Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Recommends ISOC Run .org TLD
Amazing Quantum Man writes "According to ZDNet, ICANN has issued a report recommending that ISOC run the .org TLD. It looks like ISOC would run .org in conjunction with Afilias." mesozoic points out that ISOC is a non-profit organization composed of many for-profit heavyweights, writing "I'm not surprised; are you?" This preliminary report may be disappointing to those who hoped that
Paul Vixie and Carl Malamud would be successful in their bid to head up .org.
This is the ICANN evaluation. It shows why they did and who they looked at. Good reading. Seems above board to me.
Lonely Sig Alert: http://www.compunotes.com
So, like, when should we start going to slashdot.com instead of slashdot.org?
ISOC has many representatives from large companies on its books. .org TLD that is going to be so bad anyhow?
So it represents no one company, and when it does something it will do it with industry backing.
This is a Good thing.
Exactly what can be done with the
It is already open to anyone, regardless of whether they are non-profit or not.
Can anyone explain to me why the WHOIS for Affilias is all screwed up?
.info domain to my CPanel and it couldn't find the nameserver IP buried in all that mess.
.org too?
A) It's in some funky delimited format that doesn't work for any existing WHOIS parser. I tried adding an
B) It displays the registrant info. Nobody needs to know who the registrant is. Nine times out of ten it's some employee that either no longer even works for the company or has no authority to make domain decisions.
C) It displays the billing info. This means your home address if you happen to use a credit card to pay for the domain. Luckily some registrars will substitute their own info for your personal billing info but even then this seems sloppy.
Can someone fill me in on why Affilias can't even seem to get something as trivial as a WHOIS done correctly? And these people want to run
No thank you.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
So what if the ISOC orgranization is composed of idustry heavyweights? You can't make everybody happy.
.org TLD. Some critics seem to demand nothing short of ICANN's head on a silver platter...
I am sure that ICANN critics would be able to find something wrong with every single one of the groups vying for the
Seeing as how isoc.org is already slashdotted, I'd have to question wether they can handle running .org.
I don't know about "A" but "B" and "C" are what whois is supposed to do.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
It seems ISOC is a body which is busy reforming itself to reduce the power of individual members
...I'd hate to see a US governmental agency responcible for policy making not backing (and being backed by I bet) big business. How much you wanna bet some "contributions" are involved. Especially so since they kicked out just about everyone that isn't a poly wanna dollar politition or a corporate suit.
I bet its just a front for a corporate trust.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Everytime I see one of these stories, I wonder why people don't use alternic. OK, not so much why they don't, just why geeks in position haven't altered their DNS's to see alternic sites. Slow, subtle and once accepted and working, people would be pissed when they couldn't reach sites they were used to seeing. I always thought that the internet was supposed to have strength due to decentralization. Oh yeah, us government needs to control everything around the world. shudder.
IPv6: Taking the "." out of .com
Sure, we'll just make up for it by usin one between each digit for reverse dns anyways.
When encryption is outlawed, ou++1!@(93j++js-d9298yIUH(*Y24JKB!~
Are they trying to steal from the Worldcom/ Enron/ AOL/ LNUX playbook?
Well, somebody has to post it...
ISOC's membership page lists Microsoft as one of the founding and highest ranking members.
I'll just sit back and watch the fireworks.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Why not? Because how much easier is it to remember "slashdot.org" than it is to remember "3ffe:ffff:0100:f101:0210:a4ff:fee3:9566"
[insert witty comment here]
I am a member of ISOC. As long as I have been a memeber, ISOC has never done anything shady. I think them getting control of .org is a VERY GOOD THING. Become informed before you bash them, I challenge anyone to come up with anything ISOC has done that harmed the internet community.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
Just so you know anyone can join ISOC. If you are concerned, join ISOC.
An ISOC Member
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
...alternic is a fraud. The entire operation, domain name and trademark included, was stolen from Kashpureff via a lawsuit by one of his ex-partners. I wouldn't trust them to shine my shoes, much less run my root servers.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
Hmmm, an alleged non-controversial infrastructure overseer which expanded its mandate, tried to assess an unauthorized tax, and then summarily and unilaterally dismantled its already-small semblance of democracy and accountability (not to mention illegally hid its internal workings to prevent criticism)... yeah, I think "head on a silver platter" is just about right.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The top poster did say, "Why not get rid of DNS?" (A different argument, altogether.) but "Why not get rid of TLD?" Is there any longer -- was there in fact ever -- a reason for partitioning the namespace into
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The ISOC proposal didn't pass the smell test. When I looked at these proposals one of my requirements is that no present or past (within 24 months) ICANN director or officer had any role of significant influence (again within 24 months) with the applicant. Needless to say, with two ICANN directors having influential roles in ISOC, I didn't allow ISOC's to be on my own short list.
.org over to a body that uses for its backroom operations a company that itself has a substantial presence (i.e. it has its own top level domain that it got from ICANN two years ago.) To my way of thinking, this is a move that concentrates control and reduces competition rather than decentralizes control and promotes competition.
ICANN's own conflict of interest rules are not this strict. But I consider ICANN's conflict-of-interest policy to be a minimum standard (and a weak minimum at that.) My vote is looking to be cast in favor of the best applicant, not the one that passes bare minimums.
I also wonder at the concept that competition is promoted by handing
(I paniced when I first heard talk about making .org registered non-profits only, so I prepaid for as long as I could, hoping I'd get grandfathered in if it came to that...)
So I type 'slashdot' into my browser. Which slashdot do I mean? I've got one machine, slashdot, on my local network. I've got another machine, slashdot.trolls, in the local network across the router. I've got a third machine, slashdot.trolls.killfile, on the other side of the country. I've got a fourth machine, slashdot.trolls.webby, which is actually a front-end to an SP2, and not a single machine at all. Which slashdot am I looking at again? And when evil twin over at dropco mirrors my networks, how do I know which one I'm looking at?
Right. There _must_ be a root to the domain name tree somewhere; otherwise every computer would have to a unique name. Obviously out of the question. So why the TLDs we have now? Because ICANN stinks, and people knew that a registrar might go stinky; so the (US) military and (US) the government got their own domains, and all the soveriegn nations got their own nation-domain, too. Why are the TLDs limited? Otherwise, I can't tell, when you type slashdot.trolls, if you want the slashdot in the TLD trolls, or (one of) the slashdot.trolls on my local network.
- _Quinn
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
- I stopped buying CDs because I hate the RIAA's tactics.
- I didn't buy Madonna's latest album because I didn't like any of the CD's tracks.
I'm pointing this out because it drives me nuts when other people screw this up, and I can't believe I did it myself..ORG sites should not be for corporate plundering.
.ORG, it cheapens .ORG. Yes, the RIAA and the MPAA are BUSINESSES, not organizations. Non-profit my ass, Jack Valentini and Hillary Rosen are racking in the money.
.ORG should be forced to relinquish it, but in the future, .ORG's should not be given to corporations unless they're using them in a .ORG-like way. I.e., if IBM sets up a IBM.org site to be used as a forum for initiating issues movements (i.e., the freedom of a product) for IBM-related products.
Every time some corporations like the RIAA or MPAA owns a
Now, I'm not saying that any corporation that owns a
I have no problem with MS owning microsoft.com, microsoft.org, and microsoft.net, so long as they use those sites in a way true to their "extention". MS.com should be MS' commercial outlet. MS.net should be their network outlet; i.e., a forum for users to discuss their issues. MS.org should be for ideological movements within MS, which (in this case) would be MS' propaganda machine.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Absolutely not. In fact, it's against ICANN's standards for registrars. There was a lot of abuse of billing information back in the early days specifically because people paid with credit cards and had to provide their personal info for the card charge to work. People balked big time at having that kind of information out there.
The only people who need to know the billing info for a domain is the registrar. They need to charge the billing contact. The general public has no need to know who pays for a domain. If you have a tech question/problem, you contact the zone contact or the tech contact. If you have a domain dispute or copyright complaint, you can contact the owner or the admin. No one need to contact the billing contact except the registrar who gets paid by them and they can easily keep that information in a separate database for themselves.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
At least not with current systems that are doing virtual hosting.
I've got 20 sites on one IP address...
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I've never heard that before.
I've never switched to alternic but I've kind of kept tabs on it a bit.
The biggest reason I haven't switched to alternic is because the internet can't work if everyone creates their own alternic.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I read his complaints and they seem valid.
Is his software good enough to act as a production DNS server? It seems like it but I've never even heard of it before now.
If BIND is so bad and his is so great, how come more people haven't switched over. Or have they?
He needs to get one of the big distros to package his stuff.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
So I guess the decision mandates that you can write the code, but are not fit to run it?
.com domain would be unable to duplicate this performance for .org domain?
I find it absolutely amazing that IMS/ISC are rated so poorly, primarily on supposedly technical grounds.
Does anyone else find it unbelievable that the people currently running one of the TLD servers for the
I find criteria 7 to be stupid; it basicallymeans that "technical" preference should be given to plans from companies that sell add-on mail and web hosting, etc., commercial services.
Criteria 8 is also pretty stupid; the answer to the question is "these are the people defining the protocol changes to which the successful applicant will need to adapt".
They lost out on #9, as well, even though, according to Gartner, "One of the few proposals that discusses non- technical components of the transition such as staffing, facilities, technical support and community activities."; basically the complain boils down to "they are not a going for-profit registry concern".
Verisign still manages registration through *email*, for God's sake! Who the heck are they to cast stones?!?
-- Terry
It always surprises me how little attention stories like this get on Slashdot. This is stuff that will shape the future of the web. That's not just a buzz-phrase, it's the truth; power over the web is being discussed here, and there are only 80 posts in the two hours the story has been on-line. The story on a bloody tv show gets more than that... No wonder someone can go around with a moniker like 'Senator Disney' and still not have to face court charges...
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
What a farce!
It is not that I particularly agree or disagreee with the final result - I guess I support both the ISOC bid as well as the Vixie bid. The only real problem I have with the ISOC bid is the conflic of interest issue that Karl Auerbach so astutely points out. Besides the conflict of interest, I'd like to know what the *problems* are that surround the ISOC bid.... anyone?
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
Hey, so lots of large companies are members of the Internet Society. Could this possibly be because they're involved in the Internet and want to have input into Internet policy? Perhaps they want to take part in the Internet Engineering Task Force, which is part of ISOC. This isn't a scandal or a conspiracy. Thousands of people in over a hundred countries are members; being a member of ISOC costs me US $ 75 a year, but you can join for free. Why aren't you a member?
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
would like to see the IOC take over. They are an .org and they love controversies!!!
A) I think I remember seeing that their format is documented somewhere, and the documentation was technical enough that you could build a parser from their docs. That might have been something else though, I dunno.
B) Displaying the registrant info is my primary reason for using whois at all. If I want the nameservers, I can always use dig.
C) If you don't want your billing info made public, don't register your own domain name. Part of owning a domain is using it responsibly, and that means accountability, which only works if people can find you. If you don't want to play by these rules (which have been in place for at least a decade), then find a different game to play.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I honestly didn't read through it yet but I was speaking about it to a friend and he mentioned that the license really locked it down.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
David McGuire from Washingtonpost.com was the first reporter to report the ICANN Dot-org news, not Cnet or ZDnet or wherever. His much better story is online here, and his original 2:01 a.m. Tuesday post is here.
No, displaying the registrant info is not the primary reason for using whois. Displaying the domain's contact information is the primary reason for WHOIS. As I said earlier, the registrant info doesn't even DISPLAY in WHOIS for global domains, except on .info TLD.
Why isn't/shouldn't the registrant info be displayed? Because it is always out of date. The registrant fields cannot be changed. If your e-mail address or mailing address changes, you can't change the registrant fields. The only way to change it is to "transfer" the domain to yourself and pay an additional $35/whatever fee. ICANN's rules.
Now, all the other contact info, like Owner, Admin, Zone, Tech, Billing can be changed at any time. That is why these fields are the only contact info people should be using. That is why these fields should be the only ones visible.
And regarding billing info, so what BS are you proposing? Only corporations are allowed to own domains? Any private citizen who doesn't feel like putting their home information on a publically accessible database is unworthy to own a domain? As I said earlier, why does anyone even need to talk to the billing contact when the person with authority over the domain is the owner or the admin? And if billing info is key to accountability, why do ICANN rules say not to display it?
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Any time you guys are really fed up with all this you know what to do.
ICANN ISOC IAHC
I I I I I IEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Need Mercedes parts ?
...is that they gave ISC a "C" on technical merit. ISC, as you may recall, are the authors of BIND! This alone demonstrates that the report was motivated by cronyism rather than a desire objective analysis. Add to this the fact that several board members of ISOC are either "in" with ICANN or closely connected to major registrars. (Some of them have been "winners" of TLDs in a process equally laced with cronyism.) And that ISOC is largely governed by large corporations such as Microsoft. Suddenly the picture becomes clear: It's the same unresponsive, unaccountable, corrupt ICANN we know and dislike.