Re: [ga] Verisign abusing its com/net monopoly again?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Geroge and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,


  The ICANN Bod and certainly the ICANN staff are not interested
in thwarting the abuses of it's own registries and registrars for their
frequent abuses of their registrants as it is not in ICANN's immediate
best financial interest to do so...

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> We already have the example of WLS in Verisign abusing its monopoly
> (and ICANN not stopping this abuse -- see www.stopwls.com).
>
> Planning to monetize all typos by rewriting DNS error codes to instead
> point to itself (i.e. instead of returning error codes, it will no
> longer return errors, but instead bring the surfer to Verisign
> money-making pages) is yet another example of an abusive monopolist.
> See:
>
> http://www.cbronline.com/latestnews/d04afc52ae9da2ee80256d9c0018be8b
>
> "Some organizations have shown a propensity to make technical changes
> happen and then ask for permission later," Afilias's Mohan said. "Given
> the economics of it, I think that's what will happen here."
>
> Given the huge technical standards that Verisign would be violating, as
> well as the Intellectual Property and economic issues (e.g. a typo of
> one letter of your domain name could send a client to a search engine
> listing your competitor as #1, or worse; John Zuccarini is in JAIL for
> his typo-squatting!), can someone in the Names Council, or the ICANN
> Board that has a spinal column please pre-empt this Verisign move by
> forbidding unilateral action of such a nature by means of a vote of
> some kind, through the introduction of a motion?
>
> >From the comments at:
>
> http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/19/1253205&mode=nested
>
> when this abuse last came up, perhaps the way to frame the motion is
> "gTLD Registry operators WILL return NXDOMAIN for ALL DNS queries for
> which where there is not a REGISTERED domain name." Period.
>
> Once you start tampering with things at the DNS level, as Verisign is
> intending to do, you threaten the security and stability of the
> internet, as I think Vint Cerf properly recognizes (being right at
> least half of the time; bad call on WLS, but the courts and the US
> governmet will take care of that one eventually). For a company whose
> slogan is "The Value of Trust", Verisign makes a mockery of the
> caretaker role it has been given as guardian of the com/net registries.
> I trust them as much as I trust John Zuccarini.
>
> If the US government had a problem with Microsoft embedding the
> Internet Explorer browser into its operating system, what will they
> think given Verisign has an even *greater* monopoly when it comes to
> DNS resolution? The power should belong to the *users*, who should have
> the choice (through their own software) how to resolve errors. That's
> why we have technical standards. Making that decision for them, by
> BREAKING technical standards and the applications that *rely* on those
> standards, as Verisign plans to do, and making loads of $$$$ while
> doing it, smacks of an abusive father-knows-best monopolist. Verisign
> is the father you wish you never had! Calling it a "service" adds
> insult to injury, as they did with WLS, especially when it's a MONOPOLY
> service, for which one has no choice. When you make a typo for a
> telephone call, does the 1-800 operator (AT&T, MCI, Neustar?) start
> playing paid jingles for your competitors, instead of telling you that
> you misdialled via a message?
>
> Ultimately, folks know Verisign wants to milk every last penny out of
> its monopolies, and doesn't care who they have to step on to do so.
> Take a look at http://www.games.tv/ which shows:
>
> "games.tv is available and can be registered immediately for
> $100,000.00/year*.
>
> to understand what Verisign's goals are (Verisign runs .tv). Do you
> *think* you *really* own your .com domains? What price would Verisign
> *like* to charge you for *your* domains?? Once they wipe out some
> registrars through WLS, and other monopoly abuses, who will be left to
> stop them?
>
> If Verisign is permitted to go through with yet another abuse, it's
> really a sign that ICANN's contract should be revoked and given instead
> to the ITU or someone else, for failing in enforcing basic technical
> standards. Congress should be made aware of this, as ICANN's contract
> comes up for renewal, that it's failing in its most fundamental
> functions, and even when it knows that abuses are coming, it sits back
> and waits for abuses to happen, or even encourages them. As George Bush
> eloquently said, we should make no distinction between terrorists and
> those who harbor them. ICANN continues to harbor the abusive monopolist
> Verisign, and should be held accountable. George Bush went to war to
> pre-empt further abuses. Hopefully the ICANN Accountability Act at:
>
> http://www.stopwls.com/legislation.html
>
> goes one step towards reshaping ICANN from a rogue organization into a
> responsible one that listens to community consensus and observes basic
> technical responsibilities, instead of being in the back pocket of
> abusive monopolists.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801