Domain Hijacking - Who Remembers This?

MARINA DEL REY, Calif. - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and dot-com registrar VeriSign have reached a tentative agreement to end all pending litigation stemming from a series of disputes between the organizations that began in 2001.

Primary among the terms of the agreement are that VeriSign will retain the dot-com registry until at least Nov. 30, 2012 in exchange for withdrawing from the litigation (styled Verisign Inc. v. ICANN) and ceasing to attempt to undermine ICANN’s authority and grip on the international domain name registration process.

The disputes erupted when ICANN strenuously objected to VeriSign marketing tactics ICANN board members thought were shady. Among the tactics was a paid search engine known as Site Finder. Through clever manipulation of the domain name system, VeriSign redirected surfers who requested nonexistent dot-com and dot-net URLs – which are far and away the most common top-level domains on the Web and both are under the monopoly control of VeriSign – to the Site Finder site, where the search results automatically presented to them were paid for by VeriSign clients.

Based on surveys it conducted that seemed to show two-thirds of Internet users preferred some sort of information or help in finding their desired location over a simple error message, VeriSign claimed Site Finder was an innovation that served consumer needs. ICANN and its supporters saw Site Finder as unfair competition and a poorly thought-out move that threatened the stability of the DNS. It also violated the spirit of the registry agreement between the two parties.

A cease-and-desist order sent to VeriSign by ICANN was met with outrage by the dot-com/dot-net registrar, which nevertheless bowed to ICANN’s lawyers and deactivated Site Finder. Eventually, VeriSign filed suit against ICANN, charging the nonprofit with breach of contract and violation of U.S. federal and state antitrust laws. In the interim, VeriSign developed a powerful group of backers, primarily technology companies, and began to chip away at ICANN’s authority to control the Internet’s infrastructure. Among the arguments used by the VeriSign camp were that ICANN’s systems for managing the DNS were archaic at best and, at worst, dangerously riddled with failure points that could spell the doom of cyberspace if they were exploited.

Under the proposed agreement, VeriSign will not institute any new registry services (like Site Finder) without first notifying ICANN and submitting them to a neutral international panel that will evaluate the services for potential effects on competition, security, and the stability of the Internet.

The proposed agreement between the warring factions comes at a particularly auspicious time for ICANN, which continually faces criticism for what its detractors call an unfair partiality to the U.S. and a lackey relationship with the U.S. Department of Commerce (which maintains veto power over ICANN’s decisions). Calls have intensified this year for the U.S. to surrender ICANN to the control of the United Nations or some other international body.

Documents outlining the proposed agreement have been posted for public comment and are subject to final approval of the ICANN board. If approved, the settlement will clear the way for a new and productive public-private partnership in coordinating technical management of the Internet's domain name system, according to a prepared statement released by ICANN.

"This proposed agreement settles many of the long-standing points of tension between ICANN and VeriSign,” says Paul Twomey, president and chief executive of ICANN. “The settlement opens the way for a constructive and productive relationship between ICANN and VeriSign that will benefit the global Internet community, and further illustrates the benefits of a multistakeholder approach [to management of the DNS].”

The proposed agreements between ICANN and VeriSign provide for the settlement of all existing disputes between ICANN and VeriSign, coordination of planning where appropriate, and commitment to binding international arbitration to prevent any future disagreements from resulting in costly and disruptive litigation.

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=244716

I remember when Verisign started doing that, it was all the talk on the industry boards and, some even attribute Verisigns actions as the cause of some of the spyware/adware that had popped up in the last few years.

I remember a few sponsors, TopBucks, ARS etc said they wouldnt accept traffic from affiliates who use traffic hijacking methods to promote their sites.

Interesting how something like this can go on for years almost until it is forgotten about :eek:

Regards,

Lee