Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Control of the .ORG TLD

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Jul 29, 2002 12:40 PM
from the insert-group-sex-joke-here dept.
The Internet
rhwalker22 writes "TechNews.com has an in-depth look at the 11 groups bidding to run dot-org when VeriSign gives it up later this year." I have a sneaking suspicion that my bid of $100 and a case of guinness has been outdone.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Control of the .ORG TLD 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • i don't want to have to change my bookmarks to slashdot.orgy

  • I see'll your guiness.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by wo1verin3 (473094) on Monday July 29 2002, @12:45PM (#3972739) Homepage
    .... and raise you Celine Dion.

    (I'm in canada, we don't want her)

  • This is about the back end, not the registrars (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Animats (122034) on Monday July 29 2002, @12:46PM (#3972744) Homepage
    This is about control of the back end, the common registry database and zone file distribution system. It doesn't affect registration of .ORG domains, which is handled by all the current registrars.

    The way this ought to work is with the database is distributed and replicated across all the registrars, with a majority-voting system for forcing consistency. That would eliminate any single point of failure. .ORG would be a good place to deploy such a technology, so that when .COM comes up for renewal, we can get rid of the current single point of control.

    • I've been wondering why registrars exist, especially if a non-profit organization ends up running the .org registry. What value do I get by being forced to register my domain through a middleman?
      • Competition. Before the system was split up, Network Solutions had a monopoly on domain names, they cost more, and customer service really sucked.
        • But if a non-profit runs the .org registry and sells names at cost (with oversight from ICANN), where's the need for competition?
        • I might be missing something, so please correct if this is off base. From the article I gathered that there is a single wholesale supplier of dot-org domain names: VeriSign, Inc. While I can choose from any number of retail registrars that can compete on price and services, they all must pay VeriSign $6 per domain name.

          The end result is that they can only compete on price down to $6 before they start losing money. What's to stop VeriSign from charging $20 per wholesale domain name from each registrar? In other words, there really is no competition within the dot-org TLD. Sure, whoever runs the dot-info TLD can try to compete on price, but that's why people are clammoring for hundreds if not thousands of TLDs.

          A dot-com domain name is valuable simply because there are only a few alternatives. If there were thousands of alternatives for foo.*, foo.com wouldn't be that much more valuable than foo.bar. The problem is that many TLDs are more valuable (dot-tv, dot-com, dot-xxx) because DNS continues to be used as a keyword system.

          Is there any way out of this mess?

            • I don't understand how FUBAR, an old military acronym got changed to foobar, by the Unix community

              Apparently it didn't. A quick Google came up with this info on foo [tuxedo.org] and foobar [tuxedo.org].

              In short, "it now seems more likely that FUBAR was itself a derivative of `foo' perhaps influenced by German `furchtbar' (terrible) - `foobar' may actually have been the original form." "Foo" seems to have a pre-war history, its "earliest documented uses were in the 'Smokey Stover' comic strip published from about 1930 to about 1952."

    • The way this ought to work is with the database is distributed and replicated across all the registrars, with a majority-voting system for forcing consistency. That would eliminate any single point of failure.

      Unfortunately that gets you into the "distributed update problem" which is unsolved (and may be insoluble).

      Determining that .org is currently available and assigning it (thus making it unavailable) is an atomic action. Ways to reliably distribute such actions non-hierarchically across cooperating systems have not been found.

      (It's not like nobody is working on this problem. It's the same as making a withdrawal from an account, but only if there's money to cover it. So there's big money to be made by getting it right on a no-single-point-of-failure distributed system. It's also the same as determining what constitutes the canonical "latest published" edition of a document - or piece of software - that is subject to revision. So hypertexties, computer scientists, and other academics have been beating their heads against it for years, too.)

      The only practical solutions to date have been to have a designated system be the canonical decision-maker - and thus the authority on who is and who is not registered. This makes the operator of that system both the authority on who is and who is not registered, and the maintainer of the one canonical list (which is downloaded onto the other servers).

      You can subdivide the namespace and have a multiplicity of "authorities", each with their own "turf". But this creates a hierarchy, starting with one particular authority who maintains the "root of the world" first level of division of the namespace. But that's what we have now. .ORG would be a good place to deploy such a technology, so that when .COM comes up for renewal, we can get rid of the current single point of control.

      Right. And if anybody solves the hard problem it will give us a testing ground that only has problems for non-profits, not for businesses that can lose megabux if they're down for a day, if bugs show up. B-)
  • And for those who don't think that this might affect them in the slightest, look at the current webpage in your location bar.

  • commercial? (Score:3, Funny)

    by tanveer1979 (530624) <web@@@tanveer...in> on Monday July 29 2002, @12:48PM (#3972757) Homepage Journal
    "Eleven entities, both commercial and nonprofit, have applied to operate dot-org"

    Oh yea... and no prizes for guessing whos gonna win... since dot-com is dot-gone... I guess .org will be going to dot-morgue...

    PAranoia Rules!!
    • Funny how Molson is suing for control of the canadian.biz domain(as if a beer company could have intellectual property rights to the name of our country and yet:

      Two foundations, one called "The .Org Foundation" and the other "The DotOrg Foundation" can both be bidding for the same contract at the same time without litigation.

      Nice to see a sign of maturity in this overly-litigous world.

  • if Microsoft got it... (Score:4, Funny)

    by sulli (195030) on Monday July 29 2002, @12:48PM (#3972759) Journal
    they could register B.ORG
    • And they could!
      [kyeo@maximumlobster ~]$ whois b.org

      Whois Server Version 1.3

      [snip]

      Domain Name: B.ORG
      Registrar: RESERVED-INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY
      Whois Server: res-dom.iana.org
      Referral URL: http://www.iana.org
      Name Server: No nameserver
      Updated Date: 04-dec-2001

  • how about .ARG! (Score:4, Funny)

    by jhampson (580482) on Monday July 29 2002, @12:50PM (#3972772)
    That will describe the sound you make when your site's been slashdotted.

  • Harrumph .... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Carl Malamud (12349) on Monday July 29 2002, @12:51PM (#3972783) Homepage

    As one of the official supplicants, [resource.org] I naturally read the profiles (and even read the full proposals). So, it was with some bemusement that I noted a continued strain of ".org has to go to a for-profit registry provider because that is the only way the system will be stable."

    We posted a few choice words [invisible.net] on this subject. The "trust us because we're a .com and will run a stable argument" argument just doesn't wash.

    Carl Malamud
    Internet Muticasting Service [invisible.net]

    • Re:Harrumph .... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by PatientZero (25929) on Monday July 29 2002, @01:02PM (#3972853)
      I don't have anything against commercial interests, but in this case I can't see any reason to not let a non-profit run the .org domain. It's not like the internet doesn't provide enough commercial opportunities already.

      As well, I noted in the article that if a non-profit wins the bid, VeriSign has agreed to give them a $5 million endowment. Given the amount of politics going on within ICANN, can we be sure that VeriSign isn't campaigning for a commercial winner to save them some cash?

      • As well, I noted in the article that if a non-profit wins the bid, VeriSign has agreed to give them a $5 million endowment. Given the amount of politics going on within ICANN, can we be sure that VeriSign isn't campaigning for a commercial winner to save them some cash?

        Well... according to internetnews [internetnews.com], VeriSign is partnering with the Union of International Associations, based in Brussels, Belgium. Under that arrangement VeriSign would provide the back-end services for up to three years, after which UIA will open bidding for that job, hoping to contract out the service to a non-profit.

        And $5M seems like a lot, until you consider the $6/.org/year cited in the original article for the amount Verisign currently receives for each of the 2.3M .org domains. That's $13.8M/year. If Verisign's share is reduced to $2.20/.org/year, they break even on their $5M seed... and that's just in the first year!

        • So if UIA wins the contract, VeriSign will give them $5 million to set up their infrastructure which only needs to forward the registration request on to VeriSign's back-end servers.

          If some other organization wins, VeriSign loses out on $13.8M a year with a possible one-time loss of $5M. That's a big incentive to ensure that UIA wins the contract. Sure, VeriSign still loses some of its revenue ($3.80 per 2.3M equals $8.74M/year), but not all of it. As well, UIA could use some of its now tax-free revenue on VeriSign's behalf.

          Whoever wins, I truly hope that it is not UIA. Network Solutions and VeriSign have shaken us down for enough cash already. It's time for someone else -- like the public -- to benefit from the dot-org domain. So far from my very limited reading I favor Internet Multicasting Service [invisible.net] simply based on its organization being completely non-profit, public, and open.

          How about an interview with Carl Malamud?

    • I'm sure you've read the proposals much more carefully that me, but what I saw was simply that every company was (rightly) trying to emphasise how they will be reliable and have the experience to handle this. In a lot of cases, of course, this translates to "we're reliable because of our for-profit experience".

      What I find more disconcerting is the raft of 'nonprofit but with commercial partners' type of applications - which seem to be just a non-profit front for commercial operations. For example, the DotOrg Foundation [washingtonpost.com] have already agreed to outsource all the work to register.com at $5.20/domain, and then charge Joe Public $6. Why not let register.com put in an application themselves? (To answer that myself, they have put in their own application as 'Register Organisation Inc.' [washingtonpost.com]). Similarly 'UIA' [washingtonpost.com] seems to be just a front for Verisign.

      These semi-non-profit organisations then seem to have bizarre ideas about what to do with all the filthy lucre they accumulate: from giving a fraction of it to good causes [washingtonpost.com] (justifying overcharging by donating a tenth of their profits to charity), to using the money to develop tools [washingtonpost.com] which they will then sell to .org registrants (WTF?).

      I would personally prefer a proper (open) non-profit organisation to run it, but wouldn't mind an accountable for-profit company. Having an open, non-profit, well-run shell organisation who shovel all the money into some shadowy forprofit partner seems a recipe for disaster.

      Incidentally, the most amusing(worrying?) application seems to be the '.Org foundation' [washingtonpost.com] who claim "We want to make sure that [dot-org] is representative of the larger world and not just representative of U.S. organizations," - and follow this up by: 'Microsoft has tentatively agreed to help fund The .Org Foundation if it wins the contract, Rogers said. Details of that arrangement are still being worked out.'

  • chalk up another blow (Score:4, Insightful)

    by natefaerber (143261) on Monday July 29 2002, @12:52PM (#3972790)
    "Dot-org is important now because it the one space on the Internet that ... has been devoted to noncommercial speech," said Barry Steinhardt, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Technology and Liberty Program. "If it were to be turned into just another dot-com, that would be a blow to speech." (emphasis mine)

    [cheapshot]
    mpaa.org?
    riaa.org?

    What is 'noncommercial' about that? I guest we can chalk up another 'blow to speech' by the corporations that RUN mpaa and riaa.
    [/cheapshot]
    • [cheapshot]
      mpaa.org?
      riaa.org?

      What is 'noncommercial' about that? I guest we can chalk up another 'blow to speech' by the corporations that RUN mpaa and riaa.
      [/cheapshot]

      Grow up already.

      The RIAA and MPAA aren't in of themselves profit making orgs - they promote the agendas (however *evil* they may be) of the big media companies. Free speech means anyone can voice thier opinion and try to convince the masses that they're right.

      That wasn't a cheap shot, it was all together wrong.

      Soko
    • MPAA and RIAA are non-profit organizations. They are industry trade organizations. They don't make a profit.

      You (and I) may not agree with them, and a lot of other non-profit organizations, but that's the nature of organizations--they usually reflect the views of the members.

        • Non-commercial speech generally refers to speech legally proteted by the U.S. Bill of Rights. Commercial speech (advertisements) have less protection.

          MPAA and RIAA are not selling anything, just advocating viewpoints of their members (who are commercial).

          .ORG use to be just for non-profit organizations, but goold ole Network Solutions stopped enforcing that a long time ago. The cat's out of the bag and it's too late to undo it. At least the new .ORG manager can prevent further abuses (perhaps by restricting it to true non-profit organizations).

  • I'm sorry, but nothing is more valuable than a case of Guinness :)
    • I'm sorry, but nothing is more valuable than a case of Guinness :)
      You obviously never had a taste of this [mcauslan.com], which finished 51 places ahead of the Guinness at the Chicago World Beer Championship...
    • Hmmm... I dunno about that. Draught Guinness (fresh outta the keg) is AWESOME. My favourite beer by far (at least from the ones I've tried). However, I don't really like the canned and bottled stuff... definitely not the same taste. So I'd have to revise your statement to "nothing is more valuable than a keg of Guinness, or a few cases of Molson Canadian". :)
      • ... or a few cases of Molson Canadian

        BLOODY HELL!! Molson Canadian?? That smiley had better mean "[sarcasm]...[/sarcasm]".

        I mean, Upper Canada Dark, Big Rock Ale, heck even Alexander Keith's...but Molson Canadian?

        :-)

        • Never had any of those beers, so I can't comment. Well, I've had Alexander Keith's in draught form (also awesome beer, very high on my personal beer list), but not bottled (or canned?) yet. I'm almost scared to try -- if it's anything like Guinness, it tastes awesome draught, but horrible bottled/canned.

          *So* *far*, Canadian is my favourite bottled beer (keeping in mind I've only been drinking beer for like a year and a half...). I'll have to try the ones you mentioned, though... thanks for the tips. New beer experiences are always good. :)

          - Jester

  • OSDN Affected? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FortKnox (169099) on Monday July 29 2002, @12:53PM (#3972803) Homepage Journal
    Slashdot and other OSDN sites are considered profitable, right? Owned by publically traded VA Software.

    So will slashdot.org become slashdot.com?

  • Support (Score:5, Informative)

    by zobo (60591) on Monday July 29 2002, @12:56PM (#3972817)
    The Internet Multicasting Service and Internet Software Consortium (as a team) are among the bidders for .org.

    The IMS is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit run by Carl Malamud, who was responsible for getting the SEC's EDGAR filings freely available online. There is more info here [invisible.net].

  • ICANN should not be deciding who controls .ORG. They are greedy corporate fucks who just want to make as much money as possible and benefit their corporate buddies. Does anyone really think that there's a chance in hell that ICANN will "award" .ORG to a non-profit organization? No. Its going to go to the corporate interests which can benefit ICANN the most.

    What SHOULD happen is that all the current owners of a .org should vote on what organization they want to run the .ORG domains. This way, we have a better chance that whatever organization that controls it will serve the interests of the public, not some corporations interests.
  • They can re-register under the .reorg TLD. ~N

  • Whoever said that .ORG was noncommercial? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PCM2 (4486) on Monday July 29 2002, @01:31PM (#3973017) Homepage
    "Dot-org is important now because it the one space on the Internet that ... has been devoted to noncommercial speech," said Barry Steinhardt, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Technology and Liberty Program. "If it were to be turned into just another dot-com, that would be a blow to speech."
    A blow to speech? A little exaggerated, don't you think, considering as how most of the registrars advise you to register all three -- .com, .net, and .org -- whenever you register a domain? That's been common practice since way back.

    What is it, exactly, that makes this guy think .org has some lockout on commercial entities? If anything, the tendency for nonprofits to gravitate there seems like a popular custom more than a rule.

    I own two .org domains. I don't have any plans to make any money off them ... but why shouldn't I?

  • ...and will need to "evaluate" your proposal. Please send the case of Guiness to my house, post haste. ;-)
  • but which proposal promises to kick back funding, er 'help defray expenses of' ICANN? That would be Ability to comply with ICANN-developed policies in the criteria [icann.org] for selection.

    -dB

  • I was going to bid, but I only had $34,000.
    -russ

  • Commercial vs. non-commercial BS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tlambert (566799) on Monday July 29 2002, @04:29PM (#3974302)
    To lay my cards on the table, I've had a ".org" domain registered for more than a decade now, years before Dupont registered all their trademarks as domains in a single day, and forced us to go to a pay-for-domain system. I've defended my domain through several shady attempts to take it over (the last one being non-notification of renewal being required).

    The "Commercial vs. non-commercial" argument is nothing but a bunch of BS.

    The reason the ".com" domain is "used up" has to do with the fact that Netscape initially started doing automatic URL completion using ".com" as the default suffix, and Internet Explorer has since followed suit.

    The result is that the ".com" is a defacto keyword index mechanism built into almost all URL input fields. So it's about controlling a particular keyword.

    The fight over ".org" is the same as the fight over ".info" and ".biz"... trademark defense.

    Almost anyone who owns a trademark feels that they must "grab it" in all possible domain suffixes to "defend" it. And this means money to anyone who controls a top level domain.

    This is the business model of all the people trying to push ".biz" and ".info" domains onto currently registered ".com" domain owners.

    They effectively get a "commission override" (currently $6) of every domain registration in the top level domain. Just like, no matter who you register a ".com" domain with these days, VeriSign gets $6 from you.

    This is the business model of every company trying to obtain control of any top level domain.

    I wish ".tm" didn't belong to a country; it would be a perfect place to put jerks who think that there is only one namespace in the world, the trademark namespace.

    What we really need is a ".rtm" ("Registered Trademark") or even ".trademark" top level domain, and an agreement from legislators that that's all that's necessary to defend your trademark in the domain name space.

    Of course, right now... that's ".com", isn't it? And it's not going to change until the default name completion rules for browsers change to embrace some new top level domain.

    PS: Just to throw jet fuel on this fire... I'm *really* surprised that there isn't a ".aol" top level domain, into which all AOL "keywords" are registered, and all AOL controlled browsers complete to, by default...

    -- Terry
  • As far as I can see, whoever wins has no (direct) control over the policy of who gets .org domains. The overall policy to try to ensure that .org is only for 'non-profit' organisations seems to be still wholly in the hands of ICANN - and like .com the only requirement is money. From ICANN's FAQ [icann.org]:
    What are the rules for registration of .net and .org names?

    They are the same as for .com. Traditionally, however, ... .org is frequently used by not-for-profit organizations.

    So whoever wins this election can (possibly) change the amount charged to register a domain, and physically move the database, but will not be able to do anything about who registers the domains. If that's the case (and all the applicants seem to be saying they won't raise the price over the existing 6USD), why should we care who wins?
      • Yeah, three days of recruiting participants, four days of phone tags, two days of fighting with Outlook to fit everyone in. And then it's all over in six and half minutes.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.