News coverage, Verisign etc.

Wed Oct 8 20:46:21 UTC 2003

At 3:54 PM -0400 10/8/03, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>  >In these days of corporate malfeasance scandal coverage, you'd think that
>>Verisign's tactics would have whetted the appetite of some bright
>>investigative reporter for one of the major publications.
>
>For all that I'm critical of wildcards in TLDs -- I spoke at the
>meeting yesterday, and my slides are on my Web page -- I don't think
>there are any issues of malfeasance.  No one has been looting
>Verisign's coffers, they're not cooking the books, etc.  I see three
>issues:  is this technically wise, did Verisign have the right to do
>this under their current contract with ICANN, and should they have such
>a right.  I don't see anything resembling dishonesty.

Steve, I think that's a fair summary. They are being an aggressive 
business, and perhaps an aggressive business isn't the right steward 
for a TLD. In my "10,000 foot view," I tried to distinguish what the 
ideal should have been -- and maybe should be reflected in future 
contracts -- versus what did happen.

There's an old quote that applies to some extent, "Never attribute to 
malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."  I'm not 
saying the contract drafters were stupid, but they were under time 
pressure, couldn't foresee future operational contingencies, etc.

Nevertheless, we may have a legal situation not completely unlike the 
recent issues with do-not-call. When a judge ruled additional 
legislation was needed, it was passed and signed in what was close to 
an all-time record. Now, Verisign has a contract, but, if they 
continue to be disruptive, there are options. It is my hope that 
Verisign will moderate.