VeriSign DNS in Trouble

hesiod writes "Over at CNet News, there is an article reporting that VeriSign may lose their ability to sell domains. Evidently, ICANN is miffed because VS's WHOIS database has incorrect information. Not exactly news to most of us, but they have been given 15 days to fix the errors, or risk losing the ability to sell domains."

VeriSign business plan

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Mess with WHOIS database
2. ?
3. Profit

Surprised?

[VisualStim]

Ok, everyone who has a domain registered through VeriSign, please rasie you hand ... for shame ... you are all sentenced to 100 MetaModerations a day for a month. Now get to it!

#11 is the gem

[stox]

Oh, this is priceless:

11. nsi-direct.com: On 13 June 2002, we sent you an e-mail asking VeriSign Registrar to correct inaccurate Whois data in the record for nsi-direct.com. The administrative contact e-mail address for that registration is still listed as "[e-mail]". We sent a test message to that address last week - it bounced back with an indication that the address was not valid. Over two months after the initial report, the invalid data is still being reported in VeriSign's Whois service.

Wasn't this this the "spam" arm of NSI?

What do you want from them?!

[fireboy1919]

Do you expect a company to keep track of the mailing addresses and names - the very IDENTITY of its clients?

I mean, are there even companies whose business is to guarantee that someone is who they say they are and that they provide accurate information?

The very idea is ludicrious!

Seriously though...why not have government controlled digital signatures? They could use the passport system (not Microsoft's...the kind you get before you go to another country) as a starting point. It seems like one of the rare chances for beneficial government interference. Sure, we'd lose a particular private sector, but it'd give lots of people the same warm, fuzzy feeling that the FDIC does.

They've already got one # to represent each person anyway.

Really looking for (negative) responses here; I can't see anything bad about this (and I'm usually against government intervention).