« Verisign fires Snubby. | Main | Verisign to ask outside experts. »

It's "Verisign v. Users."

From an anonymous comment in response to the ALAC's statement on sitefinder:

In a recent Cnet article, Verisign is quoted as saying, "We're fully compliant with every RFC". ... If that's true, it just kills the argument against Verisign as it then becomes "geeks v. users" with Verisign on the side of the users.

That's a dangerous misconception, in several ways.

The technical part is being discussed in the IAB's commentary on the matter. The IAB explains in detail that, while wildcards have been part of the DNS specification for twenty years, their use is dangerous and can break technology. From the technology side, the problems with Sitefinder don't come from breaking some specific RFC. They come from using RFC-specified features in a way that breaks design assumptions made throughout the net.

But even if the collateral damage is left out of the picture, the very idea behind Sitefinder is user-unfriendly, and that's the second half of the ALAC's note: Sitefinder is, ultimately, about short-cutting other error handling methods, and redirecting any users that enter non-existing domain names into a web browser to Verisign's own service, for commercial purposes. Sitefinder is designed so it becomes difficult to deploy superior error handling services that would compete with it -- because errors aren't flagged.

From the point of view of software developers, sitefinder is designed to replace a market that's open for competition by a monopoly.

From the point of view of users, it is not a superior offer that empowers them, and that they can accept (or decline) as they want: Instead, it's a service that is designed to deprive them of a choice they used to have.

It's a "service" that's being forced down users' throats.

Just like spam.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://log.does-not-exist.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/616

Comments (4)

Anonymous:
Thanks for your response. I accidentally left off my name, and I'm now glad I did as I'm embarrassed by the misunderstanding to which I clearly left myself open. The IAB commentary was exactly what I was wanting to see. I'm also glad I elicited your comment, because the fact that "the very idea behind Sitefinder is user-unfriendly" is far from self-evident to someone who just wants to get to his target website without having to interact with his computer any more than is necessary. VeriSign had found a market gap, but tried to fill it at the wrong place and in the wrong way. I would hate to see them get away with it just because all the arguments against it were too esoteric for those who didn't already understand them to follow, or even be interested in.
Anonymous:
Verisign is trying to establish the principle that it *owns* unregistered .com and .net domain names. What do you say to that?
Keith Ivey:
I don't see a "market gap" that VeriSign is trying to fill. For the vast majority of users, all VeriSign is doing is displacing Microsoft's or AOL's similar error handling. Using one's monopoly position to lock out existing services run by competitors isn't filling a gap.
Concerning the "property" question, I can't say anything about the legal merit such claims may or may not have -- I'm not a lawyer. Concerning the expectations that many have about this, though, you may wish to have a look at http://www.byte.org/blog/_archives/2003/9/23/3225.html for some relevant excerpts from RFC 1521.

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on September 22, 2003 2:12 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Verisign fires Snubby..

The next post in this blog is Verisign to ask outside experts..

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.35