Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Networking

Soviet Union TLD Owners Snub ICANN 306

Posted by Zonk
from the nelson-muntz-should-be-quoted-here dept.
An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist has up a post about ICANN's latest decisions about country-code TLDs. The body is making an effort to tackle the problem of Yugoslavia's .yu outliving the country by over a decade but is far from getting its way with the Soviet Union's domain .su. Around 2,500 new .su sites are created every year despite ICANN ordering its retirement — the disgruntled .su registrars have announced an 80 per cent price cut in the price of .su domains in response. 'It makes the much-publicized wrangles over the ".xxx" domain seem tiny by comparison. And it convinces me of the need to reevaluate the existence of the US Dept of Commerce-backed non-profit organisation that is ICANN. The current squabbles are petty compared to the diplomatic arguments that TLDs could cause. An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Soviet Union TLD Owners Snub ICANN

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Must Resist! Will fading! Must be strong. NNNRRRRR!!!! NOOOoooooo!!!

    In Soviet Russia TLD discontinues YOU!

  • Sure! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Otter (3800) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:48PM (#20687631) Journal
    An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?

    Absolutely! They'll be glad to crack the whip on registrars of non-countries like the Soviet Union and Taiwan.

    • Re: UN absolutely? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by bornwaysouth (1138751)
      The UN is somewhat corrupt, but that is not why I'd oppose them running it. Nor because they are political at heart. Look up the Whaling Commission on Wikipedia as an example. The key problem is they are country oriented.

      Top level domains should be about routing traffic competently. I do not care if the USSR or Yugoslavia or Aland or the Faroe Islands or Antarctica are countries or not. You have to balance traffic routing as engineering efficiency and some ability to legally control the activities of the us
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by fm6 (162816)

        The UN is somewhat corrupt, but that is not why I'd oppose them running it. Nor because they are political at heart. Look up the Whaling Commission on Wikipedia as an example.

        Ok, some pretty basic mistakes here. First, you should never take anything on Wikipedia as gospel. A Wikipedia article is only as credible, reliable, or objective as the last person to edit it.

        Secondly, when you read this kind of info, you need to read stuff a little more carefully, regardless of the source. The article has some con

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by WilliamX (22300)
          .org was NEVER intended to be restricted to non-profit organizations. It was actually the first catch-all TLD, intended for anything that didn't fit well under the other two, but was not restricted in any way to that rule either. There was NEVER any suggestion or rule that .org be restricted to non-profit use. Even when ICANN handed it to the PIR to manage, they specifically included in the contract that it remain a generic open registration TLD.

          It is a common misconception among people who have never
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by petermgreen (876956)
          Anybody know where I can register an .su domain?
          http://www.nic.ru/en/ [www.nic.ru]

          the fee is 3000 rubles (about $120) per year so it's a relatively expensive TLD to register in.

          I hope commierat.su isn't taken!
          It wasn't when I just checked but having posted your intention on /. you might have to move pretty quickly to get it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by MightyYar (622222)
      Easy solution - de-politicize the internet by getting rid of TLD domains. I don't know squat about the technical particulars, but why can't we set up the internet such that TLDs are unnecessary? If I type "yahoo" into my address bar, it should just resolve to some IP address setup by yahoo.

      This takes the whole geography absurdity out of everything, since .com domains can be anywhere anyway. Yahoo could still have country-specific sites if they wish - yahoo.russia, yahoo.france, yahoo.us, etc.
    • > crack the whip on registrars of non-countries like the Soviet Union

      As someone who is still officially a citizen of the Soviet Union, I must vehemently disagree with your classification!
    • by rs79 (71822)
      "And it convinces me of the need to reevaluate the existence of the US Dept of Commerce-backed non-profit organisation that is ICANN. The current squabbles are petty compared to the diplomatic arguments that TLDs could cause. An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?'"

      Absolutely not.

      You want to take it away from the silly US Department of COMmerce and give it to the UN?

      Isn't that kind of like saying "I don't like this splinter in my foot so I'll drive a bloody big nai
  • UN.. maybe. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bigattichouse (527527) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:49PM (#20687649) Homepage
    Generally the U.N. is pretty good with standards (english for pilots) and lists (like ISO country codes), and very ineffective, well - how about "tedious"... they can be effective if only slow, when politics or "national identity" are involved. This isn't the UN's fault so much as the fact that it is made of people. So.. As far as the lists go, UN would be great (say .xxx), but very sensitive to getting rid of "identities" like .su or .yu if it can be shown that the domains are offering some kind of cohesive bond between sites. my 0.02, or at least two cents worth of B.A. in international studies from 11 years ago. In this day and age, probably worthless.
  • An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?

    Yes, let's remove an organization whose competence is questioned and replace it with one whose corruption and incompetence is beyond question. That's like firing Kevin Kostner as a movie director and hiring Uwe Boll instead. Far better ICANN than the crooked, incompetent clowns at the UN. Hell, even the Mafia would be better; then at least the Internet would be run by competent criminals...

    • by damburger (981828) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:53PM (#20687727)

      Yes, let's remove an organization whose competence is questioned and replace it with one whose corruption and incompetence is beyond question.

      Refusing to rubber-stamp US wars of aggression doesn't make them corrupt or incompetent. Sure, they are impotent to stop these imperialistic rampages - but that is the the fault of their members, not the organisation itself

      • Refusing to rubber-stamp US wars of aggression doesn't make them corrupt or incompetent.

        Perhaps not, but do not completely discount the use of force. If there is a line in the sand that your enemies *know* you won't cross then they can always back you down for the price of some sanctions that will further oppress the people that they are already crushing under the heels of their boots while doing nothing to curb the luxuries that your enemies continue to enjoy. The UN is just about worthless at maintain
        • by damburger (981828)

          Perhaps not, but do not completely discount the use of force. If there is a line in the sand that your enemies *know* you won't cross then they can always back you down for the price of some sanctions that will further oppress the people that they are already crushing under the heels of their boots while doing nothing to curb the luxuries that your enemies continue to enjoy.

          All of which rests on a series of subjective definitions (enemies, oppress...) hence the need for international arbitration.

          All they

          • by oatworm (969674)
            In the case of the example outlined above...

            Enemies: Those that call for the end of your existence and either possess the means to act on those words or are actively searching for the means to act on those words. In the above instance, they would either be the ruling party of a nation-state or possess similar resources as the ruling party of a nation-state.

            Oppression: Either ending the existence, or making said existence extremely miserable, of the group of people that is not in control of aforementioned
      • by Hatta (162192)
        The UN was corrupt and incompetent long before the Iraq war.
    • by dbIII (701233)
      Rot can stop at the top. This is the attitude you get when you have a President that ridicules an organisation to distract from the criticism of a rather stupid agenda. Freedom fries anyone? The UN is not as bad as your President says it is - your President has told a lot of lies for political gain and this is just one. You don't have to believe him on every point.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by nuzak (959558)
      > Yes, let's remove an organization whose competence is questioned and replace it with one whose corruption and incompetence is beyond question.

      The US Government?
  • by trolltalk.com (1108067) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:52PM (#20687699) Homepage Journal

    And what are they going to do when Tuvalu goes under water? Will they discontinue .tv? All its going to take is a foot or so rise in sea level and tuvalu goes glug glug glug ...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If sea levels rise, broadcasting giants will protect Tuvalu with dikes to save their domains.
    • by TeknoHog (164938) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:25PM (#20688313) Homepage Journal

      And what are they going to do when Tuvalu goes under water? Will they discontinue .tv? All its going to take is a foot or so rise in sea level and tuvalu goes glug glug glug ...

      Apparently, .su is not discontinued even if the country has gone gulag gulag gulag ...

    • by StikyPad (445176)
      Ah, nothing funnier than discussing the impending doom of people you don't know and don't care about! Nice modding.
    • by eclectro (227083)
      ICANN will be forced to implement .tvu (tv underwater).
  • by iamacat (583406) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:54PM (#20687745)
    Doing so can disrupt hundreds of thousands of businesses and personal domains. Let both .su and .yu remain. Most new sites will probably register under names of present day countries to highlight their local ties anyway.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by thebear05 (916315)
      That makes sense allow domain holders to keep their domains, but close the domain to new registrations.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Murmer (96505)
        That makes sense allow domain holders to keep their domains, but close the domain to new registrations.

        None of that makes any sense. A domain name system is nothing more than a way of turning a string humans can read into an address a machine can use. There's already lots of alternatives [wikipedia.org] that have sprung up because the TLD situation is an entirely manufactured problem; it's not like there's a critical shortage of letter sequences in the world. Show me the legitimate technical problem with letting some guy

        • by iamacat (583406)
          Well, the purpose of the system is to allow different policies for registration of domains under different TLDs. It wouldn't be so cool if someone registered screw.gov or worse whiethouse.gov. The solution is to simply register a secondary-level domain under .com. Most browsers already try bondage.xxx.com if someone types inbondage.xxx.

          Now, if the controlling entity becomes defunct, it would be a good choice to leave existing sites alone but disallow new registrations. Otherwise sites might imply legitimacy
  • by drmerope (771119) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:57PM (#20687801)

    The current squabbles are petty compared to the diplomatic arguments that TLDs could cause. An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?

    The little bit of editorializing in this submission is a little bit too much. I fail to see how making countries directly responsible will depoliticize the process. ICANN, is a flawed organization, but it is an effort to make management of the domain name system independent of governments and technically driven.

    The IEEE is not a UN body; Its voting membership, and its activities are a combination of academics and engineers employed by major technology companies. Given this, I find it hard to see how the "surely" remark in the story summary can even be regarded as reasonable.

    I for one would prefer a more technical, more independent ICANN--not a less technical, more political ICANN such as is embodied by the sluggish and highly politicized ITU.

    • Very insightful post. I think it's one thing to say the control should somehow be "international", but "international" doesn't necessarily mean the UN. I think you're right to look at successful and effective international standards bodies as the model for how these things should be handled.

      One thing is clear: technical standards should be kept away from politics as much as possible.

  • .sue? (Score:4, Informative)

    by tholomyes (610627) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:59PM (#20687839) Homepage
    If only these domain owners had some legal recourse...
  • An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?


    and he says, "surely" ..

    as if anybody listens to what u.n. orders about anything.
  • So .su me. (Score:4, Funny)

    by rbanffy (584143) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:00PM (#20687855) Homepage Journal
    So .su me.
  • by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris@beaHORSEu.org minus herbivore> on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:01PM (#20687881)
    > An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?

    What idiot would write such a thing in 2007? A century ago such naive faith in International organizations to settle disputes was commonplace, fifty years ago diehards still believed the inherent contradiction inherent in such organizations could be handwaved away. But now? Now that we have seen each and every International organization fall into disrepute, chaos, corruption or outright evil?

    Even previously unquestioned organizations like ISO are proving to be all too easily corrupted. Others, like the UN you wish to hand the greatest achievement of Western Civilization over to, were so flawed in their design they became failed instituitions before the ink was dry on their charters.

    Seriously, this isn't a troll or flamebait. Name three achivements of the UN since it's founding. Ok, you in the back that remembered the Korean War being fought under UN auspices. Yea, because the Soviets were off in a sulk for a brief period the UN managed to allow the US (with our usual allies of the UK and the Aussies along with token support from the usual suspects) to fight to a tie, but under no circumstances actually win. And we are STILL mired down there to this day.

    Same for the first Gulf War, the UN grudgingly allowed the US to lead our usual allies to solve a problem for everyone else. But I don't seem to recall the UN spearheading either of those efforts, only being convinced to get the hell out of the way.

    Just how many more mass graves do we need before you misty eyed 'citizens of the world' realize the US is the leading cause of mass death today. Ask the survivers in Rwanda or Darfur if they believe the UN is a capable fo being a force for good.

    No, the UN is a Parliment of Tyrants. Because it was DESIGNED that way. Shocked the new UN "Human Rights" body is as corrupt as the old one? I'm not. Because Tyrants have more votes in both the General Assembly and Security Council, all works of the UN are going to be geared to aid tyranny. Hand the Internet over to China, Cuba, Iran and their ilk? Are you barking mad?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jmorris42 (1458) *
      > Just how many more mass graves do we need before you misty eyed 'citizens of the world' realize the US
      > is the leading cause of mass death today. Ask the survivers in Rwanda or Darfur if they believe the UN
      > is a capable fo being a force for good.

      And I even previewed once.... sigh. Of course that should be UN at the end of both lines but with the slashkos crowd it is probably best to make it clear.... especially in light of 25 Democrat Party Senators voting to endorse Move On's notion of the US
    • by cromar (1103585)
      the US is the leading cause of mass death today.

      Please explain. Or do you mean the UN?
    • by bjourne (1034822) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:22PM (#20688271) Homepage Journal
      Here is a list of good things [una-usadanecounty.org] that the UN has done. Just because the UN hasn't won any wars doesn't mean that they have not accomplished a lot of good.
    • the UN is a Parliment of Tyrants. Because it was DESIGNED that way
      Right. Designed that way by the US as a way of cementing its hegemony post-WWII.
    • by dbIII (701233)
      Hmm. THe UN is a failure when it does the bidding of the USA and also when it doesn't do the bidding of the USA. It is an international organisation - try looking at it from that perspective instead.
  • by prxp (1023979) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:01PM (#20687887)
    Puerto Rico has its own TLD (.PR) since 1989. The funny thing is that Puerto Rico was never a country, it used to be a Spanish Colony way back in history and it's been a US territory for the last half century. Why do they bother so much about other non-country's TLDs?
    • by athakur999 (44340) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:38PM (#20688535) Journal
      Puerto Rico, though not a country, is still an currently existing political entity. Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union do not exist in any fashion except in history books.

      • by Tim C (15259)
        Puerto Rico, though not a country, is still an currently existing political entity.

        The same could be said of any area with a political body representing it, eg each of the states, the counties in England, each of the cities, most of the towns, hell even *parts* of London (the Boroughs) have councils. I don't see a lot of reason to give the London Borough of Havering a tld of its own...
        • by jmauro (32523)
          Puerto Rico is a commonwealth associated with the United States, but not an integral part of the US. It's not a state or the capital region as spelled out in the US Constitution. As such it's entitled under international law to Olympic Team, TLD, etc. It's a grey area [topuertorico.org], but definately different in international law than the city of London or even Scotland and Wales.
  • by unity100 (970058)
    and enter the pitiful medieval squabbles of iran, china, north korea and other brutal regimes to manipulate the domain name system for propagating their own agenda.

    im turkish, and im fine with an international company backed by u.s. controlling the domain name registrations, thank you.
    • ICANNs control is de facto control. What I mean by that is the only reason that ICANN controls domains is because the most widely used root servers (the root-servers.net group) listen to ICANN. They have no legal force behind them. You are free to setup alternate root servers and people have. Some mirror the ICANN root file, some don't. There is nothing stopping people from doing their own thing, other than apathy since over all the system we have now works fine.

      Well, get the UN involved and now we are movi
  • by PoopDaddy (1064616) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:03PM (#20687939)
    Find them all at the brand new http://www.slashdot.su/ [slashdot.su] !!!

    Finally, the best of /.'s "In Soviet Russia..." comments all in one place.

  • Pretty Funny Article (Score:3, Interesting)

    by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:07PM (#20687989)
    This is the organization that could not handle an international vaccine program without falling flat on it's face due to internal politics. I can't imagine that it would be any better in handling external politics.

    There are some perfectly valid reasons to be suspicious of any one country administering the TLD list. Retiring zombie TLDs isn't one of them. Just set up a grace period. After 3 years don't process any more new domain applications. After 5 years no domain renewals. After 15 years no TLD.

    Very few domains will have a lifetime longer than that, and if they do chances are they are run by clueful people who will have aliases set up long before the tits up date.

    • by Braino420 (896819)

      There are some perfectly valid reasons to be suspicious of any one country administering the TLD list. Retiring zombie TLDs isn't one of them. Just set up a grace period. After 3 years don't process any more new domain applications. After 5 years no domain renewals. After 15 years no TLD.

      I really don't understand the problem at all. What is the problem? Is there something inherently evil about sites using outdated TLDs? Have the UN take over the TLDs for this? Is this a joke? Some people must have it real

  • by CodeShark (17400) <ellsworthpc&yahoo,com> on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:08PM (#20688031) Homepage
    How about a well defined group within the W3C itself?


    The working groups in the W3C seem to do a good job defining standards we can all live with, why not make them the custodians of the standards as well. That way TLDs have some semblance of order and a deprecated TLD can be selectively migrated, etc. with technically competent standards as opposed to politically appointed or "corporate overlorded" individuals as in the current processes.

    ?? Thoughts ??

    • The problem isn't the group controlling the system - it's that the group controlling the system has no real teeth. A W3C subcomittee will face the exact same problems.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I think those of us remaining in the deep South should start a .CSA top level domain. If it has now become politically correct to create and or maintain domains for countries that are in effect no longer in existence, it should not be a problem to start a .CSA domain in honor of our blessed South and those who fought for her.

  • .su domains were over $100 a year last I checked...

    Which registrars are offering the mad discounts on them?
    • Seriously, what's the big deal? I never understood why domains are restricted at all. It's not like a Russian can't register a ".com", an American can't register a ".su" or the DNS system couldn't handle completely random names.

      So what's the point?

  • Get Rid of TLDs (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166)
    Why don't we just get rid of TLDs altogether? They don't do much besides confusing users and force site operators to register more domains, anyway. We have .orgs that aren't non-profit organizations, country TLDs for sites that have little to do with that country, and on and on. The only valid case I see is that TLDs _sometimes_ can differentiate between different versions of a site tailored for different locations, but even there...you can do that differentiation through other means. Really, if it were up
    • by RAMMS+EIN (578166)
      Oh yeah. And since I am too tired now to make a complete, coherent, well-formulated argument, such is left as an exercise to the reader.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Todd Knarr (15451)

      Because we tried that, and it didn't work. When ARPANet was starting, the namespace was flat. Every host had a name, there wasn't any hierarchical organization. When the network was less than 0.01% the size it is today, it was already too hard to handle name conflicts in that flat namespace. The hierarchical namespace with dot seperators that we use in DNS today was introduced to solve the problem, segregating the namespace so you only had to worry about conflicts between names in a single domain and not wi

  • If there is a registrar that continues to support the zone, why push for removal? What, they're gonna force everyone off .uk and into .gb next? If someone wants to have user.su, let them. Plus if several countries declare themselves to be Secular Union, you can point them in that direction :)
  • by DaveWick79 (939388) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:38PM (#20688539)
    The way things are going over in the current Russia, it might not be a bad idea to hang onto the .su domains. In a couple of years it might be current again.

    The overall problem of who is really in control of these things is a curious one. Does a registrar have the ability to sell anything they want once they get on the train as a registrar. What's to keep a registrar from selling domains with any .?? extension and then propagating them over DNS servers worldwide? Is it up to the ISP to determine whether they will allow a DNS request to a certain top level domain, or is this something ICANN has some authority over?
  • No thanks, i dont want them meddling in my countries affairs anymore then they already are.
  • by geekmansworld (950281) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:46PM (#20688663) Homepage
    In Soviet Russia, domain resolves you!
  • Because the useless bureaucracy called the UN is sooooo much better and more efficient. You're talking about countries who can't even agree on which of them are allowed to water their grapes for winemaking.
  • ICANN request can be found on the page:

    listen.to.us

    Response to ICANN from .yu domain registar can be found on page:

    f..k.yu

    From .su registar on page:

    try.and.su

  • The UN (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OrangeTide (124937) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @07:33PM (#20690033) Homepage Journal
    An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?

    How does more bureaucracy solve the problem, it seems like it just creates more problems. What we need is a Philosopher-king [wikipedia.org] of Top Level Domains. So far it has been ICANN, and they have not been doing a bad job.

    If ICANN were actually doing a bad job, we could open up alternative root name servers without them. And with public and industry support supplant them. But the internationalization arguments against ICANN are just empty rhetoric. Nothing about the way DNS or the Internet is structures prevents us from running domain services in parallel to ICANN's, if the EU wanted they could invent their own bureaucratic organization to handle all TLDs, setup root servers and run with it. And users could choose to use the EU ones or ICANNs or both.

    That hasn't happened, and I am arguing that there is no technical barrier. Therefor I assume the only barrier is that nobody is serious enough in their objections of ICANN to do so.
  • by fm6 (162816) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @09:05PM (#20690887) Homepage Journal
    United forever in friendship and labour,
    Our mighty republics will ever endure.
    The great Soviet Union will live through the ages.
    The dream of a people their fortress secure.

    Long live our Soviet Motherland, built by the people's mighty hand.
    Long live our People, united and free.
    Strong in our friendship tried by fire. Long may our crimson flag inspire,
    Shining in glory for all men to see.

    Music [marxists.org]

You might have mail.

Working...