Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Internet Society Will Manage .org

Comments Filter:
  • My .org (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Klerck (213193) on Monday October 14, 2002 @01:54PM (#4446855) Homepage
    Does anyone want to explain what this would mean for my .org domain? I actually own several others, but is it going to move to a non-profit only kind of domain, or will they still be available for anyone?
    • Re:My .org (Score:5, Informative)

      by AndyS (655) on Monday October 14, 2002 @01:57PM (#4446882)
      In the article it points out that you will still be able to use your domain even if you are commercial.

      " While the domain will be marketed to nonprofits, others will not be prohibited from registering .org names."

      HTH
      • Re:My .org (Score:3, Interesting)

        by garcia (6573)
        you better be able to. If VeriSign is going to continue to profit from it, why should we not be able to?

        I think they should have to give up 100% control of everything involved in the .org process, but that's me.
    • Re:My .org (Score:4, Informative)

      by Traicovn (226034) on Monday October 14, 2002 @01:57PM (#4446886) Homepage
      Traditionally the .org domain was for individuals and non-profits. This of course changed in the late 90's. Actually if memory serves me right, .org websites domains were originally free to have.
      As you currently own the domains, you shouldn't have to worry about any changes in the domaim management system. My guess is that you would be grandfathered in. If for some reason you let your registration lapse, or if you decided that you wanted NEW .org websites, then it would be a problem I would think (if the rules change)
      • Re:My .org (Score:2, Informative)

        by Traicovn (226034)
        more from me...

        if you read the second paragraph in the article and follow the first link Section 5 [isoc.org] then you may find more answers.
        I think parts of the site may be suffering mildly from the /. effect though....
      • Re:My .org (Score:5, Informative)

        by pridkett (2666) <slashdot@@@wagstrom...net> on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:20PM (#4447060) Homepage Journal
        Actually, all domains were originally free to have. I think NSF used to reimburse NSI for the cost of each one. I remember back in the good ol days of domain squatting (when it cost nothing to squat because no one knew about it), the guy who had knotsberryfarm.com traded it to them for a couple of jars of jelly. Which really makes more sense then sending out rabid droves of lawyers. I mean if I had a domain that someone wanted they could be like "here, we'll give you a brand spanking new dual g4 if you give up the domain". It saves money on both sides. Of course, that's only if they had a legitimate claim on the domain. I'm not that much of a whore.
        • "I'm not that much of a whore."

          Newfie: Would you sleep with me for $10,000?

          Girl: Yes.

          Newfie: Would you sleep with me for $10?

          Girl: Certainly not. What kind of girl do you think I am?

          Newfie: We've already established that, now we're just hagglin' over the price.
      • And then it became a nominal charge. Now they've all been registered so you have to deal with a former soviet republic or an undiscovered island to get your own domain.
      • > Traditionally the .org domain was for individuals and non-profits.

        Traditionally the .org domain was for anything that didn't fit anywhere else.
    • Re:My .org (Score:1, Redundant)

      by bmwm3nut (556681)
      from the article:

      " While the domain will be marketed to nonprofits, others will not be prohibited from registering .org names."
    • Re:My .org (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Soko (17987)
      Does anyone want to explain what this would mean for my .org domain? I actually own several others, but is it going to move to a non-profit only kind of domain, or will they still be available for anyone?

      A question I have - in the same vien as yours - is what will happen to the URL you use to get here - ./ itself - http://slatshdot.org. Snide remarks about profit aside, Slashdot is supposed to make money for VA Linux. If ISOC demands that .org is for non-profits only, will this domain be moved to .com, .info or somewhere else? Is this site enough about "a community" that ISOC will look the other way? Will Rob be forced to become what he hates and use the courts to retain the current domain name?

      Should be interesting to see what transpires.

      Soko
      • Re:My .org (Score:4, Funny)

        by scott1853 (194884) on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:21PM (#4447068)

        I guess the real question would be what is the definition of non-profit:

        Those that are committed to strictly working at cost

        Or, those that can only make enough to break even depsite how often they run banners for Visual Studio.

      • Re:My .org (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Kallahar (227430) <kallahar@quickwired.com> on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:33PM (#4447146) Homepage
        point of information:

        slashdot has slashdot.com, slashdot.org, and slashdot.de, and slashdot.jp (in japanese!)

        slashdot.net [slashdot.net] is being squatted by the norwegians
        slashdot.info [slashdot.info] is owned by ZDNet which is offering tech news, arguably profiting off of slashdot's good name.

        Travis
        • Slashdot and ZD have had a relationship in the past., Taco and maybe Hemos made appearances on Screen Savers when it was still ZDTV and I'm pretty sure Taco has had a guest collumn in PC Mag or ExtremeTech. (I used to work at a printing plant where we ran all the ZD magazines, shame YIL is gone, it was a great mag for n00b135. So squatting that domain is probably a remnant of the good ol days

        • slashdot.info (Score:5, Informative)

          by twisty7867 (542048) on Monday October 14, 2002 @03:44PM (#4447826) Homepage
          slashdot.info is NOT in fact owned by Z-D, but by Nathaniel Wilkerson of Orem, UT. The web server randomly picks other internet sites to masquerade as. When I went, it was E! Online, a couple more refreshes later, it was CNet, and on to a few other sites. Very interesting. I know the UDRP is against slashdot's religion, but, no time like the present to get the name back from someone who's clearly using it in bad faith.
          • How is it bad faith? Why on earth would the slashdot folks care about slashdot.info?

            While yer dumpster-diving, Steve Jankly of 'go daddy software' has slashdot.us, Rory Toma of 'Colin Burns Games' has has slashdot.cc, and if you want something out of the real ghetto of the DNS, slashdot.tv and slashdot.bz are still available.

            Better call out the lawyers!

            --
            Benjamin Coates
          • as mentioned in the title bar when you get there (News Alert Generetor), slashdot.info picks up news from various sources and ranks them a la Google. the top ranking page being the one you get for a front page
    • . . . think it's totally fucking awesome that a Klerck post is sitting at +5? I mean, I know I'm easily amused and all, but damn, that's the funniest thing I've seen all day. :)
    • by Kyrn (609706)
      THey're not gonna go after the people with .orgs that aren't not for proffit now are they?
  • by whoppo (218875) on Monday October 14, 2002 @01:56PM (#4446873)
    So... with VeriSign out of the .org biz, who will send me "domain renewal" reminders 11 months before my .org domains are due to expire?
  • Verisign still in it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rczyzewski (585306) on Monday October 14, 2002 @01:56PM (#4446878)
    "VeriSign will continue to profit from .org as it owns a small interest in the company that will run the back end of the database for the Internet Society."

    Do you think Verisign is really out of it? I doubt it if they have a financial stake in the Internet Society's future decisions. I'll be curious how Verisign tries to slowly gain more and more authority in the background.
  • by BoBG (9969)
    I hate Verisign. I was really afraid that ICANN wouldn't grant this proposal. (In their own special brand of wisdom.) I am a happy .org owner.

    -jasons
  • by Spit_Fire1 (247104) on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:01PM (#4446914)
    With this decision they will apparently be deciding if and when an actual non-profit organization can have a .org domain(what the top-level domain was designed for) and stop companies from buying .org addrs to go with their net and com ones.

    However this also poses a domain squatting and slanderous sites to be able to have domains like microsoft.org for instance(i of course like microsoft as little as the next guy) but if someone owns the site a mistyped url could hurt smaller businesses, and geniune orginzations who should have the .org domains. Hopefully the ICANN will properly saction org domains and not try to hurt people using them now. Or for profit companys who need to use them.
    • Is slashdot really an orangization? It could be argued either way. But there are some corprate ones that should not have a .org address. I think that they should start to really crack down on people that own all of the top-level domains with there name. Mabey with this new change in power somthing can be done about it.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Slashdot is owned by VA, a for-profit company (which does not necessarily mean they actually made a profit yet), so yes this site is for profit. Clear cut simple.
    • by espo812 (261758) on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:47PM (#4447238)
      With this decision they will apparently be deciding if and when an actual non-profit organization can have a .org domain(what the top-level domain was designed for) and stop companies from buying .org addrs to go with their net and com ones.
      You are incorrect. RFC 1591 - Domain Name System Structure and Delegation [faqs.org]:
      ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-government organizations may fit here.
  • umm (Score:1, Redundant)

    by cshor (111947)
    Thanks to this being slashdotted after almost 10 minutes, I'm left wondering what this means for my domain. I'm not officially a non-profit, but I sure as hell don't make any money off of my crappy domain, so what does this mean for me? What sort of power do these folks have?

    Shouldn't slashdot be a little nicer to them then killing their server? :)
  • by HackHackBoom (198866) on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:02PM (#4446925) Journal
    ICANN is like the US Government: Give it jurisdiction over something and it appoints a commity to discuss the feasability of appointing a subcommity to plan the eventual migration to a senate panel on how to properly disperse the powers to multiple groups and organizations that should control the board that appoints the group.....

    I love America...

    • ICANN is like the US Government: Give it jurisdiction over something and it appoints a commity to discuss the feasability of appointing a subcommity to plan the eventual migration to a senate panel on how to properly disperse the powers to multiple groups and organizations that should control the board that appoints the group.....

      ICANN is pretty much devolved from a branch of the US government, but this isn't surprising. However, I suspect that if you look closely, this is a characteristic of buerocracy around the world throughout history. Certain as death and taxes.

  • by CSG_SurferDude (96615) <wedaa@w e d a a .com> on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:03PM (#4446935) Homepage Journal
    This could be a bad thing considering that their current website (www.isoc.org) is currently slashdotted to death. One would hope that somebody in their purchasing department is actively ordering more bandwidth and servers to handle the long term load.
  • Great... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tadrith (557354) on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:04PM (#4446941) Homepage

    Now how long before we can get them out of .com and .net as well? :P
  • by I Want GNU! (556631) on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:06PM (#4446960) Homepage
    I don't quite understand this. Why does the article sound so upbeat and happy? In this article [slashdot.org], user timothy [monkey.org] writes "mesozoic points out that ISOC is a non-profit organization composed of many for-profit heavyweights, writing "ICANN has issued a report recommending that ISOC run the .org TLD... ISOC is a non-profit organization composed of many for-profit heavyweights, writing "I'm not surprised; are you?" This preliminary report may be disappointing to those who hoped that Paul Vixie and Carl Malamud would be successful in their bid to head up .org."

    Slashdot, I never would have expected doublespeak from you! *sniff* I trusted you.
  • by ebuck (585470) on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:10PM (#4446984)

    No more Verisign is something that many will be very, very happy about, but any "big" change in "the way things are done" often hurts before it gets better.

    Let's hope that the transition is as painless as possible.
  • Nintendo Trouble (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Trinton Azaleth (559255) on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:12PM (#4447000) Homepage
    Does this mean I can repurchase n64.org, the domain which Nintendo so rudely took away from me by sending their lawyers after me, back when I was 15??
    • Re:Nintendo Trouble (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Trinton Azaleth (559255) on Monday October 14, 2002 @03:00PM (#4447372) Homepage
      Ok, that was vague. That details are as follows: back then I was a big fan of Nintendo, and paid using my own money to get the domain and have fun telling people how great the N64 was. I made a great site, and never got paid a dime for it. And I made it clear my site was not affiliated with Nintendo. So how did they repay me? They threatened to sue me unless I freely GAVE them my domain. I said no way, and sent letters back to their lawyers, considering my dad is a lawyer. Eventually they realize they couldn't TAKE my domain, since I registered my domain before they registered their trademark... so I decided to sell it to them for a rip off price of $50 because I was no longer interested in supporting Nintendo at that point. I was a non-profit individual having fun supporting a cool product. What did I get? Nothing but grief.
      • My sister is probably the one who pressed these charges. She does work for Nintendo, taking away copyright-infringing domain names and giving them back to the owners of the copyright. While I don't think a corporation should be given a .org domain name, you have to understand that the majority of sites squatting on a brand name (or misspelling thereof) forward to pornography. Search for pokemon on ICANN [icann.org]: you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
        • by Anonymous Coward
          My sister is probably the one who pressed these charges. She does work for Nintendo, taking away copyright-infringing domain names and giving them back to the owners of the copyright.

          Hopefully your sister is aware of the difference between copyright and trademarks, unlike you.
    • well you were underage,and really couldn't enter into a binding agreement with anyone.
  • so it's ISOC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by frost22 (115958) on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:13PM (#4447007) Homepage
    you applaud that ?

    The ISOC proposal is a shameless money-grab. They are contracting out the actual work to .info operator AFFILIAS (a privately held for profit company owned by - among others - Verisign) while grabbing a part of the revenues for whatever club activities they deem worthy.

    This is the very same ISOC that got its bid approved by an evaluation comitee which judged principial Bind developer and internet pioneer Paul Vixie and his coworkers to be technically incompetent to run a registry - ISOC should be ashamed (and refuse) to accept that approval at all !

    The whole thing is a farce....

    • I think it's BS too, but couldn't "technical competance" include the management experience involved in running a public service system like this?

      I'm sure that anyone who could figure out BIND 4.x code could figure out how to do that, but someone may be judging their ability to run an organization, not write software.
    • Re:so it's ISOC (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:48PM (#4447239)
      The ISOC proposal is a shameless money-grab. They are contracting out the actual work to .info operator AFFILIAS (a privately held for profit company owned by - among others - Verisign) while grabbing a part of the revenues for whatever club activities they deem worthy.

      Thus addressing one of the principal problems that has been facing the IETF, the lack of funding for ISOC which amongst other things funds the indemnity insurance for the IESG and Working group chairs.

      This is the very same ISOC that got its bid approved by an evaluation comitee which judged principial Bind developer and internet pioneer Paul Vixie and his coworkers to be technically incompetent to run a registry

      Well there is no way I would trust Eric Allman to run something like hotmail and he wrote sendmail. The problem with Paul's bid was that he underestimated the difference between 99.9% reliable and 99.999% reliable.

      The large registries don't use BIND and have not for many years. There is a major difference between running an enterprise scale DNS node and a registry, not least the behavior of the registrars.

      Thing is that the average Internet user is willing to pay $6 per name to get ultra-high reliability DNS service. If the DNS goes down the Internet goes down. Paul's proposal to do the job for less just did not seem like much of a bargain.

      • The average US or EU .COM is certainly willing to spend $6/year for 99.999% reliability. But there are a lot of people in the .org world who might be happier paying a lot less for 99.9% uptime, as long as their names don't get lost. After all, it's not very often that you do a name registration - you care more about DNS availability, and lots of that comes from the root nameservers, or from caches in the big ISPs' nameservers, and while a big concern like ACLU.ORG or EFF.ORG may want better access to the registries, joebobs-home-pc.org doesn't mind that much if people can't do a new DNS resolution for 1.4 minutes/day, as long as it's up most of the time.

        The costs of dispute resolution are likely to be much higher than the costs of registry servers - the monthly cost of a couple of hosted machines is less than the cost of a couple hours of lawyer time.

    • judged principial Bind developer and internet pioneer Paul Vixie and his coworkers to be technically incompetent to run a registry

      I take it DJB [cr.yp.to] was on the committee then :)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:17PM (#4447029)
    ...is that the members of the board are not elected. We're always babbling about democracy (or lack of it), and how our congressmen are paid by corporations to do their bidding.

    This is already happening with ICANN. Remember the Karl Auerbach incident?

    For all we know, this might just be a temporary measure, and that Verisign has already secured a deal which will go into effect in the future.

    Just something to think about...
    • I seem to remember that it's in the ICANN charter that the directors have to be elected. Eventually. Someone just forgot to say when. Or was it by who?

      Either that, or perhaps it was that there was no justification for their actions at all. One of those choices.
    • by karl.auerbach (157250) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @02:15AM (#4451760) Homepage
      ICANN's so-called "reform" plan eliminates all vestiges of public participation in ICANN's decisionmaking processes. ICANN's board will probably never again have someone who represents the users of the net; it will be dominated by people who serve corporations who make money from users of the internet or who are trying to own the products of peoples' minds.

      My own term as director will end on December 15 of this year - I have no sucessor.

      As for ISOC/PIR - The actual awardee, PIR, didn't even exist as of a couple of weeks ago. In other words, ICANN awarded .org to an entity that technically didn't even apply for the job.

      I do not have faith in the organizational/business skills of PIR - although its board members have skills, I do not perceive that they have the kind of skills that will be needed to make sure that .org runs smoothly. In fact, my experience with the lack of skills of some of the people gives me great concern. And I do not see that there are adequate financial resources. In many respects, PIR will be little more than a thin shell around the actual operator, Afilias.

      One of ICANN's jobs is to create more competition in the domain name space. Afilias has already won a piece of the top-level-domain sweepstakes - it has .info. I do not see how giving .org to PIR/Afilias does anything but increase the concentration of DNS into the hands of a few operators; quite the opposite of increasing competition.

      And lest we forget - this transfer of .org is the "other shoe" of the deal privately brokered by ICANN's outside lawyer, Joe Sims, in which he gave .com to Verisign/NSI in perpetuity.

      Oh yeah, I voted against this. I liked the IMS proposal best. And I won't vote to give a TLD to anybody who already has one; nor would I vote for any entity in which ICANN directors or officers have a degree of control.

      By-the-way, I'm a member of ISOC and have been since before it was formed.
  • Bad news (Score:1, Troll)

    by dh003i (203189)
    The ISOC plan is an shameless all-out money-grab.

    ISOC is largely made up of corporate interests, and will represent corporate interests, not the interests of the real internet community. You can expect corporations to be stealing domains from people alot easier now; AOL will easily be able to steal any domain name which someone paid for which contains "aol" in its name.

    The problem with this decision is that it is completely illegitimate. Only 5 of the current ICANN members were elected; the rest were appointed by corporate interests. They have no legitimacy.

    The only way ICANN can have legitimacy is if EVERY board member is elected by the internet community in a fair election. Until then, they're just a bunch of information-nazi's.
  • VeriSign gone! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blurp (116225) on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:29PM (#4447122)
    Maybe...
    "Whee, no more VeriSign in .org!"

    or maybe not...
    "VeriSign will continue to profit from .org as it owns a small interest in the company that will run the back end of the database for the Internet Society."

    Not that I'm a pessimist or anything...
  • What kind of service can they provide to millions of DNS requests a second and thousands of .ORG customers coming to manage their domains, if their site is inaccessible, apparently due to being "slashdotted"?
    VeriSign is evil and onerous, but at least it (as well, as any other operating registrar) is up and running. Let's hope these guys get their act together...
    • by fishnuts (414425) <fishnuts@arpa.org> on Monday October 14, 2002 @03:49PM (#4447887) Homepage
      The registries don't need to deal with DNS requests. They send all their info to the GTLD nameserver maintainers on a daily basis, and let THEM deal with the DNS traffic. If ISOC is a non-profit organization, it shouldn't surprise anyone that they have only a finite amount of bandwidth and/or server resources, and we all know how much traffic slashdot is capable of inducing.
  • Afilias? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sjlutz (540312) on Monday October 14, 2002 @02:58PM (#4447329)
    From Press Release
    Afilias Limited, a global domain name registry services provider and current registry operator of the .INFO top-level domain (TLD), will provide PIR with a full range of back-end registry services to support .ORG.

    Uhhh.. didn't Afilias has a boat load of problems when they launched .INFO?
  • iwon.com ? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Eric Seppanen (79060) on Monday October 14, 2002 @03:07PM (#4447454)
    That link just ruined my day. I had been assuming that the dotcom crash took those idiots down. How is it possible that iwon.com is still in business?

    Obligatory Moronic Business Plan:

    1. Pay users to visit our site
    2. Profit!
  • by Dwedit (232252)
    Did anyone else misread this story as "The Internet Society Will Manage .OGG"?
  • by tsmoke (455045) on Monday October 14, 2002 @03:51PM (#4447906)
    This selection ought to be applauded as, at least according to their original plans [icann.org], ISOC proposed using PostgreSQL.

    So it seems that those of us who sell PostgreSQL to client will have an easy answer for whether or not it can scale.

    talli

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14, 2002 @03:57PM (#4447986)
    Maybe it's time for ISOC to fix their own domain isoc.org then? Two lame delegations out of three leaves only one nameserver. Not the good example they should provide I guess...

    $ host -C isoc.org

    isoc.org NS NS.ISI.EDU
    www.isoc.org admin.www.isoc.org (2002062813 10800 3600 604800 86400)
    *** isoc.org SOA record at NS.ISI.EDU is not authoritative
    isoc.org has lame delegation to NS.ISI.EDU
    !!! isoc.org SOA primary www.isoc.org is not advertised via NS
    isoc.org NS INFO.isoc.org
    www.isoc.org admin.www.isoc.org (2002062813 10800 3600 604800 86400)
    isoc.org NS NS.UU.NET
    isoc.org SOA record currently not present at NS.UU.NET
    isoc.org has lame delegation to NS.UU.NET

  • by dhogaza (64507) on Monday October 14, 2002 @04:21PM (#4448242) Homepage
    As they already do for .info. This is cool because the bid was head-to-head against contractors spec'ing Oracle and came despite Oracle submitting comments during the review process that claimed that no Open Source RDBMS would be up to the task.

  • washingtonpost.com's story on the dot-org decision is online here [washingtonpost.com].
  • ...and vice versa.

    Who the hell cares except a) the IRS and b) people who think profit is inherently evil and plan to shoot all profiteers.

    Oh no! Billy's tree house club is mowing lawns and fixing bicycles! Call the UN!
  • by Quirk (36086)
    October 14, 2002 [internetnews.com]
    Will Big Business Dictate Public Interest?
    By Jim Wagner
  • The Commandments of the EE:

    (9) Trifle thee not with radioactive tubes and substances lest thou
    commence to glow in the dark like a lightning bug, and thy wife be
    frustrated and have not further use for thee except for thy wages.
    (10) Commit thou to memory all the words of the prophets which are
    written down in thy Bible which is the National Electrical Code,
    and giveth out with the straight dope and consoleth thee when
    thou hast suffered a ream job by the chief electrician.
    (11) When thou muckest about with a device in an unthinking and/or
    unknowing manner, thou shalt keep one hand in thy pocket. Better
    that thou shouldest keep both hands in thy pockets than
    experimentally determine the electrical potential of an
    innocent-seeming device.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Working...