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.
Seeing as how isoc.org is already slashdotted, I'd have to question wether they can handle running .org.
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.
This guy has a point. AFAIK, ISOC is also in charge of IAB and IETF. If you're worried about ISOC's membership, then you should worry about your Internet Standards.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
...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
Ah, but blockquoth the site openISOC:
Seems pretty shady to me...
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
A person who works for a major corporation has a responsibility to the interests of that corporation, not the other 99% of the entities who use the Internet. A group run by a consortium of these goons (goon. a man hired to terrorize or eliminate opponents. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) will always act in the interest of their companies, and against the interest of everyone else. The result is an official establishment of a tyrannical structure that exists for the purpose of prying money out of the fingers of the many and stuffing it into the pockets of the few. Very few.
This is why ISOC's corporate affiliation is important and unacceptable.
.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
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.