ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Conspirators Abound | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 19 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Arnold and Porter
    by GeorgeK on Friday June 18 2004, @10:01AM (#13768)
    User #3191 Info | http://www.kirikos.com/
    VeriSign's law firm is leaving no stone unturned. From my webserver logs:

    208.252.208.13 - - [08/Jun/2004:17:39:58 -0400] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 7135 "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Geo rge+Kirikos" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)"

    ARIN WHOIS for 208.252.208.13 [arin.net]:

    CustName: Arnold & Porter
    Address: 777 south Figueroa street
    City: Los Angeles
    StateProv: CA
    PostalCode: 90017
    Country: US
    RegDate: 2002-05-11
    Updated: 2003-05-30


    I'm honoured that they suspect that I'm pulling the strings of this vast secret conspiracy! Perhaps they've been watching too many episodes of the X-Files, or something.....simply ridiculous of them to think that anyone who disagrees with their abusive behaviour is part of a large conspiracy.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    The DOJ Can Follow-Up With Criminal Charges
    by Anonymous on Friday June 18 2004, @05:38PM (#13773)
    The DOJ Can Follow-Up With Criminal Charges

    Once Verisign lays the legal foundation for all of the RICO activities, the DOJ can follow-up with criminal charges. That will remove Verisign from the litigation burden.

    The discovery in these early rounds will of course be packaged for the proper U.S. Government officials to digest.

    The price-fixing by ICANN and the RIRs is one obvious area to target.

    The linkages between the various RICO actors, especially those near the .ORG deal, will also be easy to expose.

    Some will scream non-profit, and attempt to wrap themselves in gunny sacks to try to hide their collusion, but the DOJ should be able to see right thru that. The 52 co-conspirators have been operating for years on the basis of "this is the Internet, it is different". The U.S. Government needs to step in and inform them that, "this is the United States, there are laws, the laws apply to these people". Some, like the ICANN execs, will of course exit and run to their off-shore hide-outs. Others will not fair as well.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    The new tld eval will tell
    by Anonymous on Friday June 18 2004, @05:58PM (#13776)
    Judging from ICANN's rapid and strong response to sunrise issues, perish the thought ICANN was ever in cahoots with Afilias.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    "please dump stuff into this section."
    by Anonymous on Friday June 18 2004, @06:04PM (#13777)
    In the newly revised complaint, VeriSign argues that ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SECSAC), which recommended Site Finder be removed, was stuffed with competitors, and did not base its decision on the technical facts. The company points to a draft version of SECSAC's technical report, which contains the conclusion that Site Finder should be turned off, but in place of factual information has the text: "This is where we need to include the factual information to support the opinions and recommendations that follow. Paul Vixie and Suzanne, among others, please dump stuff into this section."
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Members of the Committee A Whos Who of ISOC Thugs
    by Anonymous on Friday June 18 2004, @06:23PM (#13778)
    Members of the Committee

            Dr. Stephen Crocker has been appointed to chair the Security Committee. The members of the Committee are:

                    * Alain Aina (Consultant)
                    * Jaap Akkerhuis (SIDN)
                    * Steve Bellovin (ATT)
                    * Rob Blokzijl (RIPE)
                    * David Conrad (Nominum)
                    * Steve Crocker (Shinkuro), Chair
                    * Johan Ihrén (Autonomica)
                    * Mark Kosters (VeriSign)
                    * Allison Mankin (Lucent Bell Labs)
                    * Ram Mohan (Afilias)
                    * Russ Mundy (SPARTA, Inc)
                    * Jun Murai (Keio University; Chair, DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee)
                    * Frederico Neves (registro.br)
                    * Ray Plzak (ARIN)
                    * Doron Shikmoni (ForeScout, ISOC-IL)
                    * Ken Silva (VeriSign)
                    * Bruce Tonkin (Melbourne IT; Chair, Generic Names Supporting Organization)
                    * Paul Vixie (ISC)
                    * Rick Wesson (Alice's Registry; CTO/Vice-Chair, GNSO Registrars Constituency)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Stop the strip-mining of the Internet
    by Anonymous on Saturday June 19 2004, @08:09PM (#13780)
    If ICANN's not up to the task, it's time for government action.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    What Stops Verisign from Turning Off their .COMs ?
    by Anonymous on Sunday June 20 2004, @05:09AM (#13781)
    What Stops Verisign from Turning Off their .COMs ?

    If Verisign wants to end (or curtail) the co-conspirators' activities, what stops Verisign from simply turning off (or re-directing) those people's .COM names ?

    Also, why does Verisign continue to send money to ICANN ?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Paul Vixie's "Slaves" ? Canada, France and Israel
    by Anonymous on Sunday June 20 2004, @05:43AM (#13782)
    Paul Vixie's "Slaves" ? Canada, France and Israel

            * From: Paul Vixie
            * Date: Fri Jun 18 12:46:55 2004

    > PV> Paul Vixie is an existing provider of competitive services for
    > PV> registry operations, including providing TLD domain name hosting
    > PV> services for ccTLDs and gTLDs, and a competitor of VeriSign for
    > PV> new registry operations. [...]
    >
    > I'm missing something. By what stretch of whose imagination does
    > root nameserver operations compete with a registrar?

    i think they mean ns-ext.isc.org (or its old name, ns-ext.vix.com), which
    offers "TLD hosting" without fee to about 60 domains:

          % awk '/^zone/ { print $2 }' slave_tld.zones | sed 's/"//g' | fmt
          ac ae ao bg br com.br ca cd cl cz cv gov.fj fr hn hr io il ac.il co.il
          gov.il k12.il muni.il net.il org.il in co.in ernet.in org.in ac.in
          res.in gov.in mil.in net.in firm.in gen.in ind.in is museum md na com.na
          nl np com.np edu.np org.np mil.np net.np gov.np nr biz.nr com.nr edu.nr
          gov.nr info.nr net.nr org.nr pt ro sh tm za si sk co.zw aq pn ug

    if it's not that, then perhaps they're just smoking crack.

    (note for TLD folks... we're trying to collect the whole set, we're missing
    the last 200 or so, give us a call, tsig preferred.)
    --
    Paul Vixie

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    More on the Co-Conspirators and How They Operate
    by Anonymous on Monday June 21 2004, @06:44AM (#13785)
    More on the Co-Conspirators and How They Operate

    http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current /msg30597.html

    "The false claims by ISC/SORBS is not a matter of blocking spam. It
    doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with blocking spam. ISC/SORBS
    falsely asserts that IP address space is "hijacked/disused". This is a
    bald lie, first promoted by Alan Brown, who you might recall once used his
    ORBS blacklist to block ISPs that had nothing to do with spam, for reasons
    that had nothing to do with spam: just because he didn't like those ISPs.
    Brown then lost 3 separate lawsuits involving defamation and false
    statements, and ultimately appears to have lost his business to pay the
    consequent damages. When Brown's own subscribers complained, he said it
    was a "personal" blacklist and had no particular standards. Brown was
    pretty thoroughly discredited but this does not appear to have deterred
    Sullivan and Vixie from associating with him. Brown and his associates
    Paul Vixie and Matthew Sullivan have continued to promote and support
    defamation of ISPs they don't like, just like ORBS did previously. None of
    the 3 cases Brown lost had anything to do with spam. Similarly, this has
    nothing to do with spam.

    ISC/SORBS (Brown, Vixie, and Sullivan) are not claiming that we are
    spammers: They are falsely claiming that our address space is
    "hijacked/disused". Vixie and I have conflicts that predate spam, and
    goes back at least to Namedroppers in the late 1980's and the issue of HS
    class Root servers. More recently, I've worked (with others of course) to
    prevent several frivolous changes to the DNS protocol that Mr. Vixie
    supported, and which would have benefited products and companies he has a
    financial interest in. Indeed, the current dispute arose out of
    complaints about improper activity by Mr. Austein as WG co-chair with
    respect to one of those proposals. That complaint, originally and
    appropriately made off-list, was rejected by Mr. Austein's ISC.ORG email
    system, run by Mr. Vixie.

    ISC's harrassment by computer is not the only issue. There are also the
    matters of on-list disparagement by Mr. Bush and Mr. Vixie, and of course
    Mr. Alvestrand has recently made his own original false and misleading
    statements implying there is somehow incorrect ownership information and
    that somehow I have made some request of him to change that. I haven't
    made any such request. If there is any trivially incorrect information, it
    does not support the assertion that the space is "hijacked/disused"."
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    When will the ISC.ORG finances be disclosed ?
    by Anonymous on Monday June 21 2004, @09:10AM (#13788)
    When will the ISC.ORG finances be disclosed ?

    Who funds that cyberspace street gang ?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    The Co-Conspirators PROTECT Verisign (executives)
    by Anonymous on Tuesday June 22 2004, @05:33AM (#13791)
    The Co-Conspirators PROTECT Verisign (executives)


    Verisign needs the Co-Conspirators as protection.
    Everyone knows that Verisign could really do as
    it pleases, with the root servers and the .COM
    and .NET zones.


    If the Co-Conspirators were not being showcased
    by Verisign, then people might notice that it is
    Verisign that has worked hard to prevent any
    serious competition for .COM and .NET.


    By bringing the Co-Conspirators to the center
    stage, Verisign points to them as the bad people
    who have conspired to restrain trade and limit
    the marketplace choices, via the ICANN puppet.


    If the Verisign shareholders were to ever
    collectively develop enough of a clue to ask
    why *their company* (Verisign) has not stepped
    forward to truely compete in the open marketplace,
    Verisign can point to the Co-Conspirators as
    one group that restrains them. The Co-Conspirators
    help to protect the Verisign executives from the
    *owners* of Verisign, the shareholders.


    The Co-Conspirators PROTECT Verisign executives.
    It should be no surprise that Verisign is
    spending large sums of money to bring the
    Co-Conspirators into the spotlight.


    Imagine what could be happening, if Verisign
    were spending that money adding a new TLD, each
    day, to the root zone they control. The real
    players behind the scenes pulling the strings
    of ICANN, such as IBM and AT&T, would of course
    not want that. They like their .COM and .NET
    trademarks and do not want to deal with a large
    number of TLDs. Neither does Verisign, and
    neither do the Co-Conspirators. None of the
    people or companies involved could tolerate
    true competition. They have lived their entire
    lives without having to really compete. That
    is a common attribute they all share, which is
    what appears to attract them to each other and
    to the Internet Society in general.


    Around the edges of the closed Internet Society
    controlled network, there is true competition.
    People in these forums will never likey see
    that. You get to wallow in your Soviet-like
    walled garden, protected by both Verisign and
    the Co-Conspirators. You will never know what
    you are missing, and they will certainly not
    be telling you.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Bad, but Verisign has a point
    by Anonymous on Tuesday June 22 2004, @10:55AM (#13792)
    ICANN is regulating a cartel, let's face it. Verisign is not happy with it. The cartel management isn't going that fairly. In paragraph 85 of their complaint Verisign says some valid things about why that is. This doesn't mean Verisign is right. But that we may ask ourself how to improve a true balance of interests within ICANN.
    Where could Verisign within the ICANN community (note the sarcasm) protest against anything? Where are the repeal procedures?
    I do not like Verisign (I think $6 for a domain is about double what it should cost), but it has a point.
    I hope the judge will not grant Verisign all its points, since that would mean the end of ICANN and the UN over domains. Quod Deus avertat.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Class Action Shareholder Lawsuits
    by Anonymous on Friday July 09 2004, @10:10AM (#13901)
    Substitute Verisign with TuCows below.

    Eliot and Ross are going to get their butts sued off the .NET

    Plan C is of course Class Action Shareholder Lawsuits which are on their way to Verisign and other widely-held public stock companies, caught in the ICANN communist/socialist anti-capitalist quick-sand.

    Verisign Shareholders have a right to demand that Verisign STOP paying ICANN any more money.

    Verisign Shareholders also have the right to demand that Verisign STOP giving away assets in the form of TLD customer bases.

    Verisign Shareholders also have the right to demand that Verisign START adding services that will enhance people's .NET experiences and Verisign's bottom line, increasing Verisign Shareholder Value.

    ICANN is of course free to continue breaking every RICO law on the books in the United States. ICANN does not care, the CEO is not a U.S. citizen and is laundering money to his off-shore company.

    Verisign Shareholders (in the U.S.) have the right and obligation to inform their elected officials of the ICANN violations, and demand, via Class Action Lawsuits, that Verisign represent them to elected officials and law enforcement agencies to protect their interests.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com