Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

395 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

lamefilter (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8402966)

Lame.

Sorry, but I have no choice (5, Funny)

Adam9 (93947) | more than 10 years ago | (#8402970)

In Corporate America, Verisign sues ICANN!

fuck my asshole deeply cmdrtaco (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8402972)

please?

Re:fuck my asshole deeply cmdrtaco (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403105)

You don't get it do you??? Think about it. His name is a lame joke; Command Her Taco. He isn't interested in yours, or anyone elses chocolate starfish, only tacos which he likes to think he can get to wink at him on request...

Re:fuck my asshole deeply cmdrtaco (-1, Offtopic)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403339)

interesting... Accusing CmdrTaco of being heterosexual is -1 Troll. Maybe the moderators know something you don't?

:rolleyes: (5, Insightful)

tehdely (690619) | more than 10 years ago | (#8402973)


The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has no authority to prevent VeriSign from rolling out a search engine for users who mistype Internet addressees, VeriSign said, as well as another feature that allows users to sign up for a waiting list for desirable domain names.


Nice and misleading explanation right there. We're talking about a 'search engine' that impacts any internet application querying a non-existent domain. Once again, the "THE INTERNET IS ONLY THE WEB" mindset that low-grade tech journalism seems to be stuck in is preventing people from realizing the destructive nature of something as profound as adding a wildcard to major TLDs.


"This brazen attempt by ICANN (news - web sites) to assume 'regulatory power' over VeriSign's business is a serious abuse of ICANN's technical coordination function," said VeriSign in the suit, which was filed in U.S. court in Los Angeles.


Errmm... Last I checked, regulating internet infrastructure with regards to assigned names and numbers is ICANN's job. Anything less than a "brazen attempt" and they would be failing at enforcing the RFCs and other regulations they've been entrusted to enforce. Since when do Verisign's business interests trump this?


Though ICANN restructured itself to operate more efficiently last year, a VeriSign official said the group was still too cumbersome.

"Working the ICANN process is like being nibbled to death by ducks," said Tom Galvin, VeriSign's vice president for government relations. "It takes forever, it doesn't make sense, and in the end we're still dead in the water."


At least they respond to complains with action, instead of stonewalling anyone who disagrees with them, as Verisign so eagerly did when the SiteFinder controversy first broke.

Screw Verisign. I've seen plenty of companies with brazen, my-way-or-the-highway attitudes, but this one is entrusted with managing a major international public resource, and have been caught with their pants down abusing that trust. To whine like this is a sign of just how out of step Verisign really is. Frankly, they deserve to have all authority over the root servers taken away from them before they do more harm in their quest for profits.

Re::rolleyes: (5, Interesting)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403023)

I agree with your views... However, I would suggest we simply get rid of verisign, ICANN, and every other company that can hold the internet hostage. I don't have a good replacement strategy in mind yet, but there's got to be a solution that doesn't leave a single company holding all the cards. Distributed administration of the internet? Is that possible? I don't know, I'm not a network theorist (or whatever the official title for that would be.)... anyone care to explain why we have a single entity in charge?

Re::rolleyes: (5, Informative)

gclef (96311) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403205)

1) Public IP addresses must be globally unique. If they weren't, routing traffic would be effectively impossible

2) Public DNS names must be globally unique. This one isn't nearly as obvious as addressing, but it's still clear once you think about it, and is even enshrined into one of the RFC's on the subject.

Given that we require uniqueness, someone has to manage the systems to check that uniqueness and dole out addresses (both IP and names). That task fell to ICANN, who have since sub-contracted that work out to other entities. But still, someone has to run the central database, or there'd be chaos.

Re::rolleyes: (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403226)

1) Public IP addresses must be globally unique. If they weren't, routing traffic would be effectively impossible

I don't think Verisign has anything to do with IP assignment. Isn't that IANA's job?

Re::rolleyes: (5, Informative)

gclef (96311) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403267)

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and *Numbers*. IANA is subassigned from ICANN.

Re::rolleyes: (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403326)

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and *Numbers*. IANA is subassigned from ICANN.

Yes. I realized that 5 seconds after posting. Thanks for the correction!

Re::rolleyes: (2, Interesting)

Christoff84 (707146) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403198)

Errmm... Last I checked, regulating internet infrastructure with regards to assigned names and numbers is ICANN's job. Anything less than a "brazen attempt" and they would be failing at enforcing the RFCs and other regulations they've been entrusted to enforce. Since when do Verisign's business interests trump this?

Well considering this lawsuit was filed in the United States, I would assume that Verizon's business intrests would trump ICANN's interests to keep the internet running smoothly.

Then again, ICANN could remove the responsibility from Verizon to manage TLD's and give it to someone else.

Re::rolleyes: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403282)

you seem to be misinformed, or have made a STUPID FUCKING TYPO.

Verizon and Verisign are two completely different companies.

This is about VERISIGN. not VERIZON.

Working with... (4, Funny)

OzPhIsH (560038) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403278)

"Working the ICANN process is like being nibbled to death by ducks," said Tom Galvin, VeriSign's vice president for government relations. "It takes forever, it doesn't make sense, and in the end we're still dead in the water."

I wonder if Tom Galvin and Darl spend late nights together working on clever metaphors to use in press releases related to their lawsuits...

Irony! (-1, Troll)

KaiLoi (711695) | more than 10 years ago | (#8402975)

Wow basing a failed operating system name on a failed operating system.. How amazingly appropreate.

Re:Irony! (0, Funny)

MNJavaGuy (619805) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403003)

Huh? Oh. You want the article next door. Yeah, having two MS articles in one day will do that to ya.

Wow. (3, Funny)

JesseL (107722) | more than 10 years ago | (#8402979)

Hello Kettle, I'm Pot. Would you like to step inside my glass house?

Re:Wow. (2, Funny)

Imperator (17614) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403218)

Hey, can I borrow that pot you have? I need to mix some metaphors in it.

Mix-o-matic (1)

mr_death (106532) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403310)

"Guess the foot is on the other hand now, Kramer"

I'd love to, Pot. (1)

azimir (316998) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403281)

But, I am busy throwing rocks at the moment.

I'd would say... (5, Interesting)

clifgriffin (676199) | more than 10 years ago | (#8402981)

That Verisign's site finder is a brazen abuse of their power as a service provider.

It's a cheap ploy to get billions of hits to a VeriSign controlled page.

I have 0 respect for Verisign...they have long established they will discard customer concern for any perceived increase in money.

Re:I'd would say... (5, Funny)

Spudley (171066) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403203)

No; it's a cheap way to make yourself an easy target for DoS.

Re:I'd would say... (4, Insightful)

Naffer (720686) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403342)

It used to be that if I site wanted to generate traffic it would have have to find an obscure misspelling not yet taken, or provide meaningful content. Verisign's program effectively allows them to turn ALL misspellings and unclaimed domains into a revenue stream. That sounds like abuse of their power to me.

A True Battle of Evils (5, Interesting)

dmehus (630907) | more than 10 years ago | (#8402982)

ICANN has made numerous unpopular decisions throughout its corporate life. So has VeriSign. This is truly a battle of two evils. Which one is the lesser evil, in your opinion?

In my own personal view, I do hope ICANN emerges from this lawsuit as the "victor". If VeriSign were to win its request for an injunction against ICANN, and on the broader claim that ICANN "unlawfully transformed itself from a technical coordination body to the de-facto Internet regulator," I feel it would have far-reaching implications for all of us. It would effectively muzzle ICANN and give VeriSign free reign to do as it pleases with the Internet -- at least until a legislative change was made, such as making ICANN into a government regulatory agency similar to the FCC. Mind you, that might be a good thing. It might force the Bush administration's conservative laissez-faire approach to Internet governance to get a dramatic overhaul and become more regulatory. Another plus to ICANN becoming a taxpayer-funded government regulatory body, it could keep its acronym and be enshrined into law as the Internet Commission for Assigned Names and Numbers. Or, it could become the Internet Naming and Numbering Agency -- or INNA.

Nonetheless, this will be a bitter battle.

It also has high stakes for VeriSign. If VeriSign is unsuccessful, it will almost certainly ensure that the dot-net gTLD is redelegated to a new operator later this year.

My take,
Doug

P.S. Copies of the complaint:
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/verisi gn.complaint .p1of2.022604.pdf

and

http://www.politechbot.com/docs/verisign.complai nt .p2of2.022604.pdf

Re:A True Battle of Evils (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403126)

Oh yeah, 'cause the FCC, FDA, FAA, etc., are such paragons of efficiency and user-responsiveness.

Heck, maybe we'll get really lucky and they'll give responsbility to the Department of Spying on Law-Abiding Citizens (AKA the Deparment of Homeland Security) to be run by their Total Information Awareness bureau.

No fanks! Even VeriSign is better. (And that's sayin' somethin'!)

Re:A True Battle of Evils (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403145)

Mind you, that might be a good thing. It might force the Bush administration's conservative laissez-faire approach to Internet governance to get a dramatic overhaul and become more regulatory.
How would that be a good thing?
Another plus to ICANN becoming a taxpayer-funded government regulatory body, it could keep its acronym and be enshrined into law as the Internet Commission for Assigned Names and Numbers. Or, it could become the Internet Naming and Numbering Agency -- or INNA.
And how would this be a "plus"? Who cares what it's called?

Besides which, ICANN's authority is granted by the Department of Commerce, so any .gov smackdown of Verisign would come from that direction.

Re:A True Battle of Evils (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403152)

Man, I never support people that try to stamp-out others opinions, but what is wrong with you? You _WANT_ Bush and his techno-challenged administration to have the responsibility of putting together an organization that manages the WHOLE internet? Thats scary.

Re:A True Battle of Evils (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403306)

We aught to give the job to the UN. Let them (or at least some global entity) sub-contract and manage the internet.

a US-gov-controlled internet? (5, Insightful)

bodrell (665409) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403184)

Re. your question--I think it's simple. ICANN is the lesser of two evils. Being swayed by corporate interests is bad, but not as bad as when the corporate interest is yourself (as is the case with Verisign).

Having said that, I don't think making it a gov't institution would solve anything. There have been many situations where gov't regulation has helped us, but when has the gov't taken over a previously private role and done a better job?

Although the free market can't solve every problem, this seems like a case where elegant legislation might make the difference. Now, Verisign has a monopoly on .com domain registration. But why should they? Shouldn't that position be open for bidding? Or have term limits? If a company only has a short window of time in which it controls domain registration, or if there are repercussions for abusing its power, that company will likely be cautious about enacting drastic infrastructure changes of the type Verisign is implementing.

(By the way, people often use the $ as a derogatory marker for an entity they don't like, such as Micro$oft or the Church of $cientology, so why not Veri$ign as well?)

Re:A True Battle of Evils (3, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403247)

> ...at least until a legislative change was made,
> such as making ICANN into a government regulatory
> agency similar to the FCC. Mind you, that might be
> a good thing.

So you are looking forward to being required to get a license for your Web site and a permit for your mail server? I'm sure Verisign will be ready to expedite the application process for their customers.

Verisign? ICANN? Abuse? (4, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 10 years ago | (#8402990)

I'm utterly dumbfounded! These are two of the internet's finest and most reputable entities! How can either be involved in any kind of abuse or malpractice? There must be some kind of mistake...

I don't get it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8402995)

I seem to remember the entire reason ICANN was established was to remove power from Verisign because they'd proven themselves unable to handle responsibility.

Thats funny.. (4, Funny)

Renraku (518261) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403004)

What if other companies did similar things? What if companies involved with the stock market used their insider info to give them a step-up when it comes to which stocks to buy and sell? Yeah, its a bad idea. Same here.

Re:Thats funny.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403158)

A better analogy would be NASDAQ creating default trades for stocks they'd picked when a broker/trader mistyped a stock symbol....instead of just returning a "uhm, you can't type" message.

Verisign is a dinosaur. Time to take them down. They're both incompetent and dishonest.

Bye bye verisign. (1, Troll)

gustaffo (598224) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403005)

Hello happiness, I think its time to switch.

Well Now! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403010)

Oh LOOK! A story I submitted YESTERDAY! But alas, I'm not part of the "in" good looking people that bow dow and blow Slashdot COCK!

We're suing you (5, Funny)

mishehu (712452) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403013)

because you are preventing us from being a monopoly! And that is sooooo unfair to us!

My prediction... (5, Insightful)

tekiegreg (674773) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403034)

We have the big ugly viscous Microsoft-like villains vs. the slothlike, inefficient quasi-government organization...

My bets are on the lawyers...with 100 to 1 against the people... :-/

Re:My prediction... (5, Funny)

Mudd Chick (207628) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403333)

Viscous? I would call Verisign's behavior abrasive, not adhesive.

Same song, different bird (4, Funny)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403038)

Really - this is the kind of argument I would expect from a spammer that doesn't want to be restricted in their ability to serve unwanted ads to increasingly frustrated recipients.

Oh, wait. I get spam from Verisign (and their subsidiaries) all the time. ... addToListOfEvilCompanies("Verisign");

Re:Same song, different bird (4, Funny)

sweetooth (21075) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403157)

... Error: duplicate entry found for "Verisign"

They were on the list of evil companies before now.

Re:Same song, different bird (1)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403232)

Only because I forgot to rename that entry to Network Solutions.

Ducks. Yeah. (5, Funny)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403044)

From the article:
"Working the ICANN process is like being nibbled to death by ducks," said Tom Galvin, VeriSign's vice president for government relations. "It takes forever, it doesn't make sense, and in the end we're still dead in the water."

Yeah. Nibbled to death by ducks. That sounds good.

Mallard Ducks [www.nmr.nl] .

Well, we can dream, at least...

Re:Ducks. Yeah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403134)

Oh, mother of dog! How and why did you ever find that site? Interesting, sure, but jebus!

Re:Ducks. Yeah. (3, Funny)

SmackCrackandPot (641205) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403178)

It should have read:

"Working the ICANN process is like being in deep space with a broken hyperdrive and a pair of arguing Wookies" said Tom Galvin, VeriSign's vice president for government relations. "It takes forever, it doesn't make sense, and in the end we're still dead in the water."

Re:Ducks. Yeah. (4, Funny)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403254)

I thought that quote was hilarious, but how about the other side of the coin?

Making a typo in the Verisign process is like being beaten to death by spam.

I think nibbled to death by ducks is MUCH too kind (2, Insightful)

rbird76 (688731) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403284)

I would much prefer if Verisign's management were infested with African parasites of various sorts. Guinea worms would be a good start.

Verisign hijacked people's computers because they typed invalid names, and "helped" them by advertising themselves while disabling computers that depended on the standard that Verisign unilaterally and capriciously broke. Verisign then has the gall to sue the organization that forced them to obey their previously agreed-upon standards. Isn't this like Nixon suing the Watergate special prosecutor for preventing him from "modifying" the government from a variant of a representative democracy to a dictatorship? After all, the prosecutor made him obey the law and wait through a long, drawn-out process known as legislation. I guess it would have been much easier and quicker to allow the President to do what he wants without waiting for Congress to get around and pass a law, right?

Hello, Verisign, welcome to my foes list, you useless, talentless a**holes... Oh wait, you were there already, after you enabled the Charlie-Fox known as SiteFinder. My bad.

ICANN will fold to Verisign... (2, Interesting)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403045)

In all likelihood, considering recent political restructuring at ICANN, they will probably fold to Verisign, who essentially dictate to ICANN right now. Not a troll, not flamebait, simply true.

Re:ICANN will fold to Verisign... (5, Insightful)

Brooks Davis (22303) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403179)

Unless you plan to back up that claim, it's both...

Do they really not get it? (5, Insightful)

evn (686927) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403058)

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has no authority to prevent VeriSign from rolling out a search engine for users who mistype Internet addressees, VeriSign said, as well as another feature that allows users to sign up for a waiting list for desirable domain names.

Hey Verisign: We don't care if you want to make a search engine for miss-spelled domains, nor do we care if you want to setup a domain name waiting list. In fact the only thing that bothers anyone is that you're breaking DNS to force us to use them.

If this was really about setting up a search engine and nothing else they could just register vs-sitefinder.com and vs-domain-wait-list.com and be in business. Instead they insist on pissing on their responsibility to maintain a functional DNS system in order to achieve some sort of edge over the competition.

Is there some sort of contest for the most hated corporation going on between Microsoft, SCO, and Verisign?

Hehe (-1)

narftrek (549077) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403132)

He "miss-spelled" misspell.

Re:Do they really not get it? (2, Funny)

trmj (579410) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403245)

Is there some sort of contest for the most hated corporation going on between Microsoft, SCO, and Verisign?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the new and improved Axis of Evil [satirewire.com] .

Lose Verisign (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403061)

Take away their privilege (not right) to be a domain registrar.

What most see (5, Informative)

unix guy (163468) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403066)

What most people see is that this is just an extended version of IE's built in search that throws you to MicroSoft's search engine (which sucks), so they don't see the implications for all the REAL internet applications that don't run through a web browser.

Re:What most see (1)

jkcity (577735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403264)

To be fair it does'nt suck that much it's pointed me to the right place once or twice, and can be switched off. Sitefinder never pointed me to anything it just seemed to be all ads.

SiteFinder and non-geek disconnect (5, Insightful)

saforrest (184929) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403069)

I think this whole Verisign/ICANN thing, perhaps better than most recent examples of high-profile disputes in the tech industry, illustrates what a fundamental disconnection there is between the computer sophisticates and average, well-educated newspaper readers.

Even in this article, which is reasonably technically sophisticated, Verisign's SiteFinder is almost invariably described in terms which suggest it was just a helpful service for lost souls (people who'd typed a wrong URL) instead of being recognized for what it is, an aggressive land grab and a ridiculous abuse of monopoly power.

It's not like newspapers are in VeriSign's pockets or anything. Why is that so few of them seem to understand how bad what VeriSign did is?

Re:SiteFinder and non-geek disconnect (5, Insightful)

eurleif (613257) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403130)

Because newspapers don't have good tech writers. How would they? The people in charge of hiring them don't know what to look for, anyone who knows a little more than the employer will look like an expert.

Re:SiteFinder and non-geek disconnect (4, Interesting)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403318)

Similarly for SCO. Their claims sound quite reasonable if you don't read what other parties say about it. This is why objectiveness and freedom of speech are so important.

There was an article in the Dutch newspaper Metro a while ago, reporting on research findings that claimed 85% of Dutch individuals and corporations saw virus protection as the responsibility of ISPs. This is a ridiculous preposition, considering that virii spread just fine without ISPs, and ISP don't and shouldn't have any business restricting what traffic goes to my network.

I wrote a letter to the paper explaining this, blaming the spread of virii on people using faulty software, from suppliers negligent to release patches, and users not applying them. I also mentioned alternatives. The posted the letter (omitting the alternatives; sadly, as I don't like pointing out problems without proposing solutions), and I hope it has helped people gain some more insight. I intend to post the letter (and a translation) on my website.

Reform ICANN! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403074)

Glad to see that the early hooting isn't only anti-VeriSign. People ought to consider that ICANN has been burying everything registries want to do in piles of bureaucracy, while trying to grab more and more money and power. ICANN should be reformed and stuck to technical operational issues rather than playing footsie [icannwatch.org] with international bureaucrats. Think of all the nonsense that would come from the ITU/U.N. getting its mitts on "Internet governance," which is being discussed in Geneva today and tomorrow [itu.int] . VeriSign is no angel, but if it can take ICANN down a notch, I'm for it.

Problems like this are forseeable (3, Insightful)

dan_sdot (721837) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403075)

This sort of problem could have been forseen. Even though I hated their Sitefinder feature, they have a point. Since when does ICANN have the power to tell a business or person what they can or can't put on their page? It just so happens that this business is Verisign, who also runs part of the internet.

This is where the problem is. Why is a business running these domain names? That seems like a conflict of interest to me. There needs to be non business regulatory commitees that run it. The issue certainly can't be finding money to do it.

Even though its a little annoying that Verisign wants to show their sitefinder, as a business, they have every right to do it.

This discussion reminds me of something on slashdot a while ago that I can't find that was something like "10 common misconceptions about the internet". The whole point was that the internet is just a network of computers, its that simple. This simplicity will vanish before our eyes if we have businesses running it.

Re:Problems like this are forseeable (4, Informative)

ahodgson (74077) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403161)

Umm, they didn't tell them what they could put on a web page. What they told them was they couldn't insert a wildcard record in the .com and .net zones and redirect queries for EVERY NONEXISTENT DOMAIN in those zones to their servers, for every Internet service, not just web.

Re:Problems like this are forseeable (5, Informative)

mmu_man (107529) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403192)

> Since when does ICANN have the power to tell a business or person what they can or can't put on their page?
Since it's NOT their page. foobar4575368389.com is NO more verisign's page that it is anyone else's since the domain is not registered.
sitefinder is not the problem. The problem is the default DNS entries which redirect connections to sitefinder.
VeriSign used their access to the DNS they host *on behalf of ICANN*, to gain visibility for their sitefinder crap.
Appart from being highly unfair to search engine competition, and ethically wrong, it also brings lot of technical issues for any protocol (which HTTP is only one of them) used on the Internet.

Re:Problems like this are forseeable (3, Insightful)

PianoComp81 (589011) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403251)

This isn't about them putting up a sitefinder website, but that they're using their power as the main DNS provider to make any mis-typed site redirect to their web page.

ICANN believes this is a misuse of the power entrusted to VeriSign. I'd have to agree with them. If I mis-type a website, I want a "site not found" error or something useful, not a verisign web page.

Page? What page? (4, Insightful)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403279)

"Since when does ICANN have the power to tell a business or person what they can or can't put on their page?"

ICANN isn't claiming any such thing; all they're saying is you must administer DNS to the RFC specifications.

In fact, my guess is that ICANN doesn't care at all about siteminder.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Why do we need Verisign? (5, Interesting)

teeker (623861) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403078)

This may be a dumb question....but why do we need Verisign? I know they control some of the root servers, but why them? Couldn't the internet as a whole (if it could somehow come to an agreement), give those root servers to somebody else? The list of root servers is static. If everybody just changed the list all at once, their servers would suddenly become quiet and this would be a non-issue.

Of course, I realize that doing that would not be so straightforward, but such an effort would send a message...to Verisign and to anybody else that would try this kind of crap. Self-healing network, heal thyself!

Re:Why do we need Verisign? (3, Informative)

ISPpfy (635928) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403220)

Verisign controls the "A" and (I think) "J" root servers, but that's pretty irrelvant to this discussion. Seriously.

What is relevant is that they also control the gTLD root servers for .com and .net - and that's what they plan on running Sitefinder on.
They've even got a contract for it...

Duel (5, Funny)

savagedome (742194) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403085)

Verisign: I can ICANN: U can't

Fighting back? (4, Interesting)

bobetov (448774) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403088)

At what point does it make sense to start editting Verisign.com out of the internet? The basic ploy here seems to be to ride rough-shod over the concerns of the technical users and administrators who maintain the 'net, in the hopes that uneducated consumers will ignore the issue.

It seems to me that the thousands of sysadmins, ISP admins and so forth who read this site and feel the pain of Verisign's greed have an option here - alter our local DNS registries to point www.verisign.com etc to 127.0.0.1. Given enough people doing this and their business will start to feel the pain.

It would be a fine twist to this whole mess, and perhaps drive home to the PHB's at Verisign exactly how annoyed this makes those of us who understand the ramifications of their actions.

Re:Fighting back? (4, Interesting)

silentbozo (542534) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403196)

Or better yet, demonstrate how DNS MUST operate on mutual trust, by sending anybody trying to query www.verisign.com (and other associated names) to their competitors (on a random basis.) If Verisign wants to break DNS, they'll have to deal with the fact that anybody else down the chain between the root server and the user can break it equally as well.

Remember folks, we use DNS because it's useful. If it stops being useful, we can stop using it just as quickly.

Re:Fighting back? (3, Insightful)

zorgon (66258) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403243)

Yes, but didn't Verisign use some sort of random hostname thing the last time to spoof this very tactic? I spose you could filter *.verisign.com and more, but it'd be like keeping up with spam.

One argument they could use... (3, Interesting)

SmackCrackandPot (641205) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403097)

Very often, when anyone tries to access a now non-existant web page, the ISP owning the relevant server will forward you to one of their home pages. Or maybe a web domain speculator will buy up a domain name, and use that to forward you to their search engine. Verisign could argue they're doing something similar. Obviously it's wrong, but it's more or less what other people are doing.

Re:One argument they could use... (3, Interesting)

s7uar7 (746699) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403277)

No, this is completely different. This is like Verisign buying every unused domain name, and forwarding to their site. They are getting for free what would cost a web domain speculator $millions.

Re:One argument they could use... (5, Insightful)

silentbozo (542534) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403332)

Very often, when anyone tries to access a now non-existant web page, the ISP owning the relevant server will forward you to one of their home pages.

They still return a 404 error, or at least, they're supposed to. Get Mozilla Firefox, download the Live HTTP headers extension, and you can verify this for yourself. Also, this is typically within a domain that does exist - it's just the page doesn't.

Or maybe a web domain speculator will buy up a domain name, and use that to forward you to their search engine. Verisign could argue they're doing something similar.

Ahh, but SiteFinder works even for domains that have NEVER existed. This means that Verisign is squatting on an almost-infinite number of domain combinations, which they haven't paid a cent for. As scummy and dispicable as webspammers are, this is scum and villany on a grand scale. Worse, it's scum and villany at a very low level - it doesn't just break HTTP, it breaks FTP, SMTP, and a host of other DNS-dependent protocols, AND it affects everyone running a DNS server by loading their cache tables with garbage.

Re:One argument they could use... (1)

Dave2 Wickham (600202) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403336)

Except I believe most of these still return HTTP 404 - if they don't, that's broken, but I've not particularly noticed any which don't yet.

ICANN (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403106)

ICANN: Turn of your Sitefinder, or we'll give .com to someone else. And you'll be left as nothing but a dead registrar...

Verisign: ICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANN!

Wait a sec (4, Interesting)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403111)

Doesn't ICANN hold SOME authority over VeriSign about DNS? Can't ICANN just "pull the plug" and tell VeriSign to go take a hike while they find someone more competent to take care of the root DNS servers? I mean, this is getting more or less ridiculous and as far as I understand it, would severely hamper several spam-fighting techniques used, possibly other things as well.

Besides, isn't it possible to get rid of the whole root DNS server idea in the first place? The attack on the root servers a few months ago didn't do much damage but it made clear that IF the root server went down ( granted, for extended periods... ) that the internet would be flat on it's arse unless we started using IP adresses. ( Which doesn't solve the problem because of absolute linking used on some websites... Though it would allow other uses again like FTP, SSH, etcetera. ) So why not a root DNS p2p network then? Still the root idea as used for DNS now, but instead of querying a set of dedicated root servers, DNS servers lower in the hierachy would query a root p2p network instead. Give ISPs a server with access to the network, same thing for registrars & co and someone decides to be a prick with DNS records, have ICANN throw them off be severing all communications with the other party's DNS servers.

Re:Wait a sec (4, Informative)

ahodgson (74077) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403185)

Verisign doesn't run the root nameservers. They run the .com and .net TLD servers and the database for those TLD's.

:bangheadonwall: (1)

Muad (11989) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403116)

I must be missing something... since when did SCO take over Verisign ? Ain't it funny - I am suing you for preventing me from violating the specs that my job is built on in the first place. And on top of it, I [verisign] got the RFID database to handle too (check this week's news). Bruahahah !! It's got to be Darl.

Missing the problem (5, Insightful)

Imagix (695350) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403122)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Verisign putting up their Sitefinder search engine. What ICANN had an issue with is the mismanagement of the DNS entries. If I want sitefinder, I'll go to www.sitefinder.com. If I go to www.stiefinder.com, I want a "host/domain not found" error, not a search engine.

Hello, rest of the world here (4, Insightful)

deniable (76198) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403138)

Can we have a say please?

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess not.

fuck em, use the newest bind (4, Funny)

Indy1 (99447) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403140)

its patched to block their bullshit site. Besides, if verislime gets sitefinder back up, i am sure the script kiddies will GLEEFULLY dos the hell out of that bitch. (hint hint)

Why is this still an issue!? I don't understand! (5, Insightful)

tbradshaw (569563) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403146)

Seriously. Why is Verisign still entrusted with the root servers for any top level domains.

They have abused their position, they are completely untrustworthy, and they are now suing the very body that (I would assume) allowed them to have this power in the first place.

I want Verisign's power of DNS revoked: Now. What is the inherent barrier? Why are they still allowed to intentionally fuck over the globe?

Does no one have the revoking power? Is inertia on their side? What is going on that gives them this power?

What if other registries do it? (1)

elfguy00 (749978) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403155)

Verisign abuses its power as a domain registry to get mistyped host names.. but any registry could do that now. What if multiple registries did that? Web browsers would become all confused as to which DNS entry is right?

hello pot... (0, Redundant)

tongue (30814) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403162)

... I'd like you to meet my friend Mr. Kettle. I understand the two of you have a few things in common....

CNET is also covering the story (4, Informative)

Mr.Zuka (166632) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403166)

I also saw the article at CNET [com.com]

Damn ICANN! (4, Insightful)

GoMMiX (748510) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403167)

"Today VERISIGN announced it will be suing ICANN for doing their job and preventing VERISIGN from illegally controlling and redirecting internet traffic, it has no legal right to, to their own product."

Methinks this would be somewhat similar to the US Government making all roads not privately owned lead to a government business.

I know, that sounds REALLY stupid - the government would NEVER do that. It's moronic to even think of something like that - but, essentially, is that not exactly what Verisign tried to do?

This also stinks of anti-competative monopolistic activity - as there are other 'site-finding' services out there. Such as Google, AltaVista, etc al... Yet Verisign would be the _only_ company able to perform a service utilizing this method - as they would be illegally tapping into property they do not own - unregistered domain names.

Stupid ICANN, what were they thinking! They act like they have "responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions."

audacious ta-tas (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403172)

The "power of audacity" is the order of the day in these Looking Glass times. When an individual person grabs the debate with outrageous claims, it's chutzpa - they can be ignored, jailed, and sometimes staked through the heart. But in a public environment with no real boundaries, millions of bloodthirsty lawyers on bottomless expense accounts, and some inane requirement for all issues to have "balance" between two untenable (and often contrived) extremes, unaccountable (and disaudited) corporations can get what they want by blowing over the top, and agreeing to split the difference, arriving squarely on target. And when they oppose people who merely defend reasonable positions closer to the middle than some self-selected extreme for balance, they win. Every time. Welcome to the abyss.

"They say ev'rything can be replaced,
Yet ev'ry distance is not near.
So I remember ev'ry face
Of ev'ry man who put me here.
I see my light come shining
From the west unto the east.
Any day now, any day now,
I shall be released."
- Bob Dylan, "I Shall Be Released" [bobdylan.com]

Sorry, really couldn't resist... (0, Redundant)

nefele (654499) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403175)

In Soviet Russia Verisign sues ICANN.

Part of the script for this sordid tale (1)

tulare (244053) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403195)

[Pot, to kettle}: You're black!

Our response to verisign (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403206)

"We have prepared a response to verisign."

"*ahem* Fuck you."

"You may direct your questions towards the wall behind me."

I say two days after this is launched, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403211)

we have a concerted effort on the part of all geeks everywhere to wget or otherwise download as many non-existant domains under their TLD as possible. We will proceed to do this once a week until sitefinder is destroyed for good!

regulatory power? (1)

chrisopherpace (756918) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403213)

They're doing their job from permitting monopolies in the domain name business from abusing their granted privledges. Verisign should have their privledges revoked, GoDaddy and a handfull of others are way better as far as price and morals go than Verisign. When I purchase my domains, I *NEVER* to through Verisign, I instead use GoDaddy. Cheap, powerful, and less crap. Verisign is just mad because they want everyone to see their stupid search site, which if this continues will probably have lots o' spyware on it, bombarding the user with gator and its friends.

You know.. I think I like Verisign better than MS (1)

demonic-halo (652519) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403225)

The cool thing about site finder was it kept the URL you typed in the URL bar when you use Microsoft Internet explorer.

When I typed in a bad domain name, Microsoft would redirect and change the URL to msn.com, which annoys me since the spelling mistake was pretty minor, only 1 or 2 letters needed to be corrected instead of retyping the entire URL back into the address bar.

Of course this is really a browser problem, and it's Microsoft's fault.

So... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403329)

So why would you use IE Explorer? Its seriously broken and badly outdated these days:

1) It requires you to look at pop-ups
2) It has no provision for tabbed browsing
3) It seems to cause numerous security holes in the underlying operating system.
4) As you've noted, its behavior when mistyping URL's is not very friendly.

Really, if you insist on using a product that pisses you off when there are good, solid alternatives, I'd put that down as a form of insanity.

Copy of letter just e-mailed to Verisign CEO (5, Insightful)

seanellis (302682) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403252)

Mr. Sclavos,

I was dismayed to hear that Verisign has launched a lawsuit against ICANN over the termination of the Sitefinder service.

I realise that I am only one person, but hopefully you will receive sufficient numbers of messages in similar vein that you will reconsider this action. It can have only one outcome, and this will not be good for Verisign or its shareholders.

ICANN is a regulatory body specifically tasked with ensuring that the cooperative standards which embody the Internet are administered for the common good.

Verisign, being in a unique position of trust, introduced a service that rendered the entire domain name mechanism broken.

Although the service provided may possibly have been useful for web users, the Internet is most emphatically not just the web. By ensuring that nonexistent domain name lookups succeeded, Verisign circumvented the error handling provisions of a large number of IP-based software products.

You will have noticed at the time that the immediate response from many ISPs was to immediately place local detection and blocking of Sitefinder, in order to restore correct functionality to these applications in accordance with accepted practice. This caused a considerable amount of effort and cost to the businesses concerned, and is therefore a legitimate target for regulation, and the regulatory body in question was the ICANN.

To attempt to sue a regulatory body for doing its job correctly and effectively is, I am afraid, unlikely to show Verisign in a good light.

Again, I urge you to reconsider this action.

Yours,

Sean Ellis
Software Developer

--------

Pots and Kettles (4, Funny)

Tajarix (604495) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403258)


"Working the ICANN process is like being nibbled to death by ducks," said Tom Galvin, VeriSign's vice president for government relations. "It takes forever, it doesn't make sense, and in the end we're still dead in the water."


Sounds like the last domain transfer I did away from Versign.

Why is Verisign still alive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403259)

Obviously some of you are still buying from them.

Stop.

Find another registrar, find a new CA, do anything you have to do to stop giving them money.

Not that ICANN isn't just a conglomerate of evil corporations these days, but at least in this case they acted purely on the will of the public.

(Posted from MSIE)

Alternate name.... (-1, Offtopic)

antarctican (301636) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403260)

Err, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it Windows XP Rebooted?

Tired of bad governance, check out The Moderates [bcmdm.ca] .

STUNNING! (5, Insightful)

Performer Guy (69820) | more than 10 years ago | (#8403308)

I'm just shocked, I had to read this again because it is truly stunning, I feel like I've fallen into a parallel universe where Verisign has an innate right to the monopoly they've been granted by the organization they're suing. Heaven forbid that the body created to regulate internet domain name serving actually regulates it! This has to be the most spectacular example of biting the hand that feeds you that I've ever seen. They'd have no business interest if ICANN hadn't handed it to them on a silver platter.

Verisign should lose all control & responsibility of any TLDs for this, it's just amazing that they could attempt to undermine internet infrastructure like this and then brazenly turn around and sue the regulators.

They have no shame, it's time to farm TLD administration out to people who are at least slightly rational.

I guessing 9 out of 10... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8403320)

slashdotters maintain a domain name. I'll bet good money that more than half of that is through Networksolutions. So why not use our consumer power to say "No" to sitefinder.

I have. I sent a nasty-gram laying out why I think sitefinder is a bad idea. My threat was to move my domains to a different registrar. Hell little o'l me has four domains with networksolutions that's a decent bit of change they'll miss in the next two years.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>