The ICANN BoD called their meeting a half hour early and no one knew about it. They took care of the most controversial discussions during that half hour so no one heard it unless they just happened to show up early.
They later voted to allow the president to sign new gTLD contracts without further board review or public comments even though many of the appendices are still not even posted.
They have done something really interesting here and it will be just as interesting to see how the comments on this board go.
ICANN has paved the way for duplicated TLDs by accepting applications for duplicates and selecting.biz to go into the USG root.
Next comes new.net with 17 colliders out of the 20 TLDs they "introduced." Who is to say what litigation might come out of this. There is already one that has been publicized "warren.family" that was registered at the PacificRoot in December and another "warren.family" registered last week at new.net. Hmmmm...
Now who is to say that someone somewhere will not decide to set up duplicates of.com,.net and.org? Where would the argument from DoC go? They did it first. Why should anyone else not be able to do the same thing? New.net did it and people don't seem to care.
The net is now fractured, folks. It's chaotic and will become even more so. Why? because ICANN refuses to recognize that there is more than just one root and that it is THE NAME SPACE that is singular, not the root. Things were coming along fine until ICANN pulled this bonehead stunt. The roots were coming together and cooperating to eliminate collisions. Will they bother now? New.net pays lip service to talking with other TLD holders, but that is not what they are doing, FYI. They just "take" them like ICANN does. More fracture. No respect for registrants. No respect for users. No respect for the DNS.
Geez! If they would only pay attention! The monster has grown now and it will be a monumental task to try to bring order out of chaos. ICANN isn't about to do it. Maybe another organization will. There are some who do care about the DNS and are working on it...
Someone tried to preempt them and lured a some-thousand userbase to give themselves some credence. What do ICANN do here? Reject potentially better-prepared proposals for favour of this one? I don't think that's fair.
If that were true, I'd probably be first in line to agree with you. However, it is just not the case..biz has been in the ORSC rootzone for years. We began operating it earlier this year because it had lay fallow for two years. In any case, it was functional well before any announcements by ICANN or their applicants and we were really shocked to see that ICANN would accept applications for any existing TLD..biz has a history. There were several "suggestions" for it on Jon Postel's list.
If ICANN had selected.EVENT, that TLD would also have represented a collision with an existing TLD. The same would be true for several others included in applications, including.home. It just so happens they chose.biz. We certainly did not expect or hope to be the poster child for existing TLDs. It just worked out that way.
ORSC has been around since '96, well before ICANN..biz is as old as ORSC.
This was not a pre-emptive strike and ICANN never never entered into it. We also have.online,.etc,.npo (restricted) and.ngo (restricted).
I would truly appreciate seeing the truth printed. I also have no objection whatever to seeing comments to the contrary, as this brings out the obvious need for communication and education.
There are over one hundred TLDs in the ORSC rootzone. They should be respected and not duplicated. It is not our.biz which is the culprit here, and we have NEVER made any claim to application to ICANN or decieved anyone. Our TLD resolves to the ORSC rootzone, not the USG root.
If you have negative comments, that's fine. I would simply ask that they be accurate, okay?:)
BTW, it is our intention to be fair to everyone. We do not favor control by any faction and open registration on FCFS basis is the rule.
I,personally don't think that "sunrise" provisions and UDRP are better proposals for internet users, especially individual domain name holders. If you have any questions about where my head is, go to Tldlobby.com I believe in domain name holders rights, but adhere to the fact that domain names are not property. DN holders should, however, feel a measure of security in their registrations and not have to fear a theft by SWIPO. We do not adhere to a UDRP. Our DDRP pretty much states that it is not our place to judge whether there is any infringement on anyone's rights. We will cancel a registration by court order only. Law is law. UDRP is NOT law.
-Leah-
As much as I hate to defend any applicant who wishes to steal our tld, I must correct you. I believe it was Affinity who had the proposal to charge $2000 plus a $150 renewal. JVTeam (Neulevel) is not doing that.
If users ask their ISP for access to.here domains or.online,.mart,.etc,.news... and they can't get them that way without useing SETDNS or an equivalent, they will look for an ISP who does offer it.
ISPs are, in fact, beginning to offer the augmented roots. Since the augmented roots also carry the USG root TLDs, neither ISPs nor users lose anything at all. As ISPs, you are just carriers. You choose which usenet feeds you wish to carry, so why not rootzones?
That, people, is a free market as opposed to an imperialist dictatorship. Lawsuits are not going to be any more or less frequent because you can see more TLDs. You carry the "programming" you choose to carry. You offer a value added service at no extra charge.
If you choose ORSC, great. If you choose PacificRoot, great. Superroot, great. They all carry each others' rootzones plus the USG rootzone. Do you have anything to lose? No. Do your users gain? Yes.
In simple terms, it means a 30 second change of DNS servers. OR use the little program (SETDNS) to do it for you.:) You don't have to understand DNS, really. You just need to point to the right place to see what you want to see.
ICANN could change that need, but they won't unless the BoD changes severely. It's political more than it is technical, unfortunately, and that means it's controlled by very deep pockets.
It's youcann.org.:) and you can download SETDNS and just point, click and reboot if you are not inclined to type in a couple of addresses (which is all it takes).
The process of changing the DNS servers is the same as setting up for an ISP, except that if you are already set up, it is one little change. No big deal. If you change ISPs and that ISP does not point to the servers you need, just use SETDNS again. If you want to change back, it's just as simple.
The theory is good, but there is still the need to offer the public what they are used to and then add more.
How can any root offer com/net/org without using the USG database? We point to servers outside the USG root,but those servers still carry the USG TLDs, right?
The answer is, as you say, give up something in order to accomplish it, but still.... DOC must not include the colliders. IOW, add the existing roots as subsets to theirs, and/or agree to not duplicate TLDs which exist. Then we have a distributed root system with no collisions.
Ahhh, if it were only that simple.;(
One of the main reasons root systems are popping up everywhere is that after years of trying to get DoC to do what was intended - open up the DNS with more TLDs (lots of them) and making it fair and transparent, the oppposite is the norm. UDRP kills individual efforts and udermines any security in having a domain name, and the DNS is more and more controlled by a commercial monopoly. Registries will be forced to comply with "policy" when the only criteria should be technical compliance.
In a utopian world, ICANN/DoC would stick to the technical and leave the policy to the free market. Fat chance. So we have root systems that do exactly what was intended in the first place. Simple. And it's not going to stop with the few roots that are out there now.
If ICANN actually enters.biz into the USG legacy root, there is conflict, yes..biz has been around in the ORSC root for quite a while. If there is supposed to be a FCFS understanding, then ICANN should not have considered.biz any more than they should consider assigning.web to anyone other than IOD.
Just because a TLD chooses not to ask for inclusion in the legacy root, it does not mean they do not have the right to exist or that the registrants don't have the right to their domain names and have them resolve properly.
Why ICANN wants to fracture the net in this fashion is really clear. Kill any competition to the power they want to reinforce. Competition may render them less effectual.
Point one:
The root has really always been fractured in the manner you describe, but it is "private" roots which would most likely carry duplicate TLDs, not those which are designed to be public.
If those whose purpose is to provide a public root, there really needs to be an agreement that there won't be colliding TLDs. That way, the user knows that the "basic" channels are consistent. That means that if they carry the USG root as a subset of thier own, that there won't be colliding TLDs initiated by that "basic" channel, i.e. ICANN. By the same token, the roots would not introduce their own versions of.com/net/org. The result is a distributed root system with tremendous redundancy and worldwide agreement that people can count on resolving to the same addresses - no wondering which.web or.biz website you will get when you point to a name.
It's a simple concept which ICANN/DoC and the TM lobby do NOT want to see. It would erode their power base because the other roots are not forced to adhere to ICANN policies and rules, such as UDRP, sunrise provisions, etc.
Private, local roots can carry whatever TLDs they like, and always have. There is no commitment to the public, so they are free to structure the system in any way they choose. Nothing wrong with that. Corporations do it every day.
hmmmm.... There is nothing clandestine about root systems. Unless it is private corporate root (there are countless numbers of those), roots are quite public. For instance you can find the rootzone file for ORSC at http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone/db.root. It lists all the TLDs in the root, the operator, the servers for the TLD and a contact email address.
I just love the word "free." It implies that there will be no charge for servers, maintenance, personnel like system administrators, customer service,... Oh, and who pays for the connectivity for those redundant servers, bandwidth, database management,programming to accommodate registration systems (which are constantly changing and being upgraded), adminstration and record keeping...
Until recently, US taxpayers footed the bill via USG funding of all of that. NSI was paid for it until they started charging for names.
You know, it's not the names you are paying for. It's the registration services.
It's never been "free." Every US citizen has paid for it all along. We are still paying for much of it.
BTW,.biz registrations (the one in the ORSC root) are $6.00. That's pretty much a breakeven for the cost of doing business for that particular TLD operating with minimal personnel.
Nope. UK, PS are not countries... and two letters are not reserved for countries. That was confirmed for someone who wanted a two letter TLD. However, it has been rather accepted as such, so most people leave it alone.
I noticed that when this posts it creates spaces in the URL line. You have to eliminate them when you cut and paste to the browser. The clip is correct otherwise.:)
Yes, but it does SCREW SLASHDOT OVER because now some NT Server corporation can grab slashdot.biz, because Slashdot isn't going to qualify as a business...
No, it doesn't, really. If Slashdot is TM'd, it is protected under the law. It doesn't need UDRP (which is terribly flawed), but it can stop anyone else from using the name in any TLD or any media, for that matter, except legitimate "fair use." It would be less likely that someone who has "slashdot.not" and is using it as a criticism or parody site would have a problem. However, if someone used slashdot.biz, that's probably infringement.
Anyone with a TM or "common mark" has protection under law. It depends upon "use." With UDRP it depends upon greed.
-Leah-
It's far far too late to save.org and.net, I say on slashdot.org, and ICANN should admit it. Perhaps new domains such as.npo and.isp could be handled better.
Atlatantic Root Network, Inc. (http://www.biztld.net) has.NGO (registered non-governmental orgs) and.NPO (non-profit orgs). Both of these require certification of status. There are international requirements to be certified as an NGO and we are all familiar with what an NPO is...
There is a niche for TLDs such as these, and we are certainly not against having restricted TLDs. How about.NOT for those "parody" and criticism sites? It's available.
There is also a need for true gTLDs, which we will not see with this round of ICANN choices.
If people check into the availability of gTLDs which resolve to the ORSC rootzone, I think they will be pleasantly surprised.
We also have 2 gTLDs -.ONLINE and.ETC. As with.BIZ, however, they cannot be transferred once registered. So, if you are looking for multiple names to re-sell, sorry. They are meant for those who intend to use them. Before registering a name with any registrar, read Terms and Conditions so that there are NO surprises. (http://www.biztld.net/biztos.html)
There is no UDRP, but there are TM laws, so keep in mind that this is not a free-for-all. The prices are low enough for anyone to be able to register a domain name and there are rules to abide by.
Also, remember that registration services are just that - services. This is true for any registry. No one owns an address, telephone number, or domain name. It is yours to use during the registration period. If people understood this, a lot of contentiousness would disappear.
Repeat after me: It's just an address...It's just an address...
When the public is more aware of the fact that the name space really is open and that the legacy root is not the only answer, we can get back to using the Internet for everyone and not just the megacorporations who are trying to "own" something that can't be bought. It's an evolution process in its infancy.
By the way, one of the very first domains was.NOMAD. Guess what, folks. Domain names in.NOMAD are free - no charge - nada. http://www.pacificroot.com
Ah, but they haven't left out TM's at all. Every proposed TLD has both a sunrise provision for TM holders and adopts the flawed UDRP.
All they have done is hand it over to the megacorps, just like they've done with.com/net/org. They haven't opened up the name space one bit. The individual dn holder is still screwed and Joe Ford would have to prove he's a professional to get the name. Nothing's changed except maybe the price goes up.
The.BIZ tld that has been in the ORSC rootzone is $6.00 and has one restriction. You can't transfer it. - i.e., don't register it if you intend to sell it, 'cause you can't. The same goes for.online and.etc. - all $6.00.
The idea is to open up the name space and give everyone a chance. There is no UDRP. It will take a court order to lose the name, and then the only choice is deletion (cancellation). No transfer. No supra legal body to take the name away. You register it, you use it.
But! Here's another twist... It is finally up to DoC as to whether ANY of them are entered into the legacy root. Don't forget that. It ain't over yet. There are already challenges from Congressmen - probably more coming.
If you want freed up name space, you're gonna have to go to the ORSC root system. It's like it should be....:)
It's not a matter of beating them. It's a matter of supporting what is already there!
Not a stupid Idea. You just need to pay attention.:) The ORSC root zone is just such a root server system. The only thing you have to do is look at it (point to it) and that's as simple as going to http://www.youcann.org (or >http://www.youcann.here if you have already upgraded your DNS) and follow the instructions.
Here's the real situation, though. There already IS a.BIZ! It's been there for years and has an online registration system. What is happening right now is that ICANN is proposing to adopt a TLD that is already operating. THAT is what will cause a collision and we don't want that.
There are root systems out there that anyone can point to and see all the TLDs if they choose. The only difference is that ORSC and others carry MORE TLDs than the legacy root (ICANN). You get MORE to choose from.
Eventually, you will see more and more ISP's pointing to ORSC, Superroot, PacificRoot, etc. They all carry "the rest of the internet" and don't restrict you to just the com/net/org/edu and whatever few new ones DoC might allow.
If you support the idea that the internet should be open to all, then you support ORSC, whether you realize it or not.
.BIZ names are $6.00 and there are others like.ONLINE,.ETC,.NOT,.CORP,.NOMAD,... Some are even free.
There's a catch, though... you can't transfer it. You register it and it's yours to use, period.
Now, think about this, okay? If ICANN does include an existing TLD in their root and ignores the fact that this is a live, operating registry... what happens? Should we challenge ICANN? Should we disenfranchise our domain name holders and just let it go away (nope)? Should ICANN be allowed to fragment the net? Should any of us just take something that belongs to someone else? Does prior use mean anything at all?
Remember...ORSC has been there for years....BIZ has been there since 1995. There are people who are counting on it being there...
Now, forget the word "alternate" okay? The legacy root is widely known, but is not the only one, nor is it any better or stronger or more reliable than others... It's just another root - the beginning of the dns experiment. The more distributed roots that get together and cooperate, the stronger the internet. Key words COOPERATE and RESPECT.
If you conclude that it's good to have an open internet with many choices, then point to the ORSC rootzone and write to ICANN and DoC to support it. Suggest strongly that duplicating an existing TLD string will only cause a collision. That is why Vint Cerf was against awarding.WEB to Afilias..WEB already exists and does resolve in the ORSC rootzone.:) It's still there and isn't going away.
Slashdot Mirror
You left out
http://www.pacificroot.com/updatedns.shtml. It's very large and includes thousands of TLDs
The ICANN BoD called their meeting a half hour early and no one knew about it. They took care of the most controversial discussions during that half hour so no one heard it unless they just happened to show up early.
.biz to go into the USG root.
.com, .net and .org? Where would the argument from DoC go? They did it first. Why should anyone else not be able to do the same thing? New.net did it and people don't seem to care.
They later voted to allow the president to sign new gTLD contracts without further board review or public comments even though many of the appendices are still not even posted.
They have done something really interesting here and it will be just as interesting to see how the comments on this board go.
ICANN has paved the way for duplicated TLDs by accepting applications for duplicates and selecting
Next comes new.net with 17 colliders out of the 20 TLDs they "introduced." Who is to say what litigation might come out of this. There is already one that has been publicized "warren.family" that was registered at the PacificRoot in December and another "warren.family" registered last week at new.net. Hmmmm...
Now who is to say that someone somewhere will not decide to set up duplicates of
The net is now fractured, folks. It's chaotic and will become even more so. Why? because ICANN refuses to recognize that there is more than just one root and that it is THE NAME SPACE that is singular, not the root. Things were coming along fine until ICANN pulled this bonehead stunt. The roots were coming together and cooperating to eliminate collisions. Will they bother now? New.net pays lip service to talking with other TLD holders, but that is not what they are doing, FYI. They just "take" them like ICANN does. More fracture. No respect for registrants. No respect for users. No respect for the DNS.
Geez! If they would only pay attention! The monster has grown now and it will be a monumental task to try to bring order out of chaos. ICANN isn't about to do it. Maybe another organization will. There are some who do care about the DNS and are working on it...
Leah Gallegos
If that were true, I'd probably be first in line to agree with you. However, it is just not the case. .biz has been in the ORSC rootzone for years. We began operating it earlier this year because it had lay fallow for two years. In any case, it was functional well before any announcements by ICANN or their applicants and we were really shocked to see that ICANN would accept applications for any existing TLD. .biz has a history. There were several "suggestions" for it on Jon Postel's list.
If ICANN had selected .EVENT, that TLD would also have represented a collision with an existing TLD. The same would be true for several others included in applications, including .home. It just so happens they chose .biz. We certainly did not expect or hope to be the poster child for existing TLDs. It just worked out that way.
ORSC has been around since '96, well before ICANN. .biz is as old as ORSC.
This was not a pre-emptive strike and ICANN never never entered into it. We also have .online, .etc, .npo (restricted) and .ngo (restricted).
I would truly appreciate seeing the truth printed. I also have no objection whatever to seeing comments to the contrary, as this brings out the obvious need for communication and education.
There are over one hundred TLDs in the ORSC rootzone. They should be respected and not duplicated. It is not our .biz which is the culprit here, and we have NEVER made any claim to application to ICANN or decieved anyone. Our TLD resolves to the ORSC rootzone, not the USG root.
If you have negative comments, that's fine. I would simply ask that they be accurate, okay? :)
BTW, it is our intention to be fair to everyone. We do not favor control by any faction and open registration on FCFS basis is the rule.
I,personally don't think that "sunrise" provisions and UDRP are better proposals for internet users, especially individual domain name holders. If you have any questions about where my head is, go to Tldlobby.com I believe in domain name holders rights, but adhere to the fact that domain names are not property. DN holders should, however, feel a measure of security in their registrations and not have to fear a theft by SWIPO. We do not adhere to a UDRP. Our DDRP pretty much states that it is not our place to judge whether there is any infringement on anyone's rights. We will cancel a registration by court order only. Law is law. UDRP is NOT law.
-Leah-
As much as I hate to defend any applicant who wishes to steal our tld, I must correct you. I believe it was Affinity who had the proposal to charge $2000 plus a $150 renewal. JVTeam (Neulevel) is not doing that.
If users ask their ISP for access to .here domains or .online, .mart, .etc, .news... and they can't get them that way without useing SETDNS or an equivalent, they will look for an ISP who does offer it.
ISPs are, in fact, beginning to offer the augmented roots. Since the augmented roots also carry the USG root TLDs, neither ISPs nor users lose anything at all. As ISPs, you are just carriers. You choose which usenet feeds you wish to carry, so why not rootzones?
That, people, is a free market as opposed to an imperialist dictatorship. Lawsuits are not going to be any more or less frequent because you can see more TLDs. You carry the "programming" you choose to carry. You offer a value added service at no extra charge.
If you choose ORSC, great. If you choose PacificRoot, great. Superroot, great. They all carry each others' rootzones plus the USG rootzone. Do you have anything to lose? No. Do your users gain? Yes.
In simple terms, it means a 30 second change of DNS servers. OR use the little program (SETDNS) to do it for you. :) You don't have to understand DNS, really. You just need to point to the right place to see what you want to see.
ICANN could change that need, but they won't unless the BoD changes severely. It's political more than it is technical, unfortunately, and that means it's controlled by very deep pockets.
It's youcann.org. :) and you can download SETDNS and just point, click and reboot if you are not inclined to type in a couple of addresses (which is all it takes).
The process of changing the DNS servers is the same as setting up for an ISP, except that if you are already set up, it is one little change. No big deal. If you change ISPs and that ISP does not point to the servers you need, just use SETDNS again. If you want to change back, it's just as simple.
The theory is good, but there is still the need to offer the public what they are used to and then add more. How can any root offer com/net/org without using the USG database? We point to servers outside the USG root,but those servers still carry the USG TLDs, right? The answer is, as you say, give up something in order to accomplish it, but still.... DOC must not include the colliders. IOW, add the existing roots as subsets to theirs, and/or agree to not duplicate TLDs which exist. Then we have a distributed root system with no collisions. Ahhh, if it were only that simple. ;(
One of the main reasons root systems are popping up everywhere is that after years of trying to get DoC to do what was intended - open up the DNS with more TLDs (lots of them) and making it fair and transparent, the oppposite is the norm. UDRP kills individual efforts and udermines any security in having a domain name, and the DNS is more and more controlled by a commercial monopoly. Registries will be forced to comply with "policy" when the only criteria should be technical compliance.
In a utopian world, ICANN/DoC would stick to the technical and leave the policy to the free market. Fat chance. So we have root systems that do exactly what was intended in the first place. Simple. And it's not going to stop with the few roots that are out there now.
If ICANN actually enters .biz into the USG legacy root, there is conflict, yes. .biz has been around in the ORSC root for quite a while. If there is supposed to be a FCFS understanding, then ICANN should not have considered .biz any more than they should consider assigning .web to anyone other than IOD.
Just because a TLD chooses not to ask for inclusion in the legacy root, it does not mean they do not have the right to exist or that the registrants don't have the right to their domain names and have them resolve properly.
Why ICANN wants to fracture the net in this fashion is really clear. Kill any competition to the power they want to reinforce. Competition may render them less effectual.
Point one:
.com/net/org. The result is a distributed root system with tremendous redundancy and worldwide agreement that people can count on resolving to the same addresses - no wondering which .web or .biz website you will get when you point to a name.
The root has really always been fractured in the manner you describe, but it is "private" roots which would most likely carry duplicate TLDs, not those which are designed to be public.
If those whose purpose is to provide a public root, there really needs to be an agreement that there won't be colliding TLDs. That way, the user knows that the "basic" channels are consistent. That means that if they carry the USG root as a subset of thier own, that there won't be colliding TLDs initiated by that "basic" channel, i.e. ICANN. By the same token, the roots would not introduce their own versions of
It's a simple concept which ICANN/DoC and the TM lobby do NOT want to see. It would erode their power base because the other roots are not forced to adhere to ICANN policies and rules, such as UDRP, sunrise provisions, etc.
Private, local roots can carry whatever TLDs they like, and always have. There is no commitment to the public, so they are free to structure the system in any way they choose. Nothing wrong with that. Corporations do it every day.
hmmmm.... There is nothing clandestine about root systems. Unless it is private corporate root (there are countless numbers of those), roots are quite public. For instance you can find the rootzone file for ORSC at http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone/db.root. It lists all the TLDs in the root, the operator, the servers for the TLD and a contact email address.
:)
No secrets.
I just love the word "free." It implies that there will be no charge for servers, maintenance, personnel like system administrators, customer service, ... Oh, and who pays for the connectivity for those redundant servers, bandwidth, database management,programming to accommodate registration systems (which are constantly changing and being upgraded), adminstration and record keeping...
.biz registrations (the one in the ORSC root) are $6.00. That's pretty much a breakeven for the cost of doing business for that particular TLD operating with minimal personnel.
Until recently, US taxpayers footed the bill via USG funding of all of that. NSI was paid for it until they started charging for names.
You know, it's not the names you are paying for. It's the registration services.
It's never been "free." Every US citizen has paid for it all along. We are still paying for much of it.
BTW,
Nope. UK, PS are not countries ... and two letters are not reserved for countries. That was confirmed for someone who wanted a two letter TLD. However, it has been rather accepted as such, so most people leave it alone.
Don't wanna burst your bubble, but you can register a .corp domain at http://www.pacificroot.com. It will resolve to the ORSC rootzone.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp
I noticed that when this posts it creates spaces in the URL line. You have to eliminate them when you cut and paste to the browser. The clip is correct otherwise. :)
According to the law, yes.
No, it doesn't, really. If Slashdot is TM'd, it is protected under the law. It doesn't need UDRP (which is terribly flawed), but it can stop anyone else from using the name in any TLD or any media, for that matter, except legitimate "fair use." It would be less likely that someone who has "slashdot.not" and is using it as a criticism or parody site would have a problem. However, if someone used slashdot.biz, that's probably infringement.
Anyone with a TM or "common mark" has protection under law. It depends upon "use." With UDRP it depends upon greed.
-Leah-
It's far far too late to save .org and .net, I say on slashdot.org, and ICANN should admit it. Perhaps new domains such as .npo and .isp could be handled better.
Atlatantic Root Network, Inc. (http://www.biztld.net) has .NGO (registered non-governmental orgs) and .NPO (non-profit orgs). Both of these require certification of status. There are international requirements to be certified as an NGO and we are all familiar with what an NPO is...
There is a niche for TLDs such as these, and we are certainly not against having restricted TLDs. How about .NOT for those "parody" and criticism sites? It's available.
There is also a need for true gTLDs, which we will not see with this round of ICANN choices.
If people check into the availability of gTLDs which resolve to the ORSC rootzone, I think they will be pleasantly surprised.
We also have 2 gTLDs - .ONLINE and .ETC. As with .BIZ, however, they cannot be transferred once registered. So, if you are looking for multiple names to re-sell, sorry. They are meant for those who intend to use them. Before registering a name with any registrar, read Terms and Conditions so that there are NO surprises. (http://www.biztld.net/biztos.html)
There is no UDRP, but there are TM laws, so keep in mind that this is not a free-for-all. The prices are low enough for anyone to be able to register a domain name and there are rules to abide by.
Also, remember that registration services are just that - services. This is true for any registry. No one owns an address, telephone number, or domain name. It is yours to use during the registration period. If people understood this, a lot of contentiousness would disappear.
Repeat after me: It's just an address...It's just an address...
When the public is more aware of the fact that the name space really is open and that the legacy root is not the only answer, we can get back to using the Internet for everyone and not just the megacorporations who are trying to "own" something that can't be bought. It's an evolution process in its infancy.
By the way, one of the very first domains was .NOMAD. Guess what, folks. Domain names in .NOMAD are free - no charge - nada. http://www.pacificroot.com
-Leah-
Ah, but they haven't left out TM's at all. Every proposed TLD has both a sunrise provision for TM holders and adopts the flawed UDRP.
All they have done is hand it over to the megacorps, just like they've done with .com/net/org. They haven't opened up the name space one bit. The individual dn holder is still screwed and Joe Ford would have to prove he's a professional to get the name. Nothing's changed except maybe the price goes up.
The .BIZ tld that has been in the ORSC rootzone is $6.00 and has one restriction. You can't transfer it. - i.e., don't register it if you intend to sell it, 'cause you can't. The same goes for .online and .etc. - all $6.00.
The idea is to open up the name space and give everyone a chance. There is no UDRP. It will take a court order to lose the name, and then the only choice is deletion (cancellation). No transfer. No supra legal body to take the name away. You register it, you use it.
But! Here's another twist... It is finally up to DoC as to whether ANY of them are entered into the legacy root. Don't forget that. It ain't over yet. There are already challenges from Congressmen - probably more coming.
If you want freed up name space, you're gonna have to go to the ORSC root system. It's like it should be.... :)
-Leah-
Not a stupid Idea. You just need to pay attention. :) The ORSC root zone is just such a root server system. The only thing you have to do is look at it (point to it) and that's as simple as going to http://www.youcann.org (or >http://www.youcann.here if you have already upgraded your DNS) and follow the instructions.
Here's the real situation, though. There already IS a .BIZ! It's been there for years and has an online registration system. What is happening right now is that ICANN is proposing to adopt a TLD that is already operating. THAT is what will cause a collision and we don't want that.
There are root systems out there that anyone can point to and see all the TLDs if they choose. The only difference is that ORSC and others carry MORE TLDs than the legacy root (ICANN). You get MORE to choose from.
Eventually, you will see more and more ISP's pointing to ORSC, Superroot, PacificRoot, etc. They all carry "the rest of the internet" and don't restrict you to just the com/net/org/edu and whatever few new ones DoC might allow.
If you support the idea that the internet should be open to all, then you support ORSC, whether you realize it or not.
.BIZ names are $6.00 and there are others like .ONLINE, .ETC, .NOT, .CORP, .NOMAD, ... Some are even free.
There's a catch, though... you can't transfer it. You register it and it's yours to use, period.
Now, think about this, okay? If ICANN does include an existing TLD in their root and ignores the fact that this is a live, operating registry... what happens? Should we challenge ICANN? Should we disenfranchise our domain name holders and just let it go away (nope)? Should ICANN be allowed to fragment the net? Should any of us just take something that belongs to someone else? Does prior use mean anything at all?
Remember...ORSC has been there for years... .BIZ has been there since 1995. There are people who are counting on it being there...
Let me know what you think. Meanwhile check it out at >http://www.biztld.net or >http://www.biztld.biz if you decide to upgrade your DNS. :)
Now, forget the word "alternate" okay? The legacy root is widely known, but is not the only one, nor is it any better or stronger or more reliable than others... It's just another root - the beginning of the dns experiment. The more distributed roots that get together and cooperate, the stronger the internet. Key words COOPERATE and RESPECT.
If you conclude that it's good to have an open internet with many choices, then point to the ORSC rootzone and write to ICANN and DoC to support it. Suggest strongly that duplicating an existing TLD string will only cause a collision. That is why Vint Cerf was against awarding .WEB to Afilias. .WEB already exists and does resolve in the ORSC rootzone. :) It's still there and isn't going away.