Esther Dyson on Monopolies and Moral Courage

October 1st, 2003
By Esther Dyson

Last month the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the organization that sets policy for the Domain Name System directory service, lost face in a battle with VeriSign Inc., the company that manages the registry of .com and .net addresses.

VeriSign has refused ICANN's request to suspend its newest venture, a related service that redirects users who make typographical errors in URLs and that generates extra revenues for VeriSign, giving the company what some feel is an unfair advantage as well as interfering with some functions of the Internet.

I think it's time for ICANN to assert its authority. Over the years ICANN has been criticized as illegitimate since it is not an elected body and lacks statutory authority, but VeriSign has given ICANN a golden opportunity to gain the high ground.

GOVERNING BY CONSENSUS

ICANN was created in 1998 to democratize policymaking on the Internet, and it should be setting the rules for VeriSign, which is causing concern throughout the Internet community with the way it's using its position as the sole registry for .com and .net.

Here's how VeriSign's SiteFinder service works: When you type in a misspelled URL in the .com or .net domain -- www.edventrue.com instead of www.edventure.com, for example -- the service offers a page of alternative addresses and search terms, including a sponsored search feature that remits revenue back to VeriSign.

In addition to the question of whether VeriSign is unfairly exploiting its position, there are technical problems with SiteFinder: It has a ripple effect on other Internet functions, including e-mail, spam filtering and a variety of other applications, by intercepting misdirected communications instead of bouncing them back to the sender.

On the traditionally consensus-driven Internet, such changes have usually been made only after open, extensive discussion among those who design the technology and those who use it.

A MOST UNUSUAL ARRANGEMENT

So what should ICANN be doing? And why?

One of ICANN's primary purposes is to prevent any single party -- whether the U.S. government, VeriSign or, for that matter, Microsoft, Saddam Hussein, George Bush or Howard Dean -- from controlling the Internet.

I know this well, because I was its founding chairman [Esther Dyson]. Our mission was to build a policy-setting organization that would be accountable to the entire Internet community, rather than to any single constituency. The ICANN charter and its contract with VeriSign include specific reference to "consensus policies."

When ICANN was created, VeriSign had a contract with the U.S. government to register .com, .net and .org domain names. Because its monopoly was legitimate, ICANN couldn't simply break things up. Instead, we had to negotiate a new contract with the idea that there would eventually be competition for .com and .net.

Today dozens of companies resell .com and .net addresses to end users, but VeriSign is still the sole manager of the registry database where the names are recorded. There are now also competing domain name suffixes, such as .name, .info and .biz, but none has the reach or cachet of .com.

In 1998 the U.S. government, which had de facto control over the Domain Name System, or DNS, wanted to hand control over not to another government, but to the Internet community: Its policies were to be set by consensus among all affected parties, including not just registries and resellers but also technology providers ... and, yes, users.

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD

The consensus across the Internet community by now is pretty clear: What VeriSign is doing is wrong. First, it interferes with the way the Internet operates.

Second, in my opinion, what VeriSign is doing is unethical and (though I am not a lawyer!) a violation of its agreement with ICANN.

It is abusing its dominant position to generate a competitive advantage. VeriSign argues that Microsoft has directed Internet Explorer users who try to reach unassigned domain names to a Microsoft search page, and that SiteFinder's service is no different.

However, that comparison is inaccurate, because a user has the choice of another browser. A user does not have the choice of another domain name for the sites he is trying to reach. Moreover, Microsoft's service does not interfere with other applications.

VeriSign's other charge -- that its critics are against innovation -- rings the most hollow of all. Certainly, VeriSign's service is innovative. And it is certainly useful to some users, in the short term. But it is still wrong, because it is unfair: VeriSign is trading on its protected position as registry manager to gain a business advantage unavailable to other companies.

The Internet community has spoken. Indeed, one heartwarming aspect of all this is that the facility ICANN instigated to foster public input, the At-Large Advisory Committee, is at last collecting feedback from end users around the world. Virtually all of them say VeriSign should stop -- or be stopped.

Now it is up to the ICANN board to show moral courage.

Complaints of illegitimacy and lack of responsiveness and concern for the public interest have dogged ICANN for a long time. This is its chance to prove the detractors wrong. Under its contract with VeriSign, ICANN can force the company to comply with a documented consensus of the Internet community (which it should be able to prove).

Legally, ICANN can bring suit. Morally, it should take a stand.

- Esther Dyson