Slashdot Mirror
More About The .org Reassignment
Joel Rowbottom writes: "After ICANN 'awarded' ISOC with the running of .ORG in the Draft Staff Report, public comments regarding the process are starting to come out of the woodwork. Eric Brunner-Williams has commented on the flawed scoring and ICANN allegedly using the process to financially shore up ISOC and Afilias; the dotORG Foundation have posted some comments and questions (quote: 'we are perplexed by the Academic CIO Team's rating of
our bid's technology as marginal'); Carl Malamud has posted the IMS/ISC response; and Organic have posted a rather damning indictment of the process as well (disclaimer: I work for Organic Names). For the $27,000 it cost each bidder to 'participate' (and that's just the entry fee), we'd have expected a little more professionalism than just getting some 'free' t-shirts! Comment to ICANN today org-eval@icann.org and make a difference."
They keep complaining and whining about ICANN, why doesnt someone actually get their butt in gear and do something?
snowulf.com
After all those reassignments and reorganizations, will they let me keep my .org domain if I'm not a non-profit organization (I'm not a for profit organization either)?
Has it been decided yet? What if I paid for many years in advance?
Thanks.
-jfedor
riaa.org now belongs to some script kiddie.
http://www.riaa.org/storymain.htm
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to we
Anyone who pays attention to this stuff has to know by now that ICANN is seriously flawed. What's it going to take for a large number of people (or just a few very recognizable and important ones) to ditch them and go with something like OpenNIC?
We really don't need ICANN. Get rid of it, please.
Or you can browse the whole ICANNWatch .org archive.
I have a blog.
No, I'm simply not an organization.
When was the last time you've seen an organization posting on Slashdot anyway?
-jfedor
...For all the evils of ICANN, they do have a point. Yes, they artificially keep the pool of available websites limited by limiting the number of TLDs. Yes, the process is corrupt, they are evil, and should all burn in hell. But, by the same token, all the proposed "solutions" that involved p2p root servers, unlimited TLDs, etc - as I see it, that would be the quickest way to "break" the internet - make it a big, nonfunctioning mess.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
What prevents somebody from starting their own TLD and just claiming it for use? Are there laws? Trust issues? Or is it just that everyone's DNS server would filter out/be incompatable with it? With all this trouble that ICANN('T?) seems to cause, I guess my real question is, who needs them?
I'm not too familiar with the technicalities of the whole domain thing...can someone elaborate?
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Since googles crawls the web constantly and IP addresses are semi permanent, can't google actually replace the DNS system? All they need to mark is the IP address and point to that in the search answer.
"Piter, too, is dead."
Why is anyone surprised that the process was rigged? This isn't Florida, guys. ICANN doesn't even make a pretense of being representative. This is not new, and it is no shock that ICANN has gone crony.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
Want to get your document through the IETF process? Well, the IETF is going to need to scale. In order to do that, they're probably going to need money. And where will that money come from? How about those of us who benefit from their standards? Are we talking beaceaup bucks? Probably not, but I could certainly think of worse places for the money to go.
The reason that not-for-profits *usually* do not have the stability of for-profit companies is that they have a small source of revenue
Please do compare this to for profit companies, where by if they do not get at least at 10% increase in PROFITS each year the shit hits the fan and their ass ends up bought out. (yah yah an CGIR3_ but still. . .
Not for profit organizations do what they do and get it done, for profit organizations begin to cut corners the second they see their bottom line either being HURT or even just not increasing.
I mean hell look at verisign, they have stooped all the way down to illegal tactics in order to keep their profits from going all the way kerplunk, yah sure nice commercial entity there. . . . and the sad thing is that ANY corporation will sink to the same levels through the sheer pressures of capitalism.
Good for making money, sure, but for running something that the public as a whole depends on for information and knowledge? Hell no, get some people in there who will keep on doing their job no matter what the stock market / investors / board of directors say. Note that above all three groups are interlinked. . . . one goes to shit and bye bye goes the rest of them.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
-jbn
Letting the Interent be run primarily by companies that have the bottom line on their mind, is not the way to foster freedom on the Internet
At best, and worst, the internet should be neutral to all ideology. It's not the job of the administrators to make a determination on who's right or wrong, we have government, the people, and their consciences for that.
A commercial business is no worse or better than a non-profit until it is proven in a court that they have broken the law. A non-profit is driven by ideology, which may be hostile to other ideologies, which (at least under our laws) have the same rights to speak and be heard.
Having a commercial company run a registry is a good way to ensure that the registry keeps running, as opposed to a non-profit, whose funding levels change at the whim of government and contributors.
Let the internet serve up information and leave the ideology to those who provide the information. Proactivity in a registrar can only lead to worse problems.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
So I'd almost call this post a troll, but it has a point -- that maybe commercial types would do a better job.
However, you're missing one thing -- the informal group of volunteers and engineers that produced and have kept much of the administrative side of the Internet going for thirty years now *are* the open source/volunteer types that you're bashing so much. As a matter of fact, the commercial types are the untested ones, not the volunteer engineers.
May we never see th
honestly, did anyone here expect anything else? in its entire history, ICANN has been nothing but a catastrophic failure. in fact, so much that I wouldn't be surprised if there were some intention behind it. not that I knew which one, but I just don't believe anymore that someone with honest intentions could screw up so royally - not once or twice, but in a row.
looks a lot like DMCA to me. while the whole geekdom agrees that DMCA is the worst law ever, just last year congress published an essay saying, essentially, that they were very pleased and it worked exactly as advertised.
ICANN probably works exactly as intended, too. that's where I'd start to look if I could bring myself to care anymore.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org