Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verisign Retains .com Control Until 2012

Posted by kdawson on from the same-as-the-old-boss dept.

Several readers wrote to note that the U.S. Department of Commerce, in a controversial deal, has extended Verisign's control of the .com domain. Verisign got the right to raise prices in four of the six years of the contract, by up to 7% each time. From the article: "Verisign has control of .com and .net locked up for the next several years, but there will still be a modicum of oversight. [Commerce] retains final approval over any price hikes, and has said that any subsequent renewal of the contract will occur 'only if it concludes that the approval will serve the public interest in the continued security and stability of the Internet domain name system... and the provision of registry services at reasonable prices, terms and conditions.'"

92 comments

  1. It's a good thing if you ask me by AchiIIe · · Score: 1, Interesting

    While I understand why some might dislike higher prices for domain naimes, I welcome this. With higher domain prices the cost of domain squatting increases and hopefully we can end up with less junk registered.

    --
    Nature journal lied in Britannica vs Wikipedia Ask to retrac
    1. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      Isn't the whole notion of trademark law based on "finders keepers?" Why not the same with registering domain names?

    2. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by sjf · · Score: 1

      Is domain squatting really a problem any more - with newly registered domains, I mean ?

    3. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by AchiIIe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How would you like a single company filing for trademark on all permutations of 3, 4, 5 and 6 letter names -- and then turning around and selling those for 10 times more?

      --
      Nature journal lied in Britannica vs Wikipedia Ask to retrac
    4. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by markov_chain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, raise prices! That way we can get rid of all those junky hobbyist and personal web sites, and ensure that only high-quality, well-produced sites can stay in business, like cnn.com, verizon.com, amazon.com, etc.</cynical>

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    5. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't, but is there an applicable part of the law that says they can't?

    6. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by xENoLocO · · Score: 1

      Have you done a domain name search lately? About 90% of the names I think of are domain squatters.

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    7. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by DeadboltX · · Score: 1

      You make a good point, lets expand your theory even farther.

      Lets make it so no cars can be sold for less than $20,000. That way there will be less idiots on the road.

    8. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by sjf · · Score: 1

      Then i think out definitions of domain squatting are different. I would limit it to domains that are registered in order to extort money from trademark holders. Presumably you simply mean domains that are registered and not actively used for anything productive. Unless of course the domains you are thinking of are already trademarks, and you are going into the extortion business ;-)

    9. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by HoboMaster · · Score: 1

      That just ensures a higher percentage of rich people, which isn't necessarily analogous.

      --
      Remember kids, tin foil doesn't work, so use LeadHat.
    10. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 1

      But most of the idiots on the road drive cars that cost far more than $20,000!

    11. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by x2A · · Score: 1

      So if we also bad all cars that cost at least $20,000, then there'll be NO idiots on the road! ;-)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    12. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by x2A · · Score: 1

      oops, BAN all cars, not 'bad' them... however you do that :-p

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    13. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by beckerist · · Score: 1
      I agree. I used to own a specific .com that I used as my personal homepage. It expired as I went to transfer hosting services and some squatter stole it right out from under me, and asked me for 400$ to get it back. Whatever happened to those lawsuits anyway? I thought they were getting the pants sued off them for monopolistic tendencies?


      According to [the prosecutions] lawyer, Jesse Markham Jr:

      "ICANN has vacated its government-mandated obligation to maintain competition and prevent discrimination in markets related to internet domain names by succumbing to VeriSign's strong arm tactic and allowing it to leverage its limited-duration contractual control over .com and .net into a permanent control over those registries and over adjacent markets segments for various domain name services."
    14. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by beckerist · · Score: 1

      Welcome to......[drum roll please!]....... THE POINT!!! :-) Congrats, you finally made it!

    15. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by TeraCo · · Score: 1

      Your point is flawed. Increasing the cost of domain registration won't keep idiots out, but it will keep out those who don't want to pay extra for domains. Theoretically this would include people who register thousands of domains they don't want to use. In fact, I'd like to see it go further. 100 dollar minimum for a domain, that gives you 10 years, and keeps out the riffraff.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    16. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      No, but just because it isn't a law doesn't mean it's not wrong.

      Even for Republicans.

      --
      My little site.
    17. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      Why not just ban idiots?

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    18. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by x2A · · Score: 1

      Because, people start bringing up all sorts of genocide charges against you, claims that being a criple or of a different colour or sexuality doesn't make you an idiot, and of cause there's the extremely attractive female idiots who definitely shouldn't be allowed to drive, but we like to keep 'em around because the pillow talk's less demanding, and scaring them to keep them inline is much easier than a less gullible but less attractive female.

      But other than that, I don't really have any objections to the idea :-D

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    19. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's not anything directly under Department of Commerce's oversight duties, but there is something else under IRS and possibly its state equivalents that looks intriguing to me. (Warning: I am most seriously not a lawyer. I am a tax professional, but this is not my professional tax advice, it's mere speculation. I specifically have absolutely no knowledge of whether the IRS, or the taxation services of any U.S. states is/are currently considering any such interpretations or rulings as I discuss below. If you consider the following as investment advice, I can be held in no way responsible. That would be dumb, m'kay?)

      Corporations normally enjoy advantagious tax status for just about all their investments, if for no other reason than because they can usually represent them as long term, and long term capital gains (over one year) has a much better base rate. If, however, IRS were to rule that selling a given domain name for a large markup was a pure 'windfall profit', this could in theory result in seperate windfall profit taxes, a higher base tax rate, and/or quite possibly even penalties on previous year's fileings. Costs of compliance with any such ruling would likely be entirely born by the corporation involved, and would likely need to be accomplished in no more than two quarters, with obvious risks to corporate liquidity and future profitability.

      You ask (approximately) 'is there anything that says they can't?' - They still technically 'could', but under those circumstances, making money at it would be near impossible. Would such a ruling stand up long term, in tax court? Ask a fully trained legal specialist in the field, and if this impinges on your investment plans, my personal advice is to please make certain he or she is liscenced to practice both in your state or the state of incorporation and before the SEC and federal tax courts.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    20. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

      IMHO, As long as the .com TLD is considered to be the "One", buying up domains for speculation purposes should be wrong. As it turns out, companies with trademarks have some say over rights to similar domains. I guess that is as it should be. I grabbed the .com domain of my last name, and I feel fortunate to have it. But it turns my stomach every time I think of a domain I would like to use for a product and when I whois, it is already owned by a domain speculator. My hat is off to SONY, who uses one domain for all their sites.

    21. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it is. I recently let a few of my domains expire (wasn't using them anymore, so no point in paying for them), and it was no time at all before a scumbag squatter (webnamesolution.com) was trying to sell those very domains back to me for the low, low price of $200 each. For someone that might have accidentally let their registration lapse or had other registration difficulties, that's gonna be a no-brainer because the $200 these shysters are demanding is far less than what it would cost for a WIPO action to get the domain back and less than the expense of a trademark infringement suit if the domain name happens to be trademarked. It sucks that playing ball with these crooks is about the only viable business solution in that situation, and that the current system allows them to profit from that.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    22. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 1

      We're talking about a maximum 7% rise in 4 years out of 6. Given that domain names cost only $10 per year that's peanuts.

      Give the continuing depreciation of the dollar and the fact that .com domains are an international product from the perspective of us folks outside the US it's likely that the price for domain names will continue to fall over the next 6 years, even if the prices get raised.

    23. Re:It's a good thing if you ask me by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      The 7% raise is fine. The raise I found objectionable was that which is high enough to discourage domain squatting. How would you like to pay, say, 4-digit registration fees? Think spectrum licenses.

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  2. Ob.non-us centric post by tcdk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could we get this under control of some kind of international controlled non-profit organization, please?

    --
    TC - My Photos..
    1. Re:Ob.non-us centric post by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 3, Funny

      Short answer: No.

    2. Re:Ob.non-us centric post by Kenja · · Score: 1

      "some kind of international controlled non-profit organization"

      The only organizations I can think of like that are tied to various religious groups. So I sure hope we dont hand controll over to them.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:Ob.non-us centric post by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'll bite. Are you saying that the UN is a for-profit organization, or that it is tied to a religious organization? It seems pretty clear that it is an international organization, or at least not a US puppet.

    4. Re:Ob.non-us centric post by Kenja · · Score: 1

      The UN is not a group you want dealing with any for of internatinal standards controll for comercial entities. Read they're charter some time (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/) to see what it is they DO do. They will NOT ever setup large server farms within the US and other countries to deal with top level domains.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    5. Re:Ob.non-us centric post by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Long answer: Unlikely

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:Ob.non-us centric post by binkzz · · Score: 1

      "The only organizations I can think of like that are tied to various religious groups. So I sure hope we dont hand controll over to them."

      Yeah, because God knows what they will do to inflict horror and suffering onto the world with managing domain names.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    7. Re:Ob.non-us centric post by Mike89 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, because God knows what they will do to inflict horror and suffering onto the world with managing domain names.
      They'll do whatever they want - for starts, JesusIsHitler.com would most likely go, albeit being a pretty damn funny religion-mocking site. Hell, if they wanted to be really fussy they could can Slashdot since your post used god's name in vein (and I said Hell - oops, sorry Slashdot)
    8. Re:Ob.non-us centric post by binkzz · · Score: 1

      I'd hate to think how religious people have raped your family and killed your parents, but I think you're being just slightly paranoid.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    9. Re:Ob.non-us centric post by Mike89 · · Score: 1
      I'd hate to think how religious people have raped your family and killed your parents
      .. Huh? For starters, my parents are also religious.
      but I think you're being just slightly paranoid
      Not paranoid, cautious. Why would you give what is virtually complete control over the internet (I know I know, it's more than just websites but for 99% of the population it's WWW and Email) to a group who has external influences as powerful as religion? It's not that they'd definetely misuse it, it's just the possibility, even on a minute scale.

      Let's not forget the fact the sun revolves around the earth.
    10. Re:Ob.non-us centric post by binkzz · · Score: 1

      Who says they would have to have full control?

      Also, it doesn't have to be just one group in control, it could be several groups with different interests.

      I do believe there is a difference in American groups that always try to push their agenda no matter what, and, for instance, European groups. I don't believe putting a religious group in charge would automatically mean they will abuse that power and start banning and censoring. Even though it would probably be illegal for them to do so, and they would be stopped if they did.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    11. Re:Ob.non-us centric post by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooo!

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
  3. Higher prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They make it sound like the contract may not be renewed if they are too agressive with the price hikes. In reality, higher prices means more money to bribe.. er lobby the folks who will be renewing the contract. What is the justification for higher prices? The whole system is automated isn't it?

    1. Re:Higher prices by s20451 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The whole system is automated isn't it?

      That's right. The only paid employees of Verisign are there to arrange the money in a big pile for the executives' Monday morning money fights.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    2. Re:Higher prices by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Funny
      What is the justification for higher prices? The whole system is automated isn't it?
      They're still working on automating the process. For now it's still controlled by a ragtag group of retired plumbers and former telephone operators who all work part-time connecting the domain tubes. Most of your domain fees go toward their coffee and sandwiches.
      --
      Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
    3. Re:Higher prices by chimachima · · Score: 0

      I didn't get a memo about these Monday morning money fights.

  4. Future decision criteria... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Funny
    any subsequent renewal of the contract will occur 'only if it concludes that the approval will serve the public interest in the continued security and stability of the Internet domain name system
    In plain English, "future renewal will depend on the quiet and timely delivery of large quantities of unmarked bills to key decision makers"
  5. No, it is not a good thing. by swbrown · · Score: 5, Informative

    Verisign abuses their monopoly and shouldn't be allowed to keep it. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=11 569

    1. Re:No, it is not a good thing. by Jon_E · · Score: 1

      That should have been covered in the conflict of interest hearings 6-7 years ago that divided verisign-registry from verisign-registrar .. the registry is the real sticking point here with their government appointed tax on every .com registration that passes through. Just think of them like the USPS (another government contracted private company that happens to have a monopoly on mail delivery.)

    2. Re:No, it is not a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Verisign abuses their monopoly and shouldn't be allowed to keep it. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=11 569

      I wonder what is next, after the last renewal they pulled the DNS wild card thing... so what is next?

    3. Re:No, it is not a good thing. by jZnat · · Score: 1

      USPS doesn't have a monopoly; many people actively use (or have at least heard of or used before) UPS, FedEx, and DHL (I don't know of any other postal services).

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    4. Re:No, it is not a good thing. by cashman73 · · Score: 1
      USPS doesn't have a monopoly; many people actively use (or have at least heard of or used before) UPS, FedEx, and DHL (I don't know of any other postal services).

      Not to forget to mention the free mail (email) options, like Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Hotmail, etc,...

    5. Re:No, it is not a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could a government-ordered monopoly not be abused? The very act of ordering one is abuse.

    6. Re:No, it is not a good thing. by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

      Also, with this extension Verisign retains control of the .com TLD until the end of the known world, which has been known since pre-columbus times to be 2012. They, in my opinion, are hoarding posessions and money on Earth in hopes that they will remain wealthy and powerful in the afterlife. If this deal is not struck down Verisign's wealth will ensure that they have significant control over the afterlife. Ladies and Gentlemen (mostly gentlemen, seeing as this is /. , if they truly can be called gentle is an irrelevant matter at this moment of crisis) this is a call to action to strike down the evil, manipulating corporate dollar. If you think the strikebreakers and robber barons of the turn of the century were bad, imagine what could happen if you vote Republican this fall. Your very afterlife could be in danger.


      BTW, I really do agree with parent, monopolies are bad. I just had to capitalize on the typical slashdotter's corporation-hating mentality.

      --
      I am Spartacus
    7. Re:No, it is not a good thing. by HUADPE · · Score: 1
      USPS doesn't have a monopoly; many people actively use (or have at least heard of or used before) UPS, FedEx, and DHL (I don't know of any other postal services).

      USPS has an enforced LETTER monopoly. The companies you listed specialize in delivering packages, where USPS does not have an enforced monopoly. Does a monopoly on letters constitute a mail monopoly? I don't know, but it IS the case that they have an enforced monopoly on at least one subset of mail.

      From Wikipedia

      The USPS holds a statutory monopoly on non-urgent First Class Mail, outbound U.S. international letters.

      Competition in "extremely urgent letters" is allowed under certain conditions: The private carrier must charge at least $3 or twice the U.S. postage, whichever is greater (other stipulations, such as maximum delivery time, apply as well); or, alternatively, it may be delivered for free.[5] This is where carriers such as Fed Ex compete by offering overnight delivery, as well as where bicycle messengers compete for intracity mail.

      --
      This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
    8. Re:No, it is not a good thing. by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >USPS has an enforced LETTER monopoly.

      I wonder what that means for the FedEX LETTER I sent this morning?

      If you're going to say that's not a LETTER it's a PACKAGE, you're going into "No True Scotsman" territory.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    9. Re:No, it is not a good thing. by HUADPE · · Score: 1

      Did they charge you more than $3? The enforced monopoly is that it is illegal to undercut USPS, or even come close on pricing.

      --
      This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
    10. Re:No, it is not a good thing. by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

      That's spot on tbh!

      --
      SURELY NOT!!!!!
  6. Whine whine whine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Nothing prevents anyone from setting up competing DNS servers/services/config (It's quite helpful in removing things like microsoft.com and its assorted secondaries from your DNS lookups). It's getting others to use them that's the problem.

  7. Technology Advances by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ugh. Like it gets more and more expensive to manage the process of keeping the .com database going. Why does GoDaddy charge my $10 and Verisign charges me $30.

    --
    Sleep is for the Weak
    1. Re:Technology Advances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You seem to have little understanding of how domain registries work. They're talking about the registration fee paid by all registrars for every domain in Verisign's TLDs. This is less than $6, and it's being paid whether you use GoDaddy, Verisign, or any other registrar.

    2. Re:Technology Advances by aliendisaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, unless they have changed, the registrar I used to work for payed $6.25/domain to Verisign.

      --
      Freedom is a state of mind. A mind is a state of being. Stay the fuck out of my mind and my being. - Corporate Avenger
    3. Re:Technology Advances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for .com its $6/year plus 25 cents/yr to ICANN (fixed fee). In addition, each year, registrars must pay ICANN a $4000 fee, plus a "variable fee" that is 3.8 million divided by the number of registrars. So when you factor in the variable ICANN fee cost the amount it costs the registrar is somewhere between $6.25 and $6.50 per year.

  8. Re:This should certainly help the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the large number of virtually hosted websites sharing an IP, you'd have to get people to switch to IPv6 too.

  9. Is it a coincidence? by zappepcs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    or is this not when the Mayan calendar predicts that the world as we know it will end?

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    1. Re:Is it a coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is the end of a long age of man, not the end of the world.

    2. Re:Is it a coincidence? by OxygenPenguin · · Score: 3, Informative

      I guess that's one way of putting it. The mayan calendar predicts a massive change in the earth every 640 years, of which the next is 2012, as you noted. I suppose the end of the world "as we know it" would technically be correct, but a major planetary change, however initially subtle, is definitely coming up according to them.

      --
      Read the only personal Runyon page out there.
    3. Re:Is it a coincidence? by Simon+la+Grue · · Score: 0

      I guess that's one way of putting it. The mayan calendar predicts a massive change in the earth every 640 years, of which the next is 2012, as you noted. I suppose the end of the world "as we know it" would technically be correct, but a major planetary change, however initially subtle, is definitely coming up according to them.
      If its good enough for R.E.M, its good enough for me.
    4. Re:Is it a coincidence? by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 2, Funny

      640 years should be enough for anybody.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    5. Re:Is it a coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 hysterical...too bad I don't have any mod points today.

  10. Why .com? by Lonedar · · Score: 1

    Do we still need the .com domain?
    Why not use the country TLDs instead?

    I think that using country TLDs would have some advantages over using the generic .com, .net etc. domains. For example, when I want to get to the non-English version of say, apple.com, I don't know whether I should go to www.apple.$COUNTRY_TLD, or www.apple.com/$COUNTRY_CODE. Therefore I have to go to www.apple.com and look for the language/region selection box.

    Using the country TLDs exclusively would mitigate these problems. To access the French version of the page, one would go to www.apple.fr. Russian? Go to www.apple.ru etc.

    1. Re:Why .com? by Ragzouken · · Score: 1

      del.ico.co.uk?

    2. Re:Why .com? by aliendisaster · · Score: 1
      Do we still need the .com domain?
      Why not use the country TLDs instead?


      Do we need them? Not really.
      Are we going to get rid of them? Nope.

      Most people are stupid and lazy. No one wants to type in the other characters. They are used to just typing .com and, if you change it, they will get scared. Look at just about any site that is not .com and compare the hits to its .org, .net, etc counterpoints. Even if there is no .com but a .net, the .com will have a ton more hits. It has become human nature for most people to automatically hit .com when going to a website.
      --
      Freedom is a state of mind. A mind is a state of being. Stay the fuck out of my mind and my being. - Corporate Avenger
    3. Re:Why .com? by MoxFulder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, some languages are not national languages :-) I mean, let's say you want the Apple web page in Malayalam... that's a language that's spoken by 40 million people in India. What URL would you go to for that page? By comparison, Danish is spoken by only 6 million people, but since it's the national language of Denmark you can easily find it at www.apple.dk

      I'd rather see web sites make consistent use of LANGUAGE codes rather than COUNTRY codes, like wikipedia does, e.g: en.wikipedia.org for English, nah.wikipedia.org for Nahuatl, etc.

      --
      My bicyles
    4. Re:Why .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      del.ico.co.uk?

      fark.it!

    5. Re:Why .com? by ozeki · · Score: 1

      Just open Firefox and type the name you are looking for in the address bar, without the .com. Guess what, there is this new invention called the search engine and when its tied to the browser it will essentially make the domain name business obsolete. Shh nobody tell GoDaddy they might want to try that IPO thing again :P

    6. Re:Why .com? by sulfur · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is far more useful to have country codes, not language codes. In some countries (especially smaller ones) a lot of population has native language different from the state/official language. For example, if I am a Spanish speaking person living in the USA, I would be more interested in finding information about prices/products/offers/etc of Apple in the USA, not in Spain. And I would go to apple.us and try to switch website language to Spanish if they provide it. Language division makes sense for an encyclopedia, but not for a corporate website.

    7. Re:Why .com? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Whenever you connect to a web site, your browser sends your language preferences. The server can then reply with different versions for different users. In Apache, you can do this quite easily, as I recall, by simply appending the language code to the file name (e.g. index.html.fr for French). For the web, this means you don't need per-language domains, and most protocols have similar features. Geographical domains are more useful, because you often care about things near you; if location is not an issue then you can use an international one.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  11. most companies should use .co.[country code] by interactive_civilian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't really say I care very much. Maybe I don't know very well how the internet works, but it seems to me that .com should only be reserved for GLOBAL commercial sites, and all other commercial sites should be .co.[country code] (.co.us, .co.uk, .co.ma, etc).

    However, that is probably overly idealistic...

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:most companies should use .co.[country code] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Ideally, .com should only be allowed for Global organizations with offshore bank
      accounts with a market cap of $1B and a small squad of goons to shoot you if you
      attempt to purchase or squat a .com domain and dont have these things.

      WTF "idealistic" - get yer hed outta yer ass!

  12. 2012? by aliendisaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ohhhhh...That's why the Mayan Calendar ends in 2012.

    --
    Freedom is a state of mind. A mind is a state of being. Stay the fuck out of my mind and my being. - Corporate Avenger
  13. Why 2012 ? The end date of mayan calendar ? by unity100 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Im not being conspirationist here, but why the hell 2012 ? Why not 2013 or 2011 or 2018 ?

    Currently i am seeing many international agreements, datelines, final dates being given at either 2012 or 1 year after or earlier. Some small nato inter-agreements, some datelines for environmental procedures, some trade deadlines. Why 2012 ? whats so special with it ?

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:Why 2012 ? The end date of mayan calendar ? by Lonedar · · Score: 1

      That's because the world is going to end in 2012.

      Didn't you get the memo?

    2. Re:Why 2012 ? The end date of mayan calendar ? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      6 years.

    3. Re:Why 2012 ? The end date of mayan calendar ? by Digicrat · · Score: 1

      Actually, the memo said that 2012 is just a nice sounding year.

      To be precise, it is the one year in between two. [2 on either side, and just one in the middle]

    4. Re:Why 2012 ? The end date of mayan calendar ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

      int. contracts, defence deals, treaties and crap generally happened to be for 2, 4, 5 or 10 years durations for the last 50 years. why now 6 years ? and why now other odd intervals appearing as 7 years and such in such contracts/agreements ?

      --
      Read radical news here
  14. Prices and Inflation by dlevitan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I see everyone screaming about the prices going up. I'm not happy about it either, and Verisign will definitely rake in the cash if it increases its prices by 7% 4 times, but its not as bad as everyone out there thinks. We're used to prices in computing going down. But my guess is that Verisign's current prices are needed to maintain the registry servers and staff. I'm sure they make a healthy profit out of it, but that's the goal of any business, and I doubt anyone else could beat them by much.

    In terms of the 7% increases, look at it in terms of inflation. In 6 years, assuming 3% inflation, one would need about $1.20 for each dollar they have today. If Verisign increases rates by 7% four times, That's equivalent to a 30% increase in price. So what we really have is a 10% increase in the price of service, which looks a lot better. Also consider the fact that 6 years is a long time in the Internet/computer world. They may need that extra cash if something comes along that requires massive infrastructure changes.

    Now, I'm not defending Verisign and I'm not saying its right for them to automatically raise prices by 30% over 6 years. I hope they'll show restraint and I personally wish the registrar contract selection was more competitive. But at the same time, I don't think this is a necessarily horrible deal assuming Verisign shows restraint, and its in their best interest not to be seen as a horrible company for the next time that their contract comes up for renewal.

    1. Re:Prices and Inflation by prezkennedy.org · · Score: 1

      Actually, its 1.07*1.07*1.07*1.07 which is 1.31079601 or 31.079601% and 1.03*1.03*1.03*1.03 which is 1.12550881 or 12.550881% (because it compounds). The difference between the two is nearly 19%, or 9% more than what you said.

      That's much more than keeping pace with inflation, and it's not like they're adding any new services either.

      --
      It started back in Team Fortress Classic
    2. Re:Prices and Inflation by Xayma · · Score: 1

      Actually inflation needs to be considered over all 7 years. Assuming they will always increase the price at the first possible opportunity then at the max it will be 19% but that drops back down to 9% increase after the 7 years.

    3. Re:Prices and Inflation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure they make a healthy profit out of it, but that's the goal of any business, and I doubt anyone else could beat them by much.

      There is no, absolutely no, reason for a for-profit business to be responsible for any internet TLD. Verisign should be disbanded and the contract given to a non-profit or a quasi-government business (like the USPS). For those who think .COM is an international TLD, who exactly is giving the American-company Verisign the effectively no-bid contract time after time?

      I don't think this is a necessarily horrible deal assuming Verisign shows restraint, and its in their best interest not to be seen as a horrible company for the next time that their contract comes up for renewal.

      There is no chance Verisign is not going to get the contract next time it comes up. So your premise is flawed. This is a company known for its terrible customer service. That did not put a dent in their current renewal. It is like asking whether Halliburton (where Vice President Dick Cheney used to be CEO) is going to get the next Iraq contract.

  15. It's actually not that big of a price jump by ragingmime · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I, too, am less than thrilled about Verisign having exclusive control. The Internet is designed to be decentralized - we have numerous root DNS servers and a plethroa of ISPs, and it works just fine. I'd like to see a handful of "Official" registrars that can compete with each other are monitored by ICANN.

    That said, don't forget that numerous important registrars (e.g. eNom) exist in addition to Verisign. I admit I'm not quite sure how this works - I guess eNom and others buy domains cheap from Verisign, and then resellers sell them again. As you probably know, they're cheaper - around 10 or 15 bucks - if you get 'em from a reseller like GoDaddy (er, if you like a healthy heaping of spam with your domains) or register4less.com (if you don't). I actually got a $5 domain with a 1-year hosting plan from ICDSoft. I'm not connected with any of those companies, just sayin'.

    So, what if they do go for all four 7% price increases (presumably to cover increasing costs, inflation, etc.)? Let's do the math: $10 * (1.07^4) = $13.11 by 2012. That's assuming they bump up the price as much as possible during their 6 year control of the domain. Granted, that's also assuming that their weird structure of domain resellers stays in place. I'm honestly not sure how that works, but it hasn't shown any signs of disappearing so far, and I think there would be an outcry if it did.

    Again, I'm not a fan of the situation from a stability/fairness standpoint, but I don't think the asking price for a domain is too high right now, and I don't think four 7% increases in six years is too much to ask of us.

    --
    I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
  16. .co.us is Colorado by Foerstner · · Score: 1

    The US State governments control [2-letter postal abbreviation].us domains.

    *.ny.us is New York state
    *.fl.us is the state of Florida
    which means that *.co.us is the state of Colorado.

    Now, .com.us or something might be feasible...

    --
    The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
    1. Re:.co.us is Colorado by welshsocialist · · Score: 1

      You are incorrect. The domain name for Colorado is/was .state.co.us. The other states and DC are this way too. See Wikipedia for the list. It seems the .xx.state.us domains are deprecated now, as DC and most of the states have switched to .gov or, in some cases, .com names.

      --
      Support the Chagossians
  17. Not only that... by floorpirate · · Score: 1

    They're also gaining control over the release of expired/deleted domains. If a domain expires and gets deleted, Verisign will control whether or not the domain becomes available for anyone to register, or if it gets put up for auction (by Verisign) to the highest bidder. Any independant company that's been reselling domain names is either going to go out of business or have to find another way to make money off domains.

    --
    For every action there is a completely absurd lawsuit.
  18. Sheesh haven't you been to the dailykos? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    Bush is dictator for life and he likes six.