News coverage, Verisign etc.

Wed Oct 8 20:56:01 UTC 2003

>From "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Fifth Edition":

malfeasance / mal'fi:z(schwa)ns/ noun. L17.
[Anglo-Noramn malfaisance, from mal- MAL- + Old & mod. French
faisance: see FEASANcE. Cf. MISFEASANCE]
LAW. Evildoing, illegal action; an illegal act; spec. official
misconduct by a public servant.

I would argue that since Verisign took this action unilaterally in
violation of their contract to administer the REGISTRY function and
without the approval or consent of the community, this definition could
apply to their actions.

I would further argue that since Verisign declined ICANN's polite
request to cease and desist, they deliberately and willfully conducted
themselves in a manner known to be contrary to that public trust.
If that does not meet this definition, I do not know what would.

Owen

--On Wednesday, October 8, 2003 15:54 -0400 "Steven M. Bellovin" 
<smb at research.att.com> 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 Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
>
>