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.

51 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Acronyms for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


    IANAL but ICANN doesn't give IPs, IANA does. So PTIYPASI. HTH, HAND.

  2. A sad day for justice... by ForestGrump · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The extensive mischief caused by Verisign's new attempts at 'service' have been well documented on Slashdot."

    A sad day for justice will come when rantings of us lab monkeys will be used as evidence in court.

    -Grump

    --
    Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    1. Re:A sad day for justice... by elwell642 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your Honor, I present Exhibit A, a posting from "Anonymous Coward." Here he asserts that he is an expert in the realm of internet policy, and that the following facts are indeed true...

      And here we have Exhibit B, the log file from the IRC chatroom #death2SCO...

      --

      <insert witty linux comment here>

    2. 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
  3. Who regulates them? by Milo+of+Kroton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every industry has some form of governmental regulation (except for the drug trade). Pharmaceutical companies have the FDA, why can't we create an Internet Oversight Beauro?

    --
    Read journal when you are not understand
    1. 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.

    2. Re:Who regulates them? by Guildencrantz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem for this is that the question comes down to whos government? The internet is an entity that extends well beyond typical political borders. ICANN (Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers) is supposed to be an international organization to take care of the peculiarities of how addresses will be assigned within this lawless realm.

      ~~Guildencrantz

      --

      Penguin Trivia #46: Animals who are not penguins can only wish they were. -- Chicago Reader 10/15/82
    3. Re:Who regulates them? by deadlinegrunt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they're not doing their job, can't someone oversee them?

      I see somebody here is a staunch supporter of big business and big government with that attitude.

      I think the ideal thing to do is replace "them" with something that actually works, not oversee "them". Just a thought.

      --
      BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
    4. Re:Who regulates them? by kunudo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I, being european, would be pissed about that. Especially after stuff like this. I wouldn't want an extension of the US. govt to have even more power over the web than it has today. I suppose we could just roll our own web, I mean, the rest of the world, but that would be kinda dumb...

    5. 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.
    6. Re:Who regulates them? by SoSueMe · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Makes me think of this:
      A Japanese company and an American company decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

      On the big day the Japanese won by a mile. Afterward, the American team became very discouraged and morally depressed. The American management decided the reason for the crushing defeat had to be found. A Management Team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and one person rowing.

      So American management hired a consulting company and paid them an incredible amount of money. They advised that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing. To prevent losing to the Japanese again next year, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the Rowing Team Quality First Program, with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. We must give the rower the empowerment and enrichments through this quality program.

      The next year the Japanese won by two miles. Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. Then they distributed the money saved as bonuses to the senior executives.
  4. 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
    1. Re:Arghh... Sitefinder by DoorFrame · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, I just bought lkwdlgkhlhkgwq.com and I'm going to mirror the old sitefinder page. Just as a service to those who were missing it.

      --

      --
      RumorsDaily
    2. Re:Arghh... Sitefinder by wintermute740 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Don't worry, I just bought lkwdlgkhlhkgwq.com and I'm going to mirror the old sitefinder page. Just as a service to those who were missing it."

      Please remove the lkwdlgkhlhkgwq.com domain, as it preys on the users of my site, lkwdlgkhlhkgwg.com. If the results of past cybersquatting cases are any indication, I believe I have a pretty good case ;)

      --

      --
      www.nitemarecafe.com
    3. Re:Arghh... Sitefinder by riptide_dot · · Score: 2, Funny

      "the days of typing lkwdlgkhlhkgwq.com and GETTING Sitefinder was much worse!..."

      Nevermind SiteFinder - I think the next time I visit lkwdlgkhlhkgwq.com I want the computer to just give me several loud beeps, because I just fell asleep and hit my head on the keyboard again...:)

      --
      I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
    4. Re:Arghh... Sitefinder by BCoates · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's a town in Wales that's going to be pissed you bought up their name.

  5. 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?
    1. Re:Verisign might be able to get away with it. by Guildencrantz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, hate to point it out to you, but... .cc is managed by VeriSign. So you just said that they might be able to get away with doing something because they already are doing it.

      ~~Guildencrantz

      --

      Penguin Trivia #46: Animals who are not penguins can only wish they were. -- Chicago Reader 10/15/82
    2. Re:Verisign might be able to get away with it. by urulokion · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Verisign doesn't manage .com addresses. That is the job of the various Registrars, e.g. Network Solutions, Register.com, Go Daddy, etc. Verisign's responsibility is managing the .com Registry. And they manage the .com TLD name servers.

      The .com Registry is the central database the holds all of the .com domains registered via the various Registrars. Verisign is the caretaker of the database. IIRC, they get $6US per year per domain. (A nice, and almost guaranteed, stream of annual revenue.)

      Now let's see who where else can I go to get the .com database managed? Uhm... I can't go anywhere else. Verisign doesn't have any competitors. That sounds like a monopoly to me.

      Now what was the SiteFinder fuss all about? Verisign added wildcard DNS records to it's .com Registry to redirect traffic to it's SiteFinder web site. They were using their monopoly position as the .com Registry to be competitive in Internet Web Search market.

      (Note: I'm not against Verisign trying to build their SiteFinder server. Now power to them. What I and others object to is how Verisign chose to implent their service (the wildcard records in the TLD name server). They need to choose another method to implement SiteFinder.)

      That scenario sound familiar? Well it sound. Microsoft was taken to task recently by the US Department of Justice over similar actions. Abusing a monopoly position in one area to leverage it's position in market. It's called anti-trust. And Verisign is suing ICANN for being anti-competitive?

  6. Awww! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 4, Funny

    Poor VeriSign! They can't hijack the internet anymore. :(

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  7. Oh the irony by JosKarith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Verisign, who jealously guard their monopoly on domains, suing ICANN for "Restraining competition"
    Christ, the guy who cleared that lawsuit must have the hugest set of brass balls in existence

    --
    'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    1. Re:Oh the irony by perlchild · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're explaining by courage what can best be explained by terminal cluelessness about the technical issues here.

      You're giving away undeserved karma.

  8. Vague by anonicon · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Verisign sued ICANN for making them take down Sitefinder, but the judge said that their case was 'awfully vague.'"

    Hey!, I'm in a smartass mood today, WTF is wrong with "awfully vague?" It seems to work for the DMCA and a lot of other bogus legislation.

    Chuck

    1. Re:Vague by PMuse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WTF is wrong with "awfully vague?" It seems to work for . . . bogus legislation.

      Judges are less than fond of "vague". Some variant of "start making sense or get out" is heard fairly often.

      Legislators OTOH find "vague" to be highly useful in trying to please more of the peopl^H^H^H^H^H contributors more of the time.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  9. What's the difference... by kai5263499 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    between Verisign redirecting people at the DNS level and Microsfot redirecting people at the Browser level with MSIE?

    Either way you are getting advertizements or tainted search results, and it's annoying either way.

    I guess since it's DNS level, no one can "opt out" by choosing another browser, but the average user dosen't know how to do that either...

    --
    -Wes
    1. Re:What's the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      I guess since it's DNS level, no one can "opt out" by choosing another browser,

      You can "opt-out" by simply selecting "never search from address bar" in options. Now if they'd just quit trying to reset my home page to msn.com with every security update...

    2. Re:What's the difference... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's only true for HTTP traffic. Generating false domain names broke a lot of other services. Like checking to see if a domain existed before accepting an email address as "From" that domain.

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    3. Re:What's the difference... by elwell642 · · Score: 2, Funny

      but the average user dosen't know how to do that either

      Average user? AVERAGE USER?? Blast it all, man! This is Slashdot! The "average user" has no say here!

      --

      <insert witty linux comment here>

    4. Re:What's the difference... by damgx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The internet is more then just http (webbrowsing).

      This mess up ftp, smtp nntp and other protocols as well.

      Also why should Verisign have the right to steal page view from Microsoft? (or another browser og website).

      --
      I only read slash. for the articles...
    5. Re:What's the difference... by therblig · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The difference is that people don't have to choose MSIE to be their browser. I can surf the web with Firefox, but I cannot choose whether I interact with Verisign. That's a monopoly I cannot get around.

      As others have also already mentioned, it messes up far more than just web traffic. It has wreaked havoc with many anti-spam solutions. Of course, in Verisign's case (remember their annoying pop-ups), they and the spammers may be more birds of a feather than they care to admit.

      --

      I struggled for days and days and all I got was this lousy sig.

    6. Re:What's the difference... by Mr_Silver · · Score: 4, Insightful
      between Verisign redirecting people at the DNS level and Microsfot redirecting people at the Browser level with MSIE?

      The higher up the level you do it, the more people you affect and the more difficult it is to get it removed if you don't want it.

      If MS do it, you can either disable it in the browser (if there is an option) or use a different browser. It only affects you.

      If Versign do it, you have no choice in the matter.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    7. Re:What's the difference... by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Also why should Verisign have the right to steal page view from Microsoft?"

      And could they please pay the 36-to-power-80 * $10 for all the domain-names they gave themselves? And then pay tax on that purchase.

    8. Re:What's the difference... by Tokerat · · Score: 2, Insightful


      DNS is NOT a web-based service. We use it when we use the web to resolve hostnames to IP addresses because the IP addresses are nessesary to communicate over the network. Typing in an HTTP URL will generate a hit to a DNS server, sure, but so will using an FTP client, and so will using Outlook with an IMAP server, etc.

      Under SiteFinder, instead of getting a "DNS Not Found" error response to the DNS request, you get a re-direct response to the SiteFinder page. Therefore, as far as your FTP client knows, the bad hostname it's looking for actually exists (because VeriSign's DNS told it so), and it tries in vain to connect to the SiteFinder servers, which aren't running an FTP, or an IMAP/POP server, or anything besides an HTTP server.

      This effectively breaks the Internet as anything that isn't a web browser which requests a bad hostname will not generate a proper error response and basically hang out trying to connect to SiteFinder, indefinitely in some cases. You'd be suprised how much traffic on the Internet comes from programs besides web browsers.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  10. US Dept. of Commerce by gorzek · · Score: 5, Informative

    The US Department of Commerce specifically regulates what VeriSign can and can't do. For instance, they approve all new TLDs. Not sure how far their authority goes, but it seems to be pretty extensive.

    --
    Check out my world simulator thingy.
    1. Re:US Dept. of Commerce by gclef · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, sort of. The DoC has assigned this task to ICANN. The DoC does not regulate VeriSign directly....ICANN does, under the authority delegated to it by the DoC.

    2. Re:US Dept. of Commerce by karl.auerbach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US Dept of Commerce has never articulated any clear source of authority for its role in these internet matters.

      Under the US system, agencies like the DoC don't have any "native" powers but rather obtain them only by explicit delegations by statutes and by executive orders (that themselves often need to go back to statutes or the native Article II powers.)

      The General Accounting Office (a branch of the US Congress) investigated the DoC's powers *twice* and found them wanting. And there have been some significant legal articles also making this point.

      In other words, ICANN is on very shakey ground if it tries to claim that its power derives from the US Dept of Commerce.

      The DoC's role over Verisign comes from a Cooperative Agreement that was to have expired six years ago but which has been extended and amendended and extended and amended at least 25 times. It is now so warped that between ICANN and the DoC, Verisign has a what amounts to a perpetual lock on .com (thanks to the attorney who formed ICANN and who has perhaps reaped more personal financial gain out of this entire mess than any other individual.) Under the ICANN contracts (which the DoC buys into) Verisign's lock is nearly unbreakable unless Verisign does somethign criminal or equally bad.

    3. Re:US Dept. of Commerce by keithmoore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In other words, ICANN is on very shakey ground if it tries to claim that its power derives from the US Dept of Commerce.

      In other words, the US government is on very shaky ground if it tries to claim that it has power over the international Internet. Note that the international community has at least tentatively been supportive of ICANN - because they realize that as bad as ICANN is, it's probably better than either having multiple roots (even assuming they all get along, which is unlikely) or having the US government try to run things directly (which could easily result in multiple roots).

      Verisign's purported ownership of .COM and .NET is on even shakier ground than the USG's purported ownership of DNS.

    4. 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...

  11. Objection, your honor! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    All of the defense's evidence is preceded by the phrase: 'I am not a lawyer.'

    1. Re:Objection, your honor! by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 2, Funny

      "All of the defense's evidence is preceded by the phrase: 'I am not a lawyer.'"

      From the country where it's easier to identify the people who aren't lawyers. IANAL.

    2. Re:Objection, your honor! by ManxStef · · Score: 2, Funny
      All of the defense's evidence is preceded by the phrase: 'I am not a lawyer.'

      '...but my friend is.'

  12. Don't blame me... by Mz6 · · Score: 3, Funny

    but just incase Yahoo gets slashdotted, there's always USA Today to hammer on next!

    --
    Hmmm.
  13. A good document describing DNS and identities by hardaker · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Internet Architecture Board has recently written a document (draft-iab-identities) which covers how DNS names are used as identities and why doing things like what verisign was trying to do is a bad thing. They don't outright specify this particular battle, but talk about it in a more generic sense.

    --
    The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
  14. Objection! by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

    That so-called evidence is actually goatse. I request that remark be modded down.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  15. 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.

    2. Re:Maybe ICANN should execute their powers... by mabu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's also worth mentioning that NSI/Internic changed the domain prices and stole millions of dollars from the community and had the courts strike down their fee as an illegal tax. Did they ever return any of the money they collected back to the proper people? Not that I know.

  16. 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!
  17. soviet offense by univeralifepadre · · Score: 2, Funny

    dammit, they're using the soviet offense.

    In Soviet Russia, the monopoly sue you!

  18. Reasons why this is a bad thing by mabu · · Score: 4, Informative

    1. Unused domain space is just that: unused, and un-owned by anyone. It's unethical to take over IP space that is un-allocated.

    2. Verisign is providing a service that is very specific; they should not be allowed to change the terms of the services they provide without having to put the whole TLD system back up for bid. Since they could use this to profit, all other root servers and other companies who want to compete for this should have a chance. This is the same situation NSI/Verisign found themselves in in the 1990s when they started (illegally) charging for domain registration. The company has a history of "changing the rules" and exploiting others.

    3. Redirecting unused IP space is a huge logistical problem for other systems online; it interferes with all services including ftp and mail - not just the web.

    4. It's a big security problem. Who knows where mail for misspelled domain names ends up going?

    5. The Internet is an International medium. We don't need another arrogant move on the part of US corporate America to further piss off the rest of the world and show that the Americans are hypocritics interested in exploiting resouces they don't have a right to.

    6. If Verisign re-implements their unethical scheme, thousands of systems will modify their DNS to work around it. This could potentially undermine the design of the network to be able to effeciently route around problems and possibly spawn rogue root servers that would be embraced by the ISP community at the expense of the network's flexibility.

  19. 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.