Nineteen Registrars Decry ICANN Arrangement

hpcanswers writes "ICANN, the governing body for Internet domain names, recently gave VeriSign exclusive control of the top-level .com domain until 2012. Now, nineteen registrars, including GoDaddy and Network Solutions, have petitioned ICANN to reconsider on the basis that VeriSign will most likely increase registration fees. A few of the registrars have also asked the US Department of Commerce to veto the deal." From the article: "The new deal permits VeriSign to increase the price of domain name registrations by 7 per cent in four of the next six years. In the two remaining years, VeriSign will only be able to raise prices if it can show the rises are necessary for security reasons. It also gives VeriSign a presumptive right to renewal of the .com registry, on the proviso that it complies with certain aspects of the agreement."

Security Reasons.

In the two remaining years, VeriSign will only be able to raise prices if it can show the rises are necessary for security reasons.

Come again?

Re:Security Reasons.

I'd like to know why, after its nasty stunts, Verisign isn't outright forbidden to have anything to do with .com.

Re:Security Reasons.

You know... security reasons. Like:

• We can't be sure that your domain won't be hijacked unless you pay our security fee
• or We find our records tend to be sold to spammers, but we could fix it with some more security money
• or We can't be positive that we won't send people to beat you up unless you pay the security deposit

This is great. Am I the only one who thinks that ICANN needs a serious blow to the side of the head to get things back in order? I remember paying $100 for a .com a few years ago when there was no choice of registrars. Now they are like $7. Here comes "inflation."

Re:Security Reasons.

Here comes "inflation."

The foundation of our economy!

Re:Security Reasons.

The first time I registered a domain it was free (10+ years ago). The didn't institute registration fees until the volume became a problem.

Remeber Alternic?

I remember when a few years agao that Internic had a monopoly on ALL REGISTRATIONS. Many people did not like the fees it was charging. Of course, since the only way to register a domain on the Internet was to go through Internic, Internic held all of the cards, and people were forced to pay its fees. That was until some had the bright idea of starting an alternate domain name registration system. All that is (basically) needed to set up a functional alternate domain name is a number of DNS servers with large bandwidth Internet connections and some persuasion to get people and ISP's to use these DNS servers. Of course this could cause mass confusion on the Internet if DNS systems did not respect each other's name to IP mappings.

This is almost what occured before Internic gave up its monopoly on Domain registration in the 90's. I believe that what is happening is that we are seeing a re-monopolization of Internet and telecommunication. The telcos are mergering as well as many different ISP's. Once this monoplolization is completed, the small voice will once again be drowned out. Yes, there will be those in Congress who will decry this re-monoplolization, but in the end, it will still happen.
There will be token concessions by the giant telcos as well as giant ISP's that will somewhat limit the power that these entities will wield, but eventually the eneviable will happen. All of this can be prevented, but it will take more than voicing ones opinion to congress and complaining to the press. It will take work and innovation by us average Joes.

Verizon recognizes the dangers (or true competition) presented by muninets, FreeNets, FreeWans, as well as other types of networks. This is why this company is purchasing legislation in order to prevent local governments from working to set up these types of networks. Average Joes do not have the legal force required to seize land in order to install buried cables, nor do the have access to taxpayer financed cables that have already been laid. There are many miles of "dark fiber" that has been laid but never activated by the telcos for Interet infrastructure, yet the average joes does not have the legal authority to use these resources.

What the average Joe does have is the ability to research and innovate. These average Joes include amateur (ham) radio operator as well as hackers. These are the type of people who can build local local wide area networks. Even when only a hundred different computer users are connected together, a vast wealth of information can be shared with withing the network. Combine local wide aread networks or FreeWan cells with "Sneakernets", then just about all filesharing needs can be met. A box full of DVD's packed with files can be a huge chunk of information! Muninet or FreeWan cells that have limited or no connection between them can still have information relayed between them via roving computers or the proverbial sneakernet. Of course, instant messaging, fast email, and many type of rapid communication between different networks is nearly impossible without relying on cartel controlled infrastructure, this may change in the future with enough innovation. Todays technology is more than sufficient to meet nearly all filesharing needs independently from the cartels.

My FreeWan cell is set up as a mini Internet. Visit http://plaza1.net/FreeWan [plaza1.net] to get a small taste of what can be made available for little cost. If one connects to my FreeWan Cell wirelessly, that person will quickly see an introduction to the FreeWan system when a URL is typed into their web browser. I provide the DNS from the top-level on down for my little area. If this does not sound impressive, then maybe the blazing transfer speeds will.
10 Mbit per second at 0 cost will. This is the type of speed that should be made available across the United States, However, rather than being limited by technology, we are limited by the greed of the cartels.

Alternic was orginially put together t

Re:Security Reasons.

Perhaps the price increases are so that VeriSign can hire a competent company to do it for them?

Re:Security Reasons.

Perhaps they mean financial security reasons.

2012?

hmm... 2012 is the Mayan end date of the world...

Coincidence? I think NOT!!!

[the Internet will destroy the human race as we know it...]

Re:2012?

Well,actually that would be:
13 cycles 0 katuns, 0 tuns, 0 uinals, o kins -but who's counting?

Re:2012?

For the Shadowrun fans out there, perhaps the Awakening [dumpshock.com] is coming a year late?

Vint Cerf Sell Out

There is something very unhealthy going on at ICANN, and I just can imagine any reasonable explanations other than money changing hands over riding commonsense and objectivity. I'm very disappointed in Vint Cerf, my opinion of him has lost a lot of ground over this.

Re:Vint Cerf Sell Out

Yeah, there was that whole big stink about the US gov having control over ICANN.

It's interesting now that these US companies are now asking the US government to force ICANN in exactly the same way that everyone abroad was concerned about.

Not to say that one way is better than the other... just that ICANN and the US gov keep insisting that the US gov won't regulate it, and the irony of VeriSign's competitors asking for exactly such an action.

Are you for real?

There are 21 people on the board of directors.

This cult of personality crap with ICANN is just exhausting. Say something like "Vint Cerf Sell Out!" and heads nod everywhre, but if you were to say the same thing about, say Amadeu Abril i Abril, Nii Quaynor or Masanobu Katoh they wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about, but would happily drone on about how it's all a conspiracy of U.S. control blah blah blah blah blah.

Are *you* for real?

...it's all a conspiracy of U.S. control blah blah blah blah blah...

Mainly, I'm saying I think money changed hands in unsavory ways.

I got that...

...I was mainsly saying that doesn't make any sense to single out Vint Cerf.

Re:I got that...

...I was mainsly saying that doesn't make any sense to single out Vint Cerf.

I think it does. Vint Cerf advertises himself as a forward thinker, a Renaissance Man of the Internet. But his agreement to sell Dot Com to VeriSign shows that he has fallen into the Greed Trap.

Quoi?

http://www.icann.org/topics/vrsn-settlement/board- statements-section1.html [icann.org]

"First, while some opposed the new registry agreement because of the terms of the "renewal" clause, in truth, the renewal clause in the new agreement is little changed from the 2001 .COM agreement. In 2001, ICANN agreed to give VeriSign a presumptive right of renewal for .COM in return for VeriSign's agreement to give up the right to operate .ORG and to agree to a competitive bidding process for the renewal of .NET. ICANN made that decision because it believed that it was very unlikely and not necessarily desirable that the .COM registry operator would change, absent very extreme circumstances, and thus conceding that point (in return for concessions by VeriSign that were viewed as having real value) was conceding very little as a practical matter. The new agreement, again as a practical matter, merely clarifies this point, and does not, in our judgment, make any substantive change. Thus, this is not a reason to oppose this new agreement."

Greed?

Re:Quoi?

There seems to be lots of confusion in the comments about what role VeriSign has, and its competition with the registrars:

1. VeriSign is the Registry, not a Registrar. VeriSign is the authoritative registry for .com and .net domain names.(VeriSign runs the TLD servers) [Verisign registry role] [verisign.com]

2. Registrars (goDaddy, Register.com) take your money and then give the info to VeriSign. They pay about $5 to VeriSign to run the registry.

3. Verisign used to own NSI/Network Solutions, but they no longer do, so they don't have a retail presence. They have a retail presence for security certs, and payment services. You, as an individual, do NOT register a name with VeriSign.

So to repeat VeriSign = Registry GoDaddy = Registrar

exclusive

what was the last good thing that came out of exclusive control of something?

UNIX

UNIX, courtesy of Ma Bell.

Thus, the foundation was laid for BSD and Linux.

Re:exclusive

You know, now that you mention it ... why -do- we give exclusive control of TLD's to anyone? It's a technology problem: namespace registrations need to be unique, we need to prevent two people from buying the same item at the same time. Isn't there a technological solution? We've been doing two-phase-commit for a long time, and that's all this really is -- updating several databases at once, making sure the new domain name is unique in each one. It'd require cooperation between registrars, as they'd all have to be checking/hitting each others' databases ... but it's not impossible. It would open the whole process up to new competitors on an ad-hoc basis, even, which could be expected to drive down prices.

Re:exclusive

The main reasons I've heard are:

1. Companies don't want to buy N websites (microsoft.*)
2. Companies pretty much have to do [1] to maintain their trademark[s]
3. international characters could make phishing attacks even worse with lookalike websites

Personally,

Re:exclusive

Clearly this won't work, because I clicked on both of your example links and got nothing.

http://abcxyzwww./ [abcxyzwww.]
http://conhugecoabcxyzwww./ [conhugecoabcxyzwww.]

Re:exclusive

what was the last good thing that came out of exclusive control of something?

Er, rural electrification?

Long-distance telephone calls?

Community sewage?

Mail?

Sometimes monopolies occur because it's not economically feasible or not a social good to have competition if that competition results in a race to the bottom. At least at the outset.

Your quote sounds very much like someone who's taken neither a civics nor microeconomics course. No wonder /. modded you insightful! :-)

GoDaddy Blog

The President and Founder of GoDaddy blogged about this [bobparsons.com] a few days ago.

"The fact that this deal was approved is a loud signal that major changes are needed at ICANN. If we don't take this opportunity and step up and replace the incredibly inept leadership at ICANN, it will go a long way in providing the United Nations with the ammunition it needs to begin taking control of the Internet."

Re:GoDaddy Blog

Doesn't Go Daddy make a lot of money on the (in my opinion) shitty practice of after market domain name sales (registering a domain name that you will never use in order to sell it at a profit to someone who does need it or will use it)? Seems to me he is

Re:GoDaddy Blog

Doesn't Go Daddy make a lot of money on the (in my opinion) shitty practice of after market domain name sales (registering a domain name that you will never use in order to sell it at a profit to someone who does need it or will use it)?

Go Daddy doesn't a

Re:GoDaddy Blog

No, he's talking about GoDaddy's parking of domains for themselves not other. Usually this occurs on domains that its customers let expire. Then, if they ever want to reregister the domain again, they have a much bigger fee.

Re:GoDaddy Blog

People say the UN shouldn't do this because the UN is corrupt and inefficient. However, Verisign is verifiably corrupt and inefficient as well, perhaps even more so. Verisign has a clear profit motive for everything it does, and the way it runs the .com domain is geared toward maximizing its own profit. The UN, on the other hand, has no such motive. Individual officers within the UN have profit motives, and hence the corruption. However, unlike Verisign, there are lots of watchdogs ferreting out corruption in the UN.

In addition, although the monolithic entity known as "the UN" is rife with corruption, but there are still plenty of individual agencies within the UN that do good work in a reasonably efficient manner. There is no reason to believe an agency within the UN would be anywhere near as bad at running DNS than ICANN already is.

The primary reason there is so much resistance to the UN taking over boils down to American pride, and the hit it would take (among people who care about these things) if such a visible role were taken over by a global agency.

Re:GoDaddy Blog

People say the UN shouldn't do this because the UN is corrupt and inefficient. However, Verisign is verifiably corrupt and inefficient as well, perhaps even more so.

More to the point, the US government is clearly corrupt and inefficient.

"Verisign have

Re:GoDaddy Blog

As I read the comments in this thread, it really is starting to piss me off that people are letting their anti-American attitudes get in the way of talking about what's really going on.

Neither Verisign, ICANN,nor the UN are elected bodies, and none of them exist for the wellbeing of individuals or businesses. Verisign exists to make a profit, ICANN seems to exist to make sure they continue to exist, and the UN operates on the positions of governments (both the elected and/or corrupt types equally). Also, they each make the tasks they perform way more expensive than they have to be (this goes doubly so for the UN).

Are you sure it isn't that the primary reason you want the UN to take over is because you dislike the US government so much? If you ask me, the primary reason to oppose a UN takeover of DNS is that the UN answers to governments instead of people. Maybe you European types like that sort of thing. You did, after all, basically eliminate any individual level involvement in your new government when you set up the EU. I, however, would like a body that is actually accountable to ordinary people to be in charge... even if, for now, that means a subset of ordinary people.

Let's find some organization to run things that is actually democratic, and world representative, instead of handing it over to the UN just because people don't trust the US. Or better yet, let's trade a tiny bit of the reliablilty of the DNS system for distributed, de-regulated management.

(Yeah, I know, I'm going to get modded as Flamebait. Let me tell those moderators in advance that they're biased and wrong.)

hmm

Does this mean the GoDaddy girl will finally testify before Congress, just like in the commercials?

Re:hmm

aha! finally a sensible explanation: it's all a ploy by C-SPAN to boost ratings!

Re:hmm

For those of you playing at home, the "GoDaddy Girl" is Candace Michelle.

We now return to your regularly-scheduled /.

Re:hmm

spilling her heaving bosoms out for all to (almost) see.

When are they going to come with out with "European" version of the commercial?

Where's the increased cost?

They are selling an intangible product. There are no production, R&D, or distribution costs. I can see marketing and bandwidth charges but raising the purchase price by seven percent every four years just doesn't really add up.

Re:Where's the increased cost?

In a bureaocracy, the way you get ahead as an individual is to increase the headcount reporting to you. These people do not have to generate profit or solve any problems, they just have to exist to justify your promotion and the creation of mutiple depart

Well, you see, it's like this...

...a dollar tomorrow isn't worth a dollar today. It's inflation that's the problem. Here, let's do a little exercise. We'll assume a 6% rate, and a domain fee of $7.95 four years down the road.

Now, the present value of future money is given as FV=PV((

Re:Where's the increased cost?

I guess that you have refused any part of a raise due to the "cost of living" adjustment, then? :)

There are production costs, to be sure. Someone has to take phone calls, someone has to take complaints, someone has to pay the light bill, someone has to pa

oh please

FTA: Now, nineteen registrars, including GoDaddy and Network Solutions...

So would GoDaddy have turned down the same contract offer? Would Network Solutions have turned ICANN's offer down? Would ANY registrar have turned down this offer? Sounds like a

Re:oh please

So would GoDaddy have turned down the same contract offer? Would Network Solutions have turned ICANN's offer down? Would ANY registrar have turned down this offer?

It would be a difficult decision. But that ethical dilemma does not make it right. So they a

Re:oh please

I'm not saying that it's right at all. It's funny to see all of the other registrars fighting the exclusive .com contract when they would have done the same thing themselves.

Re:oh please

No one said Verisign should have declined the offer. This is about ICANN giving it to a less than ideal candidate on less than ideal terms.

Re:oh please

that's largely not the point. hell, i'd take the deal if offered. but i don't have a documented history of abusing my power over millions of people, nor specifically violating terms of deals between me and ICANN. sure, part of the problem is the single point of control, but that's a hard one to solve. the much more obvious, and much easier to solve, problem is who they went with: an abusive, power-hungry company with a really bad track record.

We can trust verisign

It also gives VeriSign a presumptive right to renewal of the .com registry, on the proviso that it complies with certain aspects of the agreement."

That's reasonable. I mean, verisign would never do anything to violate an agreement with ICANN, right?

Too many domain names

Well, I believe it is too late already, but when domains started costing $7 each, instead of the previous $50-$100 they were back in the 90s, the number of domains jumped way up. With that, you have tons of junk domains out there that aren't being used, or are bought up because it is so cheap to do. I don't see how raising the price at this point would do anything but put more money in VeriSign's pockets... *shrug*

Re:Meh

Someone is upset that linuxpoker.com was taken, eh?

Apparently they were sold

I checked the site, they have apparently been sold to Pivotal Equity Group from Verisign.

If Verisign gets pre-emptive renewal of .com domains and sets up a centralized whois as per the agreement, then Verisign could monitor Whois to see which expiring domains to grab, and it can preempt even Network Solutions to grab those domains, so I NetSol has as much to lose as any other registrar.

Re:Doesn't Verisign own Network Solutions?

Not anymore. [verisign.com]