Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ICANN and Centr argue over domain tax

Posted by michael on from the domain-games dept.

bigfluffybunny writes "The BBC are running a story here about how the European Domain Registrars refuse to pay a tax to ICANN claiming that an American organisation has no right to tax a European one. The interesting part of the article for me was that Centr are raising questions about the reliability of the webs root name servers." We've already run one article about this, but this makes a nice counterpoint from the other side of the pond...

7 comments

  1. Re:A Divided Net? by RGRistroph · · Score: 1

    I don't see how there can be clashes. The rebelling registrars are registering names ending in .uk and .de style country codes. No one in the US is registering .uk domain names. They can totally go there own way, and there will never be a name conflict, because all of their names have .uk or .bg or whatever, and ours have .us, .net, .org, .com, etc.

    In fact, you can make your own top level domain, as long as you can get people to use your name server to resolve the names in it. There are companies (I think AlterNic is one) who are doing this or trying. In previous discussions of this issue it has been suggested that a system be set up that would allow people to begin resolving their own top level domains; users could choose who to use to resolve names.

    For example, there is no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to select a machine at the Free Software Foundation to resolve all names ending in .fsf, and my ISP's name server for all others. I should also be able to put in special rules to "correct" mistakes by registrars in disputes, like assigning a particular resolver to resolve etoy.com and etoys.com.

    All of this is mostly available now -- you can edit /etc/resolve.conf and /etc/hosts -- but it should be made so easy that lots of people will do it. I would like to see a future where people voting will decide who contested domain names belong to; of course people can't vote on each individual instance which is contested, but they should have that ability, and most of them will simply choose to have their name requests resolved by an organization which mostly reflects their opinions.

    The only point to all my babbling is that I want to convince people like you that one doesn't need to leash oneself to some big organization to resolve names. I see the registrars as kind of floating on borrowed time -- they are used out of conveinence and the management probably has no idea of how easily they can be tossed aside if they start screwing up.

  2. Re:do we need ICANN? by gtx · · Score: 1

    i really don't see anyone DOING anything about it. thats what we need. an organized effort.

    --


    "I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
  3. Yokahama or Runnemeade? by rs79 · · Score: 1

    http://www.open-rsc.org/essays/feld/yokamede.html

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  4. ICANN needs to rethink it's strategy. by billcopc · · Score: 1

    If the euros are screaming at ICANN because it's American, what the hell were they doing back in the day of the big evil NetSol ? I'm no domain-registration genius, but it seems to me like ICANN is trying to be the "big brother" NetSol was, albeit much more clumsily. Lawsuits here and there, all to no end. Talks of any form of internet tax have been greeted with flaming rage. The net doesn't need over-ambitious regulation and direction, we just need some boundaries for safety and peace of mind. When will the big guys get the message ??

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  5. do we need ICANN? by gtx · · Score: 1

    my question, which is sorta related is this:
    would it be possible, in the opinions of you slashdotters, to revamp the entire domain name system, undermine ICANN, and make an entirely free domain system? think about the possibilities:

    1) cybersquatting could be destroyed by taking away domain names from those who have them only to sell. this wouldn't be hard because...
    2) we give the names away for free, with the only stipulation being that you cannot simply sell them for a profit.
    3) the 'big brother' aspect would be taken away because, being free, we wouldn't have to worry about the alternate domain name system being just an arena for political agendas.

    but then again... maybe its a bad idea.

    --


    "I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
    1. Re:do we need ICANN? by RGRistroph · · Score: 2

      Ways of doing this have been discussed in slashdot threads on similar stories, some of which I posted to. For example:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/06/26/123 5233&cid=40

      Also look for other posts and threads in that story. Some people posted links to companies that were actually doing it, resolving alternative TLDs or planning to.

      I think it is largely a matter of the big guys like ICANN and NetworkSolutions just haven't screwed up badly enough to drive us to it.

      I think that the project should be started anyway, though; those of us who are hardcore freedom lovers in the Stallmanesque style can use it, and it's existence would hopefully moderate the actions of ICANN and its ilk.

  6. A Divided Net? by TheSlashdotter · · Score: 1

    I understand where they're coming from, but if the registrars were to ignore their counterparts, what would happen?

    We could end up with the Internet no longer a world wide entity, but instead divided among the Americas (just the US, or US+Canada, etc) and Eurasia, perhaps Australia splitting too?

    As bad as it may be to bow before the mighty Americans, everyone needs to find a way to get out of this before it goes to far (if domain name conflicts are a problem now, imagine if everything were to split and come back togeather again in ten years) . . .