Perspective: The price to pay for Net stability

There is lots of talk these days about Net neutrality--whether Internet infrastructure companies, such as Verizon Communications, should be able to charge service providers, such as Yahoo, for use of their networks.

This is a debate that will make plenty of money for Washington lobbyists for years to come.

But there is less talk about another infrastructure issue that could also have a major effect on the Internet. This issue is whether the .com domain name will remain reliable and secure. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the body that manages the technical aspects of the Internet, has decided to allow the cost of .com domain names to increase by a little less than $2 over the next five years. The additional funds will allow more investment in managing and protecting the .com domain.

Some companies that sell domain names to consumers have raised a fuss, claiming that this price increase is anti-consumer. Like all of us, they'd rather see prices go down, not up. That would be nice, in theory. But in the real world, reducing .com prices could have a disastrous effect on the Internet.

Some companies that sell domain names to consumers have raised a fuss, claiming that this price increase is anti-consumer.

The financial bubble of the late 1990s may be over, but the demands on the Internet infrastructure continue to grow by leaps and bounds. Usage of .com has quadrupled over the last five years alone. At the same time, attacks on the Internet infrastructure have become increasingly sophisticated and aggressive.

For example, security giant Symantec reports that denial-of-service attacks are up 679 percent in the past year. These attacks are increasingly hindering e-commerce, and the effects are frightening. More than 10,000 Web servers were used to force an online DVD seller out of business for two weeks. And 120,000 machines were used to take down an online payment processor just last month.

Operational security on the Internet isn't free. Retail sellers of domain names understandably are driven by a desire to lower the "wholesale" cost of domain names so that they can be as profitable as possible. But they don't have to worry about making sure that the Internet stays up and running. And history suggests that consumer protection isn't their primary motivation. When they forced a reduction in wholesale prices for the .net domain last year, none of the eight major registrars passed the $10 million in savings on to their customers. It went to their bottom line.

I serve as a member of VeriSign's Internet Advisory Board, so I have visibility into the operations of the most critical elements of the Internet infrastructure. Keeping the Internet operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week is a pro-consumer, pro-business position.

We have come to expect and, in fact, to depend on the assurance that the Internet will be up and running whenever we need it. That sense of security is well worth the investment.

Biography
Rick White, a former congressman from Washington state, was CEO of TechNet from 2001 to 2005. He serves on the Internet Advisory Board of VeriSign.

More Perspectives

[andrew999999999]

Nice Spin

Nice spin, but you're insulting our intelligence. The bottom line is you're trying to make more money. Sure, use of .com has skyrocketed. But your revenue from .com registrations has also skyrocketed! If this was really a security/infrastructure cost increase, you'd allow the contract to be tied to actual cost increases instead of about a 1/3 increase in the wholesale price.

More here:
http://domainnamewire.com/2006/03/16/verisign-speaks/

[redspal]

What an interesting slant

I am amused by Mr. White?s immutable logic. Treachery abounds on the Internet and VeriSign with its monopoly, awarded by ICANN, is the consumer?s last best hope. What a great rationalization. It's kind of like standing down wind form a pig farm and being told your smelling roses.

Why is it everytime some power broker pulls a fast one they justify it in the name of security and keeping the world safe from the barbarian horde? How does VeriSign propose to do this, by raising fees? Will ICANN protect the consumer from VeriSign, if they perchance get over zealous?

I am curious; Mr. White is on the VeriSign board, and he is a former congressman. Is he by any chance a "lobbyist"? I know that?s a dirty word but, is he?

[curtis1984]

Nice twist on the truth there

"Reducing .com prices could have a disastrous effect on the internet." There is absolutely no logic to back up your statment. You made a feable attempt to back up your stopy with "Usage of .com has quadrupled over the last five years alone. At the same time, attacks on the Internet infrastructure have become increasingly sophisticated and aggressive."

OK so how exactly is low prices of .com's related to increased internet attacks? lol seriously now how are they even related? they aren't, period. Does a hacker really care what the prices of .com are? no, why would they? lol. There are denial of service attacks, but they are because people can make zombie pcs, and because people can make tons of money threating websites with DOS attacks. None of this is related to .com pricing.

So why do you support the high prices that Verisign sells the .com's for? Well lets see YOU serve on Verisigns Internet Advisory Board? Would it not be in Verisign's best interest for high prices, because we all know High Prices = High Profit.

And who loses out with the high prices = Consumers
And who wins out with these high prices = Verisign

[InternetArchitect]

Curtis - check your technology

The style of DOS attack you site is one style of DOS attack. Read this article for a better description of the style of DOS attack that affects the DNS server chain.

http://news.com.com/New+denial-of-service+threat+emerges/2100-7349_3-6050688.html

When you understand the problem - perhaps you will suggest a simple solution that will protect the .com DNS servers from this style of attack.

Unfortunately for mankind we face the same equasion with terrorism [it is infinately easier to blow-up a building than to build one] as we face with internet hackers [it is infinately easier to attack the internet infrastructure than to build it]. The .com TLD is the target of choice for same reason Willie Sutton gave when asked why he robbed banks, Sutton simply replied, "Because that's where the money is."

[My-Self]

Increasing domain fees for safer internet ???

I've never seen such a ridiculous statement in a CNET column !

Does increasing domain fees also work for breast enlargement ? p3nis enlargement ? is it better than viigra ? Will it help you make money off a Nigerian dictator's bank account or repair bad credit ?

At least, it will enlarge Verisign's wealth but shrink ICANN's credibility to the point more people might think the UN controlling TLDs is not such a bad idea after all ...

When CNet talks about a company holding it's shares, it discloses it, shouldn't contributors be required to disclose their relationship when doing such shameless, baseless lobbying ?

[Bob Hutch]

DDOS attacks

Why does Mr. White's piece make sense? Just look at the news articles about the Internet under new attacks. If you run a business you bet I want companies like VeriSign to keep pouring money into the Internet.

Anyone who can't see that is an idiot.

[rtrtrt24]

price to pay for net stability

I agree with your statements 100%.......We are not all idiots just
those who disagee with your thought process......