ICANN Opens .net Redelegation Consultation

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."

Comments

If ICANN doesn't dump Verisign/NSI...

[buelba]

...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.

Re:If ICANN doesn't dump Verisign/NSI...

[Gilk180]

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.

It's government time!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It's government time!

[Nasarius]

And which government would that be? The US does not own the Internet.

Re:It's government time!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It's government time!

[lpontiac]

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.

Re:It's government time!

[Dinglenuts]

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.

Re:It's government time!

[belmolis]

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.

Re:It's government time!

[aleonard]

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.

Re:It's government time!

[Dinglenuts]

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.

Re:If I had any faith in them at all

[Sv1ad]

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.

Re:If I had any faith in them at all

[HBI]

Exactly how do I recall the UN?

No thanks!