Slashdot Mirror
Soviet Union TLD Owners Snub ICANN
An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist has up a post about ICANN's latest decisions about country-code TLDs. The body is making an effort to tackle the problem of Yugoslavia's .yu outliving the country by over a decade but is far from getting its way with the Soviet Union's domain .su. Around 2,500 new .su sites are created every year despite ICANN ordering its retirement — the disgruntled .su registrars have announced an 80 per cent price cut in the price of .su domains in response. 'It makes the much-publicized wrangles over the ".xxx" domain seem tiny by comparison. And it convinces me of the need to reevaluate the existence of the US Dept of Commerce-backed non-profit organisation that is ICANN. The current squabbles are petty compared to the diplomatic arguments that TLDs could cause. An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?'"
Must Resist! Will fading! Must be strong. NNNRRRRR!!!! NOOOoooooo!!!
In Soviet Russia TLD discontinues YOU!
*forcechoke*
"In Soviet Union, you accepted apology."
Absolutely! They'll be glad to crack the whip on registrars of non-countries like the Soviet Union and Taiwan.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Generally the U.N. is pretty good with standards (english for pilots) and lists (like ISO country codes), and very ineffective, well - how about "tedious"... they can be effective if only slow, when politics or "national identity" are involved. This isn't the UN's fault so much as the fact that it is made of people. So.. As far as the lists go, UN would be great (say .xxx), but very sensitive to getting rid of "identities" like .su or .yu if it can be shown that the domains are offering some kind of cohesive bond between sites.
my 0.02, or at least two cents worth of B.A. in international studies from 11 years ago. In this day and age, probably worthless.
meh
There, there. Somebody had to do it.
"An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?"
The UN couldn't find its ass if it sat down on its own hands. Not only that, they have no teeth; name me a single country that give a crap about that they have to say and I might buy that argument. The UN is less than a Paper Tiger... more like a half-dead Paper Chipmunk. How do you expect them to handle something complicated like this and actually make it work?
Yes, let's remove an organization whose competence is questioned and replace it with one whose corruption and incompetence is beyond question. That's like firing Kevin Kostner as a movie director and hiring Uwe Boll instead. Far better ICANN than the crooked, incompetent clowns at the UN. Hell, even the Mafia would be better; then at least the Internet would be run by competent criminals...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
And what are they going to do when Tuvalu goes under water? Will they discontinue .tv? All its going to take is a foot or so rise in sea level and tuvalu goes glug glug glug ...
Kevin Smith on Prince
Doing so can disrupt hundreds of thousands of businesses and personal domains. Let both .su and .yu remain. Most new sites will probably register under names of present day countries to highlight their local ties anyway.
US or Canadian?
Please stop stalking me, bro.
but dont call me surely!
Doesn't matter.
The little bit of editorializing in this submission is a little bit too much. I fail to see how making countries directly responsible will depoliticize the process. ICANN, is a flawed organization, but it is an effort to make management of the domain name system independent of governments and technically driven.
The IEEE is not a UN body; Its voting membership, and its activities are a combination of academics and engineers employed by major technology companies. Given this, I find it hard to see how the "surely" remark in the story summary can even be regarded as reasonable.
I for one would prefer a more technical, more independent ICANN--not a less technical, more political ICANN such as is embodied by the sluggish and highly politicized ITU.
The ICANN TDL violates most OPEC standards of INTA established by NATA quite a few years after WWII. Clearing up the NDF ASAP would be easier than using SSA. BTW I am SWM w/ 4BR1B seeks SWF w/ BMW and large 401k.
If only these domain owners had some legal recourse...
When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
and he says, "surely"
as if anybody listens to what u.n. orders about anything.
Read radical news here
So .su me.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
> An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?
What idiot would write such a thing in 2007? A century ago such naive faith in International organizations to settle disputes was commonplace, fifty years ago diehards still believed the inherent contradiction inherent in such organizations could be handwaved away. But now? Now that we have seen each and every International organization fall into disrepute, chaos, corruption or outright evil?
Even previously unquestioned organizations like ISO are proving to be all too easily corrupted. Others, like the UN you wish to hand the greatest achievement of Western Civilization over to, were so flawed in their design they became failed instituitions before the ink was dry on their charters.
Seriously, this isn't a troll or flamebait. Name three achivements of the UN since it's founding. Ok, you in the back that remembered the Korean War being fought under UN auspices. Yea, because the Soviets were off in a sulk for a brief period the UN managed to allow the US (with our usual allies of the UK and the Aussies along with token support from the usual suspects) to fight to a tie, but under no circumstances actually win. And we are STILL mired down there to this day.
Same for the first Gulf War, the UN grudgingly allowed the US to lead our usual allies to solve a problem for everyone else. But I don't seem to recall the UN spearheading either of those efforts, only being convinced to get the hell out of the way.
Just how many more mass graves do we need before you misty eyed 'citizens of the world' realize the US is the leading cause of mass death today. Ask the survivers in Rwanda or Darfur if they believe the UN is a capable fo being a force for good.
No, the UN is a Parliment of Tyrants. Because it was DESIGNED that way. Shocked the new UN "Human Rights" body is as corrupt as the old one? I'm not. Because Tyrants have more votes in both the General Assembly and Security Council, all works of the UN are going to be geared to aid tyranny. Hand the Internet over to China, Cuba, Iran and their ilk? Are you barking mad?
Democrat delenda est
Puerto Rico has its own TLD (.PR) since 1989. The funny thing is that Puerto Rico was never a country, it used to be a Spanish Colony way back in history and it's been a US territory for the last half century. Why do they bother so much about other non-country's TLDs?
Australian, you insensitive clod!
Its really because the US wants the domain for after the next "elections" ... for Soviet USA (.su)
After all, no habeus corpus, no posse comitas, the constitution is "just a damn piece of paper", the US economy on a death spiral, people being sent off to fight wars of imperialism, ... you'd think that the Soviet Union *won* the cold war.
Kevin Smith on Prince
and enter the pitiful medieval squabbles of iran, china, north korea and other brutal regimes to manipulate the domain name system for propagating their own agenda.
im turkish, and im fine with an international company backed by u.s. controlling the domain name registrations, thank you.
Read radical news here
Finally, the best of /.'s "In Soviet Russia..." comments all in one place.
for all the jokes about reverse russian dns.
In Soviet Russia domain name queries you!
This is the organization that could not handle an international vaccine program without falling flat on it's face due to internal politics. I can't imagine that it would be any better in handling external politics.
There are some perfectly valid reasons to be suspicious of any one country administering the TLD list. Retiring zombie TLDs isn't one of them. Just set up a grace period. After 3 years don't process any more new domain applications. After 5 years no domain renewals. After 15 years no TLD.
Very few domains will have a lifetime longer than that, and if they do chances are they are run by clueful people who will have aliases set up long before the tits up date.
Your analogy is filled with awesome and win. I wish I had mod points, but you seem to be well on your way.
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
whoa, informative...
The working groups in the W3C seem to do a good job defining standards we can all live with, why not make them the custodians of the standards as well. That way TLDs have some semblance of order and a deprecated TLD can be selectively migrated, etc. with technically competent standards as opposed to politically appointed or "corporate overlorded" individuals as in the current processes.
?? Thoughts ??
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
the return to waterworld"
not half bad an idea you got there actually. kevin costner teaming with uwe boll. hmmm...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think those of us remaining in the deep South should start a .CSA top level domain. If it has now become politically correct to create and or maintain domains for countries that are in effect no longer in existence, it should not be a problem to start a .CSA domain in honor of our blessed South and those who fought for her.
> Just how many more mass graves do we need before you misty eyed 'citizens of the world' realize the US
> is the leading cause of mass death today. Ask the survivers in Rwanda or Darfur if they believe the UN
> is a capable fo being a force for good.
And I even previewed once.... sigh. Of course that should be UN at the end of both lines but with the slashkos crowd it is probably best to make it clear.... especially in light of 25 Democrat Party Senators voting to endorse Move On's notion of the US military this afternoon.
Democrat delenda est
"realize the US is the leading cause of mass death today"
Aw, too bad. You had me up until this moronic comment.
the US is the leading cause of mass death today.
Please explain. Or do you mean the UN?
The UN is somewhat corrupt, but that is not why I'd oppose them running it. Nor because they are political at heart. Look up the Whaling Commission on Wikipedia as an example. The key problem is they are country oriented.
.to ending) cannot control its users, then it has no function. It is too small to have any traffic relevance.
Top level domains should be about routing traffic competently. I do not care if the USSR or Yugoslavia or Aland or the Faroe Islands or Antarctica are countries or not. You have to balance traffic routing as engineering efficiency and some ability to legally control the activities of the users of that domain. If say Tonga (with its nice
I'd back engineers any day over the UN.
.su domains were over $100 a year last I checked...
Which registrars are offering the mad discounts on them?
Peace sells, but who's buying?
.su us!
Here is a list of good things that the UN has done. Just because the UN hasn't won any wars doesn't mean that they have not accomplished a lot of good.
Football Odds
Goddammit, that's the point.
xD
Please stop stalking me, bro.
In Soviet Russia....
:-)
Nah, it's too easy with this one.
Why don't we just get rid of TLDs altogether? They don't do much besides confusing users and force site operators to register more domains, anyway. We have .orgs that aren't non-profit organizations, country TLDs for sites that have little to do with that country, and on and on. The only valid case I see is that TLDs _sometimes_ can differentiate between different versions of a site tailored for different locations, but even there...you can do that differentiation through other means. Really, if it were up to me, I'd get rid of TLDs.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Being the first, you should've done:
In Soviet Union, TLD Owners Snub ICANN!
Works much better for this article.
Pardon me for interrupting your rant, but Palestine was allocated the .ps country code in October 1999.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
If there is a registrar that continues to support the zone, why push for removal? What, they're gonna force everyone off .uk and into .gb next? If someone wants to have user.su, let them. Plus if several countries declare themselves to be Secular Union, you can point them in that direction :)
Hyperom.com
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
Seriously, what's the big deal? I never understood why domains are restricted at all. It's not like a Russian can't register a ".com", an American can't register a ".su" or the DNS system couldn't handle completely random names.
So what's the point?
No sig today...
...'N when someone in Israel decides to create something and looks for ".is" or whatnot, can you just imagine the uproar! "Israel, the center of Zionist oppression..." etc., etc., etc. Oh, yeah. BTW, can I have some flowers for my hair? I think it must be 1968 again. CW
The way things are going over in the current Russia, it might not be a bad idea to hang onto the .su domains. In a couple of years it might be current again.
.?? extension and then propagating them over DNS servers worldwide? Is it up to the ISP to determine whether they will allow a DNS request to a certain top level domain, or is this something ICANN has some authority over?
The overall problem of who is really in control of these things is a curious one. Does a registrar have the ability to sell anything they want once they get on the train as a registrar. What's to keep a registrar from selling domains with any
It's days like today, that I really miss Jon Postel.
No thanks, i dont want them meddling in my countries affairs anymore then they already are.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In Soviet Russia, domain resolves you!
Here's another, more complete, list of the useful things the UN has achieved
I'll go back to my armchair in my cave now...
I like my beverages with warning labels!
ICANNs control is de facto control. What I mean by that is the only reason that ICANN controls domains is because the most widely used root servers (the root-servers.net group) listen to ICANN. They have no legal force behind them. You are free to setup alternate root servers and people have. Some mirror the ICANN root file, some don't. There is nothing stopping people from doing their own thing, other than apathy since over all the system we have now works fine.
.su from the root file and the roots could decide that no, that's not ok, and just keep using the old root file. ICANN has no legal ability to force them to do what it says.
Well, get the UN involved and now we are moving towards a de jure rule. They become the law over domains and people have to do what they say. You setup an alternate root network, maybe they get pissed off at you and tell you to stop (or rather tell your country to have their police tell you to stop). Suddenly it's the UN way or the highway.
I'd much rather what we have now. Not a perfect system, but a very free one. Not only can and do we have alternate root servers (OpenNIC for example) but at any time one or all of the ICANN roots could decide to stop listening to them. ICANN could decide to remove
Right now, it's all a system of trust. Your computer trusts the DNS servers you (or DHCP) tell it to. Those DNS servers trust the root-servers.net roots (at least most DNS servers to). Those roots trust ICANN. However it's all just trusts, at any time any of that can be changed and nobody comes and kicks down your door and arrests you for it.
No, he means the US.
Hmm. THe UN is a failure when it does the bidding of the USA and also when it doesn't do the bidding of the USA. It is an international organisation - try looking at it from that perspective instead.
*runs off to register de.su*
I'm not sure what your point is. The IWC isn't a UN body, and has accomplished an end I support through vote-buying and member-packing that I'd hate to see applied to the Internet.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Because the useless bureaucracy called the UN is sooooo much better and more efficient. You're talking about countries who can't even agree on which of them are allowed to water their grapes for winemaking.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Why doesn't ICANN just remove the .su from the root name servers. I know that this will not bring down the .su domain because it is still cached by ISPs. But this be a sort of "Sorry you are no long under warrenty" kind of thing.
ICANN request can be found on the page:
.yu domain registar can be found on page:
.su registar on page:
listen.to.us
Response to ICANN from
f..k.yu
From
try.and.su
> crack the whip on registrars of non-countries like the Soviet Union
As someone who is still officially a citizen of the Soviet Union, I must vehemently disagree with your classification!
There are palestinian territories, but 'palestine' is NOT a country numbnuts.
http://www.aliraqi.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-15513.html
It's long seemed to me that the best option would be to nuke .com/.org/.net (and double-nuke .biz, .info, etc.) and have ONLY country code TLDs. Then the UN could be involved, but only in decided country codes for new countries. Everything under that country code TLD would be completely up to that country - who runs it, what subdomains it has, who you buy domains from, what is legal and illegal in it, how copyrights are respected, etc. The TLDs we have now try to pretend that geography and nationality don't exist. But they do and it comes up all the time in court.
Easy solution - de-politicize the internet by getting rid of TLD domains. I don't know squat about the technical particulars, but why can't we set up the internet such that TLDs are unnecessary? If I type "yahoo" into my address bar, it should just resolve to some IP address setup by ya
.com off of www.yahoo.com.
.yahoo is now your tld. That's just sorta the way DNS works.
It doesn't matter if you strip the
If you had www.yahoo then
A better question is why there are no single letter tlds. Or for that matter, single letter second level domains (other than one or two, q.net which seems to no longer work, but do try x.com This one might surprise you.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Just how many more mass graves do we need before you misty eyed 'citizens of the world' realize the US is the leading cause of mass death today.
None - I believe that already. Oh, you meant UN? Never mind...
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
"Show me one piece of evidence indicating that UN weapons inspectors dismantled ONE piece of weapons making technology between 1991 and 2003."
They couldn't find their ass with both hands. They had iraqi-made phosgene laying about for the janitor to find in the UN building. Last month.
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/08/wmd-phosgene-fr.html - has a summary of many of the reports
They dismantled enough to hold onto a piece of those WMDs that "never existed".
An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?
How does more bureaucracy solve the problem, it seems like it just creates more problems. What we need is a Philosopher-king of Top Level Domains. So far it has been ICANN, and they have not been doing a bad job.
If ICANN were actually doing a bad job, we could open up alternative root name servers without them. And with public and industry support supplant them. But the internationalization arguments against ICANN are just empty rhetoric. Nothing about the way DNS or the Internet is structures prevents us from running domain services in parallel to ICANN's, if the EU wanted they could invent their own bureaucratic organization to handle all TLDs, setup root servers and run with it. And users could choose to use the EU ones or ICANNs or both.
That hasn't happened, and I am arguing that there is no technical barrier. Therefor I assume the only barrier is that nobody is serious enough in their objections of ICANN to do so.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
In the 30 seconds I've thought about it, I don't see why it couldn't run like Usenet.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
You do know that DNS TLDs have nothing to do with routing? Routing is IP address dependant, not domain name dependent.
In Soviet Russia, Domain Names You!
Join the Free Software Foundation
doesn't mean you get to dictate how the party is run.
We invented it, we control it, people are only allowed on it because AL Gore championed making it available to the public,you can kiss my ass.
Maybe we should get to dictate the rules of other companies tel-com systems? or their postal service?
Secondly, when you read this kind of info, you need to read stuff a little more carefully, regardless of the source. The article has some convoluted argument about the relationship between the IWC and the UN, but nowhere does it state that the IWC is part of the UN. And in fact, it's not.
I agree with the rest of your post though. The fact is, many TLDs are messed up, including the one you and I are using at this very moment:
Particularly "misused" are the two-letter national TLDs, such as
Anybody know where I can register an
The UN does its intended role very well.
Its real role is to slow down starting new wars in a bureaucratic mess that takes a long time to work out so that new wars don't break out quickly like they did up to the early 20th century. There is no organization on earth that can create a bureaucratic mess like the UN can.
(NB: "its", not "it's")
There are 50 listed here. Some are a bit wishy-washy, but a few highlights:
My favorites:
- No world wars. That was and is the main reason for the UN. Better for bureaucrats to waste time and money papershuffling than let machismo rule.
- Eradication of smallpox
Either easily justify the UN all by themself.United forever in friendship and labour,
Our mighty republics will ever endure.
The great Soviet Union will live through the ages.
The dream of a people their fortress secure.
Long live our Soviet Motherland, built by the people's mighty hand.
Long live our People, united and free.
Strong in our friendship tried by fire. Long may our crimson flag inspire,
Shining in glory for all men to see.
Music
> There are 50 listed here. Some are a bit wishy-washy, but a few highlights:
Yea, most are fairly minor but more important din't need an organization as cumbersom as the UM.
> World Food Programme (WFP): in 2001 distributed 4.2 million tons of food to 77 million people in 82 countries.
Wow. If they keep that up they might someday match the work in that area.... just by US government donations and private religious/other NGO organizations. Yea, yea the US Government food aid is usually counted as UN. But ya get my point.
> Improving global communications - The Universal Postal Union (UPU) has maintained and regulated
> international mail delivery. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has coordinated
> use of the radio spectrum.
Nice try but both of those functions predate the UN by decades.
Again, what specific good came from creating the UN? I can think of a lot of bad things that can be directly laid at the UN's doorstep but not a lot of good. At best they absorbed most existing efforts at international cooperation and some didn't suffer much from the transition. But that is more a case of minimizing harm and not actually doing good.
> No world wars. That was and is the main reason for the UN. Better for bureaucrats to waste time
> and money papershuffling than let machismo rule.
Yet. Because the US has been willing to play "cowboy" when needed to stamp out the fires before the blow up. Usually over the objection of the UN. And the toothless idiots at the IAEA have been more an aid to the despots trying to get nukes than any assisstance at actually stopping proliferation. And WHEN Iran (unless the US or Israel acts unilaterally yet again to stop it and gets condemmened by all 'right thinking people' in the UN mindset) nukes Israel and starts the mother of World Wars it will mostly the the UN to blame for allowing it. Ok, them and the Democrat Party here in the US.
Corrupt UN bureaucrats shuffling paper was what allowed Saddam to turn the Oil for Food program into a get out of jail free card. Never forget that either.
Democrat delenda est
> Right. Designed that way by the US as a way of cementing its hegemony post-WWII.
Remember who designed it. A bunch of 'progressive' one worlders who made the fatal mistake of allowing unfree countries to have more votes than free members... if you are generous enough to assume they were just too stupid to realize what they were doing. I believe they knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They knew they were building an organization where the communists (Soviet+slave states and Chicoms+slave states) could easilly build an unstoppable block with the 3rd world despots and pretty much run things, but with a shiny veneer of democratic legitimatcy.
Remember, the notion that "Socialism was the future" was pretty much universal amongst the intelligensia of the time period the UN was founded. Even most opponents were convinced they were doomed and were just valiantly fighting a rear guard action.
Democrat delenda est
the mother of World Wars it will mostly the the UN to blame for allowing it. Ok, them and the Democrat Party here in the US.
Okay, you're a wingnut.
So .su me!
ICANN is a bunch of geeks who think they need to control the suffixes of the world. I'm glad they are being ignored. There is no real reason that we should limit the number of top level domains or retire old ones. And not having .xxx is the silliest example of an unneeded organization flexing its flappy muscles. ICANN should go away.
Woah.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
So half of the missions have failed and thats a success? Lebanon was failure (and we're back for round 2!), Kosovo (however debatable it was) was a (PR) nightmare, Somalia was hell (for everybody involved) and Darfur (yes, there is peace-keeping force there) is their latest clusterf*ck of to-be-described proportions.
2. Credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts
"Regional conflicts". Not national conflicts. Not regional wars. Not national wars. HUGE difference, especially in the Middle East where theres a "regional conflict" (read: pissing match) every week between some Islamic country and Israel.
3. The UN has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections
Gee, wow. 45 countries. There are 54 countries in Africa ALONE, let alone Asia, Europe, South America and Australia (depending on how you define which Pacific islands are in which region).
I could go on, but I honestly believe that the U.N. could and is doing some serious good in the world. The only problem is that they could do FAR more than they are now if they'd get their act together.
That's a load of bull, and consistent only with the PRC's propaganda machine. Roughly 80 percent of the population of Taiwan supported the "two states policy," which would qualify as 'independence' to most unbiased external observers.
However, 'independence' in Taiwan is complicated, and means many things to many people: some Taiwanese reject 'independence' because they consider the ROC to be, if not the actual legitimate government of all China generally, at least its cultural heir. And others simply avoid 'independence' altogether and prefer the status quo for purely pragmatic reasons: the day-to-day situation is, for most intents and purposes, an independent Taiwan, and there is the strong possibility that if Taiwan declared independence from the PRC officially, the result would be the annihilation of everyone living there.
The figure usually quoted by PRC propaganda, arrived at by simply polling 'do you support Taiwanese independence,' is a loaded question and necessarily begets a skewed response. The people responding 'no' to that question do not necessarily have any love for the mainland, and certainly not for the PRC.
As it has become more and more apparent that 'reunification' would mean domination by Beijing (and not a restoration of the ROC government on the Mainland, or even an EU-like confederation), support for it in virtually all forms has disappeared from mainstream Taiwanese politics. Even "One Country, Two Systems" which is (from the PRC's perspective) a very lax 'reunification' stance, enjoys support from less than 10% of Taiwanese.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Most... uhh, ALL universities in Canada have the .ca TLD, as opposed to those lucky USA "educational institutions" (snicker) such as "Brer-rabbit.edu" or "BoobyJones.edu"...
.mil or .edu TLDs?
As well, I'd like to open up my own aqk.mil website. I have an axe to grind.
Wait! Perhaps Osama has first dibs: www.alqaeda.mil
Howcum only USA dorky institutions are allowed
OK, OK.. I know the answer: 'cuz you invented the Internet, etc...
Well, the cat's outa the bag; it's too late now. WE WANT IT!
.
- aqk
F U
Try to be more subtle or something next time, mmkay?
Yes, it's complicated, that was kind of my point. A fifth of the population not supporting "independence" is a large proportion in that sense.
But thanks anyway for accusing me of being a victim of PRC propaganda - that gave me a laugh
VC
.org was NEVER intended to be restricted to non-profit organizations. It was actually the first catch-all TLD, intended for anything that didn't fit well under the other two, but was not restricted in any way to that rule either. There was NEVER any suggestion or rule that .org be restricted to non-profit use. Even when ICANN handed it to the PIR to manage, they specifically included in the contract that it remain a generic open registration TLD.
.org was supposed to be for non-profits. That was not, and is not, the case.
It is a common misconception among people who have never really been involved in the domain policy arena that
Also, from your earlier comment:
The act of disagreeing with the United States may in itself be good, but if it's done by a bunch of raping thieves, they're still a bunch of fucking raping thieves.
Truer words have rarely been spoken, least of all on Slashdot, and virtually never in a political discussion.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Please look at the number of Veto the security council nation have done with the years. China is by far NOT one of the nation with the most veto. The one with the most veto for recent vote was the US (the S.U. had a record veto but only for the period around the 50-60). So before you accuse "tyrant" of abusing the veto of the security council, point finger first to the US. Which incidentely is THE TYRANT which hold the reign over ICANN if I remember correctly.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
You might be a citizen of an ex-Soviet country (me too), that makes sense.
My guess is that the
The saddest poem
While it's pleasant to imagine that 2-letter codes map to countries, they are just letters. Would you have a problem with some-german-company.us, or from-yugoslavia.ch? Only if you think that .us and .ch stand for something.
It totally doesn't matter unless country codes can only be registered by governmental bodies, and that's simply not the case.
It's all just stuff floating around, and it will make its own structure. Kinda like CIDR, I suppose.
I am going to register ebay.su! In communist Russia, ebay sells you.
Ok, I see your point. The status of such people is 'apatride' ('patriae' = country, and 'a-' is the prefix which acts like a '-less' suffix); i.e. "without a home-country". This is especially easy if you speak Romanian, because 'apatrid' is in the Romanian vocabulary, and it does not feel like a foreign word because 'patria' means 'country' [although it is closer to 'rodina' than it is to 'strana' or 'gosudarstvo'])
:-)
The fact that the 'nationality' field says "Soviet Union"... Well, it should be treated as a system in an undefined state, the variable was not initialized, so whatever was stored in the memory a while ago is the current value of the variable
The problem is that such people, if in trouble, cannot go to "Soviet Union" and ask for shelter, or demand things from their government.
The saddest poem
Does the un have a tld? europe does. US does have. Sovet union has. asia will have. But the un? that would be f.un.
Ps, mod me as funny.
Top level domains should be about routing traffic competently.
.to are geographically located in Tonga?
.to is tonic.to
Oh, come on. Do you really think that all websites under
IP addresses and routing tables are about routing traffic. Domain names are about vanity.
The authority for
tonic.to is 206.14.210.235
206.14.210.235 is a server in San Fransico, USA
Now I realise that Tonga isn't far from the US territory of American Samoa, but c'mon, geographic TLDs are most definitely NOT going to help you route data.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
Why we actually need to tie the latest project management website to a particular country?
Or even a forum about cars?
Everyone should move to openNic and have non-political domain tlds
This has nothing to do with Wikipedia specifically. You could replace the phrase "Wikipedia article" with "piece of information" in your sentence and it would still be just as true. Basically what you're saying is "zomg, wikipedia articles are edited by humans, therefore we can't trust them."
Anybody know where I can register an .su domain?
/. you might have to move pretty quickly to get it.
http://www.nic.ru/en/
the fee is 3000 rubles (about $120) per year so it's a relatively expensive TLD to register in.
I hope commierat.su isn't taken!
It wasn't when I just checked but having posted your intention on
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Let's be honest, Americans dont like the UN bad because Hans Blix embarassed George Bush and the Whitehouse staff in front of the whole world.
Well, the cat's outa the bag; it's too late now. WE WANT IT!
I think you will find most people don't want it badly enough to switch away from icann to a provider of root service that handles those TLDs differently and put up with the huge breakage that would cause.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Seriously, this isn't a troll or flamebait. Name three achivements of the UN since it's founding. Maybe these are not achievements you are talking about, but in my opinion UNICEF, UNESCO and WFP are quite good organizations that are working under the UN.
I will not argue that any of these organizations would be flawless. Some of these organizations have done quite stupid things or have been working quite inefficient manner, but I think that - in general - all of these organizations are doing good things and without them the world would be worse place to be for some people.
And I think that questioning organizations is a GOOD thing. There should be no organization with any kind of power going on without questioning their actions. But are they totally worthless, I don't think so. Or maybe I'm just naive.
as a significant amount of human activity seems to be spent on people wishing for things to be like they were "back in the good old days".
That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.
I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of Americans don't have the slightest understanding of how the U.N was formed, what it's charter is, how it works and why it works the way it works. Basically, it's totally fucking pointless even talking to an American about the UN.
Case in point:
"I honestly believe that the U.N. could and is doing some serious good in the world. The only problem is that they could do FAR more than they are now if they'd get their act together."
Who are "they" exactly? Would you like a free clue? It's the "N" in U.N.
"They" are the 5 permanent U.N. Security Console members with veto rights. In case you haven't noticed, but damned near any time, any thing happens involving oil, the Middle East or their own countries, the countries stonewalls one another for personal gain. Hell it took years just to send peacekeepers into Darfur cause China didn't want to piss off Sudan. The U.S. vetoed a resolution after Israel bombed Saddam's nuclear reactors.
Good lord. It costs five times as much to register a .su domain as it does to register .ru domain. (Good thing I was joking about commierat.su.) Obviously many Russians refuse to admit that the USSR is dead.
I'm really mad! Bark bark bark!
Oops, the subject was "Don't make me laugh!
>Name three achivements of the UN since it's founding.
1) Getting its HQ placed in New York, at Stalin's insistence, so the Soviets could better spy on America.
2) Having Alger Hiss (a Soviet spy) appointed the first General Secretary, to better spy on America.
3) Booting the democratic Republic of China (Taiwan), a charter and voting member, from the organization in favor of the PRC (Red China).
Wow, anybody see a pattern here? And we haven't even gotten near Oil for Food and other financial corruption yet.
>No, the UN is a Parliment of Tyrants. Because it was DESIGNED that way.
Exactly. The UN is the greatest achievement of the Soviet Union, and is attempting to succeed where the USSR failed.
"but that is the the fault of their members, not the organisation itself" ...how do you not fault the organiZation but fault the members, when the organization is nothing but the members?
Country typically known as Yugoslavia fell apart in 1991-1992, but new country consisting only of Serbia and Montenegro continued to call itself Yugoslavia (Federal Republic of) until 2003. In 2003, it finally changed its name to far more suitable "Serbia and Montenegro".
Hence, we may say that
From American point of view, things look a bit different. USA did not recognize name Yugoslavia for union of Serbia and Montenegro. But in 2000, after FRY reapplied for the membership in the United Nations, USA accepted that name.
When FR Yugoslavia changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro,
Old
No sig today.
> An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?
:rollseyes:
Yeah, that'll whip the Rooskies into shape.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The reason for not having infinite numbers of TLDs is that the hierarchical structure of DNS makes things easier to manage by partitioning the namespace - if you don't do that, then it's no better than having everything under
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If you're talking Euro-cents, the monetary value might still be worth more than the metal.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Well then they have a country code for a country that doesn't exist, has never existed, and at their present rate will never exist. Good on them!
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
so.sue.me, anyone?
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
You're making the same mistake over again, though. Just because 80% support independence in some form, does not mean that the remaining 20% want to be part of the PRC. Of the remaining 20%, probably most people just like the status quo -- which is de facto independence -- and don't want to make waves. And there are probably still a few (probably older) people who think that the ROC ought to be governing mainland China, and have that as their basis for reunification. You're creating a false dichotomy.
At most, you might claim that 10% of the population is interested in a "one country, two systems" policy (that's what Wikipedia claims, but I think that's 10+ years old now), but that's still a form of de facto independence. You would have to drill down much further to find the few who want anything to do with the PRC government, and I suspect it's vanishingly small.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Non-profits are not the only type of entity that would fall under a catch all. Like I said, org was the original "catch all" generic tld, intended for any use. One of the stated foreseen usages at inception was for individuals, actually, more so than anything. It was always that way, and ICANN preserved its heritage when it was granted to the PIR to run it, that though they could develop a "Brand" around non-profits using it, they were specifically instructed to maintain its generic use status and allow any use of it. org was a generic 3 letter reference, and was "pronounceable" like the other 3 letter TLDs.
.org was ever intended as a restricted use domain for non-profits.
There is nothing in the history of domain policy indicating that
It would be nice if you cited some source for your strange pronouncements, instead of speaking ex cathedra.
Why does this matter so much, anyway? Why not simply let everyone use any unoccuppied tld from .aaa to .zzz?