Slashdot Mirror
The Race Is On For .net
mikrorechner writes "As reported previously, ICANN is looking for a new registrar for the .net tld. The biddings are in now, and The Register has a lengthy article about the five contenders. Their guess is that only two really have a chance: VeriSign and DeNIC. We will know more in two months."
Speaking of domain registration, I found this website that allows you to register the domain slashdot.org
What a fraud!!
Anybody knows who to complain or what to do to take this idiot down?
Isn't .Net (c) by Microsoft already?
See pictures of tits
I know there's no totally-impartial, non-profit-driven corporation or entity that can do this job well, but Verisign's past practices ("Site Finder" and its blind ignorance of how the Internet should work is a perfect example) have led me to see them as worse than the rest of the pack. I simply don't trust them to do the job right because they can't understand that the Internet != the WWW.
Not that I disagree, but just sending people to a bunch of discussions about Verisign on Slashdot is not exactly incontrivertible evidence that they suck. There are lots of reasons, but the Slashdot crowd not liking them is not a reason that speaks to anyone but the Slashdot crowd.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
A: You can hear screams of "YOU FUCKING INCOMPETENT COCKSUCKERS!" from six cubes away rather than the usual three.
"In Deutschland ist es die DENIC, die diese Aufgabe als "designated administrator" im Sinne des RFC1591 übernommen hat. Sie erfüllt sie ohne Gewinnerzielungsabsicht zum Nutzen und Wohle der gesamten deutschen Internet Community, neutral und unabhängig, fachkundig und verantwortungsbewusst, diskriminierungsfrei und in Übereinstimmung mit den international anerkannten Standards für den Betrieb einer Domain-Registrierungsstelle."
This roughly translates to
"In germany, DeNic took this duty as 'designated administrator' according to RFC1591. It achieves its duty without any aim for financial profits, but for the benefit of the hole internet community, neutrally and independently, competently and responsibly, withouth discrimination and in accordance to international standards for domain registration services."
Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
Seems a little sketch. The article clearly argues that DENIC eG will win the contract. These two snippets say all, despite their conclusion that doesn't really support the evidence that they themselves introduced. From TFA regarding DENIC eG:
.net registry, it would be equally delighted to see Denic win it. Why? Because Denic is the most powerful registry outside of ICANN control.
So Denic isn't messing about and while ICANN would love nothing more than VeriSign to lose the
So it appears that The Registrar thinks that DENIC eG will win the bid. This is especially apparent when contrasted with their earlier snippet about Verisign's bid:
These very reasons are also why ICANN would desperately love for its old foe to be humbled. With VeriSign weakened, ICANN can start to assert itself properly over the Internet. It may even mean the end of the lengthy legal battle that VeriSign has been running against ICANN - something that is as much a bartering chip as it is a legal dispute.
So there, the Registrar actually thinks that DENIC eG will win, despite their own conclusion and the story submission.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
Afilias runs the .org domain on PostgreSQL. It has been pretty smooth, no matter what the article says, and it was a huge embarassment for Oracle who ran a huge disinformation campaign against PostgreSQL and open source in general.
Merlin
ICANN has become an incredibly corrupt government entity. In reality, all bidders should have a chance. But when you're ICANN, you like to short-circuit the process. I suspect other bidders may not have been willing to give ICANN the $0.75 tax/fee they want from registrations, since it is wrong. VeriSign is the only one they know can control. Hence the contract will pass to them.
from: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog /28482
.com and the .net registries. ~$1.2 _billion_ for .com and ~$30 million for .net annually (numbers from the following article). for what? the actual costs involved in administering these databases can't be anywhere near the revenue generated. the public is being bled for the greed of a few (as usual), imho.
.net registry ($30 million/year x 6 years minimum = $180,000,000). i dislike conspiracy theories but i'm also a realpolitiker.
.net registry administration contenders (no need to comment on verisign)?
.Net, the Domain
.net, one of the Internet's most popular domains.
.net franchise will be challenged. While .net is not as ubiquitous as .com, it has more than five million registered domain names, which translates daily into millions of page views, 155 billion e-mail messages and some $1.4 million in commercial transactions, according to VeriSign, the company in Mountain View, Calif., that manages .com, as well as .net.
.net, including the White House, the United States Senate, Homeland Security agencies and the Social Security Administration, making it a vital Internet transportation layer, said Tom Galvin, a spokesman for VeriSign.
.biz, and Afilias, which manages .info. A nonprofit firm in Frankfurt, Denic eG, which manages Germany's eight million registered .de domain names, has also indicated that it is planning to bid.
From: panix.com>
Subject: Re: Registrar and registry backend processes.
Newsgroups: gmane.org.operators.nanog
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:16:25 -0800
[second posting attempt, apologies if the first identical post ever arrives]
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:47:50 -0700, Michael Loftis
wgops.com> wrote:
>It's clearly broken, and needs to be put up for
>public review by 'the powers that be' so that it can
>be fixed. What's happening now feels close to a
>boiler room poker game, noone seems to know all the
>players, and even fewer know all the rules, so in the
>end everyone is a loser.
i suspect part of the reason for it feeling this way is because of the large amounts of money that are made specifically off of the
anyhow, it also makes me wonder about the motivations behind this incident coming so close to the application deadline for administration of the
david
--
P.S.
can anyone comment on the reputations of the
VeriSign Has Challengers to Run
By ELIZABETH OLSON
The New York Times
Published: January 17, 2005
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - As long as the Internet runs smoothly, few people think too much about its workings. But later this month, the system's underpinnings will become a topic of debate when rival companies publicly bid to run
This will be the first time that VeriSign's
About 40 percent of government domains allow access through
So far, at least three companies in addition to VeriSign have indicated that they plan to vie for the franchise, which expires June 30. They are NeuStar, a Sterling, Va., company that runs
Selecting the domain manager is the job of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. But Icann finds itself in a ticklish position because it has publicly clashed with VeriSign over the company's proposed Site Finder service, which would redirect queries from inactive or defunct Web addresses to a search engine supported by advertisers signed up by VeriSign.
When Icann concluded that was an unacceptable diversion and refused to allow the service, VeriSign accused the group
from: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog /28565
From: David M. Besonen panix.com>
Subject: Re: Registrars serve no useful purpose
Newsgroups: gmane.org.operators.nanog
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:06:31 -0800
[a dated, biased (what isn't?), insightful, and
relevant interview]
Published on Policy DevCenter
(http://www.oreillynet.com/policy/)
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/12/05/ karl.html
Karl Auerbach: ICANN "Out of Control"
by Richard Koman
12/05/2002
Editor's note: Strong forces are reshaping the Internet these days. To understand these forces--governmental, business, and technical--Richard Koman interviews the people in the midst of the changes.
This month, Richard talks to Karl Auerbach, a public board member of ICANN and one of the Internet governing body's strongest critics.
October's distributed, denial-of-service attack against the domain name system--the most serious yet, in which seven of the thirteen DNS roots were cut off from the Internet--put a spotlight on ICANN, the nongovernmental corporation responsible for Internet addressing and DNS. The security of DNS is on ICANN's watch. Why is it so susceptible to attack, when the Internet as a whole is touted as being able to withstand nuclear Armageddon?
It's religious dogma, says Karl Auerbach, a public representative to ICANN's board. There's no reason DNS shouldn't be decentralized, except that ICANN wants to maintain central control over this critical function. Worse, Auerbach said in a telephone interview with O'Reilly Network, ICANN uses its domain name dispute resolution process to expand the rights of trademark holders, routinely taking away domains from people with legitimate rights to them, only to reward them to multinational corporations with similar names.
Auerbach--who successfully sued ICANN over access to corporate documents (ICANN wanted him to sign a nondisclosure agreement before he could see the documents)--will only be an ICANN director for a few more weeks. As part of ICANN's "reform" process, the ICANN board voted last month to end public representation on the board. As of December 15, there will be zero public representatives on the ICANN board.
How does ICANN justify banishing the public from its decision-making process? Stuart Lynn, president and CEO of ICANN, said the change was needed to make ICANN's process more "efficient." In a Washington Post online discussion, Lynn said: "The board decided that at this time [online elections] are too open to fraud and capture to be practical, and we have to look for other ways to represent the public interest. It was also not clear that enough people were really interested in voting in these elections to create a large enough body of voters that could be reflective of the public interest. This decision could always be reexamined in the future. In the meantime, we are encouraging other forms of at-large organizations to self-organize and create and encourage a body of individuals who could provide the user input and public interest input into the ICANN process."
Former ICANN president Esther Dyson is also supporting the move away from public representation on the board. "I did believe that it was a good idea to have a globally elected executive board, [but] you can't have a global democracy without a globally informed electorate," Dyson told the Post. "What you really need [in order] to have effective end-user representation is to have them in the bowels (of the organization) rather than on the board."
Auerbach isn't buying. "ICANN is pursuing various spin stories to pretend that they haven't abandoned the public interest," he says in this interview. "ICANN is trying to create a situation where individuals are not allowed in and the only organizations that are allowed in are those that hew to ICANN's party line."