What is this "sitefinder" I'm seeing everywhere? - TCP-IP

This is a discussion on What is this "sitefinder" I'm seeing everywhere? - TCP-IP ; This just started happening this week. I use Netscape 7.0. Normally when I accidently misspelled a URL trying to visit a web site Netscape would spin for a second then give me the standard "This domain does not exist" dialog ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: What is this "sitefinder" I'm seeing everywhere?

  1. What is this "sitefinder" I'm seeing everywhere?

    This just started happening this week. I use Netscape 7.0. Normally
    when I accidently misspelled a URL trying to visit a web site Netscape
    would spin for a second then give me the standard "This domain does
    not exist" dialog box. But now I get sent to a Verisign Sitefinder
    page instead. No more dialog boxes. No more hitting 'enter' and
    fixing the URL in the location field.

    Does Verisign own these domain names? How would that be possible? Is
    this the "hijacking" thing you're all talking about?

    I want my dialog box back!

    --
    KBS

  2. Re: What is this "sitefinder" I'm seeing everywhere?

    kevin@stoneentertainment.com (Kevin Stone) wrote:
    > Does Verisign own these domain names? How would that be possible?


    VeriSign owns the entire .com and .net top-level domains. Then they
    delegate smaller parts of those domains, like yahoo.com, to other
    people. (yahoo.com could then delegate something.yahoo.com to someone
    else, if they liked. There's no significant techincal difference
    among the names something.yahoo.com, yahoo.com, and com. Each of them
    is owned by someone, and each can have subdomains which may or may not
    be delegated to different administrators.)

    If a domain name hasn't been registered, VeriSign has the power to do
    whatever it wants to do with them. They just started doing something
    much less useful than what they used to do.

    > Is this the "hijacking" thing you're all talking about?


    Yes.


    paul

  3. Re: What is this "sitefinder" I'm seeing everywhere?

    On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Paul Jarc wrote:
    > VeriSign owns the entire .com and .net top-level domains.


    Correction: VeriSign is the current operator of the .COM and .NET TLDs, as
    delegated by ICANN. These TLDs are unsponsored, and thus have its
    policies "established by the global Internet community directly through
    the ICANN process".

    Ref: http://www.icann.org/tlds/

    At least one organization has already sued VeriSign:
    http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/030919/internet_typos_1.html

    That same article also reports that ICANN has "asked" VeriSign to suspend
    SiteFinder, and that "a committee" has been asked to "review" VeriSign's
    actions. Time will doubtless provide more details.

    IMHO, this episode may prove to be the acid test that will make or break
    ICANN's credibility.

    -- Mark --

    http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  4. Re: What is this "sitefinder" I'm seeing everywhere?

    >At least one organization has already sued VeriSign:
    > http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/030919/internet_typos_1.html


    The track record for successfully suing NSI is abyssmal. Good luck.

    >That same article also reports that ICANN has "asked" VeriSign to suspend
    >SiteFinder, and that "a committee" has been asked to "review" VeriSign's
    >actions. Time will doubtless provide more details.
    >
    >IMHO, this episode may prove to be the acid test that will make or break
    >ICANN's credibility.


    Riiiight. Like they ever had any.

    This is a bit tricky for ICANN. If they say "Alright, cut it
    out" to NSI, NSI can reasonably say ".ws has been doing this
    for years, if you make us stop you have to make them stop"
    which on the face it it seem reasonable, but, I'd love
    to see ICANN try to push around a cctld they don't have
    a contract with. What are they gonna do, take .ws out of
    the root for soemthing they started doing 2 or 3 years
    ago just to make a point about .com?

    Worse, if the other cctlds back .ws's position and make
    a break from the ICANN controlled root (which has been
    discussed in a very real sense within the cctld
    community going back at least since the DNSO formation meeting in Berlin
    oh so many years ago) then ICANN suddenly no longer has
    a) a root zone b) a reason to exist in any capacity other
    than oversight over .com - which in all practical terms
    has just trandlated to lining their own pockets and pockets
    of their friends while in addition they jaunt all over the globe on
    a $40+M annual budget.

    Pass the porcorn.


    --
    OEM parts - Benz: http://parts.mbz.org BMW: http://buyeuroparts.com
    http://www.mbz.org | Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
    633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
    2 X 280SE | Wrist Watch list: http://watches.list.mbz.org

  5. Re: What is this "sitefinder" I'm seeing everywhere?

    KS> Is this the "hijacking" thing you're all talking about?

    Yes. You're experiencing just one of the several consequences
    of what Verisign did on 2003-09-15.



  6. Re: What is this "sitefinder" I'm seeing everywhere?

    richard@vrx.news (Richard J. Sexton (At work)) wrote in message news:
    >
    > The track record for successfully suing NSI is abyssmal. Good luck.


    On trademark stuff, yes. However, they've been nailed a couple of
    times for deceptive advertising - once in a civil suit brought over
    their "renewal notice" scam, and more recently (in fact sitefinder
    overshadowed the news of this) they have been forced to submit to FTC
    oversight of their registrar marketing for the next two years to
    settle and FTC enforcement action over it.

    And, last month they lost their appeal to avoid liability in the
    sex.com case.

    I'm really surprised they didn't face a shareholder derivative suit
    when their stock tanked last year after they had been artificially
    inflating their share of the domain registration market through a
    number of freebie deals with large registrants.

    > >IMHO, this episode may prove to be the acid test that will make or break
    > >ICANN's credibility.


    ....as if their failure to produce the new TLD evaluation reports or to
    implement the registrar data escrow program ever made anyone doubt
    their word.


    > This is a bit tricky for ICANN. If they say "Alright, cut it
    > out" to NSI, NSI can reasonably say ".ws has been doing this
    > for years, if you make us stop you have to make them stop"
    > which on the face it it seem reasonable, but, I'd love
    > to see ICANN try to push around a cctld they don't have
    > a contract with. What are they gonna do, take .ws out of
    > the root for soemthing they started doing 2 or 3 years
    > ago just to make a point about .com?


    Well that's the point. The NSI registry contract provides ICANN with
    more ways to affect behavior in .com than in .ws.

+ Reply to Thread