Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

VeriSign and Other Registry Giants Blast ICANN

Posted by timothy on from the struggle-in-the-primordial-soup dept.

rhwalker22 writes: "VeriSign, ENIC, and Nominet UK today released a letter to the U.S. Commerce Dept. urging Uncle Sam to 'scale back the powers of the body that manages the Internet's global addressing system,' according to this report on washingtonpost.com. ICANN, of course, has its own take on the Registries' letter..."

166 comments

  1. Verisign ?? by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So after they make a fortune because of the ICANN does business, they want to change it so they can rape another group of customers?

    They are not the ones I would listen to for policy changes.

    1. Re:Verisign ?? by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      I think it says something that even the guys who were abusing ICANN to get rich, can't stand ICANN's practices any longer. There comes a point where even the filthy rich tire of holding their noses...

    2. Re:Verisign ?? by tagishsimon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that Nominet signed, kind of invalidates your argument.

      Nominet is a not-for-profit company; charges circa $7 per two years; publishes its accounts; is the model of transparacy that ICANN is not ... indeed, is something like ICANN's mirror image.

      When a very well run common-good organisation such as Nominet speaks on an issue like this, it behoves us to listen.

    3. Re:Verisign ?? by blowdart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet this is the same Nominet who is riding rough shod over user's objections to showing full addresses and phone numbers on whois on all of .uk (including .me.uk - supposed to be for individuals), the same nominet who has a shed load of money in the bank, who don't publish accounts and has hidden companies, the same nominet who can take 4 months to respond to emails, and who, in my case took 2.5 years to transfer a domain I purchased into my name.

      Nominet is not run for the common good, nor are they transparent.

    4. Re:Verisign ?? by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      Nominet seems to be quite the socialist organization (that's a good thing for all you capitalists), and it is a shame that they are thrown into the same ring as ICANN and VeriSign. Should ICANN itself have been run in this fashion, there would not be this problem.

      And even though you state that Nominet signed invalidates the argument, giving this power to Nominet has the potential to be good, but giving this power to Verisign had great potential to be bad.

      Would I run down a nice guy to hit the six bastards lined up behind him? Damn Skippy I would!

      AWG

      But I'd try not to kill him...

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    5. Re:Verisign ?? by terrymr · · Score: 3

      And yet this is the same Nominet who is riding rough shod over user's objections to showing full addresses and phone numbers on whois on all of .uk

      I thought that's what whois is for so you can contact the people responsible for a domain.

    6. Re:Verisign ?? by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet this is the same Nominet who is riding rough shod over user's objections [nominet-no.co.uk] to showing full addresses and phone numbers on whois on all of .uk (including .me.uk - supposed to be for individuals), the same nominet who has a shed load of money in the bank [google.com], who don't publish accounts [google.com] and has hidden companies [google.com],

      Showing full contact details on whois seems perfectly reasonable. In fact I thought this was standard practice although perhaps I was mistaken. Certainly it's common in other forms of public register.

      Your link re having "a shed load of money in the bank" makes no reference at all to the amount of money they have in the bank. I guess you meant to use a different link here because you seem to have used the same one three times. How much is "a shed load" in this case?

      It's quite common for non-profit companies to be limited by guarantee. I don't think there's anything odd about that. The link you gave (again it's the one that's used multiple times so probably just a mistake) doesn't give any information on why you regard them as "hidden", posibly you could provide the correct link?

      the same nominet who can take 4 months to respond to emails, and who, in my case took 2.5 years to transfer a domain I purchased into my name.

      Well those are serious complaints. I don't understand why you made such a big deal over the earlier points in comparison.

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    7. Re:Verisign ?? by timbrown · · Score: 1

      *snip* And yet this is the same Nominet who is riding rough shod over user's objections [nominet-no.co.uk] to showing full addresses and phone numbers on whois on all of .uk (including .me.uk - supposed to be for individuals)ey transparent. *snip*

      On the other hand, some of us WANT this information to be made available, for reasons of tracking abusive users. ~90% of NIC publish this info, IMO its good that Nominet is following suit.

      I don't mind if Nominet have a big pot of cash, as long as they don't use it for abusive purposes which I don't believe they have.

      Finally, I've never had a problem with them - I do contract work for a company that manages thousands of .uk domains.

      IMO, Nominet rocks, and is a standard by which other NIC should be judged!

      --
      Tim Brown
    8. Re:Verisign ?? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Any centralized point of control will be grabbed by those more interested in the power than in the purported function. During it's first years ICANN was a decent organization. Then it gradually became the property of a group of power hungry individuals.

      The problem is a structure that puts a single group in such a dominant position. If you merely replace the dominant group, you will only achieve a temporary remission of the problem, and you will destroy whatever group you thrust into the central position. The solution is to disperse the power. So have .org be run by a separate body, but don't think that solves the problem. Remember to take the next step, and create other domain registries. Have each country run it's own. Have a rule that says one organization can only run one .... not domain, can't think of the word. .org, .com, .edu, etc. And then create a method where new registeries can be added. For a start, allow any two or three letter suffix to be claimed by some registry. Some have already been claimed, and let them remain. Canada gets to keep .ca, the US gets to keep .us, etc., but someone is allowed to claim the .xt registry, e.g. And all the three letter registries can be claimed, also. But no group can claim more than one. And this needs to be interpreted in a rather inclusive manner. If one company is owned by another, and another company is owned by the same company, then only one of those three companies is allowed to claim a registry. Even if the ownership is as low as 25%. And if this happen via a acquisition or merger, then one of them is forced to sell. They can choose which, but they only have a limited time, after which they loose all of them.

      Centralization of control needs to be avoided, even at the cost of a significant amount of inconvenience.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:Verisign ?? by horza · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      And yet this is the same Nominet who is riding rough shod over user's objections [nominet-no.co.uk] to showing full addresses and phone numbers on whois on all of .uk (including .me.uk - supposed to be for individuals)

      It was put to a vote, and the yes vote won. Those on the losing side will always feel 'ridden over' but that will happen in any democracy. I personally am all for the publication. People change email addresses like they change shoes, and I find the contact information useful for when I want to contact the owner of the domain (usually to see if they still want it, but I also feel more secure knowing it's there if I ever need to call and complain about any abuse).

      the same nominet who has a shed load of money in the bank

      If they can charge around $3/year for a domain and end up with a shed load of money in the bank, why am I going to complain? It means they have the funds to upgrade their infrastructure should they need to, and being a non-profit I know it's not going to end up in some directors pocket.

      who don't publish accounts

      What, you mean these accounts?

      the same nominet who can take 4 months to respond to emails, and who, in my case took 2.5 years to transfer a domain I purchased into my name

      I think you are probably an exception to the rule. I, and everyone else I know, have had excellent. I've no idea why you waited 2.5 years, after a couple of weeks I'd have been constantly badgering any company or organisation that had failed to do as promised, and after a month or two I'd have driven down there and made _sure_ it was done. It can't have been important if you never bothered chasing it up.

      Nominet is not run for the common good, nor are they transparent

      I respectfully disagree.

      Phillip.

      --
      Property for sale in Nice, France
    10. Re:Verisign ?? by matthew.thompson · · Score: 2, Informative

      OK now I missed this post while running through the thread with my moderator points so I am going to put the record straight at the expense of the two points I used moderating.

      I represent a member of Nominet and recently attended the AGM (Nominet is an organisation limited by garuntee and collectively owned by it's members)

      At the AGM Nominet announced that they were looking into ways to allow individuals to opt-out of public display of whois details and were staggering the introduction of full contact details to the whois output and initially only providing business/organisational addresses (The Nominet registration template includes a space to indicate whether or not your are an organisation or an individual)

      The money in the bank is required to cover the increasing lawsuits faced by not only Nominet as an organisation but also the directors who have in the past been targetted individually.

      The accounts are sitting on my desk and were distributed at the AGM - like most private companies they do not publically distribute accounts and as a non-profit making organisation they do need to be audited and do so annually. The accounts and audit are filed with Companies House annually - whether they are available to the public or not is a matter to bring up with your MP.

      As for hidden companies - they're not hidden they are just there to protect property rights and as such are non-operating. This is standard business practice in the UK. My own company has to have a different name because another company has registered the name I wish to use as it dounds like their trading name. There is nothing illegal about this.

      Nominet are not transparent but neither is government. Nominet do attempt to run themselves for the common good as I know a few of the members involved in the running and policy making of Nominet and they give a hell of a lot of their personal time, often withough payment, to try and make Nominet even better than it already is.

      M@t :O)

      --
      Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
    11. Re:Verisign ?? by blowdart · · Score: 2
      It was put to a vote, and the yes vote won. Those on the losing side will always feel 'ridden over' but that will happen in any democracy.

      Yes, but the vote wasn't open for the "common good". If nominet was truely democratic, then the vote would have included all *.uk domain holders. That's what I mean by riding roughshood, in the same way ICANN ignore any public input these days.

      I think you are probably an exception to the rule.

      What a poilte way of putting it :) I probably am, but there horror stories appear in uk.net with regularity. You assertation that I never followed it up is insulting. Would you like to see the monthly emails?

      What, you mean these accounts?

      The 1999 accounts? With no previous, or following years accounts with which you can compare?

      I respectfully disagree.

      Your right of course. I still assert they are not transparent, for example, full transcripts of meetings would go a long way to that, as well as voting records for resolutions. They are not run for the common good, in that they do not listen to their, albeit indirect, customers, the domain holders.

    12. Re:Verisign ?? by UP_Minstrel · · Score: 1

      Showing full contact details is not perfectly reasonable in a security context. The minimal amount of information should be shown for anonymous requests.

    13. Re:Verisign ?? by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      Don't you hate brainfarts like that.

      Have a rule that says one organization can only run one ....

      I think the term you are looking for is "TLD". By the way, that does mean a domain. :^)

      I like your idea. But I would increase the TLD length from 2-3 letters to 1-5 letters. Even 1-(whatever the limit is). So if some smartass wants to conrtol the TLD called .abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz they can. Two or three letters is too constrictive nowadays.

  2. Back that up Please... by Uttles · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So where's the link to ICANN's take on the letter?

    --

    ~ now you know
    1. Re:Back that up Please... by Shagg · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's the same link. Read the whole article.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    2. Re:Back that up Please... by trevor_hellman · · Score: 1

      Read the article. It's all there

    3. Re:Back that up Please... by br0ck · · Score: 2, Informative

      No link needed since most of the article is ICANN's viewpoint.

      "The record doesn't even begin to support that," Lynn said of the assertion that ICANN has gradually taken on more power than it was authorized to wield. "This is rhetoric by someone who runs the biggest registry -- by a factor of four -- in the world," Lynn said of VeriSign.

    4. Re:Back that up Please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's asking washingtonpost.com to back up their article, and your answer is "read the article"?

    5. Re:Back that up Please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah baby

  3. i can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i can blast ICANN, i can.

  4. Which you won't be able to see... by Gorm+the+DBA · · Score: 5, Funny
    "ICANN, of course, has its own take on the Registries' letter..."

    Which you'll only be able to examine after a long lawsuit, and you won't be able to copy or leak to anyone without a 10 day opportunity for injunction.

    Judging from their financial records history at least....

    1. Re:Which you won't be able to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Which you'll only be able to examine after a long lawsuit, and you won't be able to copy or leak to anyone without a 10 day opportunity for injunction. ...Or, you could RFTA like a sensible person, then comment knowledgeably.

  5. Very very... by jsonmez · · Score: 1

    ICANN leaders have "very, very creatively interpreted their authority to get into areas they were never authorized to get into," ICANN is very very evil and I really really don't like them.

    1. Re:Very very... by nomadic · · Score: 2

      No, "evil" is something else. ICANN leaders are just unprincipled.

    2. Re:Very very... by gerf · · Score: 1

      Sadly, it's hard to trust any organization these days, not just the government and businesses. Any org/gov/bus only has one purpose: to live on, to expand, to survive.

      Traditionally, we've knocked the big boys, M$, US gov, ect., but only because they've succeeded and have more clout, making us vulnerable. the reality is, almost any business would run the same way as M$, given the chance and the resources.

      ICANN has a 'purpose'. To manage the Internet. sure, they may not have ideas that correspond to our own, but they don't need to. all they need to do to survive is to be able to use their self proscribed purpose to get donations and support from those who can keep the organization working. Really, they'd do just as much as Worldcom did, if they were pushed to it, in order to survive

      So, while i wouldn't trust the ACLU with everything political, economical, social, ect, about the internet, i think that they're a necessary evil. if there is no central body to govern the internet, that fact will be exploited by those who have the power to do so (corporations instead of gov't... very bad)Perhaps, they most likely surmise, they can get some computer geeks to contribute to their causes, and can thus do the 'right thing'. although, they seem to have forgotten that recently in not allowing inernet voting (though, M$ has been known to rig those)

      it's all business when you look at it. that's why i'm in engineering; i hate business ethics

    3. Re:Very very... by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to disagree with one part of your post.

      "the reality is, almost any business would run the same way as M$, given the chance and the resources. "

      This is untrue. Most businesses in the US are considered 'small business'. They have a few employees, up to a couple hundred employees. They may be run from the owner's home, or have a storefront, or several locations in an area. These businesses have the same chance and resources that Bill Gates and company had in the early 80's.

      The difference is most of these companies are run by people with a conscience. They have decided to conduct their business ethically, treat their customers well, and not use business deals as stepping stones to vast wealth and power. (The rest are run by incompetent people who, though greedy and unethical, are too stupid or lazy to actually follow Bill's lead. ;^P )

      While we see many stories of the corrupt big business, and think that is how MOST business are run, we tend to forget that MOST businesses never hit the media radar because they are too small to matter. And while the owners would like to be bigger, they aren't going to cut their competitor's throat to get more business.

      Maybe the fact small businesses usually are not incorporated and have no public stock also plays a part in it. No need to hide financial matters like non-profitability from stock-holders.

    4. Re:Very very... by martissimo · · Score: 2

      i don't particularly care for ICANN either, but in regards to what this article is about i basically support them.

      Verisign and the other registrars want control over how much they can charge per domain instead of being capped.

      VeriSign runs dot-com, dot-net and dot-org under agreements with ICANN that prevent VeriSign from raising the wholesale price of the addresses it sells ($6), or substantially changing the way it runs the domains.

      how much you think they would want to charge for their Ultra-Premium DOT.COM domains if they were free to choose their own rates... they made their deal to charge that price, let em stick with it

    5. Re:Very very... by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reality is, almost any business would run the same way as M$.

      Bullshit.

      There are plenty of examples of companies with firm ethical backgrounds. Big companies, sucessful companies.

      Competing by offering a better product instead of using your huge bank account to absorb losses and drive your competitors out of business is the way most companies operate. MS is the exception and not the rule.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    6. Re:Very very... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Most people (especially business people)
      will not think twice to cut your head for money
      if know they will not be punished.
      Instead of discusing it here on /. , may I refer
      you to "The Repubic", chapters 1 and 2, where
      the is introduction to this issue. I think
      Plato has more credibility than the charlatans
      who teach from the tube of CNN .

    7. Re:Very very... by kcbrown · · Score: 2
      There are plenty of examples of companies with firm ethical backgrounds. Big companies, sucessful companies.

      Really? In the United States? Who?? And are they still around? Or have they been bought up by some other larger, unethical company (like Phillip Morris).

      Please back up your assertion.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    8. Re:Very very... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can just picture the headlines. "Yahoo.com bankrupt after change in domain name pricing." Wouldn't that be fun?
      How do we get off of the DNS system altogether? No domains, no registrars, no restrictions on amateur publishing. Let the domain licensees work out their leases with the ISP directly. I.E. AT&T customers enter Yahoo.com into their browser and get the locally licensed Yahoo.com's webpage. More expensive for those with domains maybe, but no cost to someone who just wants to put up a page and be on par with "the big boys".

    9. Re:Very very... by Abreu · · Score: 2

      The difference is most of these companies are run by people with a conscience. They have decided to conduct their business ethically, treat their customers well, and not use business deals as stepping stones to vast wealth and power. (The rest are run by incompetent people who, though greedy and unethical, are too stupid or lazy to actually follow Bill's lead. ;^P )

      You seem to give too much credit to humanity

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    10. Re:Very very... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this al Qaida messaging?

  6. Passive Resistance by man_ls · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What would the consequences be of Verisign, InterNIC, and the like addressing providers simply ignoring ICANN?

    ICANN doesn't have physical control of any servers. They can legislate away but if the regulations they impose are so far fetched that nobody will impliment them, they've got no real power.

    I don't think the USDoC would care that much, either, honestly.

    1. Re:Passive Resistance by GodInHell · · Score: 0

      They can legislate away but if the regulations they impose are so far fetched that nobody will impliment them, they've got no real power.

      I believe they do in fact control the top level DNS servers.

      -GiH
      Orange is not a color or a fruit, it is an object which can be used as either, depending on which member function is called. Now Apples, that's just a color.

    2. Re:Passive Resistance by sys$manager · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was always under the impression that the top level (.) servers resided at Verisign/Network Solutions. Currently running on RS/6000 systems as I remember the news about the switch from Sun systems and "We put the dot in dot com" suddenly being incorrect.

    3. Re:Passive Resistance by blowdart · · Score: 4, Informative
      Not true, and if it was, it would be a really bad idea to have them all in the same place. RFC 2010 gives the standard requirements for the servers.

      Both A, J and G roots are in Virginia. A and J is at NSI, and G is at DoD.

      The F root is in Palo Alto

      The K root is run by RIPE NCC, and is housed in London

      The L root is at ISI in California

      I cannot remember or find locations for the others :)

  7. Free Clue to ICANN... by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Free clue to ICANN: When even spamming, fake-renewal-notice-spewing, domain-slamming scumbag registrars like Verislime aren't afraid to write the Commerce Department and call you scum, you've got problems. ;-)

    1. Re:Free Clue to ICANN... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Verisign just wants to monopolize some of ICANN's slimy tactics for themselves-- such as making a lucrative market out of arbitrating domain disputes. Letsee.. if ICANN makes a judgement regarding a domain name dispute, the winnar is teh one with teh most money. If Verisign took over the arbitration process, then teh winnar is teh one who *pays* teh most money (please make check out to Verisign).

  8. I can just see it happening. by GodInHell · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sir, ICANN has created a rule that favors the Public Good over their corporate sponsors.

    Good GOD man! You there! Take the chopper and go swine hunting, You over there, start taking bids on subteranean cold food storage.

    ---------

    Or maybe we can all just put our wallets out, bend over, and get it done with.

    -GiH

  9. ICANNSIGN by EdMcMan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In a letter to Victory dated today, the trade association representing the European registry operators said that they had worked closely with VeriSign "in reaching a common view of a lightweight ICANN."

    Lovely. So now, Verisign and company are envisioning a new lightweight ICANN that Verisign can push around. This isn't going to be solved until a responsible group takes control, and until Verisign is out of the picture as well.

    1. Re:ICANNSIGN by scott1853 · · Score: 2

      You mean a group of human beings that won't succumb to greed or go mad with power? People like that exists. But they won't get elected/hired because they wouldn't have the experience in lying/cheating/stealing that makes our leaders so lovable.

    2. Re:ICANNSIGN by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      +1 insightful. :)

      Yeah, its frusterating - all the honest people interested in the public good are increasingly being dismissed as bleeding heart liberals incapable of making it in the real world. Cynicism like that is what makes it such a self-fulfilling prophecy for our society. Or at least thats my opinion. Given how much people hate non-winners, those not in the game to win rarely get to weild any power .. hopefully the pendulum will swing at some point and we can start creating accountable public bodies with good intentions again. Unfortunately, it'll take some tolerance to 'losers' that lack that super-Western killer instinct that always ends up being mostly self serving, much to the chagrin of its supporters. Why are people always surprised that when you support an ultra-competative system (nothing wrong with competition, but it shouldnt be the goal in its own right .. people are naturally competative, so no need to try and encourage it), they're only your friend until they've got what they want from you?

      Or am I making something out of nothing again, as I'm known to do? :)

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re:ICANNSIGN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is your signature on drugs.

      ñò, +¦-¦í5 15 /\/\Ý 51gÑ4+Ü®3 Ñ Ð®Ûg5

    4. Re:ICANNSIGN by DancingSword · · Score: 1

      It's actually a question of how to manage

      • circumstancial-process
      mixed with
      • civilized human-nature
      .

      Something I realized awhile ago, is that exclusion-group can't work ( for governing ), simply because its foundation is obliteration of diversity, or obliteration of choice, or obliteration-of-potential, and its self-interest becomes our world-direction Guide ( http://www.extremeprogramming.org/lessons.html for part of what seems to be maximally-valid alternative awareness and process ).

      However, if the exclusive-group-power is replaced with an inclusive scheme ( I mean scheme as in a software-system, not as in multi-level-marketing ), sort-of a bath-tub curve ( exclude only the harmful extremes, include as much of everything as reasonably possible ), and the stake-holders get to vote on the issues ( rather than having powerful/influential someones decide for us ), and abusers get "modded down" in-their-influence ( notice that: abusers, rather than differers ), that can work.

      It's simply a different cognitive-system: instead of personal glory+privilege+predation ( and ignore the damage done to many ), or the leftist alternative group-belonging+group-authority+no-individual-resp onsibility ( and ignore the damage done to individual ) [ I hold that political motivation is, itself, fundamentally wrong-minded. . . mind you, I'm buddhist and am working on eradicating ignorance/ignosis from my-mind, so I care directly about unwrong-ing Mind, and am aware how received ignorance manupulates us into wrong-commitment. I want out. ], using impersonal system to cause the particular population to consider the issues, and work on the important/meaningful, getting important/meaningful result ( rather than the political ignorance/involvement-aggression we "want" ).

      Any "answer" we put in Verisign/ICANN's place either will be made so it can work, or will be made so it won't ( rather than "can't" -- because of us ignoring human-nature and political gunk-nature etc. rather than because of any physics-level non-possiblity ).

      This goes for all our governing entities and means ( whether state-corporation or privately-held corporation: no root-diff between 'em, just appearance+form difference ).

      --
      Messages to/for me ( in me journal )
  10. Don't trust 'em by Nanite · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not a huge fan of ICANN (is anyone?) but I'm distrustful of verisign even more. Anything that Verisign wants is probably not in our best interests. Could this be a power grab?

    --
    God is real unless declared integer.
    1. Re:Don't trust 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you didn't forget to remove Versign certficates
      from your browser, did you? :)

    2. Re:Don't trust 'em by javahacker · · Score: 1

      Verisign cheats, as anyone who ever tried to move their domain from Verisign to another group can testify (good luck on that one), but that really means paying $35 per year, instead of some smaller fee. They do perform the other funtions they are supposed to, with only minor interference from their greed.

      Much to my surprise, I find myself agreeing with them about this. ICANN does not seem to work, because they are not impartial, they are in the pockets of big corporate interests, and they don't answer the needs of the majority of internet users.

  11. Verisign versus ICANN? by Cutriss · · Score: 4, Funny

    Disclaimer: No, I did not read the article.

    VeriSign, ENIC, and Nominet UK today released a letter to the U.S. Commerce Dept. urging Uncle Sam to 'scale back the powers of the body that manages the Internet's global addressing system.'

    "Hello, pot? Yes, hi there, pot. This is your old friend, kettle."

    "You're black."

    "That is all. Goodbye."

    --
    "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
    1. Re:Verisign versus ICANN? by josh+crawley · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I dont know about your pots, but mine's green...

    2. Re:Verisign versus ICANN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not native english speaker, so I didn't get the joke. But I've looked it up and google turns this page: http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/287950.html where it says its origin is from Cervantes' Don Quixote, how is that?

    3. Re:Verisign versus ICANN? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Basically, one of them tells the other it's been too long on a wood stove without being thoroughly cleansed, and the other could have told the first "you also".

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  12. sloooow morass that controls root service by 4of12 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I can't even keep track of all the complaints and gripes I've heard about ICANN over the years.

    A couple days ago a court ruling in California looked like it might turn over one of the rocks where all the critters hide...

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  13. Lesser of two evils? by Sneftel · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh, boy, VeriSign wants ICANN to give up some of its regulatory power. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

    Maybe the Swiss could do it; they seem like nice folks. Very private. Kickass knives, too.

    --
    The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
    1. Re:Lesser of two evils? by yootis1 · · Score: 1

      The Swiss also collaborated with the Nazis...

    2. Re:Lesser of two evils? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Swiss also collaborated with the Nazis...

      Yes, but they'll just as happily collaborate with anyone else too. Very fair and even handed the Swiss.

    3. Re:Lesser of two evils? by Sneftel · · Score: 1

      And we cooperated with Al Qaida. Funny how that works, no?

      --
      The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
  14. Power of the market by sam_handelman · · Score: 2

    Here is proof that raw, unrelenting, undiluted greed can cause people to do, not good exactly, but things with a net beneficial effect.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    1. Re:Power of the market by why-is-it · · Score: 2

      Here is proof that raw, unrelenting, undiluted greed can cause people to do, not good exactly, but things with a net beneficial effect.

      Help me out - I do not see anything beneficial here. I would agree that both ICANN and Verizon are poster children for greed, but I just don't see the positive or how the market has anything to do with this. IMHO, domain registry seems like a natural monopoly... How many roots can there be?

      (BTW I know about the OpenNIC - nice theory but it isn't working out that great in practice.

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
  15. Verisign? by wowbagger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "We want to to scale back their power, and give it all to US "!

    --
    www.eFax.com are spammers
  16. They must be doing something right by Olinator · · Score: 2
    Much as I hate to say it, if ICANN is pissing off Verisign then ICANN can't be all bad... Notwork Solutions/Verisign absofuckinglutely sucks , as anyone who's ever dealt with them will tell you in a heartbeat. Every network admin I've ever known will spew invective or expectorate (or both) at the mere mention of their name.
    Ole
    --
    Need a UNIX/Linux/network guru in the Boulde
  17. Favorite Quote by cdrudge · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "A registry by definition has a monopoly, so they all have a common interest in preserving individual monopolistic practices, so they don't want to be accountable to anybody," Lynn said.
    Hmmm....replace registry with ICANN and it still hold true!
  18. This is incredibly stupid... by Danse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So basically we have these different groups arguing over who gets to be the big cheese monopoly If our government had more than about 3 brain cells dedicated to this problem, we wouldn't even have a monopoly in the first place. Look where we are now. We have institutionalized cyber-squatting. We have artificial scarcity in domain names. We have a couple of unaccountable organizations resolving domain disputes. We have ICANN removing even the pretense of democratic control, while attempting to prevent the public (and one of its own directors) from ever finding out what exactly goes on behind the scenes or where the money goes. I think things are pretty well screwed up now. Do we really care which group has the monopoly? Unfortunately, nobody seems to have enough clout to stand up to ICANN and Verisign and get changes made. Most people just don't understand the issues. Those few that do don't seem to get any attention. It's a sad state of affairs when the world's leading democracy puts a non-democratic, unaccountable entity in charge of the Internet.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  19. OT: Re:Verisign versus ICANN? by garett_spencley · · Score: 2

    Okay I admit it I am extremeley lame and I live in a an isolated box somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

    Would someone please help me out and explain this kettle telling the pot that it's black comment for me? I've heard it a few times here on /. and I just don't get it.

    I would appreciate it.

    Thanks,

    --
    Garett

    P.S sorry for being OT but this has been bothering me...

    1. Re:OT: Re:Verisign versus ICANN? by ajakk · · Score: 2

      They are both black. Thus, a pot should never call a kettle black because it is black itself. Just as Verisign should not be whining about ICANN holding too much power when Verisign holds an enormous amount itself.

      --
      Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
    2. Re:OT: Re:Verisign versus ICANN? by kiolbasa · · Score: 4, Funny

      How unfortunate to live in a part of the world that does not have talking kettles.

      --

      Beer wants to be free
    3. Re:OT: Re:Verisign versus ICANN? by ceejayoz · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Saying someone is a "pot calling a kettle black" means they're calling someone something that they are themselves.

      In this case, Verisign is calling ICANN scum - well, yes, but so's Verisign themselves.

      Sorry, that probably could have been explained better... get it though?

    4. Re:OT: Re:Verisign versus ICANN? by L1nUx+h4x0r · · Score: 0

      Pots and kettles were made of iron.
      After awhile on a fire, they turn black.
      By the pot calling the kettle black, while it is black as well, is what is being talked about.

      Get it now?

      Verisign is saying, "ICANN is too powerful! Stop them!" when Verisign itself is too powerful as well.

      *pat pats* One day, little Timmy, you'll be in skool just like the big boys.

      --
      The GPL makes software more like your mom. Free and open to all.
    5. Re:OT: Re:Verisign versus ICANN? by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      Think of it as two objects that are the same in one way or another. In this case they are both black, but it could be to men, two P4 processors, anything really. One starts to make fun of the other one because of the trait that they both have.

      It might have started out when being black was a "bad thing". Don't know of the real origins.

    6. Re:OT: Re:Verisign versus ICANN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      two muffins are sitting on a tray in the oven... one turns to the other and says "Boy it's getting hot in here!"... the other turns back and says "Oh my god a talking muffin!!"....

    7. Re:OT: Re:Verisign versus ICANN? by Xerithane · · Score: 4, Funny

      It might have started out when being black was a "bad thing". Don't know of the real origins.

      It doesn't mean being black is bad. It just means that you are calling upon both parties lambasting the other for being obviously the same thing.

      It's origin is Cervantes' Don Quixote.

      You can find ethnic slurs in almost anything. Chess, Pool, France Surrendering...

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    8. Re:OT: Re:Verisign versus ICANN? by judd · · Score: 3, Informative

      The original is the somewhat more pithy "pot calling the kettle blackarse", and dates back to a time when both these utensils were heated by suspending them over fires. The reference is to being dirty/sooty.

  20. Image by sdjunky · · Score: 1

    For some weird reason I have a visual image of 2 T Rex's fighting over prey.

    Neither are innocent and it's the victim that benefits from the fighting

    1. Re:Image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, I see the image of two San Fran Flamers fighting over a drunk marine.

    2. Re:Image by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 2

      Oh, I thought you meant they were fighting after the prey is already dead, and can't possibly escape. The two t rex's fighting wouldn't make a difference then.

  21. Pot. Kettle. Black. by davebooth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anyone but me find it ironic that the most influential gripe about ICANN is coming from the registries that gained most benefit from ICANNs excesses? Of course they only gripe about the price cap since this is one of the few ICANN policies that bites the registries harder than it does the domain owners.

    The registries are as evil as ICANN in their own way. The only spark of interest in this is that Nominet joined the party - Having dealt with administering domains in .com, .ac.uk and .co.uk I found that of the new crop of domain barons, Nominet were the most true to the way it used to be. (probably because when they took over .uk the fastest backbones in the UK were still in the hands of the academics, so they messed with .ac.uk at their peril)

    --
    I had a .sig once. It got boring.
  22. Minor Gripe by Lozzer · · Score: 2, Informative

    England's dot-uk is the fourth largest Internet domain with more than 3.5 million registrations.

    I'm pretty sure they do for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and some smaller Islands as well. In fact uk probably stands for United Kingdom, altough like most things United it isn't (I'm sure thats someone's Law)

    Grumble, grumble, whinge, whinte.

    --
    Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
    1. Re:Minor Gripe by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      And also .uk is like the equivalent of combining our com net org and edu, since everything there is a third level domain. (.co.uk, .ac.uk)

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Minor Gripe by flamingmoose · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. It's the equivalent of your .us domain, which is the US TLD. .com, .net, .org are international domains, and I do not understand why these domains are managed by a US company in agreement with the US government.

      --

      .sigs - is there anything they can't do?
    3. Re:Minor Gripe by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Because we invented the Internet? .com .net .org and the rest are not really international. If they were, then .edu and .gov would have other country's governments and schools in them, they do not that I know of.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  23. You're condoning ICANN?? by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 1

    Now I'm not saying that I necessarily like or agree with Verisign or some of their absurd business practices (such as their clever domain renewal cards), but can you honestly say ICANN is much better? Remember, this is the group that promised democratic elections, and then had those elections taken away. In my humble opinion, they should take some outside business advice, even if it is from Verisign.

    1. Re:You're condoning ICANN?? by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      No, I am not condoning ICANN either. I just don't want the government to take Verisign at face value. The fact that ICANN let Verisign be the bastards they are condemns them. But making ICANN a toothless figurehead won't hurt Verisign at all. It will just validate their business strategy.

  24. Summary. by halftrack · · Score: 2

    ICANN is bad. They do little about its problems. Let us take whatever we wan't for domains and run our services without interferance. Give us millions of customers on a market closed to anybody else.

    Great idea.

    --
    Look a monkey!
  25. ICANN's roles should be strictly limited by karl.auerbach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a starting point, I assert that ICANN's role should consist of two jobs and two jobs only:

    - Making sure that IP addresses are assigned and allocated on a fair and equitable basis and in conformity with demands of the the packet routing systems of the Internet.

    - Making sure that the ICANN/NTIA root zone is expanded on a basis that is fair and equitable to everyone, that the root zone file is properly maintained and disseminated, and that its set of root servers are operated by persons and entities that have the proper skills, resources, and obligations.

    We have plenty of national legislatures and treaty organizations that can handle those who claim that their commercial rights trump other rights.

    It is an open question, and one that has never been debated, much less agreed upon by those affected, whether ICANN should have an additional role to act as a consumer protection body to protect those who due to historical circumstances are locked into .com/.net/.org.

    1. Re:ICANN's roles should be strictly limited by Ironpoint · · Score: 1

      "Making sure that IP addresses are assigned and allocated on a fair and equitable basis and in conformity with demands of the the packet routing systems of the Internet."

      I thought this was ARIN's cash cow? I get all my web exploiters mixed up!

  26. Re:OT: Re:Verisign versus ICANN? (Got it) by garett_spencley · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Thanks everyone.

    Makes perfect now sense now :)

    --
    Garett

  27. Good christ, it's RMS by xant · · Score: 1

    And he's running ICANN! I knew he was a hypocrite.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  28. In a Related Story... by nobodyman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thousands of slashdot readers spontaneously combust, unable to pick a side involving an underhanded, unscrupulous entity and... an underhanded, unscrupulous entity.

    I'd just like to state that there were never such debates back when we were all using Gopher. ;-)

    1. Re:In a Related Story... by ajs · · Score: 2

      Yeah, if we could just get Microsoft and the RIAA involved.... :-)

    2. Re:In a Related Story... by Frobnicator · · Score: 2, Funny
      Hmm... Microsoft's New Business Plan
      1. Buy VeriSign. If consumers protest, tell them we are doing it to incorporate encryption and security software into products.
      2. When domain renewal comes up, notify them that to incorporate new Security Features, they must switch to MS servers. If that doesn't work, offer them free domain registration if they switch to MS servers.
      3. Alter protocol to allow RIAA to broadcast network commands that peroform self-DoS attacks for music theft.
      4. ????
      5. MONEY!

      (Sorry about the last two, I could't resist.)

      frob.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  29. Couldn't happen to nicer guys by xmark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Heh heh, so ICANN and VeriSign are duking it out. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The problem is, what if they're both your enemy? Then who's your friend?

    Which brings to mind another aphorism. "When elephants fight, it's the grass that gets trampled."

    Consider this quote from the article: VeriSign runs dot-com, dot-net and dot-org under agreements with ICANN that prevent VeriSign from raising the wholesale price of the addresses it sells ($6), or substantially changing the way it runs the domains.

    At VeriSign, domain names are six bucks wholesale; thirty-five bucks retail. This makes the bottled-water business look positively low-margin. The actual cost of service provided by VeriSign (less overhead for executive salaries, Aereon chairs, and Napoleonesque offices) is less than a dime. The markup on domain name registration is already expressed in scientific notation. But of course, even when you have a monopoly (as VeriSign has), everything is never quite enough.

    The history of VeriSign (and its predecessor, Network Solutions) and of ICANN is a textbook story of the effects of greed and commercial selfishness vs. political and parochial power-hunger upon the internet. Check it out yourself. If you want to see the future of the net, you need only take a look at its past.

    1. Re:Couldn't happen to nicer guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You can bitch about Verisign's slimy business practicies, but quit your bitch'n about profit margins you dirty commie!

      Every company has the right to charge what the market will bear, despite actual costs. You think Verisign should feel guilty that people are willing to pay $35/yr for a domain that costs next to nothing in reality? I sure don't; that's the value the market has decided on, and if that's too expensive for you there's second-rate registrars like GoDaddy and Gandi that will "rent you your namespace" for a discount.

      If anything, expensive domains are a good thing because it keeps people from squatting on more namespace than they could possibly use. The artificial $6 wholesale price is a GOOD THING and you'd see that if you weren't so blinded by your hatred.

  30. Authority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What I don't understand is why ICCAN has authority over the whole international dns system. That made sense when the internet was all in the usa, but it is now international. It seems to me that the US congress lacks the legal jurisdiction to give ICCAN the authority it has.

    The only really legal way to set up such an organization would be by international treaty. You could make it part of the International Telecommunications Union or the United Nations, or set it up independently. Maybe someone should challange ICCAN in international court, or through the WTO, to get its international power stripped away.

    1. Re:Authority? by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering that the WTO was formed in order to allow companies to seek damages from governments who 'mess' with the markets (like banning dangerous chemicals, natch, but thats a whole other ball of wax) .. I can't imagine the WTO taking power away from the private sector and placing it in any kind of public body. That's practically counter to the reason it was put together.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Authority? by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What I don't understand is why ICCAN has authority over the whole international dns system.
      Their authority has nothing to do with US Congress.

      They have authority over DNS because almost everyone is using their servers. Europeans, for example, give power to ICANN every time a European uses ICANN's root to look up an address. That's all there is to it.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  31. And so it begins... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Another bombshell hit the beleagered ICANN community today. The latest studies are in, and it's official: ICANN is dying.

    Bugs and Daffy keep pulling off the "Duck Season" and "Rabbit Season" signs, one after the other, until finally a new one appears: "ICANN Season". ICANN is about to become everybody's bitch.

    Someone at Verisign sees two weeks into the future. And he doesn't like what he sees: Auerbach releasing document after document, proving their butt-buddy's corruption. What's the answer? Distance and misdirection! Either Verisign can wait until ICANN's shit hits the fan, and some of it gets on Verisign, or they can be first to stand up and point, "There's the bad guy! It was him!"

    Steal the Cave Bear's thunder, Verisign.

  32. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heheh. CLOT doesn't really exist... Does it?!
    -cyborg_monkey

  33. [YourMissionForToday] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're unlikely to find any hot girls with junk in the trunk on slashdot. However, i do invite you to masturbate vigorously to this image as many +2 posters do every day!

  34. Re:To all trolls.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    am I the only one who read it as cockcrew.cc?

    You guys are gay....

  35. ICANN vs. VeriSign... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh. Kinda tough to pick one to root for...

  36. I was being sarcastic about the market part by sam_handelman · · Score: 2

    I was serious about the beneficial effect. If legislators see a consensus that ICANN is "bad" - from civil liberties groups, from the domain registrars who are ICANN's clients and provide ICANN with funding - then ICANN is unlikely to be given the total domination of the www that they desire.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
  37. UK != England, dammit!!! by csteinle · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    England's dot-uk is the fourth largest Internet domain with more than 3.5 million registrations.

    For crying out loud! You'd have though the Washingtonm Post would have enough of a clue to know the difference between England and The United Kingdom. At least refer to us as Britain. This is like calling everyone from the US a Texan just because it's the biggest state.

    1. Re:UK != England, dammit!!! by rhwalker22 · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, er, fixed.

    2. Re:UK != England, dammit!!! by Fallingcow · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      For crying out loud! You'd have thought a Brit would have enough of a clue to know what the largest US state is! At least say "continental US". This is like saying everyone in the UK is from England. :) Sorry, couldn't help it. It's Alaska, by the way. The largest state, that is.

  38. Such a joke. by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Funny
    This sounds like a corporate greed issue. It sounds like it needs some satire...

    ----

    Enter VeriSign, a corporate giant, and ICANN, a nonprofit service that thinks it is a private -- and profitable -- corporation.

    VeriSign (shouting offstage): Hey government, ICANN is taking our business!
    ICANN: But you are just trying to racketeer and price gouge.
    VeriSign: That's not the point. You are racketeering and we want more of the pie. Er, you are outside your jurisdiction on those matters, and are avoiding the issue.
    ICANN: But we filter our money through IANA and other profitable corporations, I mean, nonprofit public benefit groups.

    Two small groups, Nominet and DENIC, enter stage right.

    Nominet and DENIC: But what about us? We want to work closely with VeriSign because then we can get all the names that aren't taken with .com, .net, and .org. If VeriSign can price gouge, we should be able to also.
    VeriSign: You guys all wanna step into another room and we can discuss this rationally?

    all step into dimly-light back room, talking. Also in the room is a demonic figure in red, with horns, a tail, and a pitchfork. All of them laugh, join hands, and become a New Entity.

    New Entity: We have reached an agreement. We are now VeriSign-Nominet-ICANN-DENIC, or VeriSNIDE for short. Our new registration fee is $15000 per domain, or highest bid. Because we are Internet based, we will no longer report to any government or public entity. We will do all business from our fleet of personal yachts around the world. Please see our Lawyers and Accountants on the way out.

    exit stage left.

    ----

    Okay, so it won't be a blockbuster play, but it sure seems like the entire corporate world is following this model.

    frob.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  39. Who watches the watchmen? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The letter seems to me like a Regulated Monopoly trying to get rid of the 'Regulated' and keep the 'Monopoly'.

    There are many things that I don't like about ICANN, but things like the limits they have on what the prime registrys can charge wholesale aren't one of them. I've had to deal with NSI->verisign refusing to allow me to transfer getyourassingear.com (which has now been taken by someone else). The last thing I'd want to do is make it even easier for them to stomp on their competition.

    That having been said, ICANN does need to have it's wrists slapped with a two-by-four (along with the back of their collective head). If they're not willing to go back to being the open, accountable, etc. group that they originally promised that they'd be, then perhaps they should be given a 1-year extension, and work done to design something that does work properly.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    1. Re:Who watches the watchmen? by GrassyKnowl · · Score: 0

      I would not give them anything. They have proven that they are not capable of change or living up to the contract they signed with the government. If they have not fulfilled the obligation of their charter then take the authority away from them and give it to someone else who will.

  40. ICANN'T by psicE · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why does the US feel that it should own the Internet?

    Countries have different laws. That's a fact, and a good thing; I don't think anybody wants that Hague treaty that lets people sue Swedish porn producers in Saudi Arabia, for example. So having global domains only invites problems.

    A French's company may have .com domains, but their corporate site will be at .fr. Similar for Japan, Germany, Britain, Canada, Australia, and pretty much every company in the world. Only the US, with a virtually nonexistent .us domain, has all its companies have .com domains.

    What we really need to do is eliminate the three-letter TLD, and have every single domain name end in a country code. Then. as part of getting a domain, the owner agrees to abide by the laws of the country controlling the domain, and no other laws.

    Whether ICANN exists or not, the US government tries to enforce its laws on the whole of the Internet. By more clearly enforcing existing political boundaries on the Web, all sorts of disputes can be resolved and avoided.

    1. Re:ICANN'T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the Americans invented it and American companies are the primary private owners of the physical lines, trans-ocean cables, and satellites that bring it to us. They think they own it because they basically do.

    2. Re:ICANN'T by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 0, Troll

      First, why would a Swedish porn producer be in Saudi Arabia?

      Second, the US does own the Internet. The US government invented the Internet. Most of the Internet hardware, software, and protocols were developed in the US, by US corporations, universities, and the military.

      If you want to go invent your own Internet, and put your own transmission network in place, and get people to sign up for it, go ahead. No one is stopping you. But be warned, others have tried it, and it didn't work.

    3. Re:ICANN'T by Christianfreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do so many people insist on separating the Internet by geopolitical boundries? Your idea is just as bad as the Hague treaty. Just like the treaty it puts the burden of proof on content providers that their content is for a specific group of people.

      Your idea also does little to promote free use on the net. It would be much easier for governments like China to block out everything from the west. The way it is now someone in China at least has a chance of getting unbiased news.

      If I live under an oppresive government, I should be able to choose whether or not to break a law. I don't want DNS set up in such a way that the govt would make it nearly impossible to do that.

      --
      The Anti-Blog
    4. Re:ICANN'T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Why does the US feel that it should own the Internet?

      Umm, because it invented the internet ?
      (and TCP/IP was opposed by Euro-peons in
      the beginning, because it was "US Military").
      Do a google search...

    5. Re:ICANN'T by Drogo+Knotwise · · Score: 1

      Otherwise, we just scrap the whole political boundaries on the Web idea and say that the Web is, in fact, World Wide, and thus not governed by existing political boundaries.

      For infractions of the law, the home state (and by state I mean country) of the web servers in question would have jurisdiction.

    6. Re:ICANN'T by psicE · · Score: 2

      http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_muller 071202.asp

      Take a read. The government can do what it wants, but chances are, it won't work.

      What I'm mainly complaining about is that, right now, the .com domain is in a legal limbo state. What that should mean is that only the laws that apply everywhere are enforced; instead, that means that all laws are enforced.

      If there was a clearer geopolitical boundary on the Internet, that would mean sites would actually have to deal with less regulation; they would only have to obey the laws of the one country they register with, and not have to worry about foreign users accessing their site. France's Nazi-auction trial would have been moot, because yahoo.co.us would only have to follow American laws.

    7. Re:ICANN'T by psicE · · Score: 2

      Now that I think of it, why don't we just completely scrap the idea of pages belonging to a certain server? In other words, everybody use Freenet.

    8. Re:ICANN'T by psicE · · Score: 2

      Why do I even bother replying to these trolls...

      Clearly, you don't know the first thing about the Hague treaty. If passed, it would allow people to sue content producers in any signatory country. So someone living in South Carolina could sue a Swedish porn producer, bring them to a court in Saudi Arabia, and easily win.

      Second, the US does not own the Internet. It invented it, but now much of the networks are owned by foreign companies. KPNQwest, for example, now owned by KPN; the largest backbone network in Europe is European-owned. So what sense does it make that the US goverment, or a corporation sanctioned by it, gets to control European internet policy?

      By your logic, because Europeans invented roads, or capitalism, they should be able to tell Americans exactly how to manage their roads or economy.

    9. Re:ICANN'T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No restrictions, just the opposite, more TLDs, more, more, more. No more than 5,000 domains per TLD (grandfather clause for existing TLD's, but no new until below 5,000). That would effectively destroy name value of TLDs -- if there are a gazillion of them, none will be particularly valuable.

      As for legal jurisdiction, this looks like a job for a world court. The old countries with borders thing just doesn't work, and having the French dictate to everyone else according to their laws doesn't wash any more than having the US gov't having excessive authority.

    10. Re:ICANN'T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does the US feel that it should own the Internet?

      Could it possibly be because the U.S. invented it, financed it, built it, set up the DNS root servers, and represents more than half its bandwidth? Or that almost all international traffic (for example, Britain-to-France) is routed over U.S. servers? You know, maybe the U.S. feels it should own the Internet because, in actual physical fact, it DOES.

      Anyway, ICANN was an outsourcing of the U.S. Commerce Department's authority over the domain name system established by U.S. government projects like ARPANet and NSFNet. Literally nobody is stopping other governments, or even random private groups, from setting up its own set of DNS servers and ignoring ICANN entirely. If you don't like how the U.S is running things, you don't have to put up with it -- even if you live in the U.S.!

    11. Re:ICANN'T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The way it is now someone in China at least has a chance of getting unbiased news.

      Unbiased news? From US-controlled media I suppose you mean? (Snigger...)

  41. BART by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HOMER

  42. Sore Losers by hether · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oh, VeriSign's just mad because ICANN rejected their WLS proposal and

    "ICANN leaders have "very, very creatively interpreted their authority to get into areas they were never authorized to get into,"

    sounds suspciously like VeriSign's own business practices...

    Their both just giant evil entities anyway.

    --

    Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  43. The worlds leading democracy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Which country would that be?

    It surely can't be the one whos DOJ effectively cancelled a trail against MS because of a change in government? Or the one which let the Media-indutry dictate laws like the DMCA?

    THe general impression in Europe about US politics is that money talks ... a lot.

    1. Re:The worlds leading democracy?? by Danse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      THe general impression in Europe about US politics is that money talks ... a lot

      And it does. That doesn't really make Europe any better. They just suck less in some areas and more in others. The correctness of the phrase depends on what criteria you use to determine who is leading :)

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  44. And the issues are...? by GoatEnigma · · Score: 1
    "We welcome this statement," said Clyde Ensslin, a spokesman for the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration. "The issues addressed in the letter are very significant,"

    So what are the issues? It's nice to see both sides being blasted here ;), but it's pretty difficult to judge who is screwing who. The only thing I got from that newspost was that ICANN instituted a price cap. Okaaayyy... so. What else, fellas?

  45. Texas != Biggest State, damnit!!! by sm0kes · · Score: 1

    "This is like calling everyone from the US a Texan just because it's the biggest state." Technically, Alaska is the biggest state, with 656,425 square miles. Texas only has a mere 268,601 square miles in comparison. Does this make you as bad as the Washington Post?

    1. Re:Texas != Biggest State, damnit!!! by csteinle · · Score: 1

      No, it makes me ignorant about the individual US States - particularly while ranting. For which I apologise.

  46. wth is going on today? by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 1

    openssh trojan'd, snooping networks with game consoles, someone close to dubya advocating hacking ... now verisign dissing icann i guess nasa was wrong about that asteroid missing us ... i bet that son of a bitch is gonna hit earth smack dab in the middle of the usa. something has to explain these symptoms/precursors of the world coming to an end.

    --
    vodka, straight up, thank you!
  47. Rootservers by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not true, and if it was, it would be a really bad idea to have them all in the same place. RFC 2010 [faqs.org] gives the standard requirements for the servers.

    I think you're confusing two issues.

    - There is one canonical root database. This is where the decisions about what is registered and what is not (at the root level, the TLDs, and the significant [.com, .org, .net] SLDs) are made. If it's lost it can be restarted from a backup or mirror. But changes made since the last backup or flush will be lost.

    - There are a number of root servers. These are all effectively mirrors of the contents of the root database as of the last snapshot.

    The issue is who maintains the canonical database, which provides the data for the servers, not the servers themselves.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Rootservers by GigsVT · · Score: 2

      But, if a large amount of the mirrors defected, quit accepting updates, etc, then they could gain control. Of course this would create a situation where you would randomly get two different results for the same lookup. If enough defected though, it may not matter.

      The government would, however, step in at that point, "to protect critical internet infrastructure", with swat teams if necessary.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  48. A 2-letter "country code"... by nuntius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is no more meaningful than a 3-letter TLD. Both are meaningless in today's Internet. As are the www prefixes on so many of today's webpages. As are the '.' notation...

    Saying a 2-letter _ASCII_ (e.g. Latin characters) country code in any less US-specific than .com is a straw man. If other countries don't like the cruft which comes with a .com address, then they can freely not take a .com address...

    What we really need is a change to a global character set (a la Unicode) which will allow native characters in the URL... Have you looked at ASCII approximations of Korean Hangul or Japanese Kanji lately?

    At the same time, it would probably be wise to have an international group redesign the registration system entirely. (making it more automated, bypassing pointless "registrars", moving copyright battles into normal courts, dumping the TLD concept entirely, ...)

    1. Re:A 2-letter "country code"... by HiThere · · Score: 2

      FWIW, many Japanese do not like UniCode. They have an alternate coding scheme, which is based around 32 bit characters. Sorry, I forget it's name. But the problem is that some Japanese Kanji are drawn from the equivalent, Chinese Kanji, I think depending on the position in the word, though I'm not sure.

      Anyway, UniCode won't work, though I understand the problem is being worked on.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:A 2-letter "country code"... by nuntius · · Score: 1

      Koreans don't seem to like Unicode either. Most e-mails I receive are encoded as "euc-kr"...

      related MLP:
      - broad overview (Netscape FAQ)
      - better introduction (*nix Unicode FAQ)
      - Unicode homepage

      Unfortunately, Unix Unicode implementations appear to use UTF-8 (see here) which is rather inefficient for non-ASCII encodings...

      This problem appears to be bigger than the internet; it is deeply rooted in the C library itself...

  49. We know who is RMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RMS is the person who created gcc, gdb, emacs, libc, make, bison, and the gpl.
    Although he probably has contributed far more
    that what is mentioned above, just one of them only
    is enough to earn the respect that he rightfully
    deserves.

    What have you contributed?

  50. I love multiple choice by number11 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Choose the one you prefer:
    1. a) Attila the Hun, b) Genghis Kahn
    2. a) Stalin, b) Hitler
    3. a) headcheese, b) haggis
    4. a) trial by ordeal, b) trial by secret tribunal
    5. a) death by hanging, b) death by firing squad
    6. a) ICANN, b) Verisign

    1. Re:I love multiple choice by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Haggis!

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  51. If there's one thing that's a natural monopoly... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If our government had more than about 3 brain cells dedicated to this problem, we wouldn't even have a monopoly in the first place.

    If there's one thing that's a "natural monopoly" it's insuring there are no collisions in a global name space. (It's probably more of one than being the court for people who can't agree on an arbitrator.)

    If we're going to continue with the current domains I think we'll have to bite the bullet on this one, let a monopoly have it, and ride herd on them to keep them from being oppressive.

    But IMHO "oppressive" includes charging an ongoing fee in the tens of US dollars annually for each name, rather than a (much smaller) one-time fee for assigning or transferring a unique name. (Imagine if you had to rent your personal name on the same basis.) It doesn't cost THAT much to maintain a database for assignments. The root servers can be maintained by ISPs as a (trivially-expensive) part of the service, if nobody (like MIL, universities, clubs, etc.) volunteer.

    Now an alternative for domain names would be to establish a bunch of new TLDs, one for each competing registry, and let them compete. Country domains could go wherever the country in question wants. IP numbers are another can of worms - but at least with IPV6 you have so many you could hand off BIG blocks and never feel a pinch.

    (By the way: I've NEVER understood why .us and/or the domain system in general was handed off to ICANN rather than the patent and trademark office, and protocol numbers to ANSI, NIST, ITU, etc. That's what they DO for a living, after all. A domain name, for instance, is one of the best examples of a service mark I've ever seen.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  52. Re:If there's one thing that's a natural monopoly. by Danse · · Score: 2

    If there's one thing that's a "natural monopoly" it's insuring there are no collisions in a global name space.

    True enough, but the monopoly would be miniscule and virtually powerless compared to what we have today if it was done right. There shouldn't be limit on the number of top level domains available to be registered. There's no technical reason for it. We should have thousands of TLDs and dozens, if not hundreds of registrars (I think this is pretty much what you're suggesting as well). Preventing collisions is not difficult, and should not be subject to monetary or political influence. First come first serve. If there's a dispute over trademark or copyright, take it to court or an independent arbitrator. Secretive, unaccountable, and special-interest controlled agencies should not be a part of the process.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  53. Re:UCANN'T tell troll from sarcasm by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

    Of course I understand about suing someone in a court in another country, and how people are doing it already. Local 'morality squads' have been doing it in the US for decades even. Some self-righteous jackass in BFE would bring a lawsuit against the porno mags, in that county, trying to either shut the magazine down for indecency, or fine it out of existance. So far, the Supreme Court has kept it limited. Thankfully. In my first response I was making a joke. Lighten up.

    Second, as I said, if you want your own Internet, build it yourself. If "the largest backbone network in Europe is European-owned," then why do they bother allow the US "to control European internet policy?" They could make their own rules, their own registry, their own TLDs, their own everything else.

    But they didn't. They decided to be compatible with the American part of the Internet. So they play by the rules that were already established. The fact that the rules were established by the US is immaterial.

    And besides, there are companies based in other countries that have a .com address. It may redirect to a country specific address, but that is their choice. No one is forcing the British Broadcasting Corporation to not have a full website at www.bbc.com. I just typed that in the address bar, hit ENTER, and watched it move me to http://www.bbc.co.uk/?ok . So guess what, BBC does own bbc.com. Notice the lack of the two-letter country code on it. So they choose to have it be just a redirect to their 'official' homepage. That is BBC's choice. Why do you want to restrict their right to having the domain name they choose? Especially since one is easier to remember than another.

    What if a company in Egypt has an ad in a magazine, I glance over it, but don't memorize the webpage URL. Later I want to check out the company, and stop, because I have no idea what Egypt's two letter code is. Or Switzerland's, or Sweden's, or Madagascar, or India. They are not something I use everyday. But if a company in any of those countries has a www.companyname.com website, I can find it. Why do you feel you have the right to limit that?

  54. Re:If there's one thing that's a natural monopoly. by HiThere · · Score: 2

    Allowing this to be a monopoly is a mistake. Making it a monopoly is the easy choice, but it's the wrong one.

    A natural monopoly is something like building city streets. Not selecting a server. A natural monopoly has a small cost of providing the service, and a very large start-up cost, that keeps competitors out. If you need government regulations to keep out the competition, then you aren't a natural monopoly.

    Also, even natural monopolies need to be given a hard look. Frequently even something that would naturally tend toward becoming a monopoly can be channelled away from that with only a slight change in the operating requirements.

    But ICANN doesn't seem, to me, to come close to being a natural monopoly. They needed a special law from the government to keep out the competitors. That's pretty much proof in and of itself, without looking farther. And, natural or not, they've been an abusive monopoly.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  55. You're kidding right? by xant · · Score: 1

    People don't "deserve" respect, they earn it. He earned quite a bit of it, and he spent it all on being an ideological moron. Now his ol' respect bank account is empty.

    Of course you, being an AC, deserve no respect at all, so I'm being generous by even replying to you. I assume you created BSD or helped port SSH to the Mac or something, right?

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  56. Suppose the complaint is dismissed... by CyrusSukhia · · Score: 1

    This would give a lot more credit to ICANN, no? Considering all of the noise about ICANN's current behavior, suppose they actually asked VeriSign to initiate a complaint against them. The public would view this as a voice to which the government will listen (as the article says "today's statement represents one of the most vocal critiques of the organization from the industry it manages.")

    When the government sees that VeriSign is complaining about not making enough money, they'll dismiss the complaint.

    When you dismiss one of the most vocal dissenters, it makes all others seem rather less important than before. Could it be ICANN is looking to clear the road ahead?

  57. 6$ wholesale by theolein · · Score: 2

    Considering what it costs me to register a domain through verisign and the foul tricks verisign gets up to in order to get you to reregister the domain (spam mails warning about some theoretical domain loss) I can only laugh at this letter. Can you imagine what the prices would be if the 6$ wholesale cap were removed? $250 for personal use and $10000 if you're a business or some other Microsoft kind of price.

    Perhaps private citizens of the world should get together to form a monopoly on businesses. Then every time a large corporation wants to speak to me via mail or advertising they can pay for the privilige.

  58. DENIC and Nominet give that thing weight ! by frost22 · · Score: 2
    You folks shouldn't judge that intiative based on your disdain of Verisign.

    Others have already commented on Nominet's non-profit structure.

    DENIC operates under the very strict German rules of a "licensed cooperative". Every ISP (a few simple technical criteria determine what an ISP is) is entitled membership in this cooperative, it has a clear, open fee structure and has served the German internet community extraordinary well for last few years. It may not be a model for ICANN itself (since there is no real user involvement) but it certainly is a model for an effective, community driven registrar.

    When ICANN's Stuart Lynn comments (from the article):
    A registry by definition has a monopoly, so they all have a common interest in preserving individual monopolistic practices, so they don't want to be accountable to anybody," Lynn said.

    Registry operators like VeriSign, DENIC and Nominet wield substantial power over valuable, limited resources, Lynn said. ICANN maintains the only real check on those powers, he added.
    he is purposefully distorting the truth with respect to Nominet and DENIC
    --
    ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
  59. A bunch of snakes in the grass.... by GuNgA-DiN · · Score: 1

    Now VeriSign is speaking out against ICANN because they aren't getting their way. But, 2 years ago they had their nose so far up ICANN's ass they could smell what they had for breakfast. VeriSign is probably one of the worst monopolies on the planet (not including Microsoft)! There is hardly a pie left that doesn't have their fingerprints in it. They speak out against ICANN when it suits them and get into bed with them when they are getting what they want. I say they are nothing but a bunch of snakes in the grass.

  60. economics vs. mathematics and virtual world war by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2
    Allowing this to be a monopoly is a mistake. Making it a monopoly is the easy choice, but it's the wrong one.

    A natural monopoly is something like building city streets. Not selecting a server. A natural monopoly has a small cost of providing the service, and a very large start-up cost, that keeps competitors out. If you need government regulations to keep out the competition, then you aren't a natural monopoly.

    You are confusing economics and politics vs mathematics.

    Domain name assignment is not a possible "natural monopoly" because of any economic or political issues.

    It is a possible "natural monopoly" becuase (in the absense of a new solution to the distributed update problem - a fundamental computer science conundrum) the process of:

    determining that a particular domain name is unassigned and

    assigning it to a SINGLE applicant
    is indivisible.

    This means:

    it must occur in a single database

    the operator of that database becomes an "authority" over whatever part of the namespace his database assigns and records.

    the only known multiple-authority solution that is "decicive" is to divide the namespace into regions and have a separate single authority for each region.

    This is the same issue as deciding who is the owner of a particular plot of land - precicely the issue that led to the creation of governments. And because domain names are a resource composed of unique items of considerable value you have the same potentials for conflict as with land.

    If you have (as a poster has suggested elsewhere):

    two (or more) authorities issuing two diverging interpretations of who owns which parts of a unique divisible resource

    the general population divided into factions, with only the opportunity to switch factions or start their own and recruit

    the leader of each faction (root server operator) chosing which authority to obey
    you have a political situation. If the faction leaders for most of the population stick with the old leader you have a king or "benevolent dictator". If they desert to a new one you have a peaceful transition to a new king. If they split you have a war.

    In this case it would be a "virtual world war", because the entire virtual world would, of necessity, be participating. And because it would be a fight over virtual things of real value, the potential for "collateral damage" is very real.

    A peaceful, decicive, solution will thus have single authorities over each chunk of domain name space. That's what I mean by "natural monopoly".

    Also, even natural monopolies need to be given a hard look. Frequently even something that would naturally tend toward becoming a monopoly can be channelled away from that with only a slight change in the operating requirements.

    By all means let's try to find a better solution. If we do, we can map it directly onto the allocation of other resources and settlement of disputes over them. And thus replace the current forms of government with something better.

    But I won't hold my breath - or hold up reforming the current monopoly decision-making system - waiting for it to be invented.

    But ICANN doesn't seem, to me, to come close to being a natural monopoly. They needed a special law from the government to keep out the competitors.

    That's just the current government (last-resort monopoly on dispute-resolution - natural or otherwise) exercising its prerogative of setting policy about something it thinks it created. With its usual efficiency. B-) The fact that ICANN's monopoly is currently propped up by the government doesn't say jack about whether it's "natural" and the government just picked the winner or whether it's imposed. It just says that it's currently imposed.

    The US government selected our current "assigned names and numbers czar" and imposed the monopoly situation. And right now it's about the only group of people in a position to change it.

    Now a grass-roots migration to an alternative registry might work for domain names - until a few companies whose names got "squatted" in the alternative registry file suit. But that won't work for IP number ranges. The whole backbone and all the ISPs have to agree on those because if any are in dispute their packets get lost. ... natural or not, they've been an abusive monopoly.

    Absolutely!

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  61. it's all about money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmm, seems to me that the main issue here is that what verisign, enic and the others really want is ICANN to stop stating how much they can charge the registrars for each domain registered. They don't like the fact that they have that cap in place. I think that is what alot of people are missing here. Do you really want those registries to start charging anything they want? If so be ready for domain name prices to start rising.

  62. Rootserver defection = war by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2
    (I posted some of this in another reply. But it is also applicable here and I'm going a slightly different direction with it.)

    But, if a large amount of the mirrors defected, quit accepting updates, etc, then they could gain control. Of course this would create a situation where you would randomly get two different results for the same lookup. If enough defected though, it may not matter.

    Assigning domain names is the same issue as deciding who is the owner of a particular plot of land - precicely the issue that led to the creation of governments. And because domain names are a resource composed of unique items of considerable value you have the same potentials for conflict as with land.

    If you have:

    two (or more) authorities issuing two diverging interpretations of who owns which parts of a unique divisible resource

    the general population divided into factions, with only the opportunity to switch factions or start their own and recruit

    the leader of each faction (root server operator) chosing which authority to obey

    you have a political situation. If the faction leaders for most of the population stick with the old leader you have a king or "benevolent dictator". If they desert to a new one you have a peaceful transition to a new king. If they split you have a war.

    In this case it would be a "virtual world war", because the entire virtual world would, of necessity, be participating. And because it would be a fight over virtual things of real value, the potential for "collateral damage" is very real.

    Earlier on you might have gotten away with a root-server defection. But now that the government has blessed ICANN, and large companies have registered valuable domain names with ICANN-blessed registries, or bought them from others for large sums, it's a new ballgame.

    There's no point to going to a new root database unless it's different from the old one. That means some of the domain names in the new one will be assigned to different people than in the old. So if a root server switches, or an ISP's mail server switches to a new root server, some of the people owning domain names in the old root's registry would bring suit - against the owners in the new registry for "domain squatting", and against the root servers and ISPs as well. (Ditto if they ALL swtich at once, only more so.) That's how the virtual war becomes mapped into real-world money and real-world cops-with-guns enforcing real-world government court rulings.

    Now inviting such trouble is NOT a profitable business practice. So don't expect ISPs to switch to root servers that point to a new registry or stick with existing root servers that switch. And don't expect operators of existing root servers to switch.

    The same applies for essentially any attempt at a change that involves grass-roots abandonment rather than government action, now that the government has blessed ICANN. ICANN, its associates,and their customers won't let go lightly. Be prepared to face them in court.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  63. Who Shall Bell the Cat? by llywrch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > Oh, boy, VeriSign wants ICANN to give up some of its regulatory power. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
    >
    > Maybe the Swiss could do it; they seem like nice folks.

    Heh. That's the rub.

    We're all agreed that ICANN is doing a bad job of things. But who shall we replace them with?

    Some department or body of the US government? I can't believe that the rest of the world would go for that very well. Same argument if we grant oversight powers to any national government -- be they the British, the Russians, Japanese or teh Swiss.

    Set up a part of the UN to oversee this? At best you would have a crippled organization because some major country (e.g. the US, China, Japan, one or more European nation) decided NOT to ratify the treaty that enables this organization to work. At worst, you'd end up with something worse than ICANN: not only corrupt & self-serving, but without a clue of how the Internet actually works.

    The best solution would be a group like ICANN only with more transparentness & accountability -- as well as a majority of outside directors elected in a representative fashion. The same fixes that Karl Auerbach has been fighting for. The same fixes I'd wager all of us would back. Once done, this body could eventually free itself from a close association with one nation, & become a truly global entity.

    This dispute doesn't address that. It's an attempt by various regional registries to sieze power from ICANN, to increase their own little empires. If this action is successful, instead of one crew of thieves, we're going to have several crews. Not an improvement.

    Geoff

    --
    I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p