With all these sinister forces out to undermine the security and stability of the Internet - or its democratic nature, or any of the other things that are apparently in constant jeopardy - it's comforting to know that just about every company doing business on the Internet is apparently determined to represent the best interests of the little guy.

It sometimes seems that every dispute in cyberspace becomes a fight for freedom, with both sides accusing the other of standing in the way of what's right. Sometimes that's warranted - say, in discussions of the Patriot Act, or Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

And sometimes it seems like that freedom stuff might just be the tiniest bit of a put-on.

A few weeks back, Go Daddy announced that its representatives were in Washington, campaigning for the accountability of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Most of Go Daddy's ICANN concerns relate to the group's deal with VeriSign for the management of the .com registry.

In its press release announcing the campaigning, Go Daddy included a quote from CEO Bob Parsons who said, among other things:

"Our legal team and Washington, DC representation are continuing to fight for the future of the Internet. We believe this is in the best interest of Go Daddy's customers and all Internet users."

Last week, Champ Mitchell, CEO of Network Solutions, another vocal opponent of the ICANN-VeriSign deal, submitted a letter (PDF) to the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, outlining what he sees as a threat to national security inherent to the deal as it stands now. The letter includes several frightening prophecies:

"The monopoly terms, unjustified price increases and lack of meaningful security requirements in the proposed .com agreement have real-world implications for the future security and stability of the Domain Name System."

VeriSign sent theWHIR its official comment on the views of both Parsons and Mitchell. I must admit I wasn't totally astonished when I discovered that opposition to the deal could be considered a threat to the security and stability of the Internet.

"This agreement was approved by ICANN because it strengthens the security and stability of the Internet. It has been well vetted, having gone through 2 public comment periods, 3 public ICANN meetings and 3 congressional hearings. Any delay at this point plays into the hands of a couple of registrars who place their own narrow financial interests above the security and stability of the Internet."

Ironically, while waving the "security and stability of the Internet" banner, the comment makes the very valid point that the other companies' concerns might be just the tiniest bit overblown.

This is not to suggest that any of these companies, or their representatives, is a liar, or a hysterical scaremonger. Far from it. They all have an obvious vested interest in the security and integrity of the Internet.

However, all the posturing does tend to gloss over the fact that these folks are all shrewd businesspeople. And I feel it's safe to say that Go Daddy's biggest concern about a .com price increase would have to do with its own bottom line. The same goes for Network Solutions. And for VeriSign.

And yes, I realize that "I'd prefer to make more money," is hardly a rallying cry that will swing public opinion in a company's favor. But I'm ever so slightly concerned that all this ostentatious posturing might make the real threats to the Internet's security and integrity that much more difficult to spot.