they will take it to the registrar who then researches the information and complies.