US Seeks Veto Powers Over New TLDs

suraj.sun writes "The Obama administration is quietly seeking the power for it and other governments to veto future top-level domain names, a move that raises questions about free expression, national sovereignty, and the role of states in shaping the future of the Internet. At stake is who will have authority over the next wave of suffixes to supplement the venerable .com, .org, and .net. At least 115 proposals are expected this year, including .car, .health, .nyc, .movie, and .web, and the application process could be finalized at a meeting in San Francisco next month."

Comments

Governments love power

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no surprise that Obama wants this power.

It's just the thing they do. All governments and all people who lead them lust for power. Obama is no exception.

Think about it: if you are a politician and aren't crazed with power-lust, you will be crushed by another politician who is. So we have a system where only the most maniacal, greedy, authoritarian-minded can get into power. Democracy? Ha.

Re:Governments love power

[sznupi]

People want their government to have power of pushing things... which said people want.

In the submission, linked below TFS, there's a mention of efforts for ".gay" TLD - many groups in the society would just love to block it. And many nations (and why it didn't make it to /. story, anyway? ;p )

Re:Governments love power

[FuckingNickName]

There is no surprise that a human wants this power.

It's just the thing they do. All social groupings and all people who lead them lust for power. Obama is no exception.

Think about it: if you are a member of a group and aren't crazed with power-lust, you will be crushed by another member who is. So we have a system where only the most maniacal, greedy, authoritarian-minded can get into power. Democracy? ...

...well, at least it exists for government. Its detractors will insist that people are stupid or misled, because they cannot stand facing up to the fact that - for the vast majority of people - what we have today is more than good enough.

Re:Governments love power

[commodore64_love]

>>>most maniacal, greedy, authoritarian-minded can get into power.

THIS is why the US is supposed to have separation of powers (federalism) between the Member States and the Union government, so no one maniac can become too powerful, but over time many of us have forgotten that basic principal.

BTW Judge Napolitano calls this "Libido Dominandi" which is a phrase he borrowed from the Romans - lust to dominate - http://freedomwatchonfox.com/

Benjamin Franklin called it avarice and ambition - desire for wealth and power.

Re:Governments love power

[WrongSizeGlass]

As an American I'd like to defend this policy, um, but I can't. WTF? Hmm ... I wonder if we can get .gov to transition over to the newly proposed (as in right here, right now) .wtf TLD?

Re:Governments love power

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Domains to protect the rent-seeking behaviour of US Imperial capital.

They should reserve .anus for themselves.

Re:Governments love power

[JackieBrown]

THIS is why the US is supposed to have separation of powers (federalism) between the Member States and the Union government, so no one maniac can become too powerful, but over time many of us have forgotten that basic principal

The term "state rights" is unfortunately now invokes the American Civil War.

We have seen this with health care, immigration, and numerous other issues. It is easier to scream racist than to actually deal with the issue or to even debate who should deal with the issue.

The other problem is people live in the moment. Bush got a lot of flack for not sending the troops immediately during Katrina. They felt that he should have bypassed the governor who was moving to slow. All the people whining at the time did not bother to think of the implications of the Executive Branch deciding on its own to invade (sorry - assist with keeping order) a state. While it may have been a good idea at the time, the precedent it would have set would have been terrible (same with the patriot act - useful at the time but something we will never be rid of now.)

Re:Governments love power

[brainboyz]

For some reason the idea of nsa.wtf makes me giggle.

Re:Governments love power

[sumdumass]

I bet that would make a great chat room domain you would go into a lot.

Re:Governments love power

[FuckingNickName]

How do you deal with the biggest problem the US faces, internally and externally: its abuse of military power to dominate rather than to defend? The military is naturally federal.

Re:Governments love power

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

There is no surprise that Obama wants this power.

Except, of course, the summary was completely wrong and it is a proposal to spread out power among more nations and provide a place for an international consensus as opposed to a power grab by a single person or government. Now don't you feel silly for having wasted a perfectly good "power corrupts" speech?

Re:Governments love power

[commodore6502]

In Europe they talk about States Rights without any of the baggage. Basically - they argue France, Germany, Poland, and so on reign supreme over the central government, and they have the right to nullify any act the EU passes which whose power was not granted by the Lisbon treaty. The same thinking should apply in the US too.

Re:Governments love power

[BetterSense]

I agree completely, and I wish people would catch onto this already.

A corporation's only drive, and reason for existing, is to increase its profits. Any services, offers, or goods that a corporation provides to you, are only provided if it increases the profits of that corporation, never because the corporation wants to actually help you out. Corporations never, ever do anything because they like you, or because you are a nice person. If they say that they care about you, it's only so that they can maintain a good company image which again, leads to more profit for them. All dealings with a corporation have to be put in the perspective that there is only one thing that matters, ultimately...the bottom line. Failure to understand this makes you a sucker, and corporations love suckers.

In a similar way, the main motivating factor of government is to increase its sphere and scope of its authority, power and influence. That's it. Everything it does, it does in the quest for more power and authority. Any supposed benefits to you only exist if they help the ultimate goal of increasing government's role in your life, and increasing the size, authority, scope, and power of the government. The government never, ever does anything because it likes your or wants to protect you the way your parents might, for example.

I've heard smart but naive people puzzle over why the government maintains the current income tax system when it could switch out to any number of revenue-neutral taxation schemes that would be much more efficient. There is no need to be puzzled, though, the answer is obvious...the current system of taxation aids the government's ultimate goal of extending the scope of its authority and influence. I have heard smart but naive people wonder why the government doesn't cut taxes to help the economy instead of 'stimulus' efforts that go to special interests, when it's pretty clear that lower taxes stimulate an economy. There is no need to puzzle, though, if you simply have the proper perspective on government and what it is. I have heard smart but naive people puzzle endlessly over why marijuana is illegal even though it's relatively harmless. I have heard smart but naive people wonder why we don't use alternate voting systems that are provably more efficient. It doesn't matter the issue, right, left, any aspect of government all of a sudden makes sense once you realize that the status quo is the way it is because it causes an increase in the size, scope, and authority of the government.

It seems that most adult people, at least all but the most naive, understand that corporations' main motivating factor is to increase profits; many of those same people haven't put the government in the same realistic perspective.

Re:Governments love power

[frank_adrian314159]

The term "state rights" is unfortunately now invokes the American Civil War.

Well, if the Confederacy had not poisoned the well over something as heinous as slavery, maybe that would not have happened.

Oh, Southerners! Is there anything you can't screw up?:

Re:Governments love power

[dieth]

That would require that the all Americans pull there heads out of their ass, and then get a proper education, so you can wait eternally for that to happen, or just wait for when China wakes up and bitch slaps them into the dark ages.

Re:Governments love power

[hedwards]

I'm not really sure why anybody would want a ".gay" TLD, personally, I wouldn't want that, it would make it way too easy to filter out materials for the gay community. It would also make it a lot easier to figure out if somebody was perhaps a closet homosexual.

But beyond that, when I need information about safe sex and such, those sites aren't going to be any easier to find with a .gay TLD, more likely the TLD would end up being filled primarily with porn.

Re:Governments love power

[sznupi]

it would make it way too easy to filter out materials for the gay community

How polite of them, isn't it?

Re:Governments love power

[hedwards]

And ultimately that is in part your fault. It's in part my fault and everybody else that votes. I vote for people that I think are going to do the best by the country, the selection is somewhat limited, but I vote primarily against the Republicans because they've been the big government party of my generation. In the 30 years since I was born, the Republican party has increased the size of our national debt to the tune of nearly $10tn and increased the size of the portions of the government that it likes significantly.

The problem isn't the size of the government, the problem is what are we getting out of the government? Are we getting our money's worth out of our tax dollars as a whole? Are we better off for having a government rather than living in some sort of anarchistic non-state? Would we be genuinely better off if we shrunk the government or would it just result in the rich getting richer?

The problem is that most Americans haven't considered the reality in an honest way, and tend to vote the way that their parents did regardless of whether or not it's the same party as it used to be.

Re:Governments love power

[Mr. Slippery]

All the people whining at the time did not bother to think of the implications of the Executive Branch deciding on its own to invade (sorry - assist with keeping order) a state. While it may have been a good idea at the time, the precedent it would have set would have been terrible

Right. Like, if, say, there was a problem in some state -- say, a tax revolt in Pennsylvania -- only a horrible despot like George Washington would go in with federal troops.

C'mon. Even GOP Congresscritters slammed the dismal federal response for Katrina.

Re:Governments love power

[Anonymous Coward]

And if people like you weren't uninformed enough to think the Civil War was about slavery, it certainly wouldn't have happened.

Re:Governments love power

[pjt33]

The term "state rights" is unfortunately now invokes the American Civil War.

Of course it does. The main take-home lesson from that war was that the states don't have any rights.

Re:Governments love power

[mirix]

That could be related to the fact that Germany, France, et al are actually sovereign states...

Re:Governments love power

[PopeRatzo]

As an American I'd like to defend this policy, um, but I can't.

The only thing that bothers me more than the idea of the government having "veto powers" over TLDs is the idea of private industry having that veto power via "intellectual property" laws.

Re:Governments love power

[Mr. Slippery]

In Europe they talk about States Rights without any of the baggage. Basically - they argue France, Germany, Poland, and so on reign supreme over the central government, and they have the right to nullify any act the EU passes which whose power was not granted by the Lisbon treaty. The same thinking should apply in the US too.

No, it shouldn't, because the EU is a group of sovereign nations in a loose union, whereas we have a Constitution under which the states gave up most of their sovereignty.

We tried something like what you're suggesting. It was called the Articles of Confederation, and was an abject failure. So a bunch of guys -- the Federalists -- came up with a plan for a strong central government. How strong? According to leading Federalist James Madison:

As to the remark that the States ought to be under the controul of the Genl. Govt. at least as much as they formerly were under the King & B. parliament, it amounts as it stands when taken in its presumable meaning, to nothing more than what actually makes a part of the Constitution; the powers of Congs. being much greater, especially on the great points of taxation & trade than the B. Legislature were ever permitted to exercise... ... ...it cannot be unknown that they represented the strong prejudices in N. Y. agst. the object of the Convention which was among other things to take from that State the important power over its commerce and that they manifested, untill they withdrew from the Convention, the strongest feelings of dissatisfaction agst. the contemplated change in the federal system

That's right -- the "original intent" of James Madison was that the federal government would have more power over commerce and taxation than the British Parliament had had, and would take such power away from the states.

Bet you won't hear any of the Ee'd Plebnistaers who like to talk about the Founding Fathers quoting him on that.

Re:Governments love power

[PopeRatzo]

There is no surprise that a human wants this power.

I hope you don't have the notion that this article is about Barack Obama wanting power over TLDs.

I hate to suggest this, but if this is what you think you really need TFA.

Re:Governments love power

[PopeRatzo]

Oh, Southerners! Is there anything you can't screw up?:

Bourbon and (real wood) baseball bats.

Everything else, they're good for nothing.

They can even fuck up great music. How else can you explain starting out with all the great blues and country music and ending up with Charlie Daniels, the Marshall Tucker Band and Lynyrd Skynyrd? Or what about auto racing? Starting out with Le Mans and ending up with NASCAR.

It's like evolution works backward South of the Mason-Dixon line.

Re:Governments love power

[Mikkeles]

Be careful for what you wish; it may come true.

With about a couple of hundred governments, I think the only TLD to be achievable would be .stc (squash the citizen) which is the only thing that all states seem to have in common.

Re:Governments love power

[PopeRatzo]

And if people like you weren't uninformed enough to think the Civil War was about slavery

It was about more than just slavery. It was also about the wealth created by slavery, spreading slavery to South and Central America, expanding slavery, and forcing Northern states to honor slavery laws.

Anyone who believes there's some aspect of what was then referred to as "States' Rights" that wasn't about slavery is badly misinformed.

The US Civil War was about slavery. Nothing but slavery. Even some of the greatest and most dedicated propagandists of the 20th Century have not been able to change that simple fact.

Re:Governments love power

[PopeRatzo]

Except, of course, the summary was completely wrong and it is a proposal to spread out power among more nations and provide a place for an international consensus as opposed to a power grab by a single person or government.

Damn you for trying to inject facts into an otherwise excellent opportunity for knuckleheads to talk shit.

Re:Governments love power

[HiThere]

Yeah, and they don't quote Hamilton much either. Neither would I. Being a "founding father" merely means that you were on the winning side at a particular time in history. Some were wise, some weren't. Jefferson I usually trust and admire. Thomas Paine was a bit too radical for me. And who was the guy who read the first draft of the constitution and said "I smell a rat. It squints towards monarchy." He was *really* far-sighted.

But being a found father, on it's own, doesn't buy you much credibility at all at my store.

Re:Governments love power

[Aryden]

Apparently you do not actually know as much about "The War between the States" as you would like to think you do.

1) Several northern states not only allowed slavery, but endorsed it to lower manufacturing costs.
2) Slavery did not enter into the war as a political objective until Lincoln realized that France, England and Germany were assisting the southern states to the extent of nearly entering the war themselves. England, France and Germany were providing arms and munitions to the southern armies, along with advisors, and France was running the northern blockades to import supplies to them.
3) The "State's Right's" issue was based on the fact that the southern states were selling tobacco, cotton and other trade goods to England and France, who were then reselling the goods back to the northern manufacturers at a marked up price. The northern manufacturers cried to the federal government to intercede and force the southern states to sell first to the north, which was less profitable. Thus they refused and threatened to withdraw from the union if the federal government tried to force them.
4) The Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863, 2 years into the war, NOT at the onset as most think. The reasoning behind the Proclamation was not to persuade more Americans to side with the north, but to force Europe out of the war since slavery was anathema in western Europe. And it worked.

It's thoroughly amazing how much people still do not know the correct versions of history. I have a very good friend from New York that moved here to Atlanta a few years ago. Until recently, he was under the impression that the south had started the war by invading the north and attempting to overthrow the government. This theory was backed up by one of his history books that he had from school. He was very surprised to learn that Robert E. Lee Sat on the border of D.C with the Army of Northern Virginia declining to invade D.C. in hopes that he could negotiate with the federal government to cease their aggression towards the Confederacy. He was also amazed to find out that, "That damn racist" as he termed Lee, was actually Lincoln's first choice to lead the armies of the north. Again he was amazed to find out that one of the reasons that the south was still behind the times in regards to infrastructure was due to huge swaths of the south being razed to the ground on Sherman's march to the sea.

Re:Governments love power

[HiThere]

The country was already drifting towards a more centralized government. Perhaps without the civil war it wouldn't have drifted quite so fast or so far, but I wouldn't wager heavily on that. The railroads had a *very* large effect on the process. Faster transport and communication make centralized governments more feasible. Just like we wouldn't live in as much of a police state today without computers. Computers drastically reduce the cost of centralization of control, and of tracking people.

So a centralized government was coming anyway. And I expect that over time the EUC will encompass the same trend. (In fact, I think I've seen it happening over the last few decades.)

Re:Governments love power

[LilGuy]

Quit being so inhuman [sic].

Re:Governments love power

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, summaries like this are really irritating, and form a pattern of misleading geek news reports. (See earlier "internet killswitch" bill reports, where actually the bill is about restricting existing powers for the president to censor and control the internet.) It's really quite disappointing.

But hey, what does the truth matter

Re:Governments love power

[Anonymous Coward]

If they say that they care about you, it's only so that they can maintain a good company image which again, leads to more profit for them. All dealings with a corporation have to be put in the perspective that there is only one thing that matters, ultimately...the bottom line. Failure to understand this makes you a sucker, and corporations love suckers.

Did you even read what you're writing?

Re:Governments love power

[commodore6502]

>>>That could be related to the fact that Germany, France, et al are actually sovereign states...

There are two points of view on this:

- The original 14 States are also sovereign (from 1776 to 1783) and did not give-up that sovereignty just because they joined the Articles of Confederation.

- Alternate argument: If the american States gave-up their sovereignty when they joined the United States, then likewise the european States gave-up their sovereignty when the joined the EU.

- Note that both these points can not both be true at the same time. You must choose one, or the other.

Re:Governments love power

[commodore6502]

>>>we have a Constitution under which the states gave up most of their sovereignty.

FALSE. Only a few powers were assigned to the central government (as enumerated by the author James Madison), and the Constitution reserves almost all other power to the Member States (see amendment 10). Exactly the same as the EU Lisbon Treaty does for its member states.

The EU and US are more alike in structure then different.

Re:Governments love power

[Anonymous Coward]

You think .gay would cause trouble? I support a .bay gTLD

http://the.pirate.bay

Now THAT will cause some serious blockage!

Re:Governments love power

[Anonymous Coward]

Ratzo - I love you a little bit.

Re:Governments love power

[Xyrus]

I got dibs on the .wtf TLD!

Re:Governments love power

[chrismcb]

You got the for profit corporation part right. A for profit company exists...well "for profit." But a government doesn't exist to increase its sphere and scope of its authority, power and influence. A politician might become a politician to increase his power and influence, but the government doesn't exist to do that. There is a difference.

Re:Governments love power

[Anonymous Coward]

...when it's pretty clear that lower taxes stimulate an economy

Pretty clear to who? People who listen to the propaganda of the rich and famous?

How about actually stopping to think about this for a minute? If you lower taxes on working people, a brief economic stimulus is provided because those people have more money in their pockets. (You can achieve the same thing by raising the minimum wage, by the way--doing that has resulted in an economic stimulus every time it's been done in US history). However, tax cuts on working people eventually lead to wage cuts. Why? Because employers know that you'll do your job for a certain amount of net pay after living expenses. It's the same reason why jobs pay more in New York City and San Francisco than they do in Atlanta, for instance. You need more money to maintain a certain standard of living there. Now, wage cuts are not instant, but they happen. Similarly, if you raise taxes on working people, the immediate result is an economic downer, but the eventual result is wage increases. Same reason.

Now, if you cut taxes on rich people, you put more money in their pockets. Period. Their income isn't determined the same way as working peoples'. Similarly if you raise taxes on rich people, you decrease their income. Here's an interesting point: if you raise taxes on rich people BUT give them a way out of it that benefits the economy, say by reinvesting profits in their businesses, you also get an economic stimulus and more hiring. Ultimately, though, people hire people because they need someone to do something--not because of what the tax rate is. Tax cuts don't create jobs. Want proof? Watch what would happen if someone proposed a general tax cut for corporations and rich people, but ONLY if they used the money to create jobs and could prove it. It's been done on a small scale but you never hear it being called for on a large scale. Tax cuts create jobs? Fine. Create jobs and you can have a tax cut. You'd hear the howling all the way in China and India, where our jobs have gone because of insane trade policies. Actually, you kind of did. Last year, some of the Democrats proposed a law that would have decreased taxes on corporations that brought jobs back to the US and increased taxes on those that exported jobs. The result? The corporate lapdogs in Congress (Republicans and "conservative" Democrats) raised a stink all the Lysol in the world won't get rid of. The bill went nowhere. BTW, all the tax cuts of the past 9+ years haven't exactly helped in the job creation department, have they? However, they've done marvels in the wage-suppression department. Think about it.

Re:Governments love power

[the_womble]

Lots of nations would block .gay. Lots of nations would block everything from .gay to .christian to .xxx

ON the other hand they might decide to allow them as it would make blocking easier. ISPs have transparent proxies and are given a list of sites to block. How much easier if you just list a tld to block lots of domains?

Re:Governments love power

[jmuzz]

A corporation's only drive, and reason for existing, is to increase its profits. Any services, offers, or goods that a corporation provides to you, are only provided if it increases the profits of that corporation, never because the corporation wants to actually help you out.

Actually corporations are run by a small group of people, generally rich powerful people. They make the corporation do things which suit their personal agenda all the time, including things which are in the best interest of themselves not the corporation or its shareholders. Same deal with politicians, you think everything they steer the government towards is in the countries best interest not their own agenda? The humans in charge of the corporation make human decisions, including helping their buddies and hurting their enemies. A corporation isnt some autonomous machine driven purely by profit logic like you make out.

Re:Governments love power

[coaxial]

It seems that most adult people, at least all but the most naive, understand that corporations' main motivating factor is to increase profits; many of those same people haven't put the government in the same realistic perspective.

I've heard your argument from many smart people. Oh if only the sheeple knew how they were being used by the big bad government! If only the sheeple could have the blinds ripped from their eyes to see the glory of my particular political beliefs!

Here's a shocking prospect for you: Your ideas aren't implemented, because people are ignorant of them. Your ideas aren't implemented, because the people have rejected them.

Well in a democracy, the government is the people. It's not some bogeyman. It's us. If you don't like what your representative does, then vote him out. That's how representative democracies work. In several states, direct democracy through an initiative process exists. Want to change a law? Get a few thousand signatures, and put it on the ballot, and then convince a majority of your fellow state residents, and it's the law. It happens all the time, especially in California.

You claim that the progressive income tax persists because of some sort of illuminatiesque power grab. Well, quite frankly the most common suggested alternatives: the "flat" tax, the VAT, and a national sales tax, all suffer from the same problem. They shift the tax burden even further towards the low end of the economic scale, where -- let's be honest here -- the vast majority of the people are. The simple reason that these alternatives aren't implemented is because they're unpopular because they effectively decrease the take home pay of the majority of voters, while decreasing it substantially for the hyper wealthy supporters of these alternate tax schemes.

You suggest that the only reason why marijuana is illegal is because the bogeyman likes to put people in jail. Well, how do explain that when put to a vote of the people, Californians voted to keep it illegal? The United States is a country with puritanical roots. Pleasure is bad. Work and suffering is good. Many people don't want marijuana legalized because they believe the legalization supporters "just want to get high."

You spout that tax cuts always stimulate the economy while government spending doesn't, and go so far to say, "it's pretty clear that lower taxes stimulate an economy." Actually, that's not clear at all. While cutting taxes can have stimulative effect when tax rates are high, the effect quickly diminishes. Think about it. If taxes were at 90% and they get cut to 50%, for every $100 you had, your after tax earnings increased 5 times. While a tax cut from 10% to 5% only increases your after tax earnings by 1.05 times. The stimulative effect of that extra $5 is negligible. It's called "decreasing returns" and it's a basic economic concept. So how is this applicable to today's economic situation? First, taxes are already low, so as we've seen seen any stimulative effect has long already occurred. Second, the economic consensus is that the economy is stagnant, not from a lack of money, but rather a lack of demand. This is obvious when you examine the SEC filings of publicly traded companies. They have cash, in many instances rather large cash reserves on hand. They could buy anything they want, but they're not. Why? They have excess capacity. The stimulus was to make the government the buyer of last resort, which again the consensus among economists is that the stimulus indeed worked to prevent a depression. Furthermore it's stimulative effects were weakened due to it being not only too small, but also undermined by states' "austerity" measures. (Disclaimer: I'm friends with one of the authors.)

You assert that somehow majority vote election systems are imposed on the

Re:Governments love power

[commodore64_love]

I respond the way I always respond - Obey the Supreme Law of the land (i.e. the constitution). It states the US may only enter a war when the People's House declares the war. Otherwise it is illegal, unconstitutional, and the president should be impeached. (i.e. Bush and JFK would have been taken down for starting their illegal wars.)

Re:Governments love power

[commodore6502]

If the purpose of the War Between the Member States was to "end slavery" why did the President say at the midpoint that he would legalize slavery, if that's what it took to end the war and reunite the Union?

(Yes he actually said that - the quote is available on google.)

Re:Governments love power

[PopeRatzo]

why did the President say at the midpoint that he would legalize slavery

Things looked pretty bad at the midpoint?

Anyway, I didn't say it was about slavery for the North. It was about slavery for the South, who at the midpoint, felt pretty good about their chances if I remember correctly.

Re:Governments love power

[Anonymous Coward]

But that still doesn't mean that the US seeks that power. Also, you forgot to mention they want that power spread out among the nations the US has control over.

Re:Governments love power

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>we have a Constitution under which the states gave up most of their sovereignty.

FALSE.

...At least until the Civil War occurred.

CAPTCHA: brutish

The greatest copyright owner

[madowcopyrightowner]

What slowness can I offer you, .car?

0.25 MPH is such a nice speed...

What?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think so.

Dammit my goverment is really starting to piss me off with their epic bullshit. Theres no way i can say i'm proud to be american anymore. Because even i can't defend some of the insane shit they come up with. Like this here.. Who the fuck put the goverment in charge of domain names?

Re:What?!?

[GameboyRMH]

Theres no way i can say i'm proud to be american anymore.

Get an old pickup truck, a worn-out baseball cap, and a job in mining, farming or manufacturing. It seems to boost patriotism for the Americans in the Republican political ads.

Also joining the military is a lot like playing Halo or Crysis from what I've been seeing recently. Looks pretty bitchin'.

Re:What?!?

[Nadaka]

Also joining the military is a lot like playing Halo or Crysis from what I've been seeing recently. Looks pretty bitchin'.

There is a glitch where some of the time, you don't respawn. And even when you do, you have to grind in the hospital level and sometimes loose abilities.

Re:What?!?

[by (1706743)]

But I've heard the controllers have awesome force-feedback.

Re:What?!?

[croddy]

Clearly someone needs to be in charge of new TLDs. I mean, seriously, we've got .jobs, .mobi, .museum, .aero, .info, .biz? For fuck's sake, when will this shit stop? My main concern with the plan here is that there's no way Obama is going to rule over TLD approvals with an iron fist. He's probably going to fucking allow some new TLDs. We need someone with some fucking balls, someone who will go through the whole goddamned queue and stamp DENIED. DENIED. DENIED. DENIED on the entire stack and then shit on it before delivering it back to the applicants.

Seriously. We were fine with .com, .org, .net, .mil, .gov, .edu and a bunch of country codes. If you want a new TLD, it had better be a goddamn country code or I don't want to even hear you fucking talk about it. Take your stupid industry-specific vanity TLD bullshit and do us all a favor and shut your fucking hole. Forever.

Re:What?!?

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I'm with you. I love most Americans and am proud of what we have accomplished in an historically short span of time, but I am shit-terrified of our government. It stopped being "of and for" the people a long time ago. The citizens have no power over who gets elected anymore and we're starting to see what we thought of as basic human rights being further eroded every day. One of the things that makes me happy when I travel, is that many of the foreign nationals that I meet seem to understand the difference between the U.S. government and its citizens. I doubt you'll find a more generous and friendly population (Canada notwithstanding) and conversely you won't find a more frightening and pants-crappingly insane government (North Korea and Iran notwithstanding).

Re:What?!?

[Nadaka]

You just wait until someone goes and founds their own country to get access to a highly desirable TLD.

Re:What?!?

[TaoPhoenix]

Would Apple sue someone for http://steve.jobs?

Re:What?!?

[Darkness404]

But does it really matter? I mean, aside from possible phishing and spoofing attacks, it really doesn't matter that /. is .org, it could very well be .com, .net, or .tech and it would still be the same site.

Re:What?!?

[croddy]

It's mainly a scam to increase revenue for registrars by getting people to buy $TRADEMARK.foo and $TRADEMARK.bar when they only really want to use $TRADEMARK.baz. And the recent proliferation of stupid TLDs has no positive benefits.

Re:What?!?

[Em Adespoton]

I vote that we go to something that allows more combinations... for instance, http:/// 51A5:4D07, or maybe http:/// 736C:6173:6864:6F74 or even http:/// 0115:0108:0097:0115:0104:0100:0111:0116. Web browsers could even convert this into readable text.

This would have the added benefit that DNS would be obsolete, as each IP would have a unique name.

Your IP not in the 0115 domain? Tough luck; just pick a name that doesn't start with an "s".

Re:What?!?

[postbigbang]

Read your history. It's always been like this, and is unlikely to change unless there's a collective push for it. People like the stupid status quo.

We control directly who's elected. You have to cut thru the media hype and propaganda, and do real research, and encourage others to do that, too. Human rights were much worse 30yrs ago than they are now. Now, we have a way to get faster and more accurate observations of the violations. We still have to work harder. Much harder.

So stop living in fear. The reason that the US gets to have sway over TLD naming is that 1) they invented it after lots of financing-- most all of the crux of DARPAnet, which we call the Internet today. 2) the US Gov administrates it, other agreements notwithstanding.

Is it a power grab? Yeah. Others can rebel. Let's see how far it gets them. I'll get mightily mod'd as flamebait, but all the above are true.

Dear US Government, et. al.

[Local ID10T]

No.

You are not the world. You do not represent the interests of the world population. Stick to your jobs, and let the rest of us do ours.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[The Moof]

You do not represent the interests of the world population

They rarely represent the interests of their own population. Do you think they care?

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[commodore64_love]

>>>You are not the world. You do not represent the interests of the world population. Stick to your jobs, and let the rest of us do ours.
>>>
The only way you Europeans will be able to make the U.S. listen to this plea, is for the EU to declare war. Or at least the *intent* to declare war, if the US does not back off and let Europe be europe without interference.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[Anonymous Coward]

We are the world
We own your children
We are the ones who make surfing safe
So stop your bitching
There's a choice we're making
And you don't have a say
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[wizkid]

You do not represent the interests of the world population

They rarely represent the interests of their own population. Do you think they care?

But they always represent the corporations... Especially the ones padding there un-audited re-election campaigns.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[nharmon]

It is our DNS. If you don't like it, create your own and compete. I realize the idea of competition may seem foreign to you, and difficult, but in the long run it will be easier than trying to get us to change our system against our wants and toward yours.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, they ALWAYS represent the corporations. I was wondering why we didn't have any labor laws. Or environmental laws. Or product safety laws. Or food safety laws. Or commercial building codes. Or securities laws. Or accounting laws. Or...

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It isn't as though European governments, in general, would have any less interest in this power than does the American one...

Just tell them that they'll need the power to block "hate speech" TLDs and they'll be all over it.

Heck, I suspect that there isn't a nation-state on earth that doesn't have some gremlin that we could use to get them into line.

"Psst... Germany... You'd better agree to this regulatory proposal before David Duke gets his hands on the .hitler TLD..."

"Hey, OAC, I know we aren't really seeing eye-to-eye these days; but I thought I'd warn you that 4chan has begun a competition to see who can buy the most offensive .muhammad domain, once they become available."

Etc., etc.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the French can lead the retreat. The Germans, in their excitement, will invade someone nearby. The Russians will be too busy fighting amongst themselves to join. The Indians are all on the phone taking calls, and the Chinese are all at work in factories making plastic crap. The English might be miffed but it wouldn't be prudent for them to take an antagonistic position. The Poles will attack themselves.

The Nordics will be snowed in. The Italians will invade, but only after a nice meal. And of course the Arabic countries are all rioting nowadays, so they're busy for the near future fighting over their sand.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[vlm]

You do not represent the interests of the world population

They rarely represent the interests of their own population. Do you think they care?

But they always represent the corporations... Especially the ones padding there un-audited re-election campaigns.

Such as the domain registrars. The only people who want 117 new TLDs, so they can resell their entire sales book 117 more times. So... get used to having 117 more TLDs, heck probably 117 more every week. Eventually we'll end up reimplementing the "aol keywords" thing and we'll have domain names like .ford or .governmentmotors

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[Tokolosh]

The purpose of all the laws you mention are to create barriers to the entry of new competition.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You should know by now the title and summary are usually wrong. The proposal is that veto power be given to an international review board made up representatives of at least 100 nations. So what is proposed is exactly the opposite of what you seem to be complaining about. This is spreading out the power to make decisions about new TLDs among many nations to make sure the interests of the world are represented.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[Anonymous Coward]

An EFFECT of those laws may be raising costs and thus providing a barrier to entry. Calling it the PURPOSE of the laws just exposes you as a complete loony.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people who want 117 new TLDs, so they can resell their entire sales book 117 more times.

And why should we care? If some clowns want to buy up the entries so that their precious character string is always owned by them, let them. In fact, let's have thousands more TLDs, at high prices, and bleed the bastards dry. Nobody else is likely to use those TLDs. I think the concept that one can "own" a word is stupid, unless he can demonstrate 1) that it is not a word in any known human language, and 2) that they have exclusive rights to the word in all countries (e.g. if it's a trademark when referring to soft drinks, but you don't also have rights to it with reference to coal products or drugs, it doesn't qualify).

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[Local ID10T]

On the surface, not as bad an idea... but why should any government interference be accepted. Isn't the idea of ICANN to be the decision making body? Do we really need another decision making body to review the decisions of the decision makers? What was the Civilization quote? "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the expanding needs of the bureaucracy."

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

On the surface, not as bad an idea... but why should any government interference be accepted.

Because governments represent the people through a democratic process.

Isn't the idea of ICANN to be the decision making body?

ICANN mostly represents corporations and has completely failed in their promises to move towards democratic representation of the people from the bottom up. Why the hell do you think sovereign nations from around the world, elected by their people are worse than a completely non-democratic process run by an organization contracted by the US government?

Moreover, from a completely pragmatic view, it is entirely possible that the UN will decide as a group they have had enough at set up alternative root TLD servers and everyone except the US will switch over. China is pushing really hard for this right now. Then most of us will have to deal with the conflicts and worry about multiple root TLD systems.

Whatever else this proposal is, it is a very moderate compromise, allowing other countries some influence, and giving the giant bureaucracy that is the UN less ability and reason to take over the process.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[hedwards]

And up until recently we were doing an admirable job of administering it in a way that was equitable. But with ICE seizing domains without any sort of permission and our efforts to gain a veto over the registrations, I think we're about to kill the golden goose, if we haven't already.

I can see this ending about as well as the veto in the UN security council. Requiring a second no in order to prevent the council from acting would go a long way towards having the UN actually doing something.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[Apple Acolyte]

Excellent point. I really don't want to have to buy new costly domain names for my most valuable sites.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al.

[Anonymous Coward]

any labor laws

Especially about hiring illegal immigrants for grunt work so you don't have to pay minimum wage...

environmental laws

Which is why cap and trade passed without a hitch...

Or food safety laws

To protect us against things like massive salmonella outbreaks due to tainted eggs...

Or securities laws. Or accounting laws.

To protect us against cooking the books and massive pension raids. Or abusing a questionable system for risky mortgages that might destroy the economy. Or....

Perfectly reasonable

[SuperKendall]

If the government can be allowed to dictate how companies run networks, then it naturally follows they should be able to allow only domain names they approve of.

Embrace the state, for it knows best!

Re:Perfectly reasonable

[FuckingNickName]

The increase in power of the state (with technical solutions to oppress dissent) was inevitable. The choice was between a Soviet state which plays the stern nanny and a "capitalist" state which makes you a servant of the corporations which sponsor it. Why is the latter so much better, America?

Re:Perfectly reasonable

[MightyMartian]

Embrace the state, for it knows best!

Don't worry. Soon we will all be working happily at the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen.

Re:Perfectly reasonable

[corbettw]

The choice was between a Soviet state which plays the stern nanny

You know, I never knew the Super Nanny would yank kids off the street and execute them behind some warehouse, then send their parents a bill for the bullet(s). That's pretty fucking stern.

Re:Perfectly reasonable

[FuckingNickName]

Child abuse begins, and usually ends, at home.

Re:Perfectly reasonable

[tiptone]

"Why is the latter so much better, America?"

Because that's what the propaganda says. Seriously, Americans are consumers driven by marketing and America is marketed as it exists, and not how it was supposed to exist or could exist, and that marketing is, and will be, consumed as long as there continues to be breads and circuses. Gotta go, almost out of DVR space and don't want to lose American Idol...

Re:Perfectly reasonable

[corbettw]

You (and whatever idiot modded me down) don't get it.

Calling the Soviet system a "stern nanny" is about the most idiotic thing I've ever seen. It was a police state far, far worse than the US (though we're heading in that direction). You could be arrested and sent to Siberia for not turning in your family member who said something negative about the Politburo. If you crossed the wrong politician, they could (and would) take you away and no one would ever see you again. That's not a stern nanny, that's a fucking psychotic nanny.

OpenNIC

[ChasmCoder]

http://www.opennicproject.org/

Re:OpenNIC

[corbettw]

OpenNIC is a great idea. Enjoy it while we still have it (it's only a matter of time before the FCC or some other regulatory body decides that OpenNIC has to go away, and then it will).

Re:OpenNIC

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, just like how the pirate bay went away when regulatory bodies decided it should.

Re:OpenNIC

[Menkhaf]

How? You are aware that US FCC can't regulate the whole of the internet, right?
At most it can try to block access to OpenNIC servers from the US, but then it's just a matter of a bit of tunneling DNS requests...

Re:OpenNIC

[corbettw]

Have you not been paying attention? The DHS just seized dozens, if not hundreds, of domain names. Do you honestly think they won't seize the OpenNIC domain name if they see them as a threat? Which eventually, they will?

And if that doesn't work, they'll seize their actual hardware using asset forfeiture laws. It's only a matter of time.

Re:OpenNIC

[Menkhaf]

I've been following it somewhat, but that wasn't really my point, but rather that the Internet exists outside the USA as well.
The OpenNIC servers I use reside in Germany, Sweden and UK. While I don't doubt the powers of the USA government, or the amount of pressure they can (and will if needed) put on foreign countries, I sincerely doubt that would be successful in taking down all OpenNIC servers at once.

Re:OpenNIC

[corbettw]

One of the sites seized by DHS recently was a Spanish site. You guys are just as screwed by our government as we are.

Wow...

[Jawnn]

So the federal bureaucrats still don't get it; when you don't understand something, STFU about wanting to "police" it. At best, you only look like a chapped ass, and more commonly, a clueless federal bureaucrat who is woefully ill-equipped to deal important issues like how the interTubes work. Bush and his people thought that they could make porn go away if they opposed the .xxx TLD. Obama thinks a kill switch is a keen idea. Put down the button and step away from the controls. That's right. Let the smart people run the Internet, m'kay?

Re:Wow...

[SuricouRaven]

The social conservatives didn't think porn would go away if they opposed .xxx. They were just afraid of 'legitimising' it - .xxx would have created a place for porn, while the social conservatives held that porn should have no place at all.

Re:Wow...

[uigrad_2000]

Bush and his people thought that they could make porn go away if they opposed the .xxx TLD. Obama thinks a kill switch is a keen idea. Put down the button and step away from the controls. That's right. Let the smart people run the Internet, m'kay?

There were many governments that opposed the .xxx, and that is why ICANN canceled it after originally giving it the green light. Bush's name has been associated with it the most, though, because his religious persuasions are publicly known, so everyone is quick to assume his motivations.

I can't understand how the porn industry would want the new TLD at all. It opens doors for censorship, and gives an edge to new sites over established ones.

I don't want the government involved, but I don't want ICANN opening a bazillion new TLDs either. Anyone who wants to operate a small site already needs to acquire the .net, .org, .com, .us, and .biz versions. The more TLDs exist, the greater the cost for running a single site for one year.

Re:Wow...

[vlm]

Anyone who wants to operate a small site already needs to acquire the .net, .org, .com, .us, and .biz versions. The more TLDs exist, the greater the cost for running a single site for one year.

This may be the death of that policy, and thus be good. When its 5 TLDs, eh, you pay the cash. When its 4353 TLDs, "F it, everyone only uses .com anyway".

Re:Wow...

[Illogical Spock]

Except that the vast majority of them watch porn behind doors, in the same way a lot of "moralists" make the news from time to time having sex with prostitutes or extraconjugal affairs.

      Its all, absolutely all about hypocrisy, nothing more.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who wants to operate a small site already needs to acquire the .net, .org, .com, .us, and .biz versions.

This is simply not true. There's very little need to register anything but a .com for any small business or "small website". If you want to use (see marketing) something other than .com, such as ".co.uk", it would make sense to also register the .com version (if possible).

Otherwise, the only people who want to register every TLD under the sun are major brand names like Coca-Cola. And those corporations can typically both afford the cost and have a staff keeping track of their domain names and their policy.

Re:Wow...

[hedwards]

I'm with you on that, as much as I distrusted President Bush, I'm not really sure that one can assume that it was an effort to kill pornography websites. It could very easily have been an honest effort at helping parents keep their kids away from it without unduly preventing adults from accessing it.

But in this case, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Besides he's hardly the only person that wanted it.

Re:Just great

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA asshole. Or TFS. Or TFT which reads "US Seeks Veto Powers Over New TLDs".

Dear Mr. Obama

[Gripp]

of all of the massively important/pressing issues, why are you putting so much energy into ruining one of the few things left that are actually free?

Re:Dear Mr. Obama

[joebob2000]

why are you putting so much energy into ruining one of the few things left that are actually free?

The question contains the answer.

Re:Dear Mr. Obama

[Mashiki]

What I find amusing is, all the people who said "he was different" well they were right. He is different than say Bush Jr. Of course, that's not in a good way. I guess you, deserve what you vote for.

Re:Dear Mr. Obama

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Dear Mr. Obama of all of the massively important/pressing issues, why are you putting so much energy into ruining one of the few things left that are actually free?

Dear Gripp, why did you not inform yourself before forming an opinion? If you vote based upon topics you researched just as thoroughly (reading a misleading summary of a sensationalized article from a single source, without bothering to check the facts) then please just stop voting altogether. Now maybe you can go read the proposal you're complaining about and then write a nice apology to the mid level bureaucrats who wrote this very reasonable compromise on international input into the TLD process.

Re:Dear Mr. Obama

[hedwards]

There are issues where he's genuinely an embarrassment. But that's in stark contrast to President Bush who was an embarrassment on most issues. Bush wouldn't have pushed for banking reform, health care reform or an end to GITMO. Remember that it's primarily Republicans that are fighting the President on those issues.

Suggesting that he's different in a way which is somehow bad is disingenuous. The differences are mostly positive, it's just that Bush didn't have to fight with members of the other party for most of his time in office. Whereas Obama has had to consider the view of the Republicans because quite frankly, the Republican party is pathologically incapable of cooperating across party lines right now. There's a small number with some concern for the well being of the American people, but they are very much in the minority as evidenced by their insistence on repealing the what was a Republican proposed health care reform for involving an individual mandate. An individual mandate that was proposed by conservatives originally.

Re:Dear Mr. Obama

[Mashiki]

Wait republicans are incapable of cooperating across party lines? And you think that repealing the healthcare thing is a bad idea as instanced by the republicans? Man the entire thing should be scrapped and then launched into the sun.

If the US was trying to get healthcare for everyone, they should have modeled it after Canada. AKA no federal control.

Re:Dear Mr. Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you, deserve what you vote for.

Comma splice! My eyes!

Re:Dear Mr. Obama

[Gripp]

how is it that you're the only person on these boards that seems to have insight on why controlling the internet isn't a big deal? i still submit to you that if it were as innocent that you make it out to be that there wouldn't even be any talk about it, much less a constant stream of news and not passing legislation....

i will admit i've only read enough to make out that it is as bad as the media seems to be making it out as. but i guess according to you i should read the rest?... that everyone else is wrong.

p.s. this is the like 20th "source" that you call a sensationalized article that has come across slashdot. all reading the same. maybe you should put together your own article to help the rest of us maroons understand what you so clearly do.

Re:Dear Mr. Obama

[Gripp]

from wired.com, the very first search result that came up:
`About two dozen groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Democracy & Technology, were skeptical enough to file an open letter opposing the idea. They are concerned that the measure, if it became law, might be used to censor the internet.

“It is imperative that cyber-security legislation not erode our rights,” (.pdf) the groups wrote last year to Congress.

A congressional white paper (.pdf) on the measure said the proposal prohibits the government from targeting websites for censorship “based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Oddly, it’s exactly the same language in the Patriot Act used to test whether the government can wiretap or investigate a person based on their political beliefs or statements.`

i suppose none of them have bothered to read the bill either, huh.

look, my only point is simply that anything giving anyone a broad level of control over the internet is a bad idea, as it will be abused at some point or another. whether its current intentions are naive or not. argue all you want, but a bill called "the internet kill switch" is likely capable of killing the internet - whether that is the "intent" of it or not.

Maybe....

[whitroth]

It was invented here. It is worldwide, now.

On the third hand (if you're counting), some of the names I've seen are a) idiotic, b) ludicrously too long, and c) not allowable, because THERE ARE ALREADY COUNTRY CODE top level domains. I mean, .nyc? As opposed, say, to nyc.ny.us, or maybe nyc.us?

                    mark "reality check time"

Re:Maybe....

[nomadic]

We're the capital of the world, don't be a hater. We deserve our own TLD.

Re:Maybe....

[Megane]

I agree that .nyc is stupid (I'm okay with .nyc.us), but .tx for Texas would be kind of cool, especially since they were once a sovereign nation.

Re:Maybe....

[hedwards]

I'm not really sure why we need to go much beyond country codes. Having say a .edu, .com, .org, .gov and possibly a couple others for each country code is more than enough. Even without adding any others to the four I listed. It strikes me that if you need more granularity than that that you're probably doing it wrong.

Most servers aren't meant for only a city, so you're usually better off with a subdomain handling a particular state or city.

Re:Maybe....

[sumdumass]

The thirteen colonies were a sovereign state once too. Most of the UK and Russia and Mexico was too. It could get ugly fast if that's a criteria.

How about no new TLDs?

[davidwr]

A "fairer" idea: Stop issuing new non-country/U.N. TLDs.
Put everyone on notice that if they register a NEW 2nd-level non-country domain name now (foo.com) it will be revoked in 10 years. Give existing domain owners a little longer - say, 15-20 years - to retire existing domains. Reserve .com.us, .edu.us, etc. for anyone with an existing or new .com, .edu, etc. for the next 20 years.

People won't like it but at least it will end the bickering.

Now, as for new 2nd-level.us domains, the USA can do that without stepping on other countries sovereignty and they can make whatever.cc without stepping on America's.

Re:How about no new TLDs?

[vlm]

A "fairer" idea: Stop issuing new non-country/U.N. TLDs.
Put everyone on notice that if they register a NEW 2nd-level non-country domain name now (foo.com) it will be revoked in 10 years. Give existing domain owners a little longer - say, 15-20 years - to retire existing domains. Reserve .com.us, .edu.us, etc. for anyone with an existing or new .com, .edu, etc. for the next 20 years.

People won't like it but at least it will end the bickering.

Now, as for new 2nd-level.us domains, the USA can do that without stepping on other countries sovereignty and they can make whatever.cc without stepping on America's.

Don't forget multinationals, whom really run the world. Once IBM replaces their last American with someone in India, (probably what, next year?) would they be forced to move from ibm.us to ibm.india or at least not to renew their ibm.us domain, having no employees there anymore?

Re:How about no new TLDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't even make sense to keep adding TLDs, when there aren't IP addresses to assign to them!

Re:How about no new TLDs?

[painandgreed]

...but at least it will end the bickering.

I wish I had mod points so I could mod you up as "Funny".

Re:How about no new TLDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am with you on saying no new non country TLDs. I think the original unqalified com,us,edu,mil etc should be assumed to be USA, and have to be registered here. Its our Internet, and our DNS, our tax dollars invented these technologies our society is entitled to them being some what US Centric as a result. As an other poster said, if others don't like it let'em build their own.

Re:How about no new TLDs?

[arth1]

So where do you look for an international company then?
You first have to figure out where it's actually located?

Re:How about no new TLDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

TLDs don't exist. Thats google's job. Bull, an european computer company is located at bull.com. BMW has bmw.com is the global portal, and of course bmwusa.com is the American version. Who knows if slashdot is a .com or .org or what? Oh, and I get my "FM" music over the internet from di.fm.

I do support the .com.us paradigm, but I don't know how well that would work. .com is littered with domains companies and services outside of the US.

The point is that the only significant part of the name is the second level domain. Another piece of anecdote, I work at a .org with computer stuff and a coworker thinks that wikipedia.com is the working domain for wikipedia (try it!). I recently found an informal list of the top websites in the world and they listed wikipedia.com.

Re:How about no new TLDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget multinationals, whom really run the world.

You mean "who".

Re:How about no new TLDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

The net's biggest contribution to the global economy is that it essentially opens the global economy, your proposal goes against that and is a pretty standard perception you US lot have on things. Why should a New Zealand online business have to register .com.xx in every country when their 'product' is an online service?

Re:How about no new TLDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about un.org? nato.int? olympic.org?

Not everything can be classified as belonging to one country.

Re:How about no new TLDs?

[LordLucless]

Depends on the rules used to govern .us domains. I'd expect not, if they're incorporated in the US. Everything else about corporations is a legal fiction, I'm sure their nationality follows suit.

Re:How about no new TLDs?

[smellotron]

So where do you look for an international company then?

If a company has a presence in your country, then you look under your country's TLD. It's not much different than multinational companies now such as Amazon that have amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.de (curiously enough, no amazon.us). If they're international but not interested in your nation, then guess based on a larger nearby nation. It's not difficult at all: "multinational" just means more chances at guessing right the first time!

Oh well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't view the proliferation of TLDs as a good thing.

The reason for the objections by NTIA should be enough to make one reconsider the wisdom of the TLD for everything under the sun approach in its entirety...tempting governments to flip switches on content by topic already neatly arranged into TLDs I don't view as a positive development. Regarding governments seeking to have a say in the issue... I don't support government interference in principal but they have a valid and obvious point...policies which seek to dare governments to take steps to screw up the network are just going to lead to policy makers within various countries spending more time passing laws related to the Internet...this is always a bad thing.

This has to stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point, there are two options. And one needs to be chosen NOW.
1) Lock up the USA. Surround their boarders with huge walls, make sure they don't get out. Cut off communications with them too.
2) Let the entire world vote in US politics.

This isn't meant to be taken literally obviously. I just mean to explain how most of the people in the world feel about the USA, specifically the US government and corporations.

Re:This has to stop.

[vlm]

2) Let the entire world vote in US politics.

Thats what we're doing now. Anyone on US soil during polling can vote (for that matter, as many times as they want). No citizenship required.

Furthermore the voting doesn't actually matter, its the money paid to election campaigns. And they accept all currency from everyone, pretty much, although mostly major corporations overwhelm all other contributions.

Re:This has to stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the article, it's actually about the US trying to bring other countries into the management of TLDs. Just the opposite of how it's portrayed in the summary, really.

Still probably a bad idea, but 90% of the slashdotters commenting in this thread completely misunderstand the proposal. This is empowering other countries.

Re:This has to stop.

[Zancarius]

1) Lock up the USA. Surround their boarders with huge walls, make sure they don't get out. Cut off communications with them too.

While you state it's not to be taken literally, the problem is that it is fundamentally an oddly very protectionist view--which is the same thing the US has been accused of during various points last decade and certainly the decades previous. Remember, too, that it's a two-way street: World War II may not have been started exclusively by protectionism, but the way Germany was treated following WWI certainly didn't help. (Although I would also argue that the US' lack of interest early on in the war--think "It's Europe's problem, not ours"--certainly wasn't justifiable, and poor England suffered greatly as a result. The flip side is that it taught us a lesson that it is important to have active relations and treaties with our allies; if one is attacked, we must all pitch in.)

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the world (or Europe) cut off all communication and trade with the US. I'm sure you could do without Slashdot, as it's owned by a US corporation. I'm not sure what would be done with Amazon, Google, and other US-based companies that have data centers elsewhere in the world. Maybe we could close them up for since I'm sure it must be a grave burden that most major search providers, in spite of having localized domains and internationalized sites, are often US-based.

This is a world economy, after all, and so it might be more appropriate to place diplomatic pressure on the US than it is to do something so... drastic.

Re:This has to stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone on US soil during polling can vote (for that matter, as many times as they want). No citizenship required.

That BS is claimed by the teabagger fringe, but (like so many of their claims) it is false. The main purposes of the claim are to whip up hysteria about immigrants, and to introduce measures to suppress voting in poor (usually urban) areas.

(Not that the establishment is any more truthful, but that's another discussion.)

At least they're being coy about it...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are those of us who've been "in the business" long enough to recall some past ICANN meetings during El Busho's illicit administration, when the stuck-up schoolmarm from Stanford would stand up, declare that "the Internet was created by the US, so it will do with the 'net what it damn pleases, so suck it up" or words to the effect, then storm out. Same message, only now the're putting on the facade of diplomatic consensus. With a bit of optimism, could be considered advancement...

Re:At least they're being coy about it...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You know this is almost exactly the opposite of what you're claiming right? This is about subjecting TLDs to review by a group of at least 100 nations and giving that group veto power. The proposal is not that the US executive gets veto power.

Re:At least they're being coy about it...

[nomadic]

Someone else pointed out how you misunderstood the article, but I have a separate point: I am sure you agree at one point the United States had ownership rights to the internet. My question is at what point, and on what rationale, did they lose those ownership rights? When the first country accepted the US's offer to be let onto the network? After a certain saturation?

.crap

[kelemvor4]

Hopefully my suggestion for a new .crap tld that can be forced upon websites without the owner's consent will be implemented.

on one condition:

[Anonymous Coward]

I am alright with this on one condition: that they ALL be vetoed.

Why?

[atomicthumbs]

Why do we need more TLDs? .museum, .name, .aero, .biz, etc. already seemed like they were pushing it.

Re:Why?

[Tom]

Why do we need more TLDs?

Because then you can sell all the same names again.

Re:Why?

[dissy]

Why do we need more TLDs?

Hookers and blow don't grow on trees ya know ;P

It's like asking "Why do we need to print out two $100 bills when we can just print out the one?"

Or in this case 115 instead of just the 3.

Re:Why?

[mysidia]

Why do we need more TLDs? .museum, .name, .aero, .biz, etc. already seemed like they were pushing it.

Because ICANN is governed by a board controlled by the big domain registrars and big corporations. AtLarge was a farce, and the DNS community's one board member was ditched. So really, only the registrars, TLD operators themselves have representation in deciding what will happen. The only input the community has is a "comments forum" that the ICANN board has demonstrated they ignore whenever they want to, or they ignore whenever the opinion the vast majority of the community has conflicts with their sponsoring organizations' business interests.

Guess what big domain registrars and TLD registrar-operators want? More domains to sell.

Re:Why?

[karl.auerbach]

The point you make is valid - there isn't a lot of clear "need" for new top level domains.

But then again there wasn't a "need" for facebook.

It is simply a matter of allowing people to do what they want to do - or in the case of businesses, allowing people to hope to make some money (but more likely to lose it.)

If we limit the choices that others can make then we ourselves become censors.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, blow does grow on trees. Literally. You're right about the hookers, though.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a .adnauseum?

Re:Why?

[wiredlogic]

Indeed. At this point the domain squatting industry is too big to fail. We need big government to step in and make sure they continue to profit so the proles can get their trickle down excrement. Someone should really think of the children too.

Re:Why?

[brokeninside]

.you

Need I say more?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

To create internationalized ccTLDs, to give one example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalized_country_code_top-level_domain

Re:Why?

[Improv]

You are my hero.

Re:Why?

[Tom]

Someone has - the .kids TLD has already been proposed.

That is a false choice

[SuperKendall]

The increase in power of the state (with technical solutions to oppress dissent) was inevitable.

That's where you are wrong. The increase of the power of the state is never inevitable, and can be pulled back. Tunisia has already done so.

You don't need to go to those extremes though to pull back state power. In the case of the U.S. that means voting for people who want to cut the budget because the less money the government has, they less power they wield. It's why voting for people who believe in power being in the hands of the states is better than those wanting the federal government to run things, because the more locally power is concentrated the more obvious abuses will be.

I agree with your assessment that the current direction is one of state + corporations running things. So take away federal power and the pairing will naturally dissolve. Few giant corporations can actually stand up under their own weight and bloat without being propped up by government, so we should let those companies unable to stand without public help die so that a new forest of companies can emerge from the ashes. Preserving the cycle of competition is far more important than preserving any one company.

Re:That is a false choice

[HappyEngineer]

In the case of the U.S. that means voting for people who want to cut the budget because the less money the government has, they less power they wield.

And who exactly is that? By my count there might be one or two people in the entire house and senate who want to cut the budget. The rest just want to cut the budget for programs they don't like and increase the budget for things they do like.

If you honestly believe Tea Party candidates want to cut the budget (as in, cut the budget, period, end of story) then you are living in a fantasy world.

Re:That is a false choice

[SuperKendall]

And who exactly is that?

Rand Paul for one. Any Tea Party supported candidate would probably do as well (there are more than two of them). Some Democrats feel that way as well, since traditionally Democrats were not aligned with big business, that happened mostly in recent decades...

If you honestly believe Tea Party candidates want to cut the budget (as in, cut the budget, period, end of story) then you are living in a fantasy world.

Since they are actually proposing budget cuts and even debating raising the debt cap, I'm living the dream I guess.

If you aren't willing to support someone who claims to want to do what you want, if you aren't willing to give those people a chance to prove they will do what they say they want to - then you'll never get anything you want. You are buying into the lies you have been told regarding the Tea Party, put forth by those that do not want to see a reduction in federal power.

The fact is that a large majority of the U.S. wants spending cuts, yes even if it affects some services they use. If you have even a small number of people in the government dedicated to that task then they can have a disproportionate effect because the more wishy-washy politicians will be inclined to go along.

If you don't thing true change is possible then go curl up in a corner and let the rest of us work it out. After all, as far as you are concerned nothing can go right anyway.

Re:That is a false choice

[hedwards]

You don't need to go to those extremes though to pull back state power. In the case of the U.S. that means voting for people who want to cut the budget because the less money the government has, they less power they wield. It's why voting for people who believe in power being in the hands of the states is better than those wanting the federal government to run things, because the more locally power is concentrated the more obvious abuses will be.

I've got a nice tract of land down in Florida that I'm sure you'd be interested in.

People who vote for politicians that promise tax cuts shouldn't vote. Politicians promise tax cuts and cuts to spending, but I rarely if ever hear of a politician with the stones to tell the voters what he or she intends to cut. As a result what gets cut tends to be programs to help the lower classes earn their way up in society and what gets cut in terms of taxes tends to be on those that already have enough money.

Voting for such a candidate is more or less the picture of stupidity. Exercising a vote like that is at best a vote for the status quo and at worse a vote for involuntary poverty to all but the richest individuals.

Re:That is a false choice

[Mr. Slippery]

In the case of the U.S. that means voting for people who want to cut the budget because the less money the government has, they less power they wield.

Yeah. Less power to maintain the roads, fight fires, teach kids, rebuild flooded cities, feed the hungry, find and lock up murderers, care for the sick and injured...and, most importantly to the investment-class parasites who most strongly promote this "cut the budget!" meme, less power to put any regulation on big business.

Actual totalitarianism can be run on the cheap, clubs and jackboots are not very expensive. The size of the budget has little to do with how much freedom people have -- low government spending doesn't correlate with increased freedom. (Read the whole linked page, not just the table, especially the note about the U.S.'s rank -- the U.S. already spends less (by GDP) on government than any other large, prosperous country.)

Now, as a Zenarchist, I'd love -- and look forward to -- a society where we don't need government to maintain the roads, fight fires, teach kids, etcetera. But before we get government out of those things, we need to get it out of creating and enforcing the capitalist "property rights" that create economic injustice, that have us living in the L-curve. First tear up all those government-issued land deeds held by landlords, the government-issued corporate charters that make stock in companies meaningful, all those government-issued copyrights and patents. Then we can talk.

Re:That is a false choice

[HappyEngineer]

My understanding is that their proposed budget didn't push for cuts in military, social security, medicare, or medicaid. As such, any cuts they mention are just posturing. Those 4 make up nearly all money spent, so anything else is just screwing around at the edges messing with programs that they don't like.

If they did propose to cut any of the big 4 then I'm impressed. If they chop the military budget in half (chop it in half and we'd still have way more than enough military power to defend ourselves if it was ever necessary), raise SS age to 70, and reduce eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid to only those who need the money then that would truly fix the budget crisis.

You're drinking the kool-aid. I'm sorry, but I will not give a chance to someone who just mouths words. Ron Paul is the only representative that I trust to do what he says because he truly has done exactly what he said for decades. Everyone else just says what they need to in order to get elected. Ron Paul has an internal drive to do what he says which is shared by precious few humans. I still disagree with him on a variety of things, but I do trust him to vote like he says. I'm not stupid enough to feel the same about any other politician.

Seriously, Palin is a hero to the Tea Party. What else needs to be said? She's the queen of saying one thing while doing another.

Re:That is a false choice

[coolmadsi]

I've got a nice tract of land down in Florida that I'm sure you'd be interested in.

That'd be great! I'm sick of continualy rebuilding this castle in this swamp!

Re:Just great

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, your backtracking has gotten you all the way from a reading comprehension fail to a logic fail. Feel free to keep going, I'm sure there are still more ways you can make yourself look like an ass.

Read TFA Carefully, Summary is Misleading

[TheSpoom]

The Obama administration is proposing (PDF) that domain approval procedures be changed to include a mandatory "review" by an ICANN advisory panel comprised of representatives of roughly 100 nations. The process is open-ended, saying that any government "may raise an objection to a proposed (suffix) for any reason." Unless at least one other nation disagrees, the proposed new domain name "shall" be rejected.

This would create an explicit governmental veto over new top-level domains. Under the procedures previously used in the creation of .biz, .name, and .info, among others, governments could offer advice, but the members of the ICANN board had the final decision.

If you didn't already know, ICANN is under contract to the United States government. So Obama's policy would effectively globalize the approval of new TLDs, in effect giving the US less power.

And if the story is to be believed, a TLD is only automatically rejected if one or more countries object and no countries disagree. If countries disagree or cannot form a consensus, the TLD isn't automatically rejected. Or specifically, from the PDF:

String Evaluation: The GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct ICANN staff to amend the following procedures related to the Initial Evaluation called for in Module 2 to include review by governments, via the GAC. Any GAC member may raise an objection to a proposed string for any reason. If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application. (Note that the application fees should be refunded to the applicant).

Explanation: This proposal meets a number of compelling goals. First it will diminish the potential for blocking of top level domain strings considered objectionable by governments, which harms the architecture of the DNS and undermines the goal of universal resolvability. Second, affording governments the opportunity, through the GAC, to advise the ICANN Board that there is consensus GAC advice regarding particular proposed strings that should not be processed is supportive of ICANN’s commitment to ensure that its decision are in the global public interest.

(Emphasis added.)

So, in effect, it's creating an international body where members can object, but other members can block an objection. To my understanding, that's pretty much the opposite of veto power, and it's certainly not a US government takeover of DNS TLDs (in as much as they didn't own the process already).

Really, it all depends on how much faith you have that the other, saner countries will block objections instead of being pussies.

Re:Read TFA Carefully, Summary is Misleading

[gmhowell]

If you didn't already know, ICANN is under contract to the United States government. So Obama's policy would effectively globalize the approval of new TLDs, in effect giving the US less power.

Oh my God! New world order! The Caliphate! International Jewry!

Pyschos always have a response.

.stfu....

[chrisj_0]

Would be epic :)

Re:.stfu....

[game kid]

I agree that Saint Fursey deserves more recognition.

Not just US, but any of 100 countries could veto

[hajus]

It's not just the US gov't that would have veto powers, it would be the gov'ts of a hundred nations, as per the article. So the veto would not be limited to just Obama, but an international conglomerate. Wonder what the reasoning was which they used to pick those 100 countries rather than all of them...

There is a solution

[karl.auerbach]

It is merely a religious dogma that the internet requires exactly one domain name root.

One way to fight censorship of domain names is to have multiple roots.

It would be bad to have multiple roots that lead to different answers to the same query.

The solution is to have *consistent* but multiple DNS roots. That way any censorship could be obviated simply by users (or their ISP's changing to an uncensored root.)

The definition of "consistent" makes a difference. Some define it as being absolutely the same. I give relax that a bit to say that if a top level domain (TLD) exists then it must have the same contents in all roots that carry it, but that not all roots need carry every TLD.

(If TLDs have disputed contents than I claim that they are tainted goods and that any self-respecting root operator ought to put a pox on both their houses and carry none of the disputants' versions.)

A side effect of this approach is that, like TV channels fighting for space on cable and satellite provider's, new TLDs can arise and fight for visibility and user share without the need of a centralized authority such as ICANN.

There will, of course, be situations in which abc.example won't resolve in a root that doesn't carry .example. But progress is never perfect - look at the way the telephone system collapsed with the introduction of the touch pad and the revolutionary '#' and '*' keys.

Re:There is a solution

[snookums]

A peer-based root system seems like a very good idea. I'd couple it with another idea that I read about years ago:

Allow anyone to register and create any TLD they like, but don't give them exclusive ownership.

This eliminates land grabs on new TLDs completely. You can't possibly register your desired name in every TLD because there are an unlimited number of them. For decent performance, spreading these unlimited TLDs over a network of root-level peers would be desirable.

This scheme is also not particularly prone to a TLD land grab because of the non-exclusivity. If, say, Microsoft set up .microsoft they would be unable to prevent registration of down.with.microsoft, and thus would never create that TLD because they would lose control of their trademark through voluntary dilution (the terms of the TLD registration would cede any rights to the trademark for TLD purposes to the registrar and their customers). However, if anyone but Microsoft tried to register .microsoft then they would be breaching trademark protections, so we would not have a root space cluttered with trademarked business names.

Hey, hey, hey, hey!

[madowcopyrightowner]

Are you gonna go up my butt?

Whats the point?

[Illogical Spock]

Seriously? Let's say they are trying to forbid, for example, the TLDs .FUUSA and .USAMYASS. Then what? Everyone can get a .FUUSA.COM or FUUSA.COM.?? (where ?? is any country TLD) and they can't do shit about it.

      I'm all for mantaining the number of TLDs low, because it will be a mess to try to remember some address when you have no clue of the TLD, but I just can't see the point in not allowing this or that specific TLD.

      And these new TLDs, with few exceptions, will be barely used anyway. Here in Brazil we have a bunch of TLDs like .INF.BR, .NOM.BR, etc, and nobody uses it except a few people. Its all about .COM.BR everywhere.

Re:Whats the point?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'm all for mantaining the number of TLDs low, because it will be a mess to try to remember some address when you have no clue of the TLD, but I just can't see the point in not allowing this or that specific TLD.

Aside from the fact that you clearly haven't read the proposal by the GAC, what makes you think anyone is trying to forbid the creation of TLDs? The proposal is that veto power for what used to be called “Morality and Public Order Objections” and which is now called "Limited Public Interest Objection" be replaced in its entirety such that a group of representatives of at least 100 governments be convened and that any of them could object to a TLD, but then any other member could object to the objection. This replaces the process in place now where TLDs are rejected for moral reasons by the International Chamber of Commerce and another business association no one has ever heard of called ICE. The proposal isn't that governments can block TLDs so much as that moral objections must be put forward by democratically elected governments instead of by business associations.

What's his plan?

[a whoabot]

I just changed some settings and then when I plugged in http://www.lbgt2sqqsupport.gay/ Firefox went right to the site for which I was looking. Is Obama planning on changing the fundamental architecture of the internet, or legally barring alternative DNS schemes? Or is he just too stupid to know better, or not in control of his own administration which in turn is too stupid to know better?

Re:Not just US, but any of 100 countries could vet

[hajus]

Hate replying to my own comment... but just to point out that it's the title that is kinda misleading. It says that the US seeks the veto powers... but that is what makes one think that the veto powers would reside with the US only rather than all these other countries, which is what is being sought.

TLD?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused why the government would care if I write more tag library descriptors.

I'm not too terribly worried.

[scourfish]

I mean, after the morality squads reject the .xxx tld, Ill just have to get my hardcore porn at a website with a working tld: www.titfuck.jesus

Re:Just great

[the_hellspawn]

Obi-Wan...the fail is strong in this one

Re:Just great

[GameboyRMH]

What's wrong with the logic of it? It's speculative but not implausible considering that the US has been seizing domains only to see the sites pop back up 5 minutes later under a foreign-controlled TLD. The US government seeking power to limit new TLDs just after the failure of their pre-Superbowl domain crackdown is more than a little suspicious.

Re:Just great

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... what you're suggesting really has nothing to do with the issue here. Pirate, etc. sites can switch to [almost] any TLD they want. Vetoing new not-currently-existing TLDs has absolutely nothing to do with that at all, nor is it the first step to anything like that.

Next time, actually read the article, actually think critically and logically about it, THEN finally post an informed reply. It helps make you not look like an ass.

I'd definitely veto all of them

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO, new TLDs add no value whatsoever. The com, org and the national TLDs were definitely enough (even .net seems pointless. And don't getting me started on .biz). Beyond twhat we have, the rest are just silly, gives yet another way to squat on names that you really shouldn't have and cause confusion. And another mint for the organizations selling domain names, and those really don't need to get yet another way to earn money on imaginary property.

So please make it so that it requires just one single person on this earth to veto the addition of more TLDs!

Re:I'd definitely veto all of them

[Broolucks]

Well, think about it for a second. If .com, .org and national TLDs are enough, then there is no real difference between registering abc.com and outright registering the abc TLD. In fact, the latter is four keystrokes shorter. If TLDs are locked down in the first place, that's under the assumption that they will become progressively available to meet demand. Else you might as well reserve national TLDs and a few others like .org, and then sell the rest of the TLDs at .com pricing.

Personally, I would just allow anyone to acquire a TLD for a few million bucks and let the market take care of everything else. The high price would ensure TLD scarcity, and we wouldn't be getting all this senseless drama.

Someone was bored

[sugarmotor]

Someone was bored, and had some time to waste.

S

This is a Compromise Solution

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Okay, I read the article. I don't get it. They say the Obama administration is "...seeking the power for it and other governments to veto future top-level domain names". As far as I can tell the action they have taken was to submit a proposal that, "...domain approval procedures be changed to include a mandatory 'review' by an ICANN advisory panel comprised of representatives of roughly 100 nations".

So first off, all those comments here about the US trying to seize power over domain names from other sovereign nations, those seem more than a little uninformed. This refers to making sure a large number of nations have input into the procedure, not the other way around. Right now, the US is over represented in ICANN and many other nations are pushing for UN control. This is a compromise proposal where other countries would have more influence, but the UN would not take control (something corporate interests have been fighting hard against). It seems mostly focused on making sure trademark conflicts between nations are resolved by the international community so an '.nfl' TLD would not automatically go to the US football league, when the Canadian province of Newfoundland and the large Indian fertilizer producer have just as valid trademark claims to the acronym.

Taco and Slashdot reader post FUD headline

[BitZtream]

Seriously, did either of you bother to read the proposal at hand?

Unless you mean the US wants to give other countries a fair part in the process of deciding new TLDs ... instead of being in complete control as it is now ... then you might have been right, but you pretty much said the exact opposite of what the proposal states.

The US already has veto power. TLDs are decided by ICANN, a US Government run organization. The US has complete control already.

The proposal basically makes it so if the US so YES to a TLD, other countries have a way to tell us to fuck off and discuss it and maybe do it anyway or not ... BASED ON CONSENSUS OF THE GROUP.

This would give other countries an ability to veto actions made by the US and would take complete control away from the US which would be effectively removing the US's veto ability.

Seriously, both of you need to actually read the shit you post before hand, slashdot has become truely pathetic thanks to this type of crap, might as well go read facebook wall posts, probably more accurate than you guys are these days.

Re:Taco and Slashdot reader post FUD headline

[LastGunslinger]

There's no room for rational thought on /. Start acting like we live in an Orwellian dystopia or get your news somewhere else.

Obama Administration Gay Bashing, After All.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look. The Obama Administration is GAY BASHING after all. This will give them VETO power to VOID any .gay domain name ... what do you DADT supporters say to that?

Check the contracts

[karl.auerbach]

ICANN is no longer operating under the old agreements (which went under various names) and is now under an "affirmation" that amounts to an amicable and somewhat supervised divorce between the US gov't and ICANN.

ICANN is on its own, except for that has duties under a zero dollar purchase order to supply "IANA Functions". But that,although it lacks definitions, has always been considered somewhat separate from the domain name issues.

There is an amusing twist - ICANN is a California corporation and there is an old never-repealed law in the California Corporations Code that possibly defines a corporation that takes direction from a foreign government to be a "subversive organization". (See sections 35000 through 35007 of the Calif. Corporations code.)

Re:Check the contracts

[TheSpoom]

So then you're stuck with the choice of having a private company direct what TLDs will be accepted, or an international body doing so. Either way, it's not the government takeover that the article and summary seem to be making people think it is.

Also lulz at the subversive organization thing.

.llegal?

[IAmAI]

.llegal?

Please keep your politics out of the core

[WaffleMonster]

What if there really was an evil bit and it really did work?

Do you think governments would not pass laws requiring ISPs to filter packets containing such bits?

TLDs containing sexually, politically and morally contentious material is putting the topology of the network at risk by making it a lightning rod for attack by repressive and conservative governments throughout the world. It is a safe bet they will seek the capability to block entire TLDs and eventually rewire/fragment DNS to the detrement of all.

Normally if you don't like an individual site you just blackhole their network. Blocking entire TLDs just makes repression easier (No need to identify individual sites), reduces global cooperation and provides an excuse for entry points to the implementation of laws which uproot the global DNS database.

Dear America

[captain_dope_pants]

Fuck off.
That is all.

Re:Dear America

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Dear America Fuck off. That is all.

The fact that this is your response to the proposal as written says a lot about media and the ability of people to accurately inform themselves. I'm sure whoever wrote the proposal is wondering WTF right about now. They put together a nice compromise proposal where hundreds of nations would be represented in the TLD process. It isn't US-centric completely controlled by a Californian corporation in turn controlled by the US, but is instead decided by representatives of the international community. At the same time it isn't handing the whole shebang over to the UN, which many business interests have been fighting.

So the sensationalism amplifying effect of the media trickles down this mediocre compromise proposal until it reaches the general public in such a distorted form, represented so poorly with scare tactics to get readers and what happens? You happen.

Re:Dear America

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another comment by someone that didn't read the article.

This was about spreading the authority out, reducing our influence.

Re:Dear America

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with America is there are too many people who cast judgement with no real understanding of the subject... Those who form their world view based on a Slashdot article summary is one example of these sort of people.

It seems America isn't the only place with this problem. Asshat.

Re:Dear America

[Anonymous Coward]

3am in the morning and I'm laughing. Well said -- let anyone do as they please, it's not the sodding septic's world. Stick to what you do best, screwing up Alaska for a start. While you're at it, make a few million more hemi v8s as well. I say let Bruce Dickinson (Iron Maiden fame) be in charge of allocating and deciding which new TLDs are allowed for the next 5 yrs - once his term in office is up, it can pass over to Silvio Berlusconi.

Yes, I am mental, thanks.

Politicians are the Original FUD Machines

[Phoenix666]

Step 1: Find something that might seem scary/wrong to the average schmuck

Step 2: Use hyperbole and outright lies to whip said schmucks into a frenzy about it.

Step 3: Declare that you're absolutely opposed to this newfound "threat."

Step 4: Get elected.

Step 5: Profit.

Always has been that way, always will be that way with politicians. It's why the American Experiment in Democracy version 1.0 has failed.

We need to convene another Constitutional Convention to release version 2.0 with its necessary structural overhaul and numerous bug fixes. The new system must promote sanity, competence, justice, freedom, and opportunity.

The incompetent lying demagogic psychopathic sacks of shit version 1.0 has outputted will be cleared away by version 2.0's enhanced garbage collection. Bachman, Baucus, I'm looking at you...

Re:Politicians are the Original FUD Machines

[PTBarnum]

Wait, are you talking about the US Government or Slashdot?

This story is a great example of finding something that seems scary/wrong to the average geek, and using hyperbole and outright lies to whip said geeks into a frenzy about it. Neither the author nor Slashdot says explicitly that they are opposed to this, and the editors don't make a personal profit, but I think the analogy still holds.

Re:Politicians are the Original FUD Machines

[sumdumass]

Why would we want a new constitution when the current one isn't even followed. It's not followed because it doesn't let politicians do whatever in the hell they want to do so a new constitution will not change that at all.

And like missing the obvious there, I'm willing to bet you have no clue what the American Experiment in Democracy version 1.0 was in the first place and are in absolutely no position to declare that it has failed.

Here is a hint, your representatives do no represent you whatsoever at all. They represent the state. There is absolutely nothing in the US constitution that suggests the politicians have any responsibility to the public outside of being forbidden on infringing on certain rights the public already holds.

New TLDs are a racket for registrars

[Animats]

New TLDs are mostly a racket for registrars, who try to get companies to purchase the same domain in multiple TLD's for "protection". This is close to an extortion racket. Since ICANN got rid of those annoying "public" board members, it's just been a trade group for registrars.

Most of the newer TLDs are duds, anyway. ".museum" has so few domains that the whole list is a few pages. ".aero" has an entry for each airport code, but those are mostly redirects put up by the registrar. ".biz" is a strip mall in a bad neighborhood with grates over the windows and graffiti on the walls. ".name", for individuals, never caught on. Nor did ".travel", ".pro", or ".jobs". ".tel" is a non-Web service for telephony, and has a legit use. The rest could probably be closed to new registrations and phased out as names drop.

Re:Just great

[arth1]

... or, they may want to veto the .ps TLD being transferred from the Israeli "Palestinian Territories" to the "State of Palestine".

Re:Just great

[sumdumass]

because the article and the summery and everything is pointing to the creation of top level domains not domains in the top levels. This is whatever comes after the dot as in ".com", not what comes before the . as in "whydoibother".com

It has absolutely no bearing on domains being registered in those top level domains. It only has to do with top level domains so things like .offensive can't be made. That being said, it's still not a good idea even though the logic you championed is completely irrelevant to the concept of discussion. No one is suggesting pulling .cn or .whatever out of the mix because pirateme registered a domain there.

The million geek army says "NO"

[gestalt_n_pepper]

If there's an Internet kill switch, next year there will be one, or more, open source radio Internets on shifting multiply redundant frequencies. Or underground radio transmission will be revived and improved, or satellite hacking will become the new favorite geek sport, or internet signals will be introduced into powerlines, or cell phones will be hacked into being mobile packet switch devices, or...

And that's what I can think of, just off the top of my head.

Seriously. If anyone in the government is dumb enough to think they can stop the Internet or it's clones, they had better go back to school for a remedial electricity course.

Re:The million geek army says "NO"

[hajus]

And what does that have to do with domain names?

Been here Before

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the real issue here? Does anyone actually expect the content of these proposed domains to absolutely faithful?

Consider Usenet, which is perhaps the archetypal forum for free expression. Does anyone on Usenet respect the boundaries that are implicitly defined by the group name?

The proliferation of TLDs will experience the same.

I'm actually kinda' for this...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to a point.

Unless I'm very mistaken, DNS support Unicode now. I think it would be a "bad thing" to allow a TLD of .com, spelled with an "omicron" (U+03BF) or similar visually ambiguous glyph. Phishing would get ugly.

A bit of clarification for those who need it

[davidwr]

To clarify:

Current .com, .edu, etc. would fall to .com.us etc. as a matter of uniformity.

If they chose to get .com.theircountry or .com.country1, .com.country2, etc. etc. they could. They could even release .com.us if they wanted to.

Not all .com's own .com.theircountry or the local equivalent (e.g. .co.uk). Many non-US multi-nationals own .com but not .com.countryX for each country they are in even today.

For those with existing .com, .edu, etc. being a US company or even having a US presence would not be a requirement to get the "reserved for you" .com.us.

Re: people, cults, covenants love power....

[OldHawk777]

Corporate governance of a nation is a real perspective for US, EU, RU and others.
Religious governance of a nation is a real perspective for Iraq, Iran, Arabia and others.
Dogma governance of a nation is a real perspective for China, Burma, *Stan and others.
Governance, of a nation by leaders (C*Os, clergy, politicians...) without accountability, of people without representation is a real perspective for them all.

IOW: Governments are what "We The People" make them. Governance by the people is not near the burden as the absence of government; Hence, shit-heads and pure horror will fill the vacuum when "We The People" refuse to Govern as a strong and indivisible union.

Government is an institution that only fools and dogmatism blame for problems caused by "We The People."

Vetoed TLDs are a valuable resource.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

One of the problems with trying to set up an alternative DNS to get around things like the seizure of domain names by DNS/ICE is that a DNS registry system provides two services:
  - Mapping names to addresses.
  - Assuring uniqueness in the identification.
An alternative system has the problem that, if it allocates a name, the OFFICIAL system could allocate the same name to somebody else, causing havoc.

But if there is a set TLDs that this supernational agency had decreed would NOT be allocated, an alternate registry could allocate names there with impunity. And once they're allocated they become, in effect, property. If the agency later changed its mind and decided to allocate them after all, all the owners of alternate TLDs AND the operators of the alternate registries would have a suit, at least in the US, both against the government under the 5th amendment's "takings" clause and against the agency as well. B-)

NO MORE NEW TLDs

[Anonymous Coward]

NO MORE NEW TLDs!

Land of not so Free, home of the Super-Parents

[Nyder]

Back when Bush was president, I used to watch the news because I like seeing what stupid shit he did next. But now? Oh hell no. When a stupid man does stupid shit, it's funny. When a smart man does stupid shit, it's really fucking scarey.

Here are the cuts you've been looking for

[SuperKendall]

People who vote for politicians that promise tax cuts shouldn't vote.

The very fact you chose to emphasize that point shows you are mired in an old mindset.

The key is spending reduction.

I rarely if ever hear of a politician with the stones to tell the voters what he or she intends to cut

Then you aren't paying attention.

Wake the fuck up and start supporting plans that reduce spending. That means calling your congressman and telling them to support measures like this.

Otherwise to back to bleating about how things are impossible with the rest of the sheeple.

TLDs want to be free

[nicholas22]

One very good reason is to allow people to be able to make use of a simple, concise, preferably one-word domain name, while avoiding the blackmail imposed by the domain-squatter leeches. I recently checked with a .com I was interested in, which was far from being a usable word and it was 10 letters long. I was asked by the squatter $5000. I promptly told him that he can kiss where the sun don't shine. That's an astonishing profit for a $20-30 cost and I can now understand how this parasitic industry survives. It's exploitation. The best thing to do is to open up TLDs and make them as configurable as domains/sub-domains. And don't shed too many tears for the domain squatting industry. They have made enough money already.

Dammit People

[Aryden]

You should actually read the damn PDF.

"Explanation: This proposal meets a number of compelling goals. First it will diminish the potential for blocking of top level domain strings considered objectionable by governments, which harms the architecture of the DNS and undermines the goal of universal resolvability. Second, affording governments the opportunity, through the GAC, to advise the ICANN Board that there is consensus GAC advice regarding particular proposed strings that should not be processed is supportive of ICANN’s commitment to ensure that its decision are in the global public interest."

The proposal isn't designed to limit the new TLDs, it isn't designed to give control to 1 government. Currently, propsed TLD's are reviewed by 3, that's THREE people "“three experts recognized as eminent jurists of international reputation". That's more scary to me than allowing 100 nations to vote, object, advise on new TLD issues.

Read the damn PDF The only real objectionable protion is section 4 on intellectual rights.

Likely best solution

[currently_awake]

Probably the best we can hope for is that the com/gov/mil/edu/etc domains be switched over to be under the national domains. Then each government would run their local (national) domain as they see fit. This way army.mil.usa can totally block the wikileaks domain (no uploads), while army.mil.eu can leave it alone. As each country would have total control of its national domain there would be no problem with new tld's. If countries in eu want .gay or .hamster or whatever they can just go ahead and make it. Of course then you'd need to have all the multi-national sites routed to the same server but that's just book keeping.

It's a vast conspiracy...

[suprcvic]

...perpetrated by Google to drive more traffic to their search engine because people will never be able to remember the URLs of anything ever again. Srsly. OMG.

US seeks veto ...

[RockDoctor]

Veto denied.

If I set up my DNS to support the ".wgaf-about-DC" TLD, there's sweet fuck-all the US government can do about it.

My problem then becomes one of finding other people who support that TLD, and arranging to share updates with each other. Maybe I can use the internet to find such people?

ANY TLD you like (in the alternative world)

[DASHWORLDS]

Running alongside ICANN, Dashworlds.com offers a parallel Internet resolving both Dashcom and Dotcom Domain Names. Dashcoms are new web addresses in the format http://business-com/ or http://stock-market/ (Examples Only). So instead of applying to ICANN, paying millions to ICANN and then having to jump through numerous hoops and interests groups, you can now create any TLD and/or domain instantly and at no cost. With users and members in over 90 countries worldwide, resolution is via an APP (although ISP links are provided to negate that need). Having just one Internet in infinite cyberspace is like saying you can go anywhere in the USA as long as you only use Route 66. But now, just as in the USA (and everywhere else in the world) the Internet has more than one option.

i have a better idea

[AP31R0N]

phase out TLDs.

A Borderless Society.....

[joerog]

The Internet is truly the first border-less society, a super nation, a first in the history of humanity, the first great step to 'one world-ism', truly a new social order. Governments will naturally resist its evolution; it scares th s..t out of them! You see this resistance all around us today. How successful have they been? Tunisia, Egypt, Myanmar... No matter what any government does, they can't put the genie back into the bottle.... Long live the Internet, long live Wikileaks, long live Twitter, Facebook and their successors....As long at there is an Internet, people will be able to communicate, so what Obama and China, and any government attempting to put a leash on the Internet, their efforts are to no avail, so don't worry, everything will be ok!