From "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Fifth Edition":
malfeasance / mal'fi:z(schwa)ns/ noun. L17. [Anglo-Noramn malfaisance, from mal- MAL- + Old & mod. French faisance: see FEASANcE. Cf. MISFEASANCE] LAW. Evildoing, illegal action; an illegal act; spec. official misconduct by a public servant.
I would argue that since Verisign took this action unilaterally in violation of their contract to administer the REGISTRY function and without the approval or consent of the community, this definition could apply to their actions.
I would further argue that since Verisign declined ICANN's polite request to cease and desist, they deliberately and willfully conducted themselves in a manner known to be contrary to that public trust. If that does not meet this definition, I do not know what would.
Owen
--On Wednesday, October 8, 2003 15:54 -0400 "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In these days of corporate malfeasance scandal coverage, you'd think that Verisign's tactics would have whetted the appetite of some bright investigative reporter for one of the major publications.
For all that I'm critical of wildcards in TLDs -- I spoke at the meeting yesterday, and my slides are on my Web page -- I don't think there are any issues of malfeasance. No one has been looting Verisign's coffers, they're not cooking the books, etc. I see three issues: is this technically wise, did Verisign have the right to do this under their current contract with ICANN, and should they have such a right. I don't see anything resembling dishonesty.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
