Slashdot Mirror
VeriSign Usurps .com
Big news today is that ICANN's staff - you know, the unelected unaccountable corporation that controls most of the world's domain names? those guys? - has struck up a deal with Verisign (the company that purchased Network Solutions, if you recall). The terms of the deal are just wonderful - Verisign will retain permanent control of the .com registry (they were supposed to separate the registry and registrar businesses), long-term control of .net (plenty of time to make that permanent too), and .org will actually be spun off. There are also apparently plans to reinstate the old limits on .org domains - if you aren't a non-profit corporation, you won't be permitted to register or keep a .org domain. ICANN is taking public comments on this issue before their Board votes on it at their next meeting.
I really think the late Jon Postel wanted the domains to be setup that way in the first place. It should have never been possible for for profit companies to register .org domains. At least now the .org TLD will be able to be run by the .org's themselves.
The continued control by Verisign is just another reason we will probably have a name space breakup.
Jeff Carr
jcarr@linuxppc.org
I wonder who will get that domain?
I thought microsoft is the owner of .net?
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
One of the new domains is supposed to be .nom, which is reserved for individuals.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
So hows does Slashdot plan to keep its domain?
By not making a profit, obviously! Seems that LNUX is quite successful at that..
Create at least two or three TLDs that are catchall types -- .web, .site are two possible ones. These cannot be registered by for-profit companies, only by individuals who cannot use the sites to sell anything. Allow any current .org owners to freely switch to these new TLDs.
Alternatively, prevent any new registering of .org domains, but allow those with existing .org domains that are not commercial companies but are also not not-for-profits to hold on to their domains, determined on a case-by-case basis. In such a case, slashdot.org might disappear, but numerous people in the same boat as I would not have to see their site disappear.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
From the article:
Another factor driving the deal was that the perceived need for VeriSign to split into two businesses -- one to manage the master list of Web addresses, another to sell addresses -- had faded of late, as competitors no longer feared the registry gave the company an unfair sales
advantage.
The only reason Notwork Sellutions hasn't managed to use their ownership of the registry to gain an unfair sales advantage is that their customer service and business practices are so abominable that nobody in the know would have anything to do with them as long as there is an alternative. If they were ever to get their act together and start acting like customer service organization rather than a monopoly, they could easily use their ownership of the registry to their advantage. First of all, they don't need to pay any registry access fee to themselves like their competitors do, so they could undercut their competition.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Actually, NSI will have your ORG as soon as they, as a wholly unconcerned seperate company, steps into the main database and deletes it :)
...except that I am currently registering my domains with other registrars, having had it up to the my neck with NSI.
Except that registration eventually gets back to the databases that NSI maintain, which should be seperate from NSI.
I think this is a good time to start thinking about getting rid of .{com,net,org,edu,gov,dot,etc}, and go with country-code TLDs exclusively (and move the current domains into their respective .[a-z][a-z]). It's bad enough that one country gets to virtually monopolize some of these domains (.edu and .gov, for example), it gets only worse by giving a single corporation complete control over the "generic" .com domain. It'd be (slightly) more acceptable if it were something like .com.us (which, obviously, doesn't exist).
In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
--
I hope you're right, but I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. Hopefully, with all the furor on the ICANN message board, the requirements for being an "organization" will be reasonable.
--
There are also apparently plans to reinstate the old limits on .org domains - if you aren't a non-profit corporation, you won't be permitted to register or keep a .org domain.
There never were any such limits. Read RFC 1591
In fact, although I can't find into on the IANA website anymore (it's all been "updated"), .org used to be specifically recommended as the place for individuals who wanted their own domain.
Anything more limiting than this wouldn't be old rules -- it'd be something completely new. If new TLDs are created which serve as functional replacements (something for personal and family domains, something for software projects, etc., etc.), that's all well and good for the future, but it's ridiculous and unfair to take away existing .org domains.
--
and domains that don't get enough queries disappear??
So why don't we come up with something better? Shouldn't it be possible to come up with a way to DNS that doesn't have to be centralized? Or -- since such a thing wouldn't really be DNS any more -- something that would be backward compatible with DNS that wouldn't have to be centralized?
Maybe some kidn of lDAP/DNS gateway?
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
There are a lot of unincorporated organizations that do not have 501c3 status, but serve legitimate non-commercial interests. They should not yank the .org domains from such organizations.
Perhaps a better solution is to create a new TLD for government-recognized non-profit corporations (.npc perhaps), and leave .org as it is.
Since laws for non-profit corporations vary from country to country, it might be even better to make it .npc.us, and let other countries worry about their own. ICANN wouldn't even need to be involved in that.
Speaking of which, when was the .int TLD created? I just started seeing it recently, and don't recall any public announcement or discussion.
If they can't own it, then they can't sue for cybersquatting.
Yeah. Maybe they could hold elections. Like they did. Of course, then the current, unelected members chose to not yield their positions. Any actions by those board members are suspect.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
So it looks like those jerks who brought slashdot.NET/COM have it made, eh?
The UN would also be apt to leverage such control when imposing sanctions on countries it feels the need to punish. This could be Bad. What if your country gets cut off?
In 1997, I registered the domain name moby.org for my unofficial, noncommercial Moby fan site. It is not for profit, but it is not a nonprofit corporation. Should I be worried that this domain may be taken away from me in the future because of a tightening of .org rules?
Oh come on...
All your Top Level Domain Are Belong To Us.
There is no 's' at the end of Domain.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
The problem is -- coulda, woulda, shoulda -- yes, that was the ORIGINAL intent. *7* YEARS AGO. And it would have been fine if they had stuck to it.
.us!
The horse is too far gone outta the barn for ICANN to come in and start rewriting the rules like this. Are individuals only going to be able to have geographic domains? Are individuals not going to be able to have domains at all?
The problem is that domains are not considered property (there is legal precidence for this, unfortunately). So how often are people going to have to change? I can move all my stuff over to some ".us" domain, but I have no assurance that a year down the road someone isn't going to do a land grab and I have to move again. The postal service has been talking about taking over
Amen to that.
--
Delphis
all domain names are RENTED!!!..
.com, .net, or .org generates a yearly fee for usage. if you fail to pay, it gets repossessed. it's all a business. the only problem is there is no competetion. do you think ICANN cares that you can get .cx, .tv, or anything else? hell no. they only care that someone with lots of money (verisign) gets all the domains they want. since they have bought networksolutions, this puts them in a monopoly-type situation.
that's right, every domain name that is
who here would rather pay $70 for a forced 2 year domain rental (networksolutions.com), instead of a $24 (joker.com) 2 year rental? the same service is being provided, however, joker.com is 1/3rd the price. back in the olden days, there was only networksolutions. if something like this goes through, it will take either a class action lawsuit, or a government intervention to correct.
the only loser out of all of this is the average John Q. Public.
side note: any word on networksolutions and expired domains? there was an artice a few months ago about it. i have been waiting for a particular domain since the middle of november. it's been expired since then, but just not available.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
One of the new domains is supposed to be .nom, which is reserved for individuals.
.nom wasn't approved in the first batch of new domains.
Not for a while, if ever --
-j
I think that it's great that .org will once again mean something, but restricting it to registered corporations is a bit extreme, I think. True, it's an easy test for sincerity on the part of the registrant, but I think that there should be some way for people to have domains for non-profit organizations that haven't gone through the expense (however small) of forming a US non-profit corporation.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. Do you think you're the only one in the fucking world to find a HOSTS file? You sir are an idiot. Therefore I am an idiot for calling you an idiot. I had to point it out though! You're a disgrace to all monkeys that walk upright.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Check out YouCANN.org and find out about non-ICANN top level domains (TLDs).
Many of those independent TLDs are organized into the Open Root Server Confederation, whose website has a lot of information about how the system operates.
There's nothing intrinsically special about Network Solutions's DNS servers. All that annual registration fee pays for, really, is a couple lines in a BIND configuration file. You could get your DNS from the ORSC's servers or anywhere else if you choose.
The hard part is getting all those institutions using Network Solutions' DNS to query the ORSC's DNS as well.
Companies with negative profits can't use .com, they have to use the inverse, .moc , and we can call it, 'being mocked'. Kinda like delisting, but more prevalent, variable, and hellish on routing!
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
You don't find it funny?
You must own stock in LNUX
Some squatter at Andover.net already owns these domains. ;^)
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
If you obtain a domain name under one TLD, it should preclude you from obtaining the same under any other TLDs. It could be in the agreement/eula/ToS that a company which claims an address on .com is exluded from claiming any non-dotcom address.
Your proposed restriction actually restricts no one. McDonalds forms a dummy corporation in Delaware for $350, assigns part of their trademark rights and has that shell grab the other domain they want. Multiply by 500 and all it does it make it a little more expensive and inconvenient to hold the domains they want.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
When you think about it, domain names are essentially virtual real estate: My home or business is located HERE.COM. It's where people go to visit you or purchase your goods or services. Mail is addressed to you there; you pay rent for its use.
.org registration was essentially a zoning law (or regulation), and in the world of real estate, zoning is subject to change. The topless bar down the street will have to relocate if the area isn't zoned for that type of business or organization, and that's that.
.ORG domain names became integral to the identities of countless online entities, many of which invested thousands and thousands of dollars in establishing those identities.
The limitation on
But the rules changed, and domain name owners were allowed to build a homes and businesses on these domains.
Would we allow an board of corporate individuals whom we did not elect to decide that we were no longer allowed to reside at 219 Main Street, or 1290 Washington Avenue?
The usual slashdot blurb, hyping things up. This is only a proposal, and there is, ostensibly, time to comment on it and change it.
.com domain to present themselves as a "respectable" and "mainstream" organization. For the rest of us plebs, we can do pretty damn well with the plethora of two letter TLDs around the world (try the NICs of .cx and .fm for example).
.com rights to one of slashdot's favourite bugbears (pick one, there's enough around).
To be honest, I don't have a problem with these proposals. It's only big business which should do, because they need a
And it's not as if Verisign is a bloodsucking corporation anyway. Imagine if they'd sold
Overall - this is so not a big deal.
So hows does Slashdot plan to keep its domain?
Good thing OSDN owns slashdot.com (but not slashdot.net).
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
So if ICANN says that Verisign effectively gets control of .com, .net, and to some extent, what a person can do with .org, what about the other non-NSI registrars?
Sounds dangerously like a quasi-governmental agency enforcing a business monopoly on the most important current web tld's, doesn't it? Or am I missing something?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
The US domain should have
Down with
--
Are you sure that is a good idea? Freenet is kinda high latency for something that needs to read data as often as DNS.
That could work, only problem is if a machine was particularly obscure, it could fall off Freenet from not getting requested often enough. I suppose you could store the whole zone file under an SSK so it could be updated too. I doubt that an entire domain on a healthy Freenet would dissapear.
Key word: Corporation
Non-profit corporations have lots of restrictions that are difficult to keep up with. Plus incorporating inheritantly implies maintaining tax records and a pile of other thing most open source projects don't want to deal with.
Anm
They blew it in the first place by not enforcing the regulations just so they could make more money encouragnig everyone to register the same name under .com, .net, and .org.
.com for commercial entities
.net for network infrastructure
.org for other organistations.
They let it down.. and NOW they wanna go back to the other way after taking everyone's money.
Time for new root servers.
Does this mean we'll have to update our bookmarks? Has OSDN looked at obtaining the slashdot.net and .com???
Does everyone in a socialist country qualify as being a non-profit entity?
A silver cloud in this lining; this will prevent companies from snapping up all the domains that match thier company name, i.e. foo.com, foo.org, etc...
MicroSoft : We need to hang on to MicroSoft.org (which doesn't seem to have a DNS entry BTW)
Lawyers : No prob... we just start up the MicroSoft Envangelical Non-Profit Organization, funded by an Endowment from MicroSoft Inc., who buys the MicroSoft.org domain, and, in the interests of their organization, links it directly to the MicroSoft.com web site (and distributes an e-mail newsletter once a month saying how great MS is, and all the good its done in the world). Best part is, its tax deductable for MicroSoft Inc.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
The "big three" TLDs are congested anyway. Why don't they create similar requirements for .com (you must be a legal for-profit organization) and .net (you must be an ISP, registrar, or some entity that manages, maintains, or distributes the Internet or its infrastructure [no flames...best I could do in one phrase]). Then, we lobby for additional TLDs (or create rogue ones...we don't need no steenking ICANN anyway), and create similar restrictions for those.
.alt as a catch-all free-for-all TLD with no restrictions whatsoever.
The point would be to restrict who is allowed to register their name where. There could be an elected soverign body that enforces those restrictions and makes sure to create enough TLDs to satisfy everyone (of course, they would have to be general enough so we don't end up with a billion of them, but then we'd actually use the hierarchial "features" of DNS). There could even be a
Introducing policy now is better than having policy forced in later (it always will be...you can't get around it). We avoid all sorts of headaches surrounding who has rights to what domain names, trademark infringements, squatting, etc. Madonna can have madonna.artists.music, and her fans can have madonna.fansites.fluff.
Your proposal is acceptable.
----
My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
Looks like VA Linux's stock is down another 7% today. I guess Slashdot could be considered non-profit.
sup
It seems that LNUX is losing money. Does the non-profit restriction also apply to negative-profit organizations?
sup
Well, a private commercial company is not accountable to its consumers when it is in a situation of control over a monopoly. It is only accountable to its shareholders, and it makes very few people with respect to the Internet users.
They can have my .org when they pry it from my cold dead dns.
when then pry it from my cold dead fingers.
#999999
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
With netsol on the other hand, I've had them change data from the forms incorrectly, have some accounts fucked so I have to use a web interface which was broken for weeks, and had to wait on hold for 40 minutes on a long distance phone call to talk with a clueless idiot who denied the website had been down and didn't actually fix my problem, forcing me to call back again. Those people aren't qualified to run a taxicab.
You will get no reliability from them.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
nope, I just can't type.
Unintentional or not, I spell just fine, it's that connection between the brain and keyboard that I have problems with.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
I can't find any mention of it stating that, either. As it also refers to 'non-commercial organizations', I would assume that it's not talking about registered non-profit organizations, but would include not-for-profit and non-commercial organizations.
.org domains, one of which is for a registered non-profit, and one of which (annoying.org) is purely personal.
I personally own two
If you do have issues with the proposal, use the message board ICANN set up for discussion of this topic. You're more likely to get authoritative answers to your questions, and if you have a valid point against the proposal, you might even get it stopped or amended.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
From the ICANN web site, which was linked to in the slashdot article, section D:
Please note -- the key word was either 'non-profit organization' or 'non-commercial orgranization'. It said nothing about 'non-profit corporation'.I plan on keeping both of my .org domains [the only two domains I have], one of which is a registered non-profit group, and the other one is not-for-profit, as it's a personal site.
Please read the articles to which people are commenting on, as a simple inintentional word change can have a dramatic change on the entire meaning.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Rather than completely post what I already did to another paniced message, let me summarize --
Whomever submitted this to Slashdot in some way mis-read a word in the ICANN proposal.
That one word was 'organization', and not 'corporation'. In section D-2:
Now, technically, that may not be exactly what the original intention for
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
After reading everyone's overreactions (especially michael's), I went and actually read the proposal! Guess what, kids? This is a win-win.
If VeriSign spun off the NSI registrar business by May 2001, they were going to get an automatic 4-year extension on running the .com, .net, and .org registries. Under this new proposal, they won't have to spin off the registrar entirely, merely make it a subsidiary company. In exchange, they are guaranteed to give up .org after only a two-year extension, and help fund their successor in .org for a while, to the tune of $5 million. They are giving up 22 months of their extension on .net (although they still get preference for extensions there).
Last but not least, they are going to be investing $200 million in research on improving the DNS system and giving better access to the root nameservers to ccTLD and other TLD registries.
As other posts pointed out, there is no reason to expect that individuals or open-source projects would be excluded from the .org domain after it changes hands. How is any of this a bad thing?
Right...
Really, how long do you think it will be before they require all .com registrations to be real companies?
.com is exluded from claiming any non-dotcom address. This would keep mcdonalds.com from also claiming mcdonalds.org and mcdonalds.net ad infinitum. There might be some allowances to allow mcdonalds.co.uk or .co.au, where they can show a valid, physical business presence.
.com, all the other speculations such as verizonreallysucks.com would be eliminated, drying up the revenue.
.sucks, .tm, and probably even .sex and .xxx. Then there couldn't be a pentium.com, intel would have to register it under pentium.tm if they wanted to have a dedicated website.
This is the way it should be. If you obtain a domain name under one TLD, it should preclude you from obtaining the same under any other TLDs. It could be in the agreement/eula/ToS that a company which claims an address on
This would end most domain speculation, force everyone to be under the most correct TLD, and keep the lawyers at bay. Sanity would rule, the WIPO jackrabbit courts would essentially cease to exist, and the rest of us could get on with building a better network for the future.
Since this would end much domain speculation, the income from domain registry would be significantly less than over the last few years. With only real commercial enitities paying for
If this were to happen, there would be a strong need for
A very good idea, which has been suggested by many intelligent people on numerous occasions. It has always been shot down by the ICANN as unworkable because they pander only to commercial interests, especially billion dollar companies like Network Solutions, who don't want to see their cash cow killed.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Not only that...
I was one of those who signed up for the Members At Large thingy, back before I realized that it was a bread-and-circuses appeasement move that had fuck-all to do with the actual outcome. And today in my email was a message from ICANN to all the signups saying that input was being solicited via an opt-in mailing list.
My sincere willingness to help is waging a pitched battle with my pragmatism and realism and pessimism and inherent cynicism right now. Hmmmm...
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Why did you go with register.com? Atleast
go with another competitor with a clue.
All my domains are now with joker.com. When
I had to change DNS, I logged into the web site,
and easily changed the server. I got a confirmation letter 5 seconds later, and the change was immediately evident at corenic.net.
One domain was still with netsol. It took two
days for the change to take effect. I immediately moved that domain to joker/corenic.
The "corporation" status is there to provide some form of protection, much like a normal corporation is set up. I would also say most non-profit organizations are not full corporations. Its not a great way to go however.
It is my understanding that a non-profit corporation just doesn't issue profits to any shareholders at the end of the quarter/year. They can still "make money" i.e. have a positive balance in the books.
I worked for a non-profit in Calif. for about 2 years and learned some things. We had Articles of Incorporation like all corporations do in Calif., we were just organized under a certain code. We were also listed as a 501(c)3 (US Internal Revenue Code) [has to do with "education" IIRC]. This is basically a certification from the IRS that you are a non-profit.
This is probably the most humble sort of action we will get to see from ICANN. It's about as close to an admittance that they need someone with more experience to handle the major chunk (.com, .net) of internet domain names. Now if they'd only take this humility to the next level, jump off a cliff like the bunch of lemmings they act like, and get replaced by some sane policymakers regarding international domains... THEN the domain name fiasco would have some progress..
.net-vs-.org domain, as no prerequisites were upheld in the domain name selection process. It's excellent to see ideas actually flowing through some important peoples' heads regarding the maintenance of quality in the existing TLD's. They seem to get ignored for the sake of discussing shiny new TLD's far too often.
With the horrible management of NSI, i've oftentimes been very curious about the usefulness of a
.... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".
Am I the only one who thinks there are already too many chefs in this kitchen?
When you're not looking, this sig is in Latin.
Wow. this news is going to crush the stockholders of RedHat, VA Linux, etc. etc.
What's your point? Redhat and VA Linux are both inherently non-profit making. :)
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
the .org TLD is not and never was reserved for non-profit organizations!
I am too lazy to go get the RFC, but I believe that it is actually for non-coporate organizations or groups. Like families, etc. It was never meant to be for non-profits!
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
I always thought that *most* non-profit organizations are not corporations. In fact, I don't see any point to being a corporation other than to make money. It just costs too much too become a corp in the first place. Also, why would a non-profit need to have stock? That's the way things are here in PA anyway. This isn't meant to be a flame...I just don't understand the reasoning in that statement.
It doesn't matter at all if ICANN doesn't like me because I'm not a .org. It is simply stealing to take a domain from someone because ICANN decides they want to reinstate a policy they whoarked up in the first place. What about people who have spent thousands or millions on their enterprises? Now that will be money down the toilet. Please register your comments and let ICANN know that we don't want to lose our domains. I for one don't want to type www.slashdot.ws
"There are also apparently plans to reinstate the old limits on .org domains - if you aren't a non-profit corporation, you won't be permitted to register or keep a .org domain"
.com registrations to be real companies? This really isn't that far-fetched. They may require proof from you that you own the trademark you are trying to register...
.au domain all along. So damn, the rest of the world may get held to the same rules as us Aussies for a change *grin*. Maybe we'll lose some of the sillier vanity domains - or maybe separate TLDs will eventually be introduced to cover fan organisations (.fan anyone?) and personal vanity domains (.vty?). The web may become more organised. Terrible outcome, right?
Really, how long do you think it will be before they require all
Obviously, this is all trending towards the corporatization of the web... yee-haw.
I hate to say this, but as far as I know this has been the case in the
Alternatively, of course, the whole shebang may well go through and kill off a lot of interesting private web pages in favour of corporate blah. We won't know until it happens, though. However, one thing to note - if this is still at proposal stage, *now* is the time to object - in writing.
Meg Thornton.
Perkin's Postulate: Online tech support is designed to provide everything short of actual help.
NSI/ICANN's been a thorn in our side for too long. Time to start distributing cryptographically signed host tables via mbone. Better yet, tweak the Linux gethostbyname to allow resolution on names with spaces and things in them, and eliminate the need for .com/.org/.net.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Someone does. Every ISP that operates a recursive resolver, every domain holder that operates an authoritative nameserver, are collectively the operators of the domain name system. There is no need for centralized root servers, but only for a consistent root zone. There are any number of ways to build a root zone file and get it installed someplace where users can resolve against the namespace it represents. ICANN is not needed to coordinate any of this.
ICANN have provided this over the years.
Provided what, exactly? Can you name one significant achievement attributable in part, or in whole, to ICANN's activities? I can't think of one.
True, if someone could come up with a method for making ICANN democratically and internationally representative and elected, this would have beena good idea. But at the present stage of our global development, this has just not been possible.
Oh, it IS possible, if only ICANN would allow it. We already elected At-Large representatives, but ICANN has been determined to disenfranchise them, and has so far succeeded for the most part. ICANN is the problem, not the solution.
Edith Keeler Must Die
There will certainly be a class action lawsuit if they try to enforce this, and I, for one, intend to join it.
If I come up with an idea, I should be able to register its name under every last TLD in the world if I so desire. That way, some punk can't rip off my idea and start his/her own domain based on my idea and pretend that they came up with it.
If I am, say, Sears Roebuck, I should be allowed to register sears.com|net|org|nnn to prevent hucksters from cloning my website and gathering credit card numbers from unsuspecting users. I used to work in an ISP position where I regularly saw people ripping off our site design and using it to fool our members into sending their usernames and passwords. I saw this shit all the time.
Saying that people should only be allowed to register under a single TLD is nothing but control for the sake of control.
The post by michael says, "There are also apparently plans to reinstate the old limits on .org domains - if you aren't a non-profit corporation, you won't be permitted to register or keep a .org domain."
But the WSJ article you're referencing says something completely different, "Icann indicated that it wants "org" Web addresses reserved only for nonprofit organizations "after some appropriate transition period," a restriction that hasn't been enforced in recent years. Details haven't been worked out, though one Icann official suggested that current "org" Web sites may be allowed to continue regardless of their affiliation with nonprofits."
Don't you folks even care about accuracy anymore, or have you been reading Microsoft FUD for so long that you've decided on a "if you can't beat them, join them" policy?
What disturbs me is the fact that you must be a REGISTERED non-profit Orginazation. As the owner of a .org domain (geek-house.org, currently down) this bothers me. I make no money off of this domain, It is used by me and my roommates for E-mail and a place for us to post our thoughts (as if anyone cares) but my point is we make no profit. Under these new rules I would have to spend sums of money to actually register my house as a non-profit Organization just to keep my domain. No way you could argue this is a profit maker for any of us, hell we are all poor college students, but under these new rules we would have this taken away from us.
iRepairIT - iPhone, Mac, & PC Repair
Shareholder: Do we have them by the shorhairs?
Board Member: Yes we do!
Shareholder: Cool, we can make tons of money!
Board Member: We?
I feel so empowered by my shares, how about you?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Verisign will retain permanent control of the .com registry (they were supposed to separate the registry and registrar businesses), long-term control of .NET (plenty of time to
Wait just a minute here! I thought Microsoft controlled that domain. Boy are they gonna be mad.How such an organization would handle existing for-profit .org domains is not actually specified (as far as I read the document anyway -- through the paragraph about how to handle .org). It might decide, in the long run, to chase 'em all away (bye-bye /..org?), but, more likely, it'd set up a multi-tiered system for maintaining the domain names -- more $$ for non-non-profits (luv them double negatives ;-), for example -- or put some kind of restrictions on what they can do on sites with those names.
Various scenarios have various sorts of problems, but many of these problems are fundamental to the whole domain-naming issue (and many stem from the whole naming issue in the first place).
The idea, though, seems to be to have a non-profit org with funding provide another way for non-profits to obtain, maintain, and pay for their domain names, without being lumped in with all the high-$$ corporates.
That way, if .com addresses become more $$, as I expect will happen down the road under some formula, the non-profits won't be shut out of worthwhile names entirely.
Think of the proposal as offering a "wall of separation" between for-profits and non-profits at a higher, and more useful (since it involves funding), level than just the .org/.com distinction. The for-profit company managing the .com registry won't be tempted to extend its price increases to .org (and the corresponding non-profits) because it won't be managing that registry in the first place -- a funded non-profit org would be handling that.
Admittedly, I'm looking at this issue in a "positive-spin" way. Having heard/read about all sorts of abuses of domain-name registration by one or more companies, I hope this proposal is one means by which they intend to rectify some of these, or at least have the abuses perpetrated for something other than profit for a change...!
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
No man, they're wanting to change it back to only non-profit "corporations".
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Agreed. This my immediate thought as well. Furthermore, I can't imagine that anyone would want my domain. So what's the harm in it being registered to a non-non-profit entity? It seems to me that DNS is merely a service. A service that just happens to be used by nearly everyone. It's also an optional service. If another similar service were provided and adopted by the general public, the question of who gets domain x would be largely moot.
That is just ridiculous. All that will happen is that any company with any stake in a .org domain (slashdot.org being a prime example) will spin off a 'not-for-profit' LLC to keep their status.
Ok my karma is maxed out. When do I become Enlightened?
Wow. this news is going to crush the stockholders of RedHat, VA Linux, etc. etc.
While Open Source software itself has no sale value, many business models exists for providing, supporting, and promoting Open Source.
Ok my karma is maxed out. When do I become Enlightened?
He pointed out that he has already made a post about this on ICANN's Public forum. When I mentioned that I didn't think it was clear enough, and asked him to clarify further to avoid a lot of confusion, he responded that they were "discussing this internally".
This tells me the following:
-
It's not set in stone that you have to be a legally-recognized non-profit to hold a
.org TLD under the proposed changes
- They haven't worked out all the details yet
- They at least appear concerned with the public opinion (read his post)
Granted, I'm not a huge fan of ICANN's previous activities, but I will say Mike was responsive and courteous in his emails. Perhaps if we voice our opinions just as politely and courteously (rather than flaming them about) we might get somewhere.Sign me eternally optomistic...
Gentoo Linux http://gentoo.org/
there would be a strong need for .sucks, .tm, and yadda yadda yadda
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The US domain should have .com, .net and whatever the hell else we want under it.
Are you talking .co.us? If so, register your domain in Colorado. Equivalents for .net, .org, and .edu can be found in Nebraska (.ne.us), Oregon (.or.us), and Alaska (.ak.us like .ac.uk). Other states have potential for pronounceable names (Indiana best.in.us; Ohio who.oh.us; Connecticut re.ct.us).
And yes, it is possible to get the standard changed so as to drop any mandatory city name that your state may impose.
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
something for personal and family domains
ummm... how about .8m.com?
something for software projects
umm... how about .sourceforge.net?
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
A silver cloud in this lining; this will prevent companies from snapping up all the domains that match thier company name, i.e. foo.com, foo.org, etc...
Erm, ".net" is the one that really _is_ supposed to have a restriction - that's supposed to be ISPs and other internet connectivity ppl only. But that got wildly usurped ages back, to the extent that ppl now don't remember it was originally for that.
Grab.
Besides... what I'm suggesting is more or less what ICANN did right? They just siezed the root and had people start to look their way...
--mb10
If they give .org only to non-profit organizations why don't they restrict .com to organizations that actually make profits. That would be a very efficient way to shut down the dotcom craze.
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
The Wisconsin Legislature in 1998 enacted the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act, chapter 184 of the Wisconsin Statutes, giving such Associations most of the Rights of Incorporated entities. Not sure which other States have adopted it.
184.01 (2) "Nonprofit Association" means an unincorporated organization consisting of 3 or more members joined by mutual consent for a common nonprofit purpose...
The State's server is down right now, when its back the Text can be found at http://www.wisconsin.gov/state/home
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
I have a domain name, ebrahim.org which is my last name.org. It would be stupid to take this domain away from legit users like myself, who obviously don't use .org names for domain squatting, but actually use them for their own personal use. Out of the three currently available TLDs, .org is the most appropriate for us family users.
I've paid money to register this domain, I got it before anyone else, I'm not cybersquatting. Why should they take it away from me just because I'm a non-profit organisation?
I can understand why enforcing the rules for new registrants would make sense, but retroactively applying them would be terrible.
they might also want to consider changing their name from ICANN to ICANN'T at their next meeting
Surely that note just means they won't grab domains at once, but will instead wait until the outcry has died down ('appropriate transition period').
There is nothing at all in that note that gives hope. Lose your domain in a month, or twelve months, or eighteen months... is there really much difference?
I wonder if they will give up networksolutions.org then.
Tux Games. Your complete source for native Linux games.
Yep. No way around it. Thats a feature, not a bug.
------
Not a typewriter
I should add that Freenet favors large files to be droped out long before small ones. DNS zone files would be pretty small. I might even put mandatory encryption on all in-Freenet zone files, just to get them a little smaller. We'll see.
------
Not a typewriter
I was actualy just thinking about this over lunch. Orginaly, I had planed the naive approach where it fetched the data off Freenet every time. Now I'm thinking of having it store the data in memory just like a normal DNS server. When a request comes, it checks the cache first. If it can't find it there, it looks for it on Freenet. If it's not there either, it recursivly checks other DNS servers and returns the data to the requester. It then inserts the new data into Freenet and to its own cache.
------
Not a typewriter
I'm free this weekend so I don't mind doing it.....
Well, I'm working on a DNS server that stores its cache in Freenet. This means the cache can be called up by any other such DNS server. This elimanates the need for a tree-based DNS structure and its centralized control.
------
Not a typewriter
What will happen to companies that have established pages at a .org? Do they just loose all the money they have put into the site, into brand development, and such when their registration is up? If I was such a company, I would probably end up sueing over it.
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
What's the RGB hex for Internet gray?
Does anybody have the ICBM address of VeriSign handy? These turkeys need to be wiped off the map. A company with such a horrendous record on privacy shouldn't have even temporary control of the .com registry, let alone guaranteed permanent control, removing the last vestiges of accountability from their operations.
Frankly, VeriSign's behaviour merits complete and permanent removal from this role, not complete trust - they are, without any doubt in my mind, the most untrustworthy organisation on the net.
Of course ICANN seems little better - they don't allow anonymous feedback - you have to provide them a valid email address just to post to their forum. This in itself is no doubt an effort to discourage unfavourable opinions by people who are concerned about retribution from the ICANN/VeriSign cartel.
How about using slashdot.at instead.
So what is to prevent Verisign from abusing the system that they would presumably control and then manipulating the process to their benefit? We've already seen or heard of problems with domains that seem to get taken only minutes after being checked against the web-based whois database at networksolutions.com. Who is going to be the watchdog to make sure that the registry itself doesn't get manipulated to serve the interests of Verisign?
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
I've never had a problem with Register.com, actually. They answered support mail fast, and their web interface is far, far better than what I dealt with while with Network Solutions.
i am a soviet space shuttle
Thats the problem, shareholders come first. What we need is a system that is accountable to the USERS first and the shareholders second.
I'm free this weekend so I don't mind doing it.....
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
So, what happens to those of us who've lived by the permissive current rules?
.org names go up for.... AUCTION!
I suppose our
So that's the motivation.
Verisign is ALL LOVE >_
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4990190.html? tag=mn_hd
Until 2007!! When did 6 years from now become Permanent??
True, ICANN is a global body... but why should it be democratic? Not all of the world is ruled by democracy.
nothing i love more than having faceless corporations deide the way my life will proceed.
lysergically yours
Actually, I read the stuff and don't see anything about pulling existing domains...nor is there any language that defines who _would_ be allowed to be in .org. Do you have to be a registered not-for-profit, or just not a company?
rm
Sci-Fi Storm
"Don't fit in anywhere else" would seem to suggest that what belongs under .org should not be anything that clearly belongs under .com (business operated for profit), .net (network services, although it seems to be an extension of .com now), .edu (eduational) or the country domains. So ruling out commercial enterprises would make the most sense - not restricting it to government-chartered not-for-profits.
If an individual's business should be .com the same as a corporation's, why should an individual's non-profit activities not be an .org the same as a corporation's? This establishes a special requirement - a bar to jump over - to do things for no profit that does not exist when individuals (or partnerships) do things for profit. Are we trying to discourage individual good works in the name of further corporatizing society?
For example, I provide free hosting and webmastering for jazzhouse.org, the Jazz Journalists Associations' site. I just like promoting this end of our culture. But guess what, the Association isn't formally incorporated. So I have to tell them "You have to pony up the legal expenses for formal incorporation or they're going to take away your well-established domain"?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Now, the only way they can propose to limit .org to 'non-profit organizations' is to require evidence of synonymous legal status, which in my state means establishing a 'not-for-profit corporation.' There's no such animal, legally, as a non-profit organization that's not a corporation.
Or are you suggesting that they will accept a mere assertion of 'Yeah, we're organized, and we're not in it for profit'? If it was handled that way, and if .org domains were only revoked on presentation of a high level of proof that they are in fact being used primarily for profit-making activities (as compared to associated income-generating activities of non-profit organizations, such as a museum shop), then there's not such a problem.
But also, keep in mind that in many states a corporation may consist of one person; the requirements to be an 'organization' should be similarly lax.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Six years is a long time, when you consider the profit margin on domain registration.
I mean, really, just how much does it cost to maintain a database, provide abysmal customer service, and maintain a.root-servers.net?
Netsol is laughing all the way to the bank, thanks to the huge profits they made in a short number of years, plus their recent buyout. Verisign will be doing the same.
I got, as an At Large member, an e-mail yesterday, soliciting comments. I think it is a good idea to head over and tell them what you think.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Verisign is a private commercial company. As such, it can be regarded as more accountable than ICANN, because it has to answer to its shareholders and its consumers, which is a lot more than can be said for ICANN.
.com registry to someone else."
Uhm...except of course that it's shareholders only care if they're making money or not. And their consumers can't say, "ok, you guys aren't very good....give control over the
As far as I'm concerned, this is a bad thing. There was the story a few months back about Network Solutions not releasing expired domain names. And, personally, I had to do some work with N.S./Verisign recently to make some changes to an account and quite frankly, their customer service rather sucked. It took several weeks to get all the changes made.
-- dR.fuZZo
I moved my domains from netsol to register.com because i hate netsol just like the next guy. I had to change the ip address of one of my name servers. With netsol, no big deal (there's a form to fill out). Also, if I had trouble, netsol answers the phone.
Register.com has no such form. Their online email based support promises responses in 24 hours... but none. 20 minute hold time to speak with an idiot... and their idiots are not allowed to transfer you to tech support (they used to do that, but not anymore aparently). Here I am two weeks later and nothing.
I transfered my domains back to netsol. When it comes to making sure my email and website are running, reliablilty comes before political hatred.
Um. This is a proposal. Nothing's been signed yet.
The ugly fact is that DNS is a hierarchical, centralised system, and the one at the top is In Charge. Shame it's Network Solutions :-) Maybe VeriSign can do better?
WIPO.ORG - World Intellectual Property Organization are part of UN, paid for (owned?) by big business.
.ORG - it is MOST unfair. But that is ICANN and WIPO all over.
They are profit making organization.
They make VAST profits for their friends in the legal profession.
Do not believe propaganda in the news articles. They know how to solve the trademark problems on the Internet.
They destroy the credibility of the UN. WIPO help bullying aggressors take peoples property and destroy free speech.
It is too late now to take peoples
WIPO.org.uk - no connection with, and wishes to be totally disassociated from WIPO.ORG.
.ORG helps give people a voice - to speak out against injustice.
The authorities want to stop us - to deny us a voice. To stop free speech.
WIPO.org.uk
- Someone has to run the Domain name system. It is not a system of anarchy, it is a strict hierarchal system that requires a strong hand at the top.
- ICANN have provided this over the years. For all their faults, they were the only real solution. A governmental, elected body would be unacceptible - ICANN is a global body, it shoulod not be run by the American government and people.
- True, if someone could come up with a method for making ICANN democratically and internationally representative and elected, this would have beena good idea. But at the present stage of our global development, this has just not been possible.
- Verisign is a private commercial company. As such, it can be regarded as more accountable than ICANN, because it has to answer to its shareholders and its consumers, which is a lot more than can be said for ICANN.
My take is that this development is far from ideal, but is better than the current situation. Until such time as the Internet is not such a hierarchal system, or such time as a globally accountable body under the UN can be created, this is a better and more accountable solution, even if it is far from perfect.I would lobby for a body under the UN, perhaps a special branch of the UN to deal with the Internet, as the fairest and most accountable solution, but I realise that this is a pipe dream at the moment. I therefore, with extreme reservations, welcome this move, for the meantime.
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Putting it that way, it makes it seem like a Good Thing. I mean, wasn't the .com TLD originally supposed to be just for real companies? Individual sites not commercial in nature would be more appropriately slotted into geographic TLDs or some of the newly designated TLDs.
.com domain names, and result in less corporatization of the web as people get used to finding things without automatically slapping a '.com' on the end of them. IMHO, the current inappropriate designation of a lot of non-commercial sites is responsible for the domain name firestorm we've been experiencing.
With any luck, that might actually tone down the vituperative disputes we're currently seeing over
No relation to Happy Monkey
And what about individuals who registered their names with .org because some company grabbed .net or .com first?
Changing the rules retro-actively sucks. I hope people submit enough comments on this proposal addressing this issue to convince ICANN that they are doing something again without fully considering the implications...
So, if we want to get technical, I guess we need a tld for not-.com-corporations, obviously .corp.
.corp.us.
.corp.se.
Oh, and don't forget the cc variations:
Verisign: Sorry, but we are going to have to take away your domain from you. We see you're using your website to make money
Web Site Owner: What are you talking about? We are collecting donations from our congregation. We are a church.
Versign: Nope, sorry. We already have someone else signed up to take the domain.
"Under the deal, VeriSign would permanently surrender control of "org" addresses by December 2002. The company also would establish an endowment of $5 million toward the future operation of "org" addresses. It further agreed to spend $200 million in research over 10 years toward making Internet registries more efficient. Icann indicated that it wants "org" Web addresses reserved only for nonprofit organizations "after some appropriate transition period," a restriction that hasn't been enforced in recent years. Details haven't been worked out, though one Icann official suggested that current "org" Web sites may be allowed to continue regardless of their affiliation with nonprofits. VeriSign also will agree to give up control over "net" Web addresses by January 2006; it would be allowed to bid for future rights to run that registry, but approval by Icann was considered highly unlikely."
I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners. - Berke Breathed
*None* of the documents linked provide the slightest support for concluding that currently registered owners of .org addresses will be forced to forfiet those addresses. The "appropriate transition period" mentioned in the agreement and the article seems to refer to a period after which *new* .org addresses will not be issued to entities other than not-for-profits.
--J
I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners. - Berke Breathed
Thanks to you it's got a 5 - funny now sir.
--------------------------upSIde dOwn -- umOp apISdn--------------------------
So the usual /. comments in response to Micheals hysteria.
For god sake you're all supposed to be intelligent. If ICANN is doing bad things then start to establish your own DNS, I know there are already alternatives they're just not mainstream. Rather like Linux five years ago!
I think that ICANN is a crock, however it's not going to change things by whining like spoilt brats.
I'm sure there will be plenty of time to work around this. They aren't just going to uproot a bunch of sites within the next week or anything. Bring the net back to the little people - to the people who know what they are doing!!!!
...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
Why US corporations, specifically? The internet isn't just the United States, you know. :)
Seriously, this is an interesting point. If they are going to restrict it to Non-Profits in the legal sense, then how is this going to work on an international basis? I can't believe that I (as a UK citizen) would have to register a US Non-Profit corp in order to register a .org. Assuming it would be legal for me to do so, of course.
So how about countries which do not have a legal definition of Non-Profit corps? I'm sure that there are some about.
How does this impact us at all? I don't get it. As long as I can use alternate registrars, such as register.com, I'm happy. Network Solutions' domain regiistration system is a big, old, broken, clusterfuck. If I have to go back to weeks of emails back and forth from Network Solutions just to make a simple change, I think I'll have to kill myself.
Open Source software is inherently non-profit making. Wow. this news is going to crush the stockholders of RedHat, VA Linux, etc. etc.
Dude, pull up a stock quote. It already has.
Wow. this news is going to crush the stockholders of RedHat, VA Linux, etc. etc.
True. Are you just figuring this out? You might consider checking this link if you want to catch up with the rest of the class. Those companies are on a one-way trip to delisting.
Tim
So, these comments would be open to the public the same way that ICANN voting was open to the public, right?
ie, you can email them whatever you like, but their server is "down" 99% of the time.
If microsoft is in trouble for having a monopoly, shouldn't ICANN be too?
-MR
-Michael Roy Some people are like Slinkies. Not really useful, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down
This really sucks. I've heard that you aren't supposed to register a .com domain if you aren't a for-profit business. Now, you won't be able to register (or hold) a .org domain unless you are incorporated and non-profit (I would suppose that has to be legally non-profit). So, what kind of rule will they impose on .net? I'm assuming this is so that little people that want a domain have too many hurdles placed in the way to make it worthwhile. I just wonder what my group is going to do if this comes to pass. Are we just going to get our domain yanked from us, since we aren't a corporation (although we are not-for-profit, we aren't legally a non-profit organization either)? I have a hard time with this one, but it wouldn't suprise me at all. BIG BUSINESS, BIG BUSINESS, BIG BUSINESS, that's the name of the game. If you don't fit into that, then step out of the way or get run over.
*SHRUG* Oh well, better get used to it. I don't see much of a chance of that changing, in meat space or virtual space.
------------
Yeah, what he said;-).
My own 2 cents:
You would be suprised at the number of non-profit groups that are incorporated. It may not make a huge amount of sense, but it seems to happen quite a bit. I'm not sure, but I think there are certain incentives to incorporating a non-profit organization, but I really doubt any of those incentives would apply to four guys and a girl playing in a band and trying to do some writing (my current situation, although that situation my be dissolving at the moment).
------------
Tell me; since when was anarchy a bad idea?
/dev/trinity
Relying on organizational bodies for our internet use is basically like saying "I give up, please feel free at any time to take action on the fact that I have no rights!"
Rather then trying to spend money creating new solutions to deal with old hardware, why not create new hardware that actually is independant of a structured system? Increase the ability of the internet to survive if something were to happen to the companies that control it, or the governments, or giant tsunami's/Godzilla/Bill Gate's Giant Mecha etc. distroying our means of working the internet.
Many of the people that helped to build our modern computers were anarchists; have a good long look at the guys over at Berkley and you'll get an example of what I'm talking about. Hardware and software independant of structure is our only choice for a truely free internet.
-MQBS
cat helicopter/B212 >
The dream reveals the reality which conception lags behind. That is the horror of life- the terror of art. -Franz Kafka
Until 2007!! When did 6 years from now become Permanent??
Remember, these are "Internet Years". If every human year is equivalent to 7 Internet years, therefore you and I will be old and gray (perhaps dead) long before Verisign's agreement is up.
Dancin Santa
Oh, this is just absolutely brilliant. I register wayner.org and use it for a permanent email address. And they're going to take away the domain? But what do we do for other organizations? I run the website for my lacrosse team. It's not a company, it's not a business, it's not even a non-profit. Where are we supposed to go? Is every little league team, every dance group, every girl scout troop, every political organization, every random association of people supposed to file incorporation papers? That seems completely silly and a real waste of everyone's time and money.
without letting us phreeks register .org TLD i couldn't been able to get .net where already taken. .org isn't a NFP
pornBot.org
cuz pornbot.com and
I NEED MY NONSENSE! who the fuck cares if a
IT"S JUST A NAME!
all peeple named James MUST be a male, or it'll confuse the citzens... same
argument.
.cig
As long as ICANN start enforcing the rules on .org domain names I don't see why we should have any problem. Open Source software is inherently non-profit making, and so any projects we would want to start would fall under the auspices of the .org TLD.
We can leave the commercial bickering over .com domains to companies well-able to afford to pay rip-off merchants, erm, I mean corporate lawyers.
The .net domain was always destined to fail in its stated purpose - demand was too high for catchy domains compared to the number of organisations providing network services. But there are at least as many non-profit organisations out there as companies, and making sure the .org TLD is set aside will cut down on trademark battles and user confusion.
Honestly, does it matter which corrupt company runs the .com TLD? :)
--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
Doesn't Linus have a patent on that?
Let's see now, Microsoft gets broken up. Bill Gates heads one of the groups. That group, GatesisgodSoft will buy Verisign, and then, it'll be like that UF cartoon, "Hello? Yeah, I would like to buy the internet."
I'd rather have ICANN being independant. Less chance of eWorld Domination (business plan currently patent pending)
Jon, think fast!
The court will now commence on Microsoft v. Linus Torvalds:
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
Well, since they are taking comments, I would send the following to them.
/. is as club of highly devoted computer personel and teachers at many levels. They give information out freely, increasing the general knowledge of general public. If you are in NYC, pick up the Daily News or the Post for a week and you'll see at least 2 related articals from /.
1) a statement that the "org" belongs not only to NON-PROFITS but to organizations.
2) request that a waiver application be on line. The way I see
3) domain name protection request. (this one's open for many abuses )
State that there could be abuse of your trademark and your requesting a waiver that let's you hold the name but you can loose it to any NON-PROFIT or something simular to that.
OFF TOPIC - NON PROFITS
I quickly spoke to my accountant about non-profits. He said that the IRS / US Government is making it very difficult to form a non-profit. He mentioned the paperwork is somewhat difficult and that you have to "prove" the non-profit status.
I would also like to know
1) What is a non-profit like in other parts of the world Simular to the USA version or are they completely different.
2) How would they apply for domain?
3) Would a non-profit in asia / europe / central,south america that has a name in english characters spelled like a curse still qualify ?
Thanks
ONEPOINT
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
I admittedly have a Libertarian bent, but the establishment of further restrictions on domain names doesn't seem very good. Is the registration going to be limited by the person who is registered as contact information or the website that is in place (see the slashdot/Andover.net post above). And what if a company decides to go from non-profit to profit? It happens to hospitals on a fairly regular basis.. Does that mean that they'll have to change addresses?
.aero? Christ on a crutch, cut me some slack.
.org scheme opens the door towards full registration regulation (ooh, that rhymed. Sort of) and regulation always seems to mean one thing. The little guy gets fucked. (patent pending)
If ICANN had done a decent job of selecting new TLDs, I would be less nervous about this whole process.. but
This new
Brant
Brant
Argle. Bargle.
Although the analagy may seem a little on the ridiculus side, would you permit a government, or government sanctioned organization to decide that you could no longer be named "Jim" unless you had red hair? Or, not "Gregory" unless you passed the bar exam?
.org names to non-profit organizations is justified, and the above isn't.
.tv or .to pass into the hands of organizations that are not located in, or have nothing to do with those countries, why should we enforce a restriction on .org?
.org, it is of course, completely unfair to revoke currently granted domains on this basis. I imagine that won't ever happen. But changing the precident is just as bad. What use is it to enforce .org for the future, if there are .org domains held now that will continue to exist that do not meet the enforcement criteria? How does that help the public in any way?
.org does not seem to be in the public's best interest, or particularly desired.
.org domains granted when things were unenforced. With these domains continueing to exist, how is the public's collective interest served by enforcing the rule for the future. .org will not assuradly = a not-for-profit any more than it does today. Unless you revoke the current .orgs, which is by all views, completely unreasonable, enforcing .org for the future doesn't do anything meaningful.
.org's are legal entities, they can protect their interests with trademark. Perhaps a legal precident does need to be set that when trademarked company foo owns foo.com as well as foo.org, and the not-for-profit foo has a similar (or the same) trademark, that the .org should rightly be granted to the not-for-profit, and the .com rightly be granted to the commercial entity. The previously stated intention of .org sets up justification for this interpretation, and the statement of that intent *should* continue for this and similar reasons. However, it shouldn't be enforced.
After you stop laughing at my rediculous analogy, try to think of a reason why restricting
I have to agree, I like the idea and motivation behind a non-profit only TLD, but I dislike the implications.
I think organizations should have the right to choose their name as they please. If we're going to let
Even if we like the idea of an enforced
Non-profit organizations can protect their names through traditional means of trademark. Looser, non-legal organizations cannot. Why does there need to be enforcement when other means, such as trademarks protect the interests of individual not-for-profits.
1.) The ability to determine one's own name, or of an ogranization to determine it's own name, are cleary a fundamental right. Compramising this may not lead to the end of humanity, but I do believe it to be a very wrong path to go down.
2.) Restricting
3.) It is totally unreasonable to revoke
4.) Because individual
Although I think it's clear ICANN exists in a way that it's motiveations push it directly away from the world's public interest, which it is supposed to represent, I'll hold off ranting on that. I personally don't see any way ICANN can be 'fixed' or replaced at this point.
Buy why would someone do that?
Maybe because he's pointing out trolls? and spoiling your fun?
-- Face it, at the end of the day, you've got to accept that trolling is for c^Hpeople with no tact.
Guess this will be up for grabs.
Registrant:
Network Solutions, Inc. (NETWORKSOLUTIONS4-DOM)
505 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20170 US
Domain Name: NETWORKSOLUTIONS.ORG
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Network Solutions, Inc. (NSOL-NOC) noc@NETSOL.COM
Network Solutions, Inc.
505 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20170
US
703-742-4777
Billing Contact:
idNames, Accounting (IA90-ORG) accounting@IDNAMES.COM
idNames from Network Solutions, Inc
440 Benmar
Suite #3325
Houston, TX 77060
US
703-742-4777 Fax 281-447-1160
Record last updated on 20-Nov-2000.
Record expires on 13-Dec-2002.
Record created on 12-Dec-1997.
Database last updated on 28-Feb-2001 22:41:26 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.NETSOL.COM 216.168.224.200
NS2.NETSOL.COM 198.17.208.71
NS3.NETSOL.COM 216.168.224.201
__________________ Hey Moderators!! Fuck Off! Thanks.
hahahahahahahah.... etc.
***
***
umm... what's a sig? is that a 'hacking' thing?
It would probably just be too easy for a (for-profit) corporation who wanted to keep their .org domain to do so. Perhaps by spinning off their web-site as a non-profit - or some other legal wrangling. Do you really think M$ is going to give up microsoft.org without a fight?
Registrant:
Microsoft Corporation (MICROSOFT79-DOM)
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052 US
Domain Name: MICROSOFT.ORG
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
Gudmundson, Carolyn (CG6635) a-adolan@MICROSOFT.COM
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052 US
+1 (425) 882-8080 +1 (425) 936-7329
Technical Contact:
MSN NOC (MN5-ORG) msnnoc@MICROSOFT.COM
Microsoft Corp
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US
425 882 8080 Fax- PATH
Record last updated on 06-Nov-2000.
Record expires on 30-Apr-2001.
Record created on 30-Apr-2000.
Database last updated on 28-Feb-2001 22:38:04 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
DNS4.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.138.11
DNS5.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.138.12
.sig this!
RTA. The rule change only affects people who apply for new .orgs. Anyone with a .org already will keep their .org
If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.
What we NEED, is Mr NRA Charlton Heston as our spokesman.
"You can pry my domain away from me, over my cold dead body!."
Maybe that wouldn't go over so well in the press...
"There are also apparently plans to reinstate the old limits on .org domains - if you aren't a non-profit corporation, you won't be permitted to register or keep a .org domain"
.com registrations to be real companies? This really isn't that far-fetched. They may require proof from you that you own the trademark you are trying to register...
Really, how long do you think it will be before they require all
Obviously, this is all trending towards the corporatization of the web... yee-haw.
Just a quick question. Does anyone remember what happened to the price of secure certificates for web sites after verisign purchased Thawte? You used to be able to get a secure certificate for your website for about $40.00 if it was for personal use. Now the cheapest one is $395 for the same functionality. This is almost a 10x increase. Unless generating a secure certificate is has suddenly become an order of magnitude more expensive, I guess this would appear to be monopoly exploitation of the worst form. Given their "history" what is stopping them from charging $500 for a .com domain?