Feeds

ICANN's VeriSign registry deal done without consultation

Is it a complete stitch-up?

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

ICANN has come under fire at its Melbourne conference by effectively passing a controversial new deal with root registrar VeriSign without consulting anyone.

The "deal" will see Network Solutions (now part of VeriSign) hand over the .org registry at the end of 2002 and the .net registry by 2005. It will keep control of the .com registry. Both parties are passing it off as a great compromise but everyone else in the world sees it as a continuation of NSI's monopolistic powers and the status quo.

A number of registrars, including Register.com, have already sent a letter to ICANN complaining about the deal, saying it would undermine the competition that was finally beginning to arrive in the registry business.

But this is all bye-the-bye because ICANN has done it again and bypassed all concerned bodies with a combination of contracts and careful timing. Unless agreement is met by the ICANN board, NSI and the US Department of Commerce by 10 May this year for NSI to split up its registry and registrar business, an automatic extension to NSI's root monopoly will not occur. So rather than having control of all .coms, .net and .orgs until 2007, it will only have them until 2003. The deal could be seen as "out of the frying pan into the fire".

Note that agreement is only needed by the ICANN board.

And so, the subject of who will effectively control the Internet came up for discussion at the ICANN conference. Under "any other business". Michael Schneider - representing ISPs and member of the Names Council - expressed surprise that the issue had appeared out of nowhere and said he hadn't had time to review the situation. The same point was made by some other big-hitters including NC members Grant Forysth, Paul Kane, Carlos Martinez, Philip Sheppard among others.

Arguing the case for accepting the agreement was Joe Sims from ICANN's lawyers Jones Day Reavis and Pogue. Sims is the man responsible for ICANN's ambiguous bylaws that effectively let the Board rewrite the organisation whenever they see fit.

He delivered a small presentation as to why the deal should be passed. "Pros" included the separation of the registry contracts (so NSI has three controlling contracts rather than just one), bringing the NSI in line with other registrars, reduce government involvement (at the moment, we'd rather have the government in overall charge) and minimise the "potential" for future conflicts.

The "possible cons". "Allows VeriSign to retain registrar" and "Creates presumption of renewal for .com". Hmmm, which looks better?

Fortunately, the gathered were having none of it. It will impede competition, it relies on ICANN to get it right (more power for ICANN) and why the hell haven't the DNS organisations been asked about this?

No matter, Sims points out that they're in a straight-jacket. Martinez asks if the proposal is open for revision depending on what the public (that's you and me) and the DNSO say? No, says Sims. Because we have to decide the issue by 10 May. Apart from the people that created the deal, everyone else can either agree or disagree with it.

We would ask: then what's the point in having a public forum or even the DNSO? Sims also points out that there is no mention of a splitting between the registry and registrar functions in the new deal; no, that was the last deal. Attendees complained that the split was part of ICANN policy. No it's not, said Sims (he's right). But people believe it is. Not my concern, said Sims.

Many complained about the last-minute posting of the deal. Sims responded: "Last-minute postings are a valid point. But it would be of greater concern if we were talking about policy decisions rather than a negotiated amendment to a contract. This does not change or create ICANN policy. No part of the DNSO has a required role in development of contractual arrangements." Can ICANN become any more Kafkaesque?

A request for an extension to the date so proper thought could be given to a very important change was also rebuked - any delay would have to be agreed by ICANN, NSI and the DoC. And so time is short. And we are witness to yet another stitch-up.

Of course, what we should all remember as well is that the original agreement in 1999 was only arrived at after some significant leaning on NSI. Before then, NSI was threatening to challenge ICANN's authority and throw the whole Internet up in the air. ICANN forced it down, NSI offered to pay it around £2.5 million and keep ICANN afloat. This "deal" may be the NSI's payback. And if the ICANN top bods decide to get it through, they ain't gonna be anyone to stop em. ®

Related Stories

Fury at ICANN/ VeriSign over .org domains
VeriSign loses control of .org domain
ICANN: the Internet's answer to Stalin

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

More from The Register

next story
Facebook pays INFINITELY MORE UK corp tax than in 2012
Thanks for the £3k, Zuck. Doh! you're IN CREDIT. Guess not
Facebook, Apple: LADIES! Why not FREEZE your EGGS? It's on the company!
No biological clockwatching when you work in Silicon Valley
Happiness economics is bollocks. Oh, UK.gov just adopted it? Er ...
Opportunity doesn't knock; it costs us instead
Sysadmin with EBOLA? Gartner's issued advice to debug your biz
Start hoarding cleaning supplies, analyst firm says, and assume your team will scatter
YARR! Pirates walk the plank: DMCA magnets sink in Google results
Spaffing copyrighted stuff over the web? No search ranking for you
Don't bother telling people if you lose their data, say Euro bods
You read that right – with the proviso that it's encrypted
Apple SILENCES Bose, YANKS headphones from stores
The, er, Beats go on after noise-cancelling spat
prev story

Whitepapers

Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.