Skip

"VeriSign got in trouble,
September 3, 2002 5:50 PM   Subscribe

"VeriSign got in trouble, VeriSign got in trouble!" ICANN serves VeriSign with a formal notice of breach of its accreditation agreement for its mishandling of WHOIS data under its control (.com addresses). VeriSign has 15 days to smarten up or it could lose the .com registry. (via Boing Boing)
posted by mcwetboy (22 comments total)

 
'Bout time.
posted by allaboutgeorge at 5:58 PM on September 3, 2002


That's the best news I've heard all month!
posted by katieinshoes at 6:01 PM on September 3, 2002


though i'm glad they're catching shit, i wish it was for their more serious offenses.
posted by dobbs at 6:01 PM on September 3, 2002


I find it a little hard to believe that ICANN is falling out of Verisign's back pocket that much, but ... well, we'll see.

Oh, and with all things Verisign, I simply must state again that one picture is worth a thousand words.

i wish it was for their more serious offenses

Go for what sticks. If you can't take a mobster down on a murder charge, get 'im for taxes. Or something like that.
posted by WolfDaddy at 6:04 PM on September 3, 2002


Despite repeated notifications over the past eighteen months, VeriSign Registrar has failed to correct a Whois entry that shows a domain name registered to “Toto”, with an address "the yellow brick road, Oz, KS."

heh.

I'm a bit hazy on what this will mean to my domains if Verisign has their accreditation agreement terminated.
posted by perplexed at 6:21 PM on September 3, 2002


Now if only someone would clip ICANN upside the head.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:07 PM on September 3, 2002


Now if only someone would clip ICANN upside the head.

no shit. this is the same org that accepted verisign and snapname's questionable WMS proposal last week, regardless of outstanding opposition from both the biz world and it's own task force.

i was going to do a big fpp on this a few days ago but i got so frustrated with the subject i gave up before posting it.

icann needs to be scrutinized just as much if not more than verisign/snapnames does.
posted by t r a c y at 8:20 PM on September 3, 2002


Whois system sucks. Sweet irony the company who first implimented the madness gets taken down for it.
posted by stbalbach at 8:25 PM on September 3, 2002


Hate to say it, but VeriSign probably has more accurate registration records than most of the registrars.

What they need to do is go back to a pure postal mail billing system. That way the registrant will have to keep a real address in the Whois DB or risk having their domain expire.
posted by rogue at 8:58 PM on September 3, 2002


I'm a little confused about this whole whois flap. I don't have accurate whois info on my sites for a reason, it cuts down on spam in both email and snail mail, it reduced the number of telemarketing calls by a bunch and my psychotic exes can't track me down via my whois info.

My billing information is correct, so my hosting company and domain registrar can get hold of me...but the whole world doesn't need to know my home address. As long as whois info for non-corporate sites are public info, I think it's safe to assume that safeguarding your privacy is your right.
posted by dejah420 at 9:04 PM on September 3, 2002


Sure privacy is your right, but so is public disclosure of resources and property... what people are supposed to do when they want to keep their information private (in the Whois DB or even when owning a house) is hire a lawyer to hold it in trust for them.

That way, if someone has a problem they can at least go through the third party to get it resolved.
posted by rogue at 10:47 PM on September 3, 2002


Sure privacy is your right, but so is public disclosure of resources and property

Um, what? Where do you get that doctrine? Either I'm misunderstanding your point, or we totally disagree on the disposition of property law.

what people are supposed to do when they want to keep their information private (in the Whois DB or even when owning a house) is hire a lawyer to hold it in trust for them.

That's just silly. I should spend a couple of grand on my attorney for a domain that costs less than $30 a year? (not counting the hosting) No, that's putting entirely too much burden on regular people.

If someone has a problem with my domain, there's a valid technical domain contact. The host company provides a phone number, an address and a contact person for any technical problems. Why should I provide anything more than that, or pay thousands of dollars to have junk mail forwarded to my attorneys..who charge on average $300 an hour?
posted by dejah420 at 10:57 PM on September 3, 2002


Anything, absolutely anything, bad for Verisign or ICANN (exception: Karl Auerbach -and excuse my potentially poor spelling of his name), is good for the Internet as a whole. This can either be non-news or amazingly great news but it simply cannot be bad news.
posted by Ryvar at 11:06 PM on September 3, 2002


though i'm glad they're catching shit, i wish it was for their more serious offenses

I want them to catch shit for every reason there is, but this may not be as insignificant as some assume. I don't usually believe that VeriSign's "sloppiness" is random -- I believe it is deliberate, and I have good reasons for that suspicion. VeriSign consistently "makes mistakes" which prevent me from moving my domains to another registrar.

You cannot transfer away a domain if you haven't paid your registration fee. Think about this: If VeriSign "accidentally" has WHOIS info on you that says your domain has expired, they "can't allow" you to transfer the domain to another registrar.
posted by edlundart at 11:30 PM on September 3, 2002


Um, what? Where do you get that doctrine? Either I'm misunderstanding your point, or we totally disagree on the disposition of property law.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that people need to be held accountable, and the government has always recognized that. If somesome has issue with a property owner (in the case of domain names, perhaps trademark or copyright infringement) there needs to be a way they can contact the owner and resolve the situation.

That's just silly. I should spend a couple of grand on my attorney for a domain that costs less than $30 a year? (not counting the hosting) No, that's putting entirely too much burden on regular people.

Themes the breaks... no one is forced to own a domain name. By doing so, (as with any property) you place yourself in the public eye and take on a liability.
posted by rogue at 1:27 AM on September 4, 2002


Hmmm. I got tired of postal junk (spam) mail, especially all the fake domain renewal notices I was receiving - so I changed my WHOIS data to say among other things "RETURN TO SENDER" in the mailing address field. That way all that junk mail gets bounced back to the sender.

Why are the spammers allowed to freely forge whois data, but I'm supposed to provide a real mailing address (which has nothing to do with my billing info) so I can be spammed/junk mailed?
posted by jca at 1:32 AM on September 4, 2002


my psychotic exes can't track me down via my whois info

What a great line. Not just 'psychotic ex', but psychotic exes.

I have rubbish printed in some of my whois addresses also, for the other reasons you give (spam, etc). How are Verisign going to ensure that their entire whois database is up-to-date in fifteen days? And even if they sort out the domains listed by icann, it wouldn't be hard to come up with 1500 more that are incorrect... I'm about as anti-Verisign as the next person (the amount of 'your domain needs renewing!' notices I've had from them...) but this feels like a pretty pointless thing to take them to task over.
posted by humuhumu at 2:11 AM on September 4, 2002


Hmmm, ICANN vs. VeriSign...

I have absolutely no idea who to root for.
posted by mmoncur at 4:49 AM on September 4, 2002


I'm a bit concerned because I don't necessarily want registrars to crack down on domains with incorrect/false contact information. I know that the web is supposed to be an open exchange, blahblahblah...but I can't afford to have my name on my domain.

Couldn't they have focused on the other terrible infractions VeriSign has committed? Such as allowing the theft of domains right under their noses? Such as allowing the transfer of domains without the information required to start those transfers?
posted by jennak at 7:04 AM on September 4, 2002


CNet coverage.
posted by mcwetboy at 8:24 AM on September 4, 2002


Themes the breaks... no one is forced to own a domain name. By doing so, (as with any property) you place yourself in the public eye and take on a liability.
posted by rogue


Nope, I can find nothing in the legal code that supports that. Again, what doctrine are you basing that claim upon?

What a great line. Not just 'psychotic ex', but psychotic exes.

Ah well, ya know...the 80's.....then there was the 90's. It got better once I gave up drummers and philosophers. ;-)
posted by dejah420 at 10:10 AM on September 4, 2002


I received a couple of e-mails today from auDA, the Domain Administrator for all .au domains, advising that a company called Internet Registry Pty Ltd has been sending out the same sort of false renewals that VeriSign was sending. They have also been leading people into believing that they can renew domains for longer than 2 years by renewing early and telling people that they need to supply the registry key to "renew" the domain.

Is this a trend, or is there some connection?
posted by dg at 3:11 PM on September 10, 2002


« Older Secretary Rumsfeld is RAISING THE TOUGH QUESTIONS....   |   "American girls are possibly... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post