Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Snag For Verisign's Suit Against ICANN

Posted by timothy on from the they-cann't dept.

Dinglenuts writes "Looks like Verisign just received a setback in their lawsuit against ICANN. Verisign sued ICANN for making them take down Sitefinder, but the judge said that their case was 'awfully vague.' The extensive mischief caused by Verisign's new attempts at 'service' have been well documented on Slashdot." Reader Mz6 points out the same AP story as carried by USA Today.

11 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Arghh... Sitefinder by MoThugz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some responsibilities should NEVER be given to ANY corporations at all. Verisign nearly wreck the whole internet for us.

    If you thought domain squatters buying mispelled domains and setting popup pages on it was bad... the days of typing lkwdlgkhlhkgwq.com and GETTING Sitefinder was much worse!

    Thank God it was quite shortlived though.

    --
    Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
  2. Verisign might be able to get away with it. by millahtime · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they get a court case going they have a decent chance of winning because....

    They manage the .com domains so if one isn't bought they can theoritically do whatever they want with it
    And because there are other extensions doing it such as .cc

    --
    Evolution or ID?
  3. Re:Who regulates them? by gclef · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sadly, that *is* ICANN. At least, they think so. Their original mandate was to handle the Name and Number (IP) allocations (hence the two N's in their acronym). It's grown a bit, though, as the ICANN board has pushed the bounds of their mandate.

  4. Maybe ICANN should execute their powers... by innerweb · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...And find a company to replace Verisign for Verisign's responsibilities. That might send a clear message...

    InnerWeb

    --
    Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    1. Re:Maybe ICANN should execute their powers... by kalislashdot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly. I am confused by all this. I remember back in the day the NSF ran the Internet. They contracted an outside vendor, Network Solutions, to run the database of somina names. Very common practice for goverment stuff.

      Later ICANN was created to take over the Internet from NSF. Versign bought Network Solutions. Differnt people, same situation. ICANN runs the Internet and contracts out to Verisign to run the database. I figure somewhere they is a contract that says what they can and cannot do.

      ICANN needs to actually do something like revoke Verisigns contract. Get a new company and say "we want XYZ, nothing more nothing less" "for your trouble you can charge what ever you want for people to register domain names".

      Plain and simple, I just don't get it.

  5. Re:A sad day for justice... by ShortSpecialBus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was interviewed (via phone) by MSNBC for a story on the TDD fraud. You can find my slashdot posts about it if you feel like.

    --
    //FIXME: Bad .sig
  6. What do you mean if??? by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2, Interesting
    They have not been doing their job. Verisign/Netsol have been refusing to take action about bogus domain registration information for years.

    ICANN made an announcement about this in 2002, and the information on the mentioned domains were still invalid in late 2003. Most of the information was updated this year, maybe to prepare for this lawsuit (to have clean hands).


    Verisign/Netsol should have had their accreditation status yanked last year!

    --
    Fight Spammers!
  7. Re:Who regulates them? by perlchild · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I think the ideal thing to do is replace "them" with something that actually works, not oversee "them". Just a thought.

    It's also interesting to note that an appendage of the department of commerce is acting more and more like the ruling body of a cartel, and changes to the ICANN structure/ruling entities would actually help liberate a captive market from big-player pressures, expressed outside that market, through ICANN.
  8. Re:Who regulates them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I suppose we could just roll our own web, I mean, the rest of the world

    The existence of a single internet is an anomaly. It's just a matter of time before [WL]ANs grow large enough to make the net irrelevant.

    I only use about 0.0001% of the internet anyway. If the rest disappeared I really wouldn't care

  9. Interesting details... by dacarr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They'll probably have to sue ISC and these guys as well, since there are patches out there to keep Sitefinder out.

    --
    This sig no verb.
  10. Re:US Dept. of Commerce by keithmoore · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, the Internet is a tad larger now than it was when Jon Postel was doing the IANA job by himself. Jon had a rare talent for getting people who were disagreeing to understand it was in their mutual interests to work things out, but he mostly had the luxury of working with people who actually wanted the Internet to work well. Even if he were still living today and running IANA, I suspect he would have had to cede authority to some sort of oversight board that had international representation.

    Realize that one of the reasons that we ended up with ICANN being so ineffective is that NSI/Verisign lobbied very hard to burden it with an unwieldy organizational structure. If you're NSI/VeriSign, the next best thing to having no oversight is to have your oversight so burdened that it can never be effective...