ICANN Opens .net Redelegation Consultation

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ICANN Opens .net Redelegation Consultation

Posted by michael on Friday June 4, 2004 @03:26AM from the name-games dept.

Joel Rowbottom writes "The first public draft criteria for the redelegation of the .net gTLD to Verisign's successor (due on 30th June 2005) to a new registry operator is out, and the public comments period commenced on 28th May.It's pretty similar to the .org redelegation criteria. The ICANN announcement is here and gives opportunity to submit comments prior to the final procedure which will be posted at the end of June."

26 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

If ICANN doesn't dump Verisign/NSI... by buelba · 2004-06-04 03:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

...we'll have the last piece of evidence that they're entirely toothless. Verisign has done a lousy job along every axis, from high fees to poor coordination to the ridiculous "SiteFinder" service. ICANN has tolerated all this, even waiting to get angry about SiteFinder until everyone else did.

ICANN should dump Verisign even if they have the lowest bid. Which they won't. But if they hold onto Verisign, it means they're either scared of Verisign's attorneys (since I'm sure Verisign will sue, since they have no other business) or are totally unable to make important decisions.
1. Re:If ICANN doesn't dump Verisign/NSI... by Gilk180 · 2004-06-04 05:21 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  the ridiculous "SiteFinder" service.
  
  I think the quotation marks would have been better placed like so:
  
  the ridiculous SiteFinder "service".
  
  And maybe even a :-P to make it abundantly clear that calling SiteFinder a service is an insult to the word service.
2. Re:If ICANN doesn't dump Verisign/NSI... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-07 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  ICANN has tolerated all this
  
  No they haven't, they threatened to sue Verisign if they didn't take it down. I wouldn't call threatening legal action, tolerating.
It's government time! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-04 03:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Private industry has shown that they are unwilling or unable to administrate the Internet base services.

It is time that the government step in and turn the Internet into a public utility. This is the only way to get rid of leeches like Verisign. Put the power back in the hands of the people instead of in the hands of a monied few. Democracy in action, folks. Don't let the door slam those fuckers in the ass on the way out.
1. Re:It's government time! by Nasarius · 2004-06-04 03:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And which government would that be? The US does not own the Internet.
  
  --
  LOAD "SIG",8,1
2. Re:It's government time! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-04 04:09 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The US might not own the Internet, but they do own control of the .net, .org, .com, .biz, domain delegation & control. And this is what this article is about, and not the internet in general.
3. Re:It's government time! by lpontiac · 2004-06-04 04:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Er.
  
  ICANN derives its authority from the US government. The Department of Commerce, IIRC.
  
  What did you have in mind, anyway? Say you convinced the legislature that they needed to handpick a replacement for Verisign today.. they'd probably farm it out to fucking Halliburton.
4. Re:It's government time! by Dinglenuts · 2004-06-04 04:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  More government administration would make it more inefficient, not less. And it would also open the door for censorship, political manipulation, etc. Do you really want the internet in the same hands as the author's of the PATRIOT Act? Or the Oil-for-Food Fraud? No thank you, sir.
  
  --
  
  Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
5. Re:It's government time! by belmolis · 2004-06-04 05:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I agree that it shouldn't be run by private industry, but giving it to governments is not only likely to produce inefficiency but perhaps more importantly, it is likely to give them the opportunity to "regulate" it, meaning censorship. They've already shown interest in doing this. An international non-governmental organization might be the best thing, though exactly how to structure it isn't clear.
6. Re:It's government time! by chromaphobic · 2004-06-04 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't aware there was a single, global government to step in here.
  
  World Wide Web != United States Of America.
7. Re:It's government time! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-04 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  My tax dollars built it. Yours didn't.
  
  If you can't deal with that, I'm sorry.
8. Re:It's government time! by aleonard · 2004-06-04 07:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Last I heard, the US government was pretty much "the monied few." What, you would have national elections for ICANN members? Come on. Giving it back to the US government (Or, god forbid, some vacuous world government) would destroy the Internet in a quagmire of regulation, faux democracy and stagnation.
  
  The private sector is doing just fine, and it could probably stand to have less government involvement - remove the Dept. of Commerce from the equation. Don't like it? Make a new Internet. I'm serious; there's already two, why not three? Four? Eventually one will stick.
  
  --
  "In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -Dostoevsky
9. Re:It's government time! by Dinglenuts · 2004-06-04 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Mod Parent up. This guy's got it!
  
  --
  
  Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
10. Re:It's government time! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-04 23:58 · Score: 0
  
  YOUR tax dollars built the network in MY country? Thank you very much :-)
11. Re:It's government time! by tverbeek · 2004-06-05 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  And it would also open the door for censorship, political manipulation, etc. Do you really want the internet in the same hands as the author's of the PATRIOT Act? Or the Oil-for-Food Fraud? No thank you, sir.
  And a private corporation would be better than this... how? It's not as if businessmen are somehow purer than politicians. Would you like the internet in the hand of Diebold or the MPAA or Microsoft? There's plenty of motivation for censorship, political manipulation, etc. that way too, plus the anti-competitive profit motive as well. And since you're not one of the plutocrats that owns the company, they wouldn't even have to pretend to listen to your complaints.
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
12. Re:It's government time! by Dinglenuts · 2004-06-05 06:58 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  But the virtue of the free market is that companies who don't perform to the customers specification soon find themselves out of customers.
  
  My vision of the internet of the future is one of multiple "internets", with localized DNS servers providing localized roadmaps to the World Wide Web. If you don't like the way your current DNS provider is servicing you, simply switch DNS providers.
  
  I know I'm being pretty general with an idea that would be very difficult to implement (at least right now), but as computers continue to grow in power and efficiency, I believe we'll see greater flexibiliity in firmware/hardware that will allow us to make these choices. Additionally, assuming hardware compatability, DNS routing would be the most impossible thing to gain a monopoly on. There would always be competition for the best service/price. In the end, if you really don't like the system, you could always do a little private diversification yourself and reinvent the entire internet in your garage. Protocols, packet handling, what language to use? That's the greatness of the private market.
  
  --
  
  Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
13. Re:It's government time! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-05 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  My vision of the internet of the future is one of multiple "internets", with localized DNS servers providing localized roadmaps to the World Wide Web. If you don't like the way your current DNS provider is servicing you, simply switch DNS providers.
  Gee, you mean we could fsck up the internet even more badly than the phone system? Sorry, but I'll pass. The market you seem to worship isn't the answer to everything.
14. Re:It's government time! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-05 18:52 · Score: 0
  
  maybe your tax dollars DEVELOPED it but I think we're well past the stage where the majority invested in the Internet lies within the US.
  Get a life and view something beyond CNN Critiqueless Navelgazing News
If I had any faith in them at all by Sv1ad · 2004-06-05 05:01 · Score: 1

........I'd say give it to the UN and make internet regulation part of the international bureaucracy. Scared though I would be of unwieldy bureaucracy and pressure from the "monied few" *cough*USgovernment*cough* putting internet regulation into the hands of the international community could be a step on the way towards the internet as a public utility and a "creative commons".
1. Re:If I had any faith in them at all by HBI · 2004-06-05 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Pfft, the UN. Right. After how they managed the Iraqi Oil-for-food program (Kofi Annan's family is doing very well from all that, thank you) - no thanks.
  
  I'll stick with the US government. At least they are accountable to _someone_.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
2. Re:If I had any faith in them at all by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-05 18:46 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  I'll stick with the US government. At least they are accountable to _someone_.
  thank goodness ... but have they found that person yet?
3. Re:If I had any faith in them at all by Sv1ad · 2004-06-05 19:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'll stick with the US government. At least they are accountable to _someone_.
  Who's that again? Not me, I'm an Australian. Actually, can I hold your government accountable? Afterall, our Prime Minister is just over in the USA now to kiss his buddy George W. Bush.
  Australia: the 53rd US state.
4. Re:If I had any faith in them at all by ebassi · 2004-06-06 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  After how they managed the Iraqi Oil-for-food program (Kofi Annan's family is doing very well from all that, thank you)
  
  Ironically enough, all the voices about the bribery and Annan's son involvement in this matter has come from Ahmed Chalabi, the now-not-so-in-friendly-terms buddy of Dubya.
  
  At least they are accountable to _someone_.
  
  To "someone" who, please? [poll]I live in the EU, you insensitive clod.[/poll]
  
  In final analysis, the UN should be the right solution to this problem. Unless, obviously, you count the Internet Central Administration, at 1060 West Addison St., Chicago, IL.
  
  --
  You can save space. Or you can save time. Don't ever count on saving both at once. -- First Law of Algorithmic Analisys
5. Re:If I had any faith in them at all by HBI · 2004-06-06 04:04 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Exactly how do I recall the UN?
  
  No thanks!
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
This is what the rich and powerful love this... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-06 01:31 · Score: 0

Not that I don't join in, but they love to see people stand around, do nothing and bitch about stuff while they send in a proposal, back up a big truck and fill it with money.

Its a small club but they extend control to new realms with the same ease that you and create new posts, it is demoralizing...

Slashdot and all the rest are pressure relief valves (same as the karma crap in India - a method by which the rich use past lives to blame the poor for being poor and don't you dare be bad this time or you'll make it even worse) to prevent the dissatisfaction from building to an untenable level and if they fail then there is always law enforcement.

Sorry, the dns issues get to me more than other tech issues.