Slashdot Mirror
VeriSign To Control .com Domain Until 2012
DIY News wrote to mention a Reuters article reporting that VeriSign will control the .com domain until 2012, according to an agreement with ICANN. From the article: "The agreement settles a long-running dispute between the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, and the most powerful company under its jurisdiction. The settlement comes at a time when ICANN is under attack from China, Iran and other countries that want more direct control over the domain-name system that guides traffic around the Internet."
Coincidence? Yeah, probably, but you should call Art Bell just in case.
Verisign has been known to go around policy: who authorised .root? ICANN is known to be undemocratic and hold meetings in places where people can't access them. Could some non-profit organisation take over .com and make the internet fair again?
God forbid we should run the Internet in a way that displeases such an open and information-friendly group of countries.
They tried to start a 'service' to redirect mistyped domain names to a search engine (with ads)....
.com domain names in use, and then also the .net names.
... or any other nation/entity vying for control...?
... and I think right now its as free as it's going to be...
These same people also make 6 dollars per year for the 35 million
They are icky.
===
Of course, one has to wonder... WWCD? What would China do? (if they had control)
Mountain View, California-based VeriSign introduced a search engine in September 2003 that directed Internet users who mistype domain names like "www.example.com" to a search engine which contained advertisements
IMHO, The internet should always be 'free' (except for the cost of connection)
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
The ICANN and VeriSign dispute about the content of the root domain name servers makes about as much sense as a dispute between Fred and Joe over which of them can park their car in Bob's driveway.
What contractual or legal obligations exist between ICANN, VeriSign, or any of the registrars and the owners of the traditionally accepted root domain name servers? Just how do ICANN or VeriSign intend to force the owners of the root DNS systems to sync their databases to the registrar's if they decide to cut out the middle man? What contractual or legal obligations requires ISPs to resolve DNS queries using the traditionally accepted root DNSs?
I'd sure like to know what these missing links are. Seems to me they are fundamental....
"All your .com domains are belong to US"
fak3r.com
What's everyone say now? ICANN President Paul Twomey said the settlement shows that issues involving the domain-name system are best resolved within ICANN, rather than through an international bureaucratic body. Am I missing something? Big US corporation uses threat of long, expensive US litigation to bend ICANN to its will? ICANN claims that this proves the system works, sure -- what else could they say and maintain a shred of self-respect?
But now y'all have to chose your evil: VeriSign and litigation lawyers, or the UN? Bwahahahaha!
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
suppressing our people
Stop doing business with them, then talk about how evil they are.
You can't take the sky from me...
It's not simply the U.S. versus the rest of the world.
China and Iran are leading proponents of setting up some sort of UN-based body to replace ICANN. The European Union wants to keep ICANN in place, but have it answer to an international group. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and I think Japan back the U.S.
Who the hell modded this up? Ebay bought a very, very small part of Verisign, the part that did payment processing. No big deal. Verisign still controlls the .com, .net root servers, and that's all this article is about. Period.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
So let me get this straight:
.com until 2012, instead of 2007 BECAUSE they fucked up in the first place with that outrageous wildcard-advertising?
1. Verisign introduces wildcard
2. ICANN tells them to temporarily suspend that
3. Verisign sues, but the case gets thrown out
4. Verisign sues again and they settle that Verisign keeps its reign over
5. No ??? here, just profit.
Oh yea, and the people wonder why do I and apparently the rest of the world think that ICANN and the USA is not doing the task it had been given properly?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Well, that part of the article was FUD at its best, and you're the perfect example of a naive Slashdot reader who took the bait and fell for it, so to speak.
For one, not all the world's Iran and China; admittedly those are dictatorships that you probably don't want having a say in how the Internet is governed, but the majority of the world's countries is not like that. Furthermore, the proposition wasn't that individual countries control the Internet; rather, it was suggested that an international body responsible for this be created. Kind of like the ITU, for example - which is not exactly a prime example of the devastating influence that countries like China and Iran would have, is it?
And don't even think about playing the "free speech" card - that coming from a country where an accidentally-exposed nipple on TV causes a major outrage and where the FBI goes after and tries to shut down porn websites is just ironic. If you want the USA to keep control of the Internet, at least be honest enough to admit that you like to feel that you're in power, that you have control, and that you're better than the rest of the world.
And now I'll most likely get modded down to oblivion for saying this, probably - again by people who otherwise constantly talk about free speech. Isn't it ironic...
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Why not the EU or any other number of countries that don't have despotic governments? Countries depend on the internet for a number of things, and it's only natural and sensible that they don't want to trust their vital infrastructures to Verisign or the US. Mentioning China and Iran seems like a lame attempt at scaremongering. "Imagine, the internet in the hands of China! Oh noes!"
The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
The prices for .com names may go up significantly - 7% per year.
.ewe Business Model - or - It's Just .Ewe and Me, .Kid(s) (http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000159.ht ml)
And ICANN's slice goes up to 50cents per name per year.
All of this adds up to increased taxation on those who acquire domain name, i.e. you and me. Yet we are unrepresented in ICANN's decision-making processes. Can you say "taxation without representation"?
And if you really think about it, what is the actual cost to provide a service in which the yearly cost is that of *not* removing an entry for a database and in which the resources consumed are a few hundred bytes of disk space?
I've suggested a new domain name selling model - The
Does ANYONE have those?
Ive currently heard (and you will get my comments on the arguments in non-italic) .xxx domain, and not to forget: what's going on with the iraqi domain? r net_domain/?
The US doesn't mess with how its run
false: we have the whole mess with the
Well, since the current owners are in US custody (!??) its in limbo: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/30/iraq_inte
Transferring power will lead to greater Cencorship
Oh, cencorship as in preventing media to display coffins of dead soldiers? Or showing a nipple on tv? Banning Al Jazeera from reporting from iraq? Or pictures from abu ghraib? (where the public - thats us, folks - have the right to know what is actually going on).
No, my dear friends - it's time to 'fess up, and admit that there are plenty of countries - participating in the UN, as a matter of fact - that does the whole "Freedom of speech"-thing better than the US.
The UN is corrupt
Arguably the UN has had its share of scandals - it's no suprise since any political body draws the attention of people out for personal gain. This is solved by actively participating, and demanding increased opaquity of how the UN (or any political body - the US for example) is run. I won't even go into the whole Haliburton, Bush AWOL, Saudi connection, Campain Contributions and Florida vote scandals.
Historically the internet came from the US - so it should remain in US control
This one is plain dumb. Just because something is historical, doesn't mean that it neccessarily is good today.
The US runs it better (technically)0 9-14?lang=en
Not really. Ever heard of pharming? Im going to do a littel flag-waiving myself, and point out that right now Sweden is on the track to implement DNS-SEC, for examplehttp://www.nic.se/english/nyheter/pr/2005-
To keep internet democratic, the US should be in control
It IS a issue of democracy. The US has to hand over the power to a international democratic body, any other action is per definition UN-Democratic (no pun intended). I'm sorry, but arguing anything else is just moot.
It's the US responsibility to participate and to try to affect the outcome of voting on these issues in the UN. That, my friends, is how democracy is supposed to work.(and I shouldn't have to point out what democracy actually is)
I'm scared of that the rest of the world won't put the US intrests first.
Well, should they? Honestly?
The rest of the world is not, I repeat NOT, by definition Evil. Remember, North Korea, China (as is the US) are a part of the rest of the world. There are enough good countries to balance out the "bad" ones ("bad" as in the _US sense of the word).
Ok, I'll probably be modded down for this post, but before bringing out the flamethrowers, I'm actually intrested in hearing good arguments for keeping it in US control.
Regards ...
"If it can be thought up, there exists at least one person trying to make it happen for real" - Phil
Just because it's done through DNS now doesn't mean it's the only way it can be done.
~Ilyanep
To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
I don't think you understand what free speech is. It has nothing to do with nipples and getting modded down. My nipples, for example, do not speak, nor am I familiar with any medical literature that talks about nippular vocal abilities.
In addition, being "modded down" does not infringe upon your free speech. If you were taken to jail for your post, then we would have a free speech issue on our hands.
tS
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
yet these people cant even find one of the evil countrys people always talk about like North Korea...
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002454.html
XML - A clever joke would be here if