Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Nineteen Registrars Decry ICANN Arrangement 150

Posted by Zonk
from the meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nineteen Registrars Decry ICANN Arrangement

Comments Filter:
  • Security Reasons. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mumblestheclown (569987) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @01:35PM (#14934719)
    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?

    • by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @01:38PM (#14934746) Journal
      I'd like to know why, after its nasty stunts, Verisign isn't outright forbidden to have anything to do with .com.
      • by DieNadel (550271)
        Agreed!!

        You see, .com is a considerable part of the world commerce, but odly enough one doesn't usually see the WTO getting involved when VeriShittySign is doing it's shenanigans.

        I don't want to start all that discussion on taking the net control from the US (I do believe it should be again reconsidered, though.) But maybe the international bodies should start interfering with all this crap ICANN is doing.
    • by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Thursday March 16, 2006 @01:39PM (#14934771) Homepage
      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."

      • Here comes "inflation."

        The foundation of our economy!
      • Re:Security Reasons. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by equack (866135) *
        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? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by cyberscan (676092) * on Thursday March 16, 2006 @02:56PM (#14935653) Homepage
        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
        • The only way a monopoly can exist is if the government GRANTS and secures a monopoly. Make no mistake...telcos monopolize/duopolize your connections becuase the government has not allowed competitors to lay down their own pipes (with the permission of property owners). Be very clear on these facts. In a real free market, you cannot have monopolies (at least not for very long). If there is money to be made in a market, there will always be competition. If there is competition, prices go down and quality
    • by JordanL (886154) <jordan.ledoux@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Thursday March 16, 2006 @01:40PM (#14934781) Homepage
      Perhaps the price increases are so that VeriSign can hire a competent company to do it for them?
    • 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?


      Maybe 'securing their profits' counts?
  • 2012? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ki85squared (778761) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @01:37PM (#14934738) Homepage
    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...]
  • Vint Cerf Sell Out (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @01:38PM (#14934742) Homepage
    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.
    • by Krach42 (227798) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @01:56PM (#14934956) Homepage Journal
      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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by C10H14N2 (640033) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @01:59PM (#14934978)
      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? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @02:02PM (#14935027) Homepage
        ...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 was mainsly saying that doesn't make any sense to single out Vint Cerf.
          • Re:I got that... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @02:07PM (#14935102) Homepage
            ...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? (Score:4, Informative)

              by C10H14N2 (640033) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @02:29PM (#14935371)

              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?
              • Wasn't there a subsequent split between VeriSign and Network Solutions? Who mantains the master .com registrar database now? Did it go from Internic to VeriSign/NetSol to now just NetSol.com?
                • Re:Quoi? (Score:5, Informative)

                  by morganew (194299) * on Thursday March 16, 2006 @06:59PM (#14937556)
                  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

                  • Just wanted to say thanks for clarifying this. Yours was the most informative comment I've read thus far on the matter.
            • Well, he worked with Bernie Ebbers down here at Worldcom, so I suppose he learned how to be a greedy bastard from the best of them.

  • exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tachikoma (878191) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @01:38PM (#14934752)
    what was the last good thing that came out of exclusive control of something?
    • UNIX (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Short Circuit (52384) *
      UNIX, courtesy of Ma Bell.

      Thus, the foundation was laid for BSD and Linux.
    • Re:exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Unordained (262962) * <unordained_slash ... @pseudotheos.com> on Thursday March 16, 2006 @01:51PM (#14934893) Homepage
      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.
      • 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, I think the WTO should require member states to pass legislation that allows companies to not register N websites to maintain their marks. As far as [3] is concerned, well, that's what Search and Bookmarks are for, isn't it?

        VeriSign used to say that the

        • Errr ... respectfully, you misread me. I'm not talking about company A needing to buy A.net, A.com, A.org, etc ...

          I'm talking about company A being able to buy (and not just by proxy) any or all of those domain names through any registrar. Currently, each TLD has different costs, based on who has exclusive control over it -- if you buy a .com, it costs more than a .net because whoever controls .com charges more. You might buy both from the same place, but they're just passing on the purchase to whoever runs
          • Sorry I misread you. I thought you were addressing the artificial scarcity of having just a handful of TLDs.

            I'd like to see an independent international non-profit entity manage creation and maintenance of domain names. I'm hesitant to suggest the UN cause they might ban stuff that we accept in the U.S., like hate speech. It's fine if they do like ICANN and let people bid to become registrars, but I think you're right that it shouldn't be segmented by TLD... because there should be zillions of TLDs, IMO.

            Ch
            • I agree. I think anyone should be able to start a TLD server so long as the TLD is unique...and manage all their own dns servers. Why should any one body decide that only X amount of TLD are OK? Sounds fishy to me.
    • Re:exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)

      by feijai (898706) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @02:59PM (#14935684)
      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! :-)

      • ...someone who's taken neither a civics nor microeconomics course
        Half right. Never took a civics class.

        I agree that in some cases it is necessary, however, i don't see how this situation qualifies. My profession is neither in economics nor civics, but i still find it hard to believe that it's not economically feasible, nor how competition would not serve a social good here. ICANN is giving exclusive rights and allowing "VeriSign to increase the price of domain name registrations by 7 per cent in fo
        • the article does not provide any information about any checks and balances against these raises, save that they are below 7 per cent

          The checks and balances are all the other TLDs. You don't *have* to have a dot com, after all. In fact, in the post-Google Internet, domain names really don't matter all that much anyway.

      • neither a civics nor microeconomics course

        Whereas yours sounds like you've never taken anything BUT a civics and a microeconomics course (Ooooooh, was MACROeconomics too sca-a-ary?).

  • GoDaddy Blog (Score:5, Informative)

    by op12 (830015) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @01:39PM (#14934766) Homepage
    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."
    • ...it will go a long way in providing the United Nations with the ammunition it needs to begin taking control of the Internet...

      Some people think that would be a good idea. What with the current ICANN fiasco and the specter of tired Internet, maybe having the UN take over would be a good idea? It's clear the Corporate America has some ideas for the Internet, is this what we really want? (Yes I know, some people say the Internet does not belong to the United States. But clearly, ICANN does...)

      • Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:4, Interesting)

        by eln (21727) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @01:55PM (#14934945) Homepage
        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 (Score:3, Insightful)

          by metamatic (202216)
          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 my complete confidence. They do a heck of a job!"

        • Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ivan256 (17499) * on Thursday March 16, 2006 @02:55PM (#14935639)
          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.)
          • I wish I had mod points to mod you up. However, I do not. The best form of monopoly is a co-operative. Unfortunately monopolies are rquired for many different function such as the organization of telephone numbers, assignment of domain names, ip addresses and so on. When these monopolies are controlled by profit motivated corporations, or control motivated governments, we all suffer. We will also have a complete breakdown of communication if it is placed under the control of the unwashed masses who hav
            • Unfortunately monopolies are rquired for many different function such as the organization of telephone numbers, assignment of domain names, ip addresses and so on.

              Uh, no they're not. What's "required" is that consenting adults create a contract with each other agreeing how to go about accomplishing something that they will all benefit from. When I want to build a house, I don't need a monopoly...I need the architect, the various contractors, and the bank to all agree on the same outcome so that the proc

          • I will get he flamebait you didn't for this:

            What is so good about democracy? Do the people really have anything to say?

            That aside, 99.9% of people have no clue about DNS, or even what it stands for, and thus their opinions on it would do no good, and probably do harm. The people with an interest in DNS are corporate entities, mostly, and letting them have to much control might also be a bad thing, being that they exist only for their own interest, and not that of the system. So if screwing the system com
            • What is so good about democracy? Do the people really have anything to say?

              That aside, 99.9% of people have no clue about DNS, or even what it stands for, and thus their opinions on it would do no good, and probably do harm.


              People that don't know or care about DNS probably wouldn't bother to express their opinion with a vote... ...assuming you had a democratic system that involved a formal polling process. I'd prefer that it was democratic in the sense that you ran a server that worked the way you liked. Th
          • 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..
        • The problem with the UN is that they have a constituency, at least from time to time, that is greater than meglomaniacs of the United States and Europe. THe UN occasionally has to do things becuase it is the right thing to do. This is of great chagrin to those anti-UN people who sometimes tend to also believe that the white race is the greatest, as lower persons gain access to opportunity. If the internet is going to remain a pure playground, safe for our kids, then control must remain in a responsible U
        • Verisign is verifiably corrupt

          I'm sorry, but where do you see that? No matter how much you may hate the sightfinder fiasco, that's not 'corruption'. There was no attempt to mislead. They implemented a service, got hammered into the ground for doing it, were forced to remove it, but never offered bribes to hide it. Pretty sure they actually applied for permission to implement from ICANN, which basically stalled the application forever.

          I don't seem to recall VeriSign CEO or CFO going on trial like Ken La
    • 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 one who shouldn't point fingers... even if I don't like the Verisign deal either.
      • Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:3, Insightful)

        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 ask its customers what they plan to do with their domains. Are you suggesting that people should be required to justify their intended domain use before they can buy it? Do we set up some committee to decide who is worthy and who is not? Sounds like a big c

        • Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:3, Insightful)

          by JordanL (886154)
          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.
        • I recently purchased my domain through GoDaddy, and there was an issue with server configuration. I called them up to get it fixed, and oddly enough, during the call I was asked what I intended to do with the domain.

          So nyah!
  • hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by kw (79895) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @01:39PM (#14934772)
    Does this mean the GoDaddy girl will finally testify before Congress, just like in the commercials?
    • Not watching TV or living in the US, I have no idea what the GoDaddy girl looks like. But I wish to subscribe to your theory on the basis that she's good looking. There is one very important question to be asked before she goes to Congress however: does she have a blue dress?
      • Re:hmm (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by Skye16 (685048)
        no, a white spaghetti strap top that rips at the worst moments, spilling her heaving bosoms out for all to (almost) see.

        TV Commercials [godaddy.com]
        • Re:hmm (Score:3, Funny)

          by Bull999999 (652264)
          spilling her heaving bosoms out for all to (almost) see.

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

            As soon as the FTC assimilates Europe and enforces thier puritanical "decency" norms.
      • Re:hmm (Score:2, Informative)

        by oahazmatt (868057)
        For those of you playing at home, the "GoDaddy Girl" is Candace Michelle.

        We now return to your regularly-scheduled /.
    • Re:hmm (Score:4, Funny)

      by anothy (83176) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @02:08PM (#14935108) Homepage
      aha! finally a sensible explanation: it's all a ploy by C-SPAN to boost ratings!
  • by onetwentyone (882404) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @01:40PM (#14934775) Homepage
    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.
    • It's not 7% over 4 years. It's 7% a year in 4 of the next 6 years. (In the other two years they can only raise it if there are extra costs due to "security".

      -Jason
    • 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 departments to report to the new manager/director/etc. The cost of running these organizations steadily increases over time, even without having any R&D, distribution or production cost increases.

      I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is real.
    • ...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((1+i)**n). In our case:

      • FV=$7.95
      • PV= what we're solving for
      • 1=1
      • i=.06
      • n=4

      Now, let's do the math:

      $7.95=PV((1+.06)**4)
      $7.95=PV(1.26247696)
      PV=$7.95/1.26247696
      PV=$6.29714462274226

      So, you can see that Verisign is going to lose $1.65 ($7.95-6.29) on e

    • Surely the world can understand that VeriSign's executives work long, hard hours around dangerous equipment, in extreme conditions, rarely having the chance to see their family let alone go shopping for a new vacation home... I think a mere 7% increase in revenue to cover their modest yearly pay increases is the least they could ask for. When you factor in the rising expenses of unlawful lobbying and buying of senators, in the face of a dwindling corrupt Republican governmental influence, it's clear they
    • 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 pay the people, someone has to process the registrations, someone has to fix it when it breaks, etc. I'm sure it's 99% automated, but SOMEONE has to do SOMETHING at some point.

      They can't have level prices year over year for 12 years since their costs will r
  • oh please (Score:2, Insightful)

    by slackaddict (950042)
    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 bunch of sour grapes to me...

    • 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 are all greedy fuckers, we should let them fight over the meat? The meat does not belong to any of them it should not be given to any of them to exploit.

      • 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jwdeff (629221)
          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 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by anothy (83176) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @02:25PM (#14935321) Homepage
      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.
    • While I'm sure the 'nineteen registrars' are only crying because they weren't picked, Verisign definitely should not have been picked given their track record. Should any of the others been? I think not. Control should be given to a (new or existing) not-for-profit organization capable of maintaining this infrastructure which most businesses across the world depend on.
  • by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @02:00PM (#14934992)
    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?

  • Should any capitalist body gain control over domain top level domains, we may as well say goodbye to cheap hosting. This is exactly what should NEVER happen.
  • by Necroman (61604) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @02:16PM (#14935202)
    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*
  • Why does network solutions object to a deal with Verisign?
  • I use New.net.

    (Joking!)
  • I Hate TLDs (Score:2, Insightful)

    God, I wish no one had ever thought it would be a good idea to have TLDs. Just make everything be the same, with one name. Then we wouldn't have all of this damn arguing about .com this, .org that. If you need to differentiate your name, just do it within the name itself. There really isn't any need to sort things according to categories.
  • Godaddy oughtta really hire Monica Lewinsky or someone similar placed nicely in the whitehouse.
    (2) Obtain exclusive access to a major part of the net.
    (3) Profit!!!

    I wanna know how Verisign is pulling off what its pulling off right now.
  • Not very concerned here, I have my domain names reserved for several years to come. AFAIK, this registration is with my reigstrar, and has not been paid in advance to the registry. Part of the reason the registrars are screaming is they will have to pay more of the money I gave them to keep my name regsitered for the next several years than they were expecting. They can't raise my rate retroactively, so this cuts into their expected proffit. Sure they can raise my rates when my current payment expires (
    • You should be slightly concerned if you got your domains from one of the really cheap services. If they didn't pay in advance to the registry, and the registry raises rates, the registrar might just wind up going bankrupt. You'll get to keep your domain by transferring it elsewhere, but you might have to pay all over again for all those years you prepaid for.

      • In my case I registered several years ago, and it cost around $9.95/yr with the quantity I registered. This was through Register.com. I've had very good luck with them - they have an 800 number you can call with questions or to do custom tweaks to your records that their web site does not support. (like wildcards) They will quote you around $15/yr at quanity, but if you dicker with them they will quote you a lower rate. They will also quote a lower rate if you call in for a friend and tell them you refe

You can tell how far we have to go, when FORTRAN is the language of supercomputers. -- Steven Feiner

Working...