Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ICANN Mistakenly Publishes Applicant Addresses

Posted by samzenpus on from the was-that-wrong? dept.

angry tapir writes "ICANN's program to expand the number of domains on the internet has suffered another embarrassing setback. The organization has been forced to temporarily take down details of domain suffix applications after it inadvertently published the addresses of applicants. In April, ICANN was forced to suspend the application process after it was found that its system could reveal details about top-level domain applicants. The organization is already facing criticism for its proposal to deal with TLD applications in batches of 500 instead of all at once."

52 comments

  1. Confidence by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How can anyone have confidence in ICANN's systems when they repeatedly screw up? At something like $180,000 an application, you know, maybe, they might be more careful.

    1. Re:Confidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      What part of the $180000 do you think goes to the people actually running the application servers? I bet the money basically all goes to insurance and lawyers, and the techs need to explain why they want a real server and isn't a virtual machine not enough, since money is so tight.

    2. Re:Confidence by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 4, Funny

      More interestingly, how can a company that basically runs the internet be so bad at using the internet?

    3. Re:Confidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you new here? Would you be surprised to learn that the people responsible for making and enforcing the laws are also bad at obeying them?

    4. Re:Confidence by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      What part of the $180000 do you think goes to the people actually running the application servers? I bet the money basically all goes to insurance and lawyers, and the techs need to explain why they want a real server and isn't a virtual machine not enough, since money is so tight.

      None of it.

      The application fee is merely just a deterrent against entry - basically if you can spend $180k, you probably have the money and resources to manage a TLD. Those who can pay will probably do a lot of work in maintaining their TLDs and not let it become a haven for spam and viruses and other malware because well, they paid this money and if it becomes a universal ban everywhere (like .biz and .info) then it's that money down the drain.

      Basically they want interested people determined to keep things working properly, not random Joe. It's why Apple prices their iOS SDK at $99/year, Microsoft same (for Windows Phone and Xbox Indie), etc. If you're as good as you say you are, it's put up or shut up.

    5. Re:Confidence by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 0

      Thanks man. +5 funny,informative,interesting, and insightful all in one. You win Slashdot tonight my friend.

    6. Re:Confidence by billstewart · · Score: 2

      I think if you want to run a TLD, the public should be allowed to know who you are. And since it costs $180K to apply, you're probably a corporation, so the public should be allowed to know who you are. And if you're a rich individual trying to buy a TLD, you're probably using your office address, not your home anyway.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    7. Re:Confidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's why Apple prices their iOS SDK at $99/year, Microsoft same (for Windows Phone and Xbox Indie), etc. If you're as good as you say you are, it's put up or shut up.

      or to deter the average person from even attempting to get into the game. also, for $99, i should be able to test the apps on my device directly.

    8. Re:Confidence by sortadan · · Score: 1

      And be named ICANN, more like ICANT!

      [crickets]

    9. Re:Confidence by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Um, you can. Once you pay the fee you can run anything with your digital signature on your device without any involvement from Apple/MS.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  2. Hey, I know... by wet-socks · · Score: 2

    This whole fiasco is going to be revealed as a huge practical joke.... isn't it? please say it is. Please?

    1. Re:Hey, I know... by philipmather · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm afraid the 1st of April has been and gone.

      The only benifit to the population at large in this entire exercise is that we now have the names and addresses of the people stupid enough to pony up ~$180,000 for an almost certiainly pointless TLD. 419-fodder if ever there was any.

      --
      Regards, Phil
    2. Re:Hey, I know... by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be able to get this all sorted out in around 9-10 months - right on schedule.

    3. Re:Hey, I know... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      This whole fiasco is going to be revealed as a huge practical joke.... isn't it? please say it is. Please?

      You'll get your answer as soon as someone buys icann.joke and puts up some content ;-)

  3. This is getting stupid. by jibjibjib · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We all know the new top-level domains (and some of the existing top-level domains) are basically a money grab and a way to force people to pay as many times as possible for their name.

    And the registrar system, which supposedly enables competition, is also just a money grab. For each top-level domain we have one registry, which is a simple database run by one organisation, but then we have a whole lot of commercial infrastructure and multiple companies around it which serve no purpose except to skim profits off the top.

    Now the problems with the new TLD registration process are starting to make ICANN and the domain industry look incompetent as well as greedy, for those of us who hadn't decided that was the case already.

    So, what can we do? I know it's been suggested and unsuccessfully tried before, but is it time someone replaced ICANN?

    1. Re:This is getting stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I really wish we could replace them. Every single god damn decision they have made has just made the DNS worse.
      First, the very fact the DNS is the way it is now, subdomains.domain.tlds, is their fault. It was going to be the other way around, similar to newsgroup ordering, which makes FAR more sense.
      Then there is lax enforcement of any of the TLDs, besides .mil and .gov.

      A better system would be ccTLD.siteType.domain.subdomains.
      ccTLD can have a gbl for companies which operate in a minimum number of countries or languages, whichever is reached first. (half?)
      It shorts to your local country-code if it is omitted.
      siteType is a basic site description, search, shop, social, bank, military, government, medical, whatever.
      http://us.search.google.images, http://uk.social.facebook.groups, http://news.slashdot.tech/story/12/06/15/030241/icann-mistakenly-publishes-applicant-addresses
      It makes far more sense this way. Not only that, this method would have made ISCAMMs idea even easier to implement than with the current DNS mess.

      Personally I am hoping P2P or other alternative DNS take off.
      They won't, not now. But I am hopeful.
      They will forever be for the geeks, niche and illegal markets it seems.

    2. Re:This is getting stupid. by jibjibjib · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > First, the very fact the DNS is the way it is now, subdomains.domain.tlds, is their fault.

      This was decided at a meeting in 1982. The minutes of this meeting are available as RFC 805. As this decision was made before ICANN and the domain name industry existed, it would be wrong to blame them.

      You're right that the ordering of the DNS names is inconsistent with many other naming systems. It seems to me that the rationale (which made a lot of sense at the time) was that you can email someone at a local host the same way you always could, user@host, and you can email someone at another domain by just affixing the domain to their email address, user@host.domain. Makes more sense than sticking something in the middle and having user@domain.host.

      > [ccTLD] shorts to your local country-code if it is omitted.

      I think this is a horrible idea which would encourage the fragmentation of the global Internet, create many name conflicts and create a huge opportunity for phishing attacks. A URL referring to a public website should point to the same website no matter where it's accessed from.

    3. Re:This is getting stupid. by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that a organisation based in a country using imperial system and middle endian date format could put the naming in the right order ? You should thank them to not have used something like subdomains.tld.domain

    4. Re:This is getting stupid. by HappyEngineer · · Score: 1

      Reverse domain names would be inconvenient to type. Right now I can type "s" in the address bar and slashdot.org will come up. Reverse that and I'd need to type "org.s" to get it to come up. Perhaps browser makers would have done things differently so that "s" would actually bring up "org.slashdot".

      What advantage would reversing the order give anyone? My first thought is that it'd allow alphabetical sorting of domains so that all the tlds would be together. I can't think why that'd be useful to anyone though.

      --
      Cow Cube
    5. Re:This is getting stupid. by gmanterry · · Score: 1

      I have two domains. If you go to whois on GoDaddy it lists everything about me. Name, address and phone number. Is this supposed to be private?

      --
      Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
  4. Cue music... by philipmather · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLegSgWi0cI

    March of the Gladiators (Circus Clown Music)

    --
    Regards, Phil
    1. Re:Cue music... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking Yakity Sax, myself.

  5. Re:ICANN by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

    These colors don't run, asshole.

    I am going to run you over in my ford truck.

  6. Re:ICANN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These colors don't run, asshole.

    ...or vagina.

  7. Read the truth about ICANN and the DNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rotten and corrupt Domain Name System.

    1. Re:Read the truth about ICANN and the DNS by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Now if you could just link to a credible source, we'd all be very interested I'm sure.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  8. Re:This is getting stupid....? by djsmiley · · Score: 1

    Your biggest issue with ICANN is that their domains are "backwards".

    There is far far FAR bigger issues.

    --
    - http://www.milkme.co.uk
  9. Their systems were horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I personally prepared around 23 applications, and I can tell you from experience that ICANN's application process was miserable. How so? For starters:

    1. - It was IMPOSSIBLE to speak to someone on the phone at ICANN. Accidentally forgot one of the 3 passwords required to start an application? Prepare for 4 days of emails back and forth, and dealing with their archaic ticketing system
    2. - All applications had to be prepared inside of a remote virtual machine. ICANN hosted a buggy Citrix environment that was down for maintenance all the time. If it was up, it was slow and overloaded
    3. - Applicant creation was manually intensive. The virtual machines were extremely locked down, and automated data entry of any kind was impossible. Entering first names, last names, positions, etc for every executive in a company was extremely painful. My former company had roughly 40 people doing strictly data entry.
    1. Re:Their systems were horrible by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      - All applications had to be prepared inside of a remote virtual machine. ICANN hosted a buggy Citrix environment that was down for maintenance all the time. If it was up, it was slow and overloaded

      It's good to see that their IT is still from 1998 when they first set up shop. This web thing will never catch on...

      Really, though, if they couldn't figure out how to set up a secure website, why would anybody trust them to run the TLD's? They could have outsourced the applications to Namecheap, MarkMonitor, et. al. for a small cut and it sounds like everybody would have been happier.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  10. Re:ICANN by Vernes · · Score: 1

    So which is it?
    Do they, or don't they run over?

  11. Re:This is getting stupid....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AC spelled out one problem in detail, the one that bothers it most, which makes its post way better than your vague reply.

  12. Re:THANK YOU FOR BEING A FRIEND by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 0

    Cosmonaut? Surely you mean platypusbea^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hconfidant.

  13. What's the big deal? by leroy152 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So ICANN accidently posts the addresses of those wanting a TLD. What's the big deal here? Surely if you are a company wanting a TLD you're large enough to be able to handle the general public knowing your address details.

    This smells of something that was done deliberately in good faith that is now garnering bad press because of someone who doesn't want anyone to know they're after such and such TLD.

    If you want a TLD then be man enough to put your hand up to the world and say you want it... oh wait, you already did that by registering your interest with ICANN.

    Any other complaints against ICANN are irrelevant for this issue I think.

    1. Re:What's the big deal? by ledow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because they were also required to provide home address details of the people actually applying (i.e. the CEO's, etc.) and nothing related to the company at all.

      That's the part that was published and was never supposed to be, not the address of the company (which, in UK law at least, is legally required to be displayed somewhere at all places of business which is taken to include websites too!).

    2. Re:What's the big deal? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Because they were also required to provide home address details of the people actually applying (i.e. the CEO's, etc.) and nothing related to the company at all.

      Which non-corporate people are also required to do to register domains in many TLD's... I can understand both sides to this.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:What's the big deal? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Which of course is doubly embarrassing if the TLD you had applied for was ".porn" or something similar. Nothing wrong with that per se, but the CEO applying for it probably doesn't appreciate having his family address visible to every religious fundamentalist and whatnot out there in the world.

  14. New Acronym by wbr1 · · Score: 1

    ICANN = Imbecilic Claptrap Association Needs Negation

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  15. Re:ICANN by 6ULDV8 · · Score: 1

    I have a Ford truck and can confirm that it runs. I'm also old and can confirm that I do not. Does that help?

    --
    Pull my finger for my public key.
  16. Who's buying which names? by Taibhsear · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Might be interesting to see who is registering for which names. Is Coke buying up Pepsi.foo names etc? Could maybe be considered anti-competitive type practices. Is this information typically visible to the general population?

    1. Re:Who's buying which names? by Patch86 · · Score: 2

      It is:
      http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en

      Incidentally, I seem to remember that Coca-Cola was one of the companies not getting involved. They, like a number of "big brand" companies, complained that this is nothing but an attempt to extort money out of them on threat of losing their precious trademarks to someone else (which is probably a pretty fair assessment of the whole thing).

  17. Re:ICANN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Almost, wear this wig and high heels.

  18. Rules for thee but not for we by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I request a domain, I have to publish my name and address. And it has to be the real name and real address where they can find me, else [throat-cutting-motion].

    Wealthy people paying 180,000+ USD per app: they expect PRIVACY, goddammit. And they apparently get it. And if they fail to get it, big problem.

    Ruling class/serfs. People with absolute privacy/people who can never expect a moment alone with a phone or browser without someone logging the event. Bosses/scum. Corporatocracy means never having to say I'm sorry - it suffices to merely say "Fuck you." This is what happens when the mask drops, liberalism dies, and the real bosses take over. Not a shred of decency, nor none expected.

    And ICANN is supposed to be a goddamed traffic cop, not a billion dollar business. They are becoming a new boss, albeit it seems one who grovels before the wishes of the wealthy. Who died and elected them king? Or the USA, for that matter? We need a new internet.

  19. Re:ICANN by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    You're right - if ICANN were headquartered on Grand Cayman, all of its problems would magically vanish.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  20. transparency by markhahn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    sorry, why aren't all applications published in full, as a matter of course?

  21. Well then by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 0

    Time to turn control of All Things Internet over to the UN - that august body that also asks tin-pot dictators to lend a hand in promoting international tourism.

  22. ICANN HAZ CHEESEBURGER? by billstewart · · Score: 1

    With the new TLD system, you'll be able to get bureaucracy.icannhazcheeseburger, or at least icannhazcheezeburger.lol.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:ICANN HAZ CHEESEBURGER? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Unless of course your preferred TLD is purchased by Amazon, who are buying up TLDs such as ".kids" for the express purpose of ensuring noone other than Amazon may use them. Fuckwads.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  23. Re:ICANN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These colors don't run, asshole.

    I am going to run you over in my ford truck.

    Ofc not, those colors "drive" to McDonald's and KFC...
    Feeling heavy U$tArd?