Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Limits Terms Of VeriSign Domain Control
Pinky3 points to this story on Yahoo! which says: "In the much-awaited decision, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) limited the term of VeriSign rights to the .org name to the end of 2002, and the .net name to the start of 2006.
VeriSign, the operator of the world's largest domain name registries, would keep rights to the lucrative .com name through November 10, 2007, and have the right to renew this agreement for a new four-year term if it meets certain criteria." VeriSign has the .com domain locked up pretty well already, at least until 2007, and now (for Internet time at least) indefinitely. In 2011, I bet VeriSign will point out the awful mess (think of the risk!) of trying to redistribute control of .com to anyone else.
Would that be the risk that they freely give away microsoft.com to any yahoo who claims to be a Microsoft employee and forks over a few hundred dollars?
-"Zow"
If ICANN really is as corrupt and mismanaged as all that, I can well believe in a scenerio that The Register put forward a while ago: an alternative and fair(er) root DNS system set up by a consortium of the larger ISPs. Alternate DNS systems aren't a new idea, what with Alternic and all that, but the idea that a hacker-led initiative such as this could ever gain the support of the rest of the world (because this is a diplomatic rather than technical challenge) is fairly remote. No, think about it... how many representatives of the enormous backbone carriers would need to gather in a room to agree on such a solution, and give the finger to ICANN? Not a great deal, I'd imagine-- they'd have the money and motivation to set up the necessary committees, registration systems and technical infrastructure, and if they did it fairly, any ISP's involvement in such a `fixing' of the DNS system would gain them brownie points with the community. Heck, even if they didn't do it fairly, it's not as if it could be much worse than the current setup.
It might sound like pie-in-the-sky language, but given the outrageous conduct we're witnessing, it seems increasingly possible.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
ICANN was facing a real problem with this issue. They need the additional money Verisign/NSI will be paying them under this contract compared to the old one, but in a rare instance, nearly all of the organs of the Domain Name Supporting Organization opposed the new contract. The Constituencies, except the one of which Verisign is the sole member and the Intellection Property one who is counting on getting commercial activity in .org prohibited and the ccTLDs who are hoping this means less money from them to ICANN, indicated strong and vociferous opposition to the new contract. The General Assembly also came out strongly against the new contract. The Names Counil was slightly less strong on the point, but still came out against the new contract by a clear and indisputable majority.
So how could ICANN adopt the new contract without abandoning their pretense that they were a bottom up consensus organization?
Get some very minor concessions in the last 24 hours that address some of the more irrelevant points raised by the constituencies, and then use those changes to say that they addressed the concerns of the DNSO and that justifies their ignoring the consensus of the DNSO that the original contract should have remained in effect.
They have shown similar patterns in the past, including during their startup when the Department of Commerce mandated that they address concerns raized by the Boston Working Group and the Open Root Server Confederation. They made some minor token changes and then proceeded to do business as usual.
Under this contract the only type of organization who can run the .org registry is a non-profit organization, thus setting the framework for disenfranchising millions of .org domain name holders by changing the registration policy for .org. Even if the existing .org holders get to keep their domains, they face some serious disadvantages as a result of any change of .org from an unrestricted catch all gTLD, as it was intended, to a non-profit only TLD.
They say the change to .org is not for certain, do you believe them?
Have a .org domain? Join the protest.
http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-IBy the time 2011 roles around, there will [most probably] be an onslaught of new generic top level domains (like
---
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
(from the article) In the much-awaited decision, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) limited the term of VeriSign rights to the .org name to the end of 2002, and the .net name to the start of 2006.
.org, invest at least $200 million in research and development, pay its full share of ICANN expenses, to charge equal fees for registering names and eliminate the one-time $10,000 new registrar and other fees.
And they will only make $XXX million in that time frame. Remember that there's tons of names going every day, and eventually the selection will be extremely limited to anything but the most unique names, so the potential for profit of the future owners would be greatly limited.
Under the new agreements, VeriSign would provide $5 million to the nonprofit group that takes over
And I bet companies like Network Solutions will still be charging $70 per year. Personally, I use gandi.net, which charges about 12 Euros (about $10-11 USD, along with the best ownership agreement) per year, and have yet to find a better deal. The dropping of the $10,000 "new registrar" fee will not bring the prices for end users down any lower than maybe $10, or else how will the registrars turn a worthwhile profit?
--
--
#nohup cat
...why don't those hackers get it over with already and create .sux?
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer