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.
--
* 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?"
So hows does Slashdot plan to keep its domain?
By not making a profit, obviously! Seems that LNUX is quite successful at that..
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.
--
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.
So it looks like those jerks who brought slashdot.NET/COM have it made, eh?
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?
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
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
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.
The US domain should have
Down with
--
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.
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.
when then pry it from my cold dead fingers.
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
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?
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/
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
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?
- 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
*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
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
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.
"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.