Slashdot Mirror
ICANN/Verisign Sued For Monopoly Abuse
Andy_R writes "The BBC is reporting that the World Association of Domain Name Developers (WADND) have filed suit against ICANN and Verisign for alleged violations of antitrust, conspiracy, monopolization and price fixing laws. The suit alleges that the two are entering an unlawful agreement that gives VeriSign a permanent monopoly over the all .com and .net domain name registrations, and the right to raise prices at 7% per annum forever. The text of the lawsuit is available as a .pdf from WADND." ZDNet has the story as well.
...they can only afford to provide single letter domains now?
.... The only people who will win are they lawyers. Makes me wish I went into law rather than computer science.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
The way I see it, there should only be one entity in charge of assigning of names for the internet. With millions of people on the internet, having multiple organizations in charge of domains and such would make the internet so much less efficient.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
the court in which country will handle this? I don't see this, since it is international problem here. Is there any interantional court? Geneva? US? UN? Japan? we are talking about whole earth...
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
I'm fairly sure that the sub-registrars you go through (godaddy.com, regsiter.com, etc.) are just middle men.
I was quoted out of context in my autobiography...
How can it possibly cost more every year to register a domain name? Everything involved except labour continually becomes cheaper - bandwidth, processing power, storage, everything! The process is basically automated anyway, so how can a steady increase in the cost of registering a domain be justified?
The price is already too high, in my opinion - companies like verisign (and other domain name registers) are making money by charging for something that is essentially free to create. For-profit companies should be kept out of domain registration - isn't that part of the point of ICANN in the first place?
So, having lost the battle over who "owns" the Internet (or at least the DNS system), it seems as though the next step is to challenge the "owner" as a monopoly.
Hmm. Being a monopoly is not a crime. It only becomes so when abuse of monopoly power can be demonstrated. This does not look like it (yet), as there is a big difference between what you are contractually allowed to do, and what you actually end up doing.
"She's furniture with a pulse"
I'd like to see domain names to be much cheaper, so that neophytes can get a domain name for $1US/year.
What pays for the DNS system anyway, and why aren't domain names sold directly to the public instead of through registr[ars][ants?]?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I can't see any UN involement here, so I guess we can safely be against ICANN?
http://wadnd.com/
Appears to be part of...
Targetedtraffic.com, who appear to be working with folks at the reputable-sounding domain names americanflags.com, revenue.net, golfcourses.com, ireit.com, erealestate.com, and it looks like they all hail from Delray Beach, Floriduh.
Congratulations, guys! I don't know whether you're spammers or not, but it takes talent to sound like a filthier bunch of domain-hijacking cockgobblers than the entire marketing department of Verisign. I mean, seriously -- I read those domains and was surprised when I didn't see any of you on the ROKSO list of the top 100 spammers. I actually looked. About the only way you could have looked like a bigger bunch of dirtballs would have been to have been based in Boca Raton, FL, or Slidell, LA.
I hate to say this guys, but even though you're not on the ROKSO list - after seeing who you're working with, I kinda hope Verisign/ICANN wins.
They probably wouldn't. I know saying anything in a sarcastic matter-of-factly tone makes you sound witty, but there's not much merit or logical basis for assuming that the U.N. would make the same kind of abuses. The U.N. is not a for-profit organization, and U.N. commitee members cannot profit from such unethical practices. They don't have shareholders whom they are obligated to turn a profit for. As such, it makes them much more suitable for running a global communication infrastructure that's just as important to our global society as other shared public infrastructures such as roads and sewage systems. So if anything, these abuses by ICANN should make us reconsider the legitimacy of their monopolistic control.
What about the oil-for-food scandal that has recently rocked the UN? Sounds to me that even though the rules don't allow such profits to be made, they are made nonetheless.
The United Nation is not a for-profit organization? Really?
were arrested over bribery involving millions of dollars
in which one U.N. staffer, Alexander Yakovlev, was convicted in a Manhattan federal court this past August
step down from his post Monday amid allegations that he and the governing
Bailey's Compass Sacks Three Execs In UN Scandal
Germany Shocked by Damning Report On UN Scandal
More?
No, that would only stop poor idiots. You've still got rich idiots to contend with.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
A much better solution would be to make them non-transferable.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I see...so, if some Republicans are corrupt, then we can assume Republicans and Republicanism itself are all evil? Is that what you're saying?
From the Complaint: An example of an IP number might be: 12.34.567.89.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)