Slashdot Mirror
When Worlds Collide: The New Dot-Biz And The Old
angkor writes: "It seems the new dot biz domain
conflicts with domains registered in an alternative root system." This is where all the alternative root servers conflict with the (ahem) interesting name choices made by the ICANN board.
But seriously, we do need a centralized authority to handle domains and prevent collisions. ORSC, unlike ICANN, isn't even discussing the goofy idea of letting registrars censor sites according to their content.
I've got it! Someday in the distant future when the elected ICANN board members get to vote, Karl Auerbach should make a motion to dissolve ICANN and hand over the keys to ORSC.
--
Find free books.
Oh yeah, good one.
That's exactly what will solve this problem: submission of your site to a quasi-governemental board so that they can judge your content and "allow" you to keep your domain name.
Why do you care if amazon.com takes amazon.person? Is that the first place you're going to look for it? Is that the first place your mom's going to look for it? Or are you going to go to the address that they've spent millions establishing a brand name for? Let them waste their money locking up every possible TLD, they'll just go bankrupt more quickly and eventually they'll all free up again.
I think in the end, ICANN is either going to radically change their policies or become irrelevant. Sooner or later, someone big will become feed-up enough or greedy enough to bolt out of the current DNS structure and that's the end of ICANN. There will probably be some confusing times ahead for DNS resolution, but trying to maintain an artificial scarcity in TLD's isn't doing anyone any good.
I'm going to go to work tomorrow and find some alternate DNS roots to put in our root server list. It's unlikely anyone will even notice, but I might sleep better.
Sorry, all this talk about forking got me excited.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Thanks Dave. ;] For what it's worth, you've put up a great argument as well, although I'm still sticking to my guns.
You're definitely right, DNS is at the center of the Internet practically. It must be dependable. But I've done a lot of research on this, and I really don't think it's going to break by having alternative roots exist and grow in popularity. I'm not going to deny that it would be much better if ICANN would release more TLDs on a regular basis instead, but they won't. Now, if alternative roots could be able to support both root structures at the same time and handle conflicts (ex: the .biz problem in the topic here), then that would make a transition that much easier. This solution is the next generation of alternatives that can do that.
I think something is going to happen real soon. We'll see DNS change in a big way.
Chris
Open DNS Technologies
people come out and say the 'alternative' registrars are not 'official' and stuff, and use different root servers, consider this:
.biz.. suddenly there *is* conflict and all those ISP's who chose to use this service? Fucked.
1) They *are* a business
2) They operate by having root servers that pass queries back to the 'standard' root servers.
So.. if they come out with
Likewise, the different root server systems all carry .com .net .org and the rest. Some of them carry each other's TLDs, some don't. Some are trying to become commercial operations, others are trying to promote more "public access" channels.
At some ISPs, you can't get the alt.sex.* newsgroups; at others, you can't get de.*. At still others, you might wish they'd get rid of all the foreign-language groups that are cluttering up the list. But this hasn't done any harm to Usenet, and users are free to go to other providers of Usenet to get their missing newsgroups. Usenet is a better service, I contend, because it has fractured. There's a huge diversity of groups to choose from, and if what you're looking for isn't carried at your ISP, you can find other sources.
Likewise, I see little harm, and much benefit, from allowing - even promoting - the root to fracture. Why shouldn't ISPs in Texas band together and offer .texas to their customers? What does it matter if some other group is offering a different .texas without the regional focus? It isn't the .texas that the Texans are interested in! The EU doesn't need to wait for ICANN to approve .eu, they can go ahead and create it now - all they need is a consensus among European network providers and operators and it's a done deal. What does it matter if AOL and Earthlink aren't offering their users access to .eu delegations? If the demand is there, they will; if it isn't, who cares? Some Europeans may wish to keep the Yanks out of their TLD.
Every argument I have heard for avoiding a fractured root, whether the proponent will admit it or not, eventually leads back to the desire for control, power, money. A fractured root works counter to this desire, and that's not a bad thing.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Agreed! That's enough mucking about talking about things on some stupid weblog, the time has come for IMMEDIATE action!
I propose a motion to table a discussion, after the proper formalities have been passed, at the earliest possible window, circumstances permiting.
I take it you're referring to ICANN?
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Well, yes and no. The "Big Cheese" has managed to get (so he claims) 300,000 guillible people to pony up US$30 each for worthless pieces of paper describing a location on the moon, so he's probably wealthy beyond his wildest dreams. I doubt the alternate .biz people, who have to run actual DNS servers and are charging a lot less, are doing as well as the crazy moon guy. As embarrassing as this is, I have to admit that I'm really tempted by the fact that after 26 December he's going to only sell single acres instead of 2000 acre sites for the same price. It's just sooo hard to remember that 2,000 times nothing in exchange for something is still a bad deal. And no, I'm not going to link to the shop, because frankly his claims about having ownership really are fraudulent. Even if he's not kidding, the odds of that claim holding up are about the same as the odds of winning the lottery. Come to think of it, the lottery and the moon plots are about the same in terms of relieving people who don't know that TANSTAAFL of their money...
Walt
There are ports other than 80...
--
The shareholder is always right.
amen brutha.
mod this guy up!
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
Who created this conflicting dot-biz business? I don't this it is an accurate reflection of the popular opinion! The infrastructure was too confusing to create new domain name extensions with. I demand a recount!
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
Try going to chatyahoo.com or mailyahoo.com.
I wonder what other addresses has yahoo taken for itself !!
They should prevent Network Solutions, Register.com, and any other existing registrars from participating in this stupid ICAN'T thingy. Those guys have ulterior motives for promoting/not promoting certain tld's. Think about it, do you think they want another registrar to be annointed with the ".web" tld, and thus steal potentially lots of money away from the current .com? Of course not... The last thing Network Solutions wants is competition!!!!
I was unaware of these other root servers. How would I go about making sure my users could resolve these addresses on my dns server? Just add something to the named.root file? And how would this affect things once the ICANN approved dot biz names go into affect? I guess it all just depends on if they honor the old dot biz names and make sure the new ones don't conflict. I am sorta bummed now though. I really wanted to register a three letter version of our company name with .biz......
anyway is it worth it to add these alt root servers to dns?
I can't think of any other resources quite like this. The only thing close is space, and because of the dificulties of just getting there, so little has been used that there have not been any conflicts, (no big ones anyway).
Every other resource I can think of, from radio waves to minerals, are owned by the country they reside in. In this case, no single gov't can control the resource, since it resides everywhere.
The problem with ICAAN is that it has no real authority. They can decree whatever TLDs they want, and set up their nameservers. So can anyone else. ICAAN is well known, but really has no more authority than anyone else...
I hesitate to say that we should have an internationally sanctioned body governing this, but without one, this type of stuff is bound to happen. All part of the internet's growing pains, I suppose.
From the Tidbits Newsletter:
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
Exactly! Getting a new TLD is like getting a license to print money. Now, all of the .com owners will have to go out and register .biz addresses, and "domain-sucks.biz" addresses, just to keep them out of their competitors & critics' hands.
What a scam!
Say I wanted to host a porn site that featured nothing but really, freakishly tall women from all over the world, and I was going to call it something really witty like Amazon Nudes. By your reasoning, instead of going for www.amazonnudes.com, I should go for amazon.nudes.com, or nudes.amazon.com. Assuming nudes.com exists, I might be able to work out an agreement with them. But I'm at their mercy, and have to pay what THEY ask for. My own .com name might be cheaper, and easier to remember. As for nudes.amazon.com... well, let's just say I don't like lawyers, and wouldn't invite them in by even TRYING to do that.
This is a terrible example. Your business name would be "Amazon Nudes", so your Domain Name would be amazonnudes.com. You have nothing to do with a business like "Nudes, Inc.", and wouldn't want to be associated with their Domain.
Movies and products released by Sony, however, would be better served as 3rd-level domains. playstation.sony.com is a good idea. amazon.nudes.com is not. Understand the system proposed before you criticize it.
--D
Who made ICAAN god?
The US Government.
This is exactly what I thought would happen when I first found webtld.com, the location of the .web tld. I had the opportunity to get an actual common word.web but decided against it because of this. Nobody really knows what's going on!
You aren't paying for some global .biz...you are paying for a .biz served up by root-servers.net or whatever. That other guy charges you money to get served by a .biz that his servers push out. I could create my own .com hierarchy internally on my network but no one is going to be ludicrous enough to write a news story suggesting there is some kind of monumental conflict.
ICAAN should feel free to ignore whatever anyone else does. After all, this guy ignored what NSI/ICAAN were doing.
Causing a collision anywhere on the Internet is ethically wrong.
a. He presumes his ethics are the same as everyone else's.
b. The collision only occurs when you use non-standard root nameservers. Which is pretty much what you expect to have happen when you try to have two roots in a hierarchy.
I rather disagree.
Competing root systems will no more damage the net than competing telephone number lookup mechanisms damage the telephone system.
When there are inconsistencies, users will chose with their feet whether to continue to use a name service that doesn't give 'em answers that meet with their expectations.
To my mind it is better to empower the users with a choice, even at the cost of some hypothetical inconsistencies, than to create a worldwide bureaucracy that forces all users to march to the drumbeat of the marketeer with the biggest budget.
Take a look at http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm #multiple_roots
Sure there are some potential problems - NS and CNAME records written in one TLD context and resolved in another, web caches that stupidly re-resolve DNS names in URLs rather than using the IP address of the TCP/HTTP connection they intercepted, etc. But I'd happily trade-in a worldwide bureaucracy in return for a couple of repairable technical glitches.
People, use your smeggin' brains. .com, .this, .that is archaic! You should be able to register an arbitrary string and the DNS system should be able to resolve it to an IP.
You'd think for $50,000 a TLD, someone would have done a little research...
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
The IETF is working on this and has been for a while. It's a lot more difficult than one might think.
From the technical point of view it's a choice between somehow encoding non-ASCII character sets into the limited character set of DNS "hostnames". (DNS itself is supposed to be 8-bit clean but there is an ancient limitation called "hostnames" that imposes an alphanumeric plus hyphen character set.) The problem with this approach is that in some languages the size of the names becomes limited because the 63 octets per label get consumed pretty quickly when it takes two or three of 'em to encode a character. The speakers of those languages, understandably, feel that they are getting the leftover after the western nations get the good stuff.
The other approach is to actually modify the DNS protocols. There are some bit patterns in the length octet of the DNS label to indicate that a whole new label length/encoding mechanism is in place. The concern about this approach is what happens when these packets flow through existing resolvers and through so called "transparent" devices (firewalls, NATs, web caches, etc) that tend to futz with DNS packets.
NSI is seeing big $$ in all of this and has established an early registration system, oops I mean "testbed" so you can register your internationalized name even though there is no protocol support yet. This "testbed" is up and running now.
The Register has an interesting take on the ICANN situation. They cover the possible breaking away of the country TLDs as well as some of the rejected gTLDs from ICANN to alternative root servers. You can find the article here
Mass Debate
Now that there is democracy in Yugoslavia and election mess in USA maybe we should call it Americanization?
I say it's time we went off and started our own damn internet!
ergh, wait, I guess that's what some people apparently tried to do....
Alternative root systems are a nice alternative. I think it would be practical if any suffix was available as a domain. It might be more confusing, sure, but it would make people happy and names would never be used up since they would be multifaceted (eg. ross.com ross.ross ross.cool ross.yeti ross.irc ross.sil ross.silly). The list goes on to infinite(not that infinite is a place or anything :)
Instead of talking about this, let's get our act together and move.
:)
.biz registrants/registrars. So what if they're "the" governing body? The thing that goes on the internet is what works and what is used. Look at DNS itself! One of the biggest hack-jobs in the history of the net. Now it's one of the most necessary protocols/services.
/..
The collective of geeks and what-have-you that are here on slashdot probably have, at their control (or at their influence), a large enough portion of the DNS system to make this kind of thing either a significant issue or a moot point.
Personally, I say those of us who can push for adding the alternative rootservers to our root caches. You don't lose any functionality from the current TLDs, and you gain lookups in the "alternative" ones. Enough people following "alternative" makes it mainstream.
I was pissed when InterNIC started charging for domains -- as were the folks who (unlike me and most of us) got off their asses and started the other registries. Now is when their work is going to pay off or go the way of Beta videotapes.
Just from Internet "precedent," ICANN shouldn't be able to push around the existing
ICANN obviously has pissed us off -- look at how many headlines there have been in the past week on
Tomorrow morning I'm going to ask my supervisor (the owner of a regional ISP) if we can adopt the other root servers. Get out there and ask your boss or ISP or company's net admin or your father or whoever to make the change for you, too.
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
It seems to me that the most appropriate section to place this article in would be web scams. Here are con artists on the web tricking people out of money and essentially providing nothing in return. This is not an attempt to "free" the web, it is a scam, pure and simple.
Don't make me use my other sig!!
How can you really use names for such a thing? Because there is a lot of people out there, using this we will stick with this, just because it is so. Internet was not meant to be used like this. To find relevant information, you can use the search engines, the hierarchical databases of .com - saying we're everywhere and we 0wn y0u. Rather I propose to subdivide domains into geographical regions such as states counties, and other. If a
.mil.us .mil.ru .gov.ca Obviously that would make all worldly corporations unhappy, and generate tons of lawsuits about damages, image distortion, and other lame stuff corporations are concerning themselves with. I think flat domain names are lame.
websites, hopping down 10 links you should be able to find what you need, and book mark it!
In fact I propose that the generic domain names should be banned. Because internet is linking entrie world together, for greedy corporation it is a plus to have a generic site, like
company has an office in county, and just mails stuff out to the rest of the world, so make it have name amazon.ta.ws.us. Such the scrapping for stupid domain names should stop. Only govermental organization get to make second level domain names, such as
Check out my friends link http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala/dnsreform.html
See! Even Mr. Coward understands the need to open up the TLD space. Imagine the hours of fun you could have if you were able to register a.dumbass!
In most countries the local pronounciation of 'business' (either as a direct translation or a borrowed word) includes a very sharp 'z' sound, which is quite softened for English speakers. If the TLD was '.bus' instead I think you'd see much more confusion, not the other way around.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Ownership of a domain name is a very controversial issue.
Does ICANN own ICANN.org, or can I steal it now??
Okay...there is superroot.net, youcannn.org, and one other who all seem to use the same addresses for their name servers, leading me to think they are all the same. Then you have opennic which have different servers.
how do you activate all of the alternate ones? Do you have to manually mesh together bind files or is it just a matter of correct configs?
I just love the word "free." It implies that there will be no charge for servers, maintenance, personnel like system administrators, customer service, ... Oh, and who pays for the connectivity for those redundant servers, bandwidth, database management,programming to accommodate registration systems (which are constantly changing and being upgraded), adminstration and record keeping...
.biz registrations (the one in the ORSC root) are $6.00. That's pretty much a breakeven for the cost of doing business for that particular TLD operating with minimal personnel.
Until recently, US taxpayers footed the bill via USG funding of all of that. NSI was paid for it until they started charging for names.
You know, it's not the names you are paying for. It's the registration services.
It's never been "free." Every US citizen has paid for it all along. We are still paying for much of it.
BTW,
If you think you can, you're right. If you think you can't, you're also right.
hmmmm.... There is nothing clandestine about root systems. Unless it is private corporate root (there are countless numbers of those), roots are quite public. For instance you can find the rootzone file for ORSC at http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone/db.root. It lists all the TLDs in the root, the operator, the servers for the TLD and a contact email address.
:)
No secrets.
If you think you can, you're right. If you think you can't, you're also right.
One of the main reasons root systems are popping up everywhere is that after years of trying to get DoC to do what was intended - open up the DNS with more TLDs (lots of them) and making it fair and transparent, the oppposite is the norm. UDRP kills individual efforts and udermines any security in having a domain name, and the DNS is more and more controlled by a commercial monopoly. Registries will be forced to comply with "policy" when the only criteria should be technical compliance.
In a utopian world, ICANN/DoC would stick to the technical and leave the policy to the free market. Fat chance. So we have root systems that do exactly what was intended in the first place. Simple. And it's not going to stop with the few roots that are out there now.
If you think you can, you're right. If you think you can't, you're also right.
The theory is good, but there is still the need to offer the public what they are used to and then add more. How can any root offer com/net/org without using the USG database? We point to servers outside the USG root,but those servers still carry the USG TLDs, right? The answer is, as you say, give up something in order to accomplish it, but still.... DOC must not include the colliders. IOW, add the existing roots as subsets to theirs, and/or agree to not duplicate TLDs which exist. Then we have a distributed root system with no collisions. Ahhh, if it were only that simple. ;(
If you think you can, you're right. If you think you can't, you're also right.
It's youcann.org. :) and you can download SETDNS and just point, click and reboot if you are not inclined to type in a couple of addresses (which is all it takes).
The process of changing the DNS servers is the same as setting up for an ISP, except that if you are already set up, it is one little change. No big deal. If you change ISPs and that ISP does not point to the servers you need, just use SETDNS again. If you want to change back, it's just as simple.
If you think you can, you're right. If you think you can't, you're also right.
In simple terms, it means a 30 second change of DNS servers. OR use the little program (SETDNS) to do it for you. :) You don't have to understand DNS, really. You just need to point to the right place to see what you want to see.
ICANN could change that need, but they won't unless the BoD changes severely. It's political more than it is technical, unfortunately, and that means it's controlled by very deep pockets.
If you think you can, you're right. If you think you can't, you're also right.
So, you're anti.pro?
There is, of course, a catch. Only a minuscule portion of computers connected to the Internet are configured to recognize dot-biz names, and unless you're using one, you'll get one of those irksome can't-find-that-site errors.
Doesn't a client just talk to a DNS server that translates an address to an ip? So wouldn't the problem actually be with the DNS servers not being correctly configured?
Here is some info from biztld.net:
If your ISP has not yet upgraded their domain servers from the ICANN Legacy Namespace to the ORSC INCLUSIVE NAMESPACE Supported by The PacificRoot, you may not be able to resolve many of the new Internet domain names currently being activated. If that is the case, you will need to Upgrade your DNS here.
I wish people who wrote articles had a clue.
As much as I hate to defend any applicant who wishes to steal our tld, I must correct you. I believe it was Affinity who had the proposal to charge $2000 plus a $150 renewal. JVTeam (Neulevel) is not doing that.
If you think you can, you're right. If you think you can't, you're also right.
just try it!! it works just as well. except more domains! who cares if it's fractured? is not the greatest of os's "fractured" unix linux slackware redhat etc. don't let ICANN "control and consolidate" the power!! this practice is known as communisum!! i say fight now, while we still can! well... if u can consider changing DNS servers "fighting" ;)
kill.process ^_0
}:kill.process:{
If that were true, I'd probably be first in line to agree with you. However, it is just not the case. .biz has been in the ORSC rootzone for years. We began operating it earlier this year because it had lay fallow for two years. In any case, it was functional well before any announcements by ICANN or their applicants and we were really shocked to see that ICANN would accept applications for any existing TLD. .biz has a history. There were several "suggestions" for it on Jon Postel's list.
If ICANN had selected .EVENT, that TLD would also have represented a collision with an existing TLD. The same would be true for several others included in applications, including .home. It just so happens they chose .biz. We certainly did not expect or hope to be the poster child for existing TLDs. It just worked out that way.
ORSC has been around since '96, well before ICANN. .biz is as old as ORSC.
This was not a pre-emptive strike and ICANN never never entered into it. We also have .online, .etc, .npo (restricted) and .ngo (restricted).
I would truly appreciate seeing the truth printed. I also have no objection whatever to seeing comments to the contrary, as this brings out the obvious need for communication and education.
There are over one hundred TLDs in the ORSC rootzone. They should be respected and not duplicated. It is not our .biz which is the culprit here, and we have NEVER made any claim to application to ICANN or decieved anyone. Our TLD resolves to the ORSC rootzone, not the USG root.
If you have negative comments, that's fine. I would simply ask that they be accurate, okay? :)
BTW, it is our intention to be fair to everyone. We do not favor control by any faction and open registration on FCFS basis is the rule.
I,personally don't think that "sunrise" provisions and UDRP are better proposals for internet users, especially individual domain name holders. If you have any questions about where my head is, go to Tldlobby.com I believe in domain name holders rights, but adhere to the fact that domain names are not property. DN holders should, however, feel a measure of security in their registrations and not have to fear a theft by SWIPO. We do not adhere to a UDRP. Our DDRP pretty much states that it is not our place to judge whether there is any infringement on anyone's rights. We will cancel a registration by court order only. Law is law. UDRP is NOT law.
-Leah-
If you think you can, you're right. If you think you can't, you're also right.
Conceded. I went too far with that comment; thank you for the measured response. There's a lot of FUD about, I really shouldn't be adding to it.
Best,
Dave
--
If TLD spectrum is infinite than the .com spectrum is also infinite.
If we already have infinite space then why do we need more TLD's?
If we are woried about existing TLD's filling up, then shouldn't that tell us that we should be worried about the top level also filling up?
One could have the alternate root servers report the new .biz names as ".biz2" or something like that, the older ones remaining as ".biz".
Users might have to check both new TLD's to get to the host they wanted, but at least there wouldn't be any conflicts.
Ill set a proxy server to do dns looks of names for a set of root dns servers, and then respond with links from each.
Pick your site.
youcan.here
Open Root
http://youcann.here @ Address: 199.166.24.43
ICANN Root
Not found...
Then I can link to everyones root servers. God help me if there is more than 5 root servers with the same name...
-Brook
A worthy idea, but the implementation is wrong.
Network apps do not query DNS servers directly (typically, though there are exceptions). Most simply make calls to the OS's resolver, which then forwards requests to the primary DNS server, which then queries a root DNS server.
So, adding code into Mozilla to use alternate root servers would simply be a waste of time and space.
Hacking BIND would be the way to go. You could have bind check to see which kind of TLD is being requested (official or alternate) and then have it query whichever root server. However, the same problems that are associated with having an alternate DNS system are still present (collisions, etc...).
..for there to be "alternative" namespaces on the internet.
But now that I've spend a good two minutes looking around youcann.net, I don't want to bother mucking with config files just to see "the rest of the web".. and I can imagine a future where we'll see links like "Click _here_, and BTW, you have to connect to Misc. Nameserver XYZ to get there.." ugh.
Perhaps if as well as nameservers, we could have nameserver servers.. ugh.
I wonder if this guy sold brooklynbridge.biz, or perhaps swampland.biz...
.biz) reminds me of the guy who sells land on the Moon, Mars, etc... to suckers (he's got a web site somewhere).
People would have had to be fools to register with an alterate root server that had little chance of ever becoming official.
This guy (the guy who ran the alternate
As for dot BIZ - ICANN care nothing for conflict - when they create it.
Yet when others do, they use UDRP.
Confirms what I say about them on www.WIPO.org.uk
There's that project they call "Internet 2" - though I fear the day when lusers will invade it just like they did it with this one. It's inevitable!
--
I thought some more about dns conflicts since I posted my above comments, and it strikes me that almost all of the nasty and undesireable bickering and squabbling that happens whith regards to domain names is all because they are a limited resource. They are limited because the space allowed for them is tightly controlled, this makes them rare, which makes them valuable.
.com, .biz whatever, we implement an OpenSRS system for negotiating the creation of new domains between multiple registrars etc.
.bar database with foo.bar in another, you prompt the user to choose which one becomes his/her default ( naturally this could be edited at any point later ), and the other entries now appear in this users dns cache as things like:
Why should two companies squabble over amazon.biz if they could equally well register amazon.business, amazon.store, amazon.shop, amazon.books, whatever. Given an unlimited number of potential TLDs, then such activities as domain squatting would be meaningless. And it would be stupid to try to sue everybody who had a domain *.amazon.* in a world of unlimited TLD space.
All the more reason to have an open DNS architecture, and get rid of these hopelessly ridicuulous moderation bodies like ICANN and WIPO. Changing the way the internet is used doesn't require legal battles or desperate struggles with any of these organizations - all it requires is altering your dns records. That's it. If enough people did this, then the internet would be structured differently by the defacto use of its participants.
So coming down to the nuts and bolts of how does one manage resolution of domains in an unlimitedly large name space? I would see it as the same as we manage usenet - or something analogous to that. Anyone who wants to maintain an as-of-yet unmaintained TLD puts up a server. Or in the case of popular ones like
In the extreme case that there are two different databases for the same TLD with conflicting entries for the same domain name - we let the user decide which one they want to use, and allow them to make custom macros to the others.
For example if you have a collision between foo.bar in one
foo.bar^2
foo.bar^3
foo.bar^junksite
foo.bar^coolstuffhere
( the caret ^ is an invalid dns name character anyway )
What do people think about this?
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
TLD's are like real estate. When new TLD's are created, a huge new grant of this real estate is made to the registrars to sell off (and tax at regular intervals) and the potential for millions of new dollars in initial and residual income is created.
Rather this is the way they are being seen by ICANN. It certainly isn't the only way to see them.
You're right, there's a fair amount of power wrapped up in the various slashdot readers. And this slashdot reader sure as hell won't be joining you in your protest.
I know it's trendy to slag off ICANN. I know everyone has their problems with it. I know everyone feels like the only thing they can do against this new authority is to shout about it, or to "rebel". And in that context, splitting the root seems like a fantastic idea.
Don't do it, guys.
Internet "precendent" says that we've tried to work out problems through consensus building. Seriously! We get together in groups like RIPE and NANOG, present our ideas, and try to build consensus. We can fork, yeah, but we fork as little as possible, because when we fork, we split the user base and we are all weaker because of it.
But that's not the worst of it in this case.
Ever since domain space became valuable, there are so many special interests circling it that it's not funny anymore. It's pretty ugly, actually. Consensus building has been pretty impossible because people with dollar signs flashing in their eyes shout louder, and the people who are just plain kooks shout the loudest. That's hurt a lot of the development of DNS in the last few years. The one weapon we've always had against this is caution, and a recognised authority.
All those special interests are sitting, eagerly awaiting the day when a significant majority of admins reject ICANN and switch to another root. When that happens, they'll turn on each other, and that's when it gets ugly.
You think you have user problems because people think that "The Internet" is the thing behind the button on their Windows desktop? That's nothing compared to what we (all of us) will have to deal with if we split the root.
I'm speculating now, but here's my guess. See what you think:
Don't be fooled into thinking that everyone pushing for alternate DNS has the good of the internet at heart. Some of them mean well, I'm sure. Some of them are sound guys. I'm equally sure that some of them are out to grab a piece of the gold mine that is DNS, and are willing to damage it in the process. Believe it or not, ICANN is the one thing standing between us and a corporate takeover of the internet.
Yeah, I just wrote that with a straight face. I mean it.
To drag this back on topic? We're seeing the beginning of this now. Everyone's been bitching at ICANN to hurry up and introduce some new TLDs already (watch for buzzwords such as "artificial scarcity" in other slashdot posts near you!) What happened? Someone tried to preempt them and lured a some-thousand userbase to give themselves some credence. What do ICANN do here? Reject potentially better-prepared proposals for favour of this one? I don't think that's fair.
Guys, you really should know better than to measure something's worth through the count of its [slashdot|newspaper] headlines. Jon Katz had this one nailed down years ago. A lot of the criticism against ICANN is genuine; a lot of it's crud; and a lot of it ignores the best interests of the internet.
Think for yourselves. Don't be afraid not to fork.
Dave
Posted with mozilla 20000112721--
Yeah, not a bad idea from a neat-freak no-namesolution-pollution perspective, but it's not a grea idea from a practical standpoint. Is someone going to remember movie1.newline.com? No, they will remember movie1.com. People don't ask each other, "Hey, did you see that great new movie from New Line Cinema?" Unless it's a Disney or Lucasfilm movie, most people won't know what studio a movie came from, and probably won't remember if you told them.
TLD's are like real estate. When new TLD's are created, a huge new grant of this real estate is made to the registrars to sell off (and tax at regular intervals) and the potential for millions of new dollars in initial and residual income is created.
.biz domains to protect their interests and you have an automatic windfall for the registrars as Coca-Cola, Lufthansa, and Telecom Italia all scramble to "cover their space" in the new territory.
Consider that the big corporations are going to HAVE to buy
It has nothing to do with the internet, nothing to do with improving the community, nothing at all do do with filling any particular need, it is simply an attempt to generate more income by creating space that people will feel that they have to purchase to maintain their rights to a trademark or trade name.
How about this for a suggestion:
1. Anyone shall be freee to register a domain name
for a one-time fee of $10US. Changes to the TLD registration cost $5USD payable to the UN for official TLD's (see below) or their country's registration authority for unofficial TLD's. 1/2 of the registration fee for official domains will be returned to the country of origin for maintanance of root name server resources (see below).
2. At least two root nameservers shall be maintained by each member country of the United Nations. Maintenance of these servers would be considered as part of each country's dues to the UN. A country may provide any number of root servers.
3. TLD's that must appear in all root nameservers and the root zone file will be mandated and maintained by UN General Assembly
4. Countries may create any additional TLD's in their own root servers or cooperate with other countries in sharing additional TLD's to create regional or even global unofficial TLD's to the extent that they do not conflict with the mandated TLD's
5. In no case shall a country's registration fee for an unofficial TLD exceed 1/2 of the fee for registration of an official UN mandated domain.
The only problem with this is that it would probably take 20 years to get a domain registration through the UN.
Look at the EM spectrum; as to prevent pollution of one signal into another, the band has been divided into several segments and 'rented' out appropriately.
.com should become .misc1, .org .misc2, .net .misc3 and .edu .misc4...
.biz case is demonstrating.
.biz situation is more like IATA wanting to use a radio band already in use by a consortium of civil airlines.
.biz already has this kind of charter. NSI is about the worst possible choice for a default, since they are responsible for the mess in the first place. If anything they should loose all their domains immediatly.
As opposed to having every form of RF transmission known to man on the same band. Which would be a closer analogy with the current domain system. Effectivly
Pollution from one 'domain' into another is very easy to happen here, as the
No the
The cause of the kind of "pollution" is gross mis-managment by existing registrars (NSI especially) and by implication ICANN.
The only thing that should be restricted here is that any new TLDs should have some charter that all sites within it should abide by (ie, regulated domains), and if too many abuses of this are reported to ICANN, the register will lose that TLD to a default register (NSI most likely) or another register if appropriate.
The existing
Then get yourself an alternative root zone from the SuperRoot Consortium and let your local nameserver use that one instead. For dnscache users this is as simple as replacing the contents of the .../root/servers/@ file with:
BIND users will please follow the instructions found here.Now, the new root servers provide the same service as the old ones -- i.e., they will resolve names in the .com, .org, .net, etc. TLDs, plus they will provide access to a whole bunch of alternative TLDs like, e.g., .ocean (try www.atlantic.ocean), .wine and so on. This system is plugin-compatible with the old ICANN't system (well, there's now a conflict with the .biz TLD, but who cares?).
Go try it -- you'll like it! :-)
--
Unselfish actions pay back better
Here we see beautifully two of the inherent principles of the internet coming into conflict:
universality vs. openness. Unfortunately in order to have the internet work universally, some degree of openness needs to be sacrificed. You simply can't have 5 different networks all using foo.com and have them all resolve properly. Unique host names are a must for universality, and that requires some sacrifice to openness.
However on the other hand, strangling access to domain possibilities in the interest of maintaining universality ( what ICANN is doing ), is taking this principle WAY TOO FAR imho.
We need to find an appropriate balance. The internet can be a very populist playground if we choose to make it so. I'd like to know if anyone knows of any of the current Open DNS/NIC services that have been mentioned provide for such distributed maintainable DNS database that would avoid colliding DNS names without sacrificing too much accessibility.
Quite honestly I think that if ICANN is going to strangle access to TLDs than we should simply stop using their databases wherever possible - how much power are they really going to hold if in actual practice the majority of internet users are not respecting their "authoratative" presence? Do you think big business is going to give a damn about anything ICANN says if their audience is somewhere else?
We all know that when it comes to computers TMTOWTDI - always! And in the past its the smarter ideas that win out - not the ones with corporate muscle. So let's do it - let's build and use our own DNS network.
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
That said, I think they should also go away. The have good ideas, but I think they should try to influence ICANN instead of creating a rouge system.
Here's a brief history of DNS, as made-up by me (i.e. I'm doing some guessing, but it seems reasonable):
When the Internet was new, all people had were IP addresses. Having to remember many of these got to be a pain, so they assigned names to each computer and kept them all in the eqivalent of a hosts file on each computer. Maintaining and updating this file got to be a pain as the Internet got larger. Modern DNS was born to solve this. Root servers, each organization responsible for it's own namespace, etc.
DNS is a names-to-numbers system for the Internet! People are treating it like a keyword system for the WWW. It's not. If you want one of those, by all means, make one. Or just use Yahoo or something. Don't try to use DNS, because everything ends up as www.keyword.com and www.bignewmovie.com, which is pointless - and has polluted the .com TLD.
Back to my best guess of history: Our current TLD make sense to me, given the history of the Internet.
What new groups have joined the Internet? I see a need for a TLD for individuals, maybe .per (personal) or .idv (individual). I don't quite know how to resolve the dispute when everyone wants johnsmith.per, though.
If we want to stick with the current TLD, we should enforce, somehow, their correct use. The rules should be strict enough that most organizaions will fit into only one TLD. None of this grabbing foobar.* .
New TLDs need only be as broad as the old. I mean, what is .museum compared to .com or .org?? The idea of .misc is interesting, but that just encourages the "keyword" behavior. Maybe it could be .keyword if we really can't do without it.
Or else we could scrap the current TLDs. I like that idea too. Make it all usenet-style too.
The biggest domain conflict: .bush vs .gore :)
Just another coder...
Why does the TLD have to be biz? Why not business or inc (for incorporated entities)? Is there any reason why the 'global' TLDs have to be 3 characters?
If most of the world's computers use the x.root-servers.net nameservers anyway, why does it matter? This is the service you are really paying for, having your domain listed in these servers. There's no way to force the world to point their DNS servers at root-servers.net though... and why would you want to?
humor for the clinically insane
great comedy company.
Oh - Collisions? - heh - oops! :-)
Open Materials Database
ent -- entertainment sites (for movies and games)
You missed the obvious one here, could have something like "music.madonna.music.ent".
n addition, the registrars would be required by ICANN to have registrants submit a link to the proposed site (or submit a copy of the entire site on a CD, DVD, or other storage media). The registrar would then review the site content, and judge whether or not the requested TLD would be appropriate for the site.
The assumption that a domain implies website is flawed. Also the idea is too complex and time consuming. Far better IMHO to have a working complaints procedure. e.g. someone could simply email to complaints@register.biz a message to the effect that www.foobar.biz does not appear to be a legitimate business/has ceased trading/etc.
Why do you care if amazon.com takes amazon.person?
Depends if there is someone called "amazon", he or more likely she is likely to be none too happy about some bookseller using their name.
I'm concerned about the .pro tld. Who gets this elite status?
Probably not the "professionals" who qualify for it twice, given that it is also an abbreviation of their profession.
I can see how a free system of first come, first server, one TLD per company and a requirement of free registration will work. We will get a distributed name server (like we have now), but everybody who runs a name server in the new hierachy should then offer to hand off any longer domain names, or maintain free registrations there. The end result will be, that everybody will register complete statements instead of just words, and we will again have many more useful domain names. How about domain names like: best.breakfast.ever.made This would of course co-exist together with the old TLDs, where serious companies would live, and then they could use the statement domain names for sales campaigns. I see it as something good. When I have things working, i will have my DNS server work for the independent domains. I have a small problem right now.
"Credentials" means that you have a society or association made up of members of a profession, that polices said members in lieu of government regulation. Take engineers (at least here in Ontario) for instance. Engineers have the Association of Professional Engineers Ontario which governs engineering in this province. They issue certifications, restrict who can legally use the term "engineer", discipline their members, ensure that "accredited" learning institutions are up to snuff... that kinda thing.
There's also the medical society, I think psychologists have something similar... there's quite a few, and I'm sure I don't know a quarter of them.
Bottom line: if you start a (recognized) Computer Scientist Association and regulate your members, ensure they're fit to be members, etc., etc., you can call yourself a Professional.
Of course, all this is COMPLETELY academic if there isn't anyone ensuring that ONLY "Professional" groups can get a .pro TLD.
"There's a party," she said,
"We'll sing and we'll dance,
It's come as you are."
First, what's easier to remember:
- slashdot.org
- slashdot.andover.net
The first one, I'd say. Especially for Ma & Pa Oneclick McNewbie. But that's not the only reason...Say I wanted to host a porn site that featured nothing but really, freakishly tall women from all over the world, and I was going to call it something really witty like Amazon Nudes. By your reasoning, instead of going for www.amazonnudes.com, I should go for amazon.nudes.com, or nudes.amazon.com.
Assuming nudes.com exists, I might be able to work out an agreement with them. But I'm at their mercy, and have to pay what THEY ask for. My own .com name might be cheaper, and easier to remember. As for nudes.amazon.com... well, let's just say I don't like lawyers, and wouldn't invite them in by even TRYING to do that.
"There's a party," she said,
"We'll sing and we'll dance,
It's come as you are."
This is odd. I have never heard of "alternative" root servers. This sounds counter-intuitive.
But ICANN dosn't seem to be getting it. I read the article, and one of the ICANN board members is from MCI (which owns a LOT of rib cabling on which we all depend). Sounds to much like a special interest conflict. This seems to prove that ICANN is too corperate and dosn't serve the open nature of the Internet.
That said, I don't think some clandestine DNS servers are the rigth way to go. Also, I agree that new domains are needed, but some are just stupid. I mean "aero"? And "biz"? That is just to gimicky for my taste.
Maybe the same will happen with the holders of "alternative" .biz domains. They'll just sue to prevent anybody from getting the "legit" version. After all, it's their name, and they have something invested in it.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Is the real problem they sit around bully countries into paying bills that they never agreed on. They are making decision that are so US centric that it is sicking. As for the alternative nic are concerned those guys knew that this day may come that was a risk that they made the only thing that they could do is try to become a aurthorized resigrant of that tld.
I often hear the radio ads for .tv domains. Which cost more to register. The ads state that since your company is new and fresh to the internet it is better.
.biz it is even worse. Not only are you late, but you are late and spending a lot more money to make up for it.
Frankly I think it says you are late to the boat and are lucky to jump on.
Now with
Business-wise this is not something I respect.
_________________________ Visit me at http://pornforcomputers.com
So this implies that all ICANN is doing now is making sure computer-illiterate people can surf the net.
Now, there is more to this. Look at the EM spectrum; as to prevent pollution of one signal into another, the band has been divided into several segments and 'rented' out appropriately. Sure, there are a few times where ham radio people can get into teh wrong band that's typically used for air traffic control, but for the most part this works. The internet domain space is the same way, when you consider that there is only a good number of limited 3-or-more letter words that can work as a TLD. Pollution from one 'domain' into another is very easy to happen here, as the .biz case is demonstrating. So does there need to be an organization that divides these domain air waves appropriately, which is what ICANN can do. But if you continue the analogy further, two things show up:
- The TLD spectrum is practically infinite, bounded only by length at n^26 possible domains. While some are more desirable than others (as it's generally easier to broadcast over certain ranges compared to others in regards to power consumption and signal quality), all are effectively possible.
- ICANN is maintaining an artifical sarcity on TLDs. Because the spectrum is infinite, and we've only scratched a tiny fraction of the spectrum, ICANN's role should be evaluating proposals for any new domains at *any* time, not just when they feel like it. As long as the domain register is faithful and trustworthy and there isn't conflict with a previous domain, then ICANN should grant the new TLD. The only thing that should be restricted here is that any new TLDs should have some charter that all sites within it should abide by (ie, regulated domains), and if too many abuses of this are reported to ICANN, the register will lose that TLD to a default register (NSI most likely) or another register if appropriate. This will prevent the need for trademark owners to spend thousands to 'complete the set' because there's more than enough domains to effectively protect the trademark in them all, and in some, trademark protection may not even be possible.
But as ICANN stands right now, they are merely a grinning government appointed panel making sure that Joe Q Public can read his stock quotes every morning and his porn every night.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Maybe at some point people will get annoyed enough with some of the stupid decisions, nonsensical arrangements, and general state of the current name system to define a system from scratch that will actually work in the context of the commerical Internet. Or maybe we'll all just suffer and complain on Slashdot once in a while.
--
Best new white rapper since Pimp Daddy Welfare... Pimp-T!
.biz -- for businesses and corporations .xxx -- porn sites (censorware can just block these TLDs)
.com, but would be allowed to take .biz, but not .person. On the other hand, Jeff Bezos can take .person, put his page up, and link to Amazon from there.
.sex,
.person -- personal webpages
.tld -- propose new TLDs to ICANN as needed, plus link to registrars who offer existing TLDs.
.ent -- entertainment sites (for movies and games)
I know there are others that can be added to this list, so feel free to suggest more.
In addition, the registrars would be required by ICANN to have registrants submit a link to the proposed site (or submit a copy of the entire site on a CD, DVD, or other storage media). The registrar would then review the site content, and judge whether or not the requested TLD would be appropriate for the site. If the registrant's application is rejected, the registrar would then suggest a more appropriate TLD for the site to use, and ask the registrant if he/she would like that TLD instead. For example, Amazon.com would be allowed to keep
The reason web browsers don't have DNS stuff is that it would just be unnecessary bloat. It doesn't belong in the web browser; it belongs in the TCP/IP stack. The web browser (probably) isn't the only program you run on your computer that needs to look up addresses. If the Mozilla team put DNS stuff into their project, everyone would rightfully laugh at them.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The fundamental flaw in your reactionary babble is the fact that ICANN walked all over the domain names that are already being used by the alternative root systems.
The least ICANN could have done is let the alternative enjoy their existing domains in peace.
What's even more troubling is the fact that the domain names in controversy are downright silly. Dot biz? Being a New Yorker, I'd say ".biz" reeks of self-satisfied Northern California cultural demagogues like Esther Dyson (*gack* 'scuse me while I puke).
Let's face the facts: ICANN is about as competent as a sixth grade model United Nations. The great legacy of the San Francisco counter-culture is their remarkable ability to shit on their own doorstep, and sell out while doing it.
OK then, don't hack Mozilla, hack Wsock32.dll. That's supposedly not too hard to do, although I've never had a reason to try it myself. I'm pretty sure there are some instructions on how to hack this DLL on the 'net.
Thanks for all the "bind" stuff, but it's totally useless on Windows.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Think for yourselves. Don't be afraid not to fork.
I do think for myself, as do most people on the net with the expertise and clout to choose their own root servers.
Forking is a grand tradition of the internet. Disagreement and chosing one's own path is inherent in the very philosophy behind much of the internet.
What the ICANN is engaged in is a profound usurping of the open and free nature of the net and a powergrab of megalomaniacal portions, and should be resisted and fought by all good people everywhere.
Six months ago I changed my employer's root servers to point to opennic. I saw what ICANN was becoming then and chose not to wait until the proverbial fertilizer struck the rotating blades, but rather to act proactively.
I must say I have been impressed at how well opennic does work. Not a single DNS problem or complaint in six months, and name resolution times that are actually more snappy than before.
From a political/freedom point of view Opennic is good in that it is truly democratic, supports both the alternic and icann namespaces (sans the new domains), as well as democraticly created TLDs of its own.
I encourage others to take a look-see. It is my hope that FreeNet's pending naming/key service will allow us to dump DNS altogether, but until that happens opennic is at least open, fair, and democratic, unlike ICANN and many of its corporate rivals.
And so what if the internet becomes fragmented? Worst case, we can send each other our IP addresses in the exact same way we share phone numbers today. More likely, such fragmentation would take the wind out of the sails of such entities as ICANN, preventing both their power grab from succeeding and perhaps pre-empting similarly inappropriate powergrabs in the future and leading to some kind of reasonable and equitable compromise. Do you really think entities such as ICANN and NSI would compromise in any fashion otherwise? Based on their behavior to date, not bloody likely.
With any luck we'll be able to replace the heirarchical, centrally controlled DNS namespace with something less prone to corruption and domination, such as that being proposed by FreeNet. Until then, please consider opennic as a free, democratic alternative to ICANN and Alternnic.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
What is someone in another country going to think when they look at the word "business" and look at ".biz" and wonder where the hell the "z" came from?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
-Jeff
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
OK, I just visited some sites that explained the basic ideas. If I want to view the other TLDs, I have to change my network settings. If I do that, I lose my ISP's fairly reliable dynamicly assigned DNS servers.
With IE, there is no way to work around this. With Mozilla, you could patch it to use regular DNS lookups for ICANN TLDs, and hit alternative DNS servers for other TLDs.
So, how about it? Why doesn't Open Source put it's coding where its mouth is? If they did this, it might actually give me a reason to use Mozilla.
Right now, the only reason I have a Netscape browser at all is to make sure my web pages look OK in Netscape!
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"Only a minuscule portion of computers connected to the Internet are configured to recognize dot-biz names, and unless you're using one, you'll get one of those irksome can't-find-that-site errors." If people are taking the trouble to use such machines fine they have enough energy to take in some more trouble and find ways to differentiate between the old and new ".biz". For the rest of us it hardly concerns us.
There's always sufficient, but not always at the right place nor for the right folks.