Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Texas Company's Legal Troubles Hold .iq In Limbo

Posted by timothy on from the snafu-global-infrastructure-style dept.

aducore writes "According to The Inquirer, the (American) company running the Iraqi .iq domain name .iq is under criminal indictment and cannot transfer control. So no Iraqi organization can get a .iq domain name, including the government. Iraq's National Communications and Media Commission and the U.S. administrator in Iraq are trying to get ICANN to free up the domain."

17 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. Suggested domains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    How about puppet.gov.iq

  2. No hurry? by hermeshome.se · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am not quite sure what state the infrastructure of Iraq is in, but I guess that fresh water, electricity and roads comes higher on the priority list.

    "Hey, someone is blocking .iq!"
    "Hey, someone is blocking our watersupply!"

    1. Re:No hurry? by hyperlinx · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, i'm in Iraq now, and the infrastructure is in poor shape in many areas, but the cities are getting around 4-16 hours of electricty each day and fresh water is available in most areas too....the main roads and highways are mostly ok too, some potholes, but i've seen worse in ohio and pennsylvania!...there is however a booming (no pun intended) computer market in baghdad, and there's been a couple of reporters who mentioned they can get some kind of dsl service there at like 256k....there's also a linux users group at http://www.iraqilinux.org/...u only hear the bad things on the news, but we (the iraqis and us) have been able to reopen like 1200 schools, the hospitals, and even the colleges. Entrepreneurs are opening up shops again, and they should get their IQ domain back....

      --
      In /.space, no one can hear you SCREAM!
  3. Re:huh by Disevidence · · Score: 5, Funny

    Didn't you get the memo? Iraq is sovereign. Nothing of theirs is under American control.

    Pish Posh. Must of been a typo.

    --
    Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
  4. But surely... by Polkyb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If ICANN can remove control from Saddam and grant it to InfoCom, it can take it back as well..?

    It's not as though they would have got permission to take it in the first place, so, why would they need it this time?

    --
    I've never shoed a horse, but I once told a donkey to piss off!
  5. Re:Bizarre by Polkyb · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is an iRaq the cabinet where you keep your beowulfed iMac's?

    :-)

    --
    I've never shoed a horse, but I once told a donkey to piss off!
  6. yes.. and let's not forget why this happened.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Firstly, they were indicted shortly after 9/11... whether it was based on the fact that the US were targetting every possible arab owned company because of terrorist scares or whether they indeed committed crimes that included, (quote) "charges that they exported computer equipment to Libya and Syria and funneled money to a member of the Islamic extremist group Hamas. ", is a decision I leave up to you.. since there has been no progress or update on the case..

    Second, "to a member of the Islamic extremist group Hamas" draws doubt to me. Ok, they were sending computer parts to Libya and Syria.. (oh no.. embargo.. and for, *GASP*, computer parts!) How is InfoCom supposed to know their customers background? How many customer(s) were involved in Hamas and how were they connected to InfoCom (if the money was funneled, why haven't we heard of any sort of medium or who/what the money was funneled through).. I mean.. an IT company based in Texas.. only just after 9/11 convicted of funding terrorists?

    And why why why does the media never tell us the entire story? etc..

    Again.. just my 2 cents.. and no.. i'm not unpatriotic.. I speak based on what I observe..

    1. Re:yes.. and let's not forget why this happened.. by JosKarith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sad isn't it - the parent poster felt compelled to write that he's not unpatriotic just because (s)he was airing facts that don't support the government line.
      Reminds me of when the story about BT blocking child pr0n sites was up and everyone who was raising concerns about the ramifications of that felt compelled to state they didn't condone child pr0n.
      It's a dangerous path we're treading - where to raise a question immediatley pus you under suspicion of guilt...

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
  7. Re:The question has to be asked... by ranmachan · · Score: 5, Informative

    From TFA:

    |According to a report from AP, the problem started
    |in 1997, when Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was
    |blocking access to the Internet.

    |An ICANN body granted responsibility for the ".iq"
    |domain to InfoCom a Texas-based company and
    |purveyor of computers and Web services in the Middle East.

    So they gave it to them because the rulers of Iraq did not allow internet access at the time.

    --
    Tobias
  8. Re:The question has to be asked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That would make sense, except InfoCom had control of the domain prior to the US takeover, which would also mean prior to the the privatization taking place in Iraq. In fact, in the article it says InfoCom was only given the go-ahead to take the domain because at the time Saddam Hussein was in power, and his government in essence said "we don't want it" because internet access was blocked.

  9. Re:huh by Lurker+McLurker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But Iraq didn't choose to outsource its domain. ICANN made the decision for them. Abhorrent as censorship is, did they have the right to do that? Should a body like ICANN be involved in politics?

    --
    Mod parent up!
  10. I wish they'd hurry up.. by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am waiting to register high.iq.
    ......Stephen Hawking

  11. Re:Without peace, reconstruction stalls by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a heavy, conservative right-wing magazine.

    Huh, what are you smoking? The Economist might be slanted towards pro-globalization and pro-free trade, but I usually find their op-eds well balanced - if they do take positions, they usually justify it quite well, and they present facts from both sides.

    You want heavy, conservative right-wing? Try Time or Newsweek!

  12. Re:The question has to be asked... by dpilot · · Score: 5, Funny

    In America, TEXAS messes with YOU!

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  13. This is surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is surprising, considering how smooth and flawless the rest of the Iraq operation has been.

  14. Re:Without peace, reconstruction stalls by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please. They endorsed Bill Clinton in '92 and, just earlier this year, "Red" Ken Livingstone for mayor of London. Additionally, the editors have been outspoken in support of gay marriage and contraceptive education in third-world countries, to name a couple of traditionally "liberal" issues. And though they endorsed Bush in 2000, it seems highly improbable that they'll do so again this year, judging from the tone they've taken recently. For instance: one, and, more humorously, two. Finally, do you really think a magazine with a right-wing stick up its ass would produce a cover like this?

    The Economist may be highly opinionated, but it's definitely not the "conservative, right-wing" mouthpiece.

  15. What's the fuss? by WanChan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why doesn't the Iraqi government just use .gov? I mean, let's be realistic here...