Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Study Slams Verisign
Dinglenuts writes "ICANN has just released what I'm sure is a completely neutral and unbiased report, condemning Verisign's Sitefinder service for running afoul of 'community standards and caus[ing] harm to individual users and enterprises.' Seeing as how ICANN is currently being sued by Verisign for making them take down Sitefinder, this opinion can be considered less than revolutionary."
It is the same as with dictators.. Any company that grows big and has influence must take very good care not to abuse it. I donnot have to give names, and some companies even believe themselves they have 'best intentions'.
But on-topic: i think verisign should loose there license. They have proven they cannot be trusted as independent tld maintainer.
A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
The next meeting, which starts Monday, features a workshop aimed at bridging the gap between ICANN and the United Nations, which is becoming increasingly interested in Internet governance.
The UN getting interested in governing the net?
Well, it was fun while it lasted. I'm off to spend the last few weeks of internet existence with the badgers.
After this whole thing started I simply had my dns cache resolve verisign.com addresses through my local dns server... problem solved. In fact, I'd forgotten about the whole thing...
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
I'm still amazed by all of this, its really mind boggling. This is no better than those squatter sites (amazing search! etc) and they have complete control over the content and are trying to force everyone to see it. Its sad what some companies are trying to do for money.
ICANN's SSAC came up with the right answer with respect to Verisign's "Sitefinder" but they did so using a method that contains the seeds of an even greater danger to the net: unprincipled and subjective condemnation of change on the net.
m l
See my note on this at http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000108.ht
From the article: ""Different people and different organizations have divergent views on what constitutes the common good, on what constitutes acceptable and desirable goals, and what are legitimate and ethical constraints," Auerbach wrote..."
It's interesting to watch the dynamic that is the evolution of the administration of the net. ICANN is seen by much of the world as to American centric and requiring, possibly a UN governing body to replace it or some other world centric governing body. Perhaps the growing pains of the European Union could offer some lessons as to how to best govern the net. It must irk many nations and organizations to see the administration and future plans for the net played out in American courts.
Tim Berners-Lee saw the founding of the web as a world wide endeavour surely a body as important as ICANN should be under the ageis of the UN?
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
On a somewhat related note, I'm wondering if it even makes sense to waste energy bashing governments and corporations anymore. Sure, a corporation is a fictitious person, but that sure looks like real signatures on the contracts and international treaties.
C|N>K
ICANN and Verisign are behaving in the same way as a pair of spoilt toddlers. What the world needs is for their teacher to come along and give the pair of them a slap
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
What really needs to happen is that domain registration and management needs to be handled by a non-profit organization, so they don't have as much of an incentive to screw with stuff. I'm not convinced that registrars like Verisign should even be allowed to exist.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The advantage of having the browser deal with it is that I can turn it on or off (or even customise it) and that it doesn't affect anyone else. The higher up the chain you make the changes, the more people and things you affect.
Talking of error messages, Verisign does have a point when it comes to Firefox. I find their error messages really rather poor (that is, the ones that the browser shows once you've dug out the option from the bowels which really, IMO, should be on by default).
If I submitted better formatted and more informative descriptions for them do you think they'd even consider it? Or is it handled a different way?
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
I hate Sitefinder as much as the rest of you, but you can bet your asses that it will be reintroduced. It's a moneymaking machine, and I'm sure Verisign won't let all the work behind Sitefinder down the drain.
It's a pity, but it's exactly what PHB's wants.
Actually, telecomms standardization is the job of the ITU, which is part of the UN.
I actually read the report, and I have to say that it is pretty sound.
Although ICANN totally sucks as an organization, the committee certainly did a good job with this report. How the original poster could suggest that it is a strongly biased "propaganda" report is beyond me.
Will Verisign try to find issue with the report? I'm sure. After all, isn't it in the financial and legal interest of Verisign to counter its critics?
Not surprisingly, no one has yet to post counter-claims to the issues and assumptions made in the report.
It is a report, and it may make assumptions, but it certainly isn't a whitewash.
It's the Security and Stability Advisory Committee of Icann which issued the report not the Board of Icann! This committee is literally filled with top-notch DNS experts (see here: Members of the Committee) and I don't think they give a rat's ass about Icann's issues with VeriSign. Btw, 2 VS employees are also members of the SSAC...
Now keep on flaming!
How about a bit of ballance, remember that ICANN is *supposed* to police this stuff, and Verisign's actions were just unbelievably bad. Verisign are suing ICANN for finally doing its job, even if you don't like ICANN you can't support Verisign in this.
Perhaps ICANN are simply doing what so many other companies love to do, but cutting out the middleman?
:-P
[No, I'm not serious. The "studies" others quote are usually independent in a sense, just carefully selected in topic and configuration to be likely to be faviourable, then only published if they're faviourable.]
On another note, SiteFinder was pretty awful. As someone who rejected spam from invalid domains, I felt the pain when SiteFinder went live within minutes. Oh, the spam! It also considerably increased our mail server load for another reason - it tried to deliver bounces to invalid domains instead of freezing them or never generating them.
If VeriSign try to bring that back, I'm finding another Internet
For the only reason that verisign controls the '.' zone via the root servers. The .cx and .museum servers DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO REDIRECT ALL REQUESTS FOR ANY ADDRESS TO THEIR SERVICE!
People who used Verisign's Web-based domain name search got their domains hijacked more often than not. It happened to my stepbrother, along with a number of other people I know. The sleazeballs didn't even *try* to make it look legitimate: from lookup to hijack took around a dozen hours.
As my friend in the Army said: "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action".
Veritas delenda est.