Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

When Worlds Collide: The New Dot-Biz And The Old 130

Posted by timothy from the no-please-use-the-*dooey*-decimal-system,-ok? dept.
angkor writes: "It seems the new dot biz domain conflicts with domains registered in an alternative root system." This is where all the alternative root servers conflict with the (ahem) interesting name choices made by the ICANN board.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

When Worlds Colide: The New Dot-Biz And The Old More

When Worlds Colide: The New Dot-Biz And The Old

Comments Filter:
  • ...Oops, I didn't get to vote for ICANN.

    But seriously, we do need a centralized authority to handle domains and prevent collisions. ORSC, unlike ICANN, isn't even discussing the goofy idea of letting registrars censor sites according to their content.

    I've got it! Someday in the distant future when the elected ICANN board members get to vote, Karl Auerbach should make a motion to dissolve ICANN and hand over the keys to ORSC.

    --

  • Oh yeah, good one.

    That's exactly what will solve this problem: submission of your site to a quasi-governemental board so that they can judge your content and "allow" you to keep your domain name.

    Why do you care if amazon.com takes amazon.person? Is that the first place you're going to look for it? Is that the first place your mom's going to look for it? Or are you going to go to the address that they've spent millions establishing a brand name for? Let them waste their money locking up every possible TLD, they'll just go bankrupt more quickly and eventually they'll all free up again.

    I think in the end, ICANN is either going to radically change their policies or become irrelevant. Sooner or later, someone big will become feed-up enough or greedy enough to bolt out of the current DNS structure and that's the end of ICANN. There will probably be some confusing times ahead for DNS resolution, but trying to maintain an artificial scarcity in TLD's isn't doing anyone any good.

    I'm going to go to work tomorrow and find some alternate DNS roots to put in our root server list. It's unlikely anyone will even notice, but I might sleep better.
  • Sorry, all this talk about forking got me excited.
  • There's no true reason; it is easier to remember a TLA than a long TLD, introduction of long TLDs may lead corporates to try to register a TLD of their company name, and I believe the speed of DNS resolving is faster, but it depends on how the DNS server software is written.

  • Damn good response. There is a lot to think about in there....

    Thanks Dave. ;] For what it's worth, you've put up a great argument as well, although I'm still sticking to my guns.

    You're definitely right, DNS is at the center of the Internet practically. It must be dependable. But I've done a lot of research on this, and I really don't think it's going to break by having alternative roots exist and grow in popularity. I'm not going to deny that it would be much better if ICANN would release more TLDs on a regular basis instead, but they won't. Now, if alternative roots could be able to support both root structures at the same time and handle conflicts (ex: the .biz problem in the topic here), then that would make a transition that much easier. This solution [opendnstech.com] is the next generation of alternatives that can do that.

    I think something is going to happen real soon. We'll see DNS change in a big way.

    Chris

    Open DNS Technologies [opendnstech.com]

  • people come out and say the 'alternative' registrars are not 'official' and stuff, and use different root servers, consider this:

    1) They *are* a business
    2) They operate by having root servers that pass queries back to the 'standard' root servers.

    So.. if they come out with .biz.. suddenly there *is* conflict and all those ISP's who chose to use this service? Fucked.
  • Root servers systems - all of them - are somewhat like cable TV or satellite. Every cable TV system and satellite TV system carries HBO, Showtime, Discovery channel, CNN, etc. Whichever one you choose - and in most places you can choose among several - you're going to get the basic channels you expect.

    Likewise, the different root server systems all carry .com .net .org and the rest. Some of them carry each other's TLDs, some don't. Some are trying to become commercial operations, others are trying to promote more "public access" channels.

    At some ISPs, you can't get the alt.sex.* newsgroups; at others, you can't get de.*. At still others, you might wish they'd get rid of all the foreign-language groups that are cluttering up the list. But this hasn't done any harm to Usenet, and users are free to go to other providers of Usenet to get their missing newsgroups. Usenet is a better service, I contend, because it has fractured. There's a huge diversity of groups to choose from, and if what you're looking for isn't carried at your ISP, you can find other sources.

    Likewise, I see little harm, and much benefit, from allowing - even promoting - the root to fracture. Why shouldn't ISPs in Texas band together and offer .texas to their customers? What does it matter if some other group is offering a different .texas without the regional focus? It isn't the .texas that the Texans are interested in! The EU doesn't need to wait for ICANN to approve .eu, they can go ahead and create it now - all they need is a consensus among European network providers and operators and it's a done deal. What does it matter if AOL and Earthlink aren't offering their users access to .eu delegations? If the demand is there, they will; if it isn't, who cares? Some Europeans may wish to keep the Yanks out of their TLD.

    Every argument I have heard for avoiding a fractured root, whether the proponent will admit it or not, eventually leads back to the desire for control, power, money. A fractured root works counter to this desire, and that's not a bad thing.

  • Agreed! That's enough mucking about talking about things on some stupid weblog, the time has come for IMMEDIATE action!

    I propose a motion to table a discussion, after the proper formalities have been passed, at the earliest possible window, circumstances permiting.
  • I take it you're referring to ICANN?
  • Well, yes and no. The "Big Cheese" has managed to get (so he claims) 300,000 guillible people to pony up US$30 each for worthless pieces of paper describing a location on the moon, so he's probably wealthy beyond his wildest dreams. I doubt the alternate .biz people, who have to run actual DNS servers and are charging a lot less, are doing as well as the crazy moon guy. As embarrassing as this is, I have to admit that I'm really tempted by the fact that after 26 December he's going to only sell single acres instead of 2000 acre sites for the same price. It's just sooo hard to remember that 2,000 times nothing in exchange for something is still a bad deal. And no, I'm not going to link to the shop, because frankly his claims about having ownership really are fraudulent. Even if he's not kidding, the odds of that claim holding up are about the same as the odds of winning the lottery. Come to think of it, the lottery and the moon plots are about the same in terms of relieving people who don't know that TANSTAAFL of their money...

    Walt
  • In addition, the registrars would be required by ICANN to have registrants submit a link to the proposed site (or submit a copy of the entire site on a CD, DVD, or other storage media).

    There are ports other than 80...

    --

  • amen brutha.
    mod this guy up!

    eudas

  • Recount! (Score:3)

    by MathJMendl ( 144298 ) on Monday November 27, 2000 @09:06PM (#597358) Homepage
    Who created this conflicting dot-biz business? I don't this it is an accurate reflection of the popular opinion! The infrastructure was too confusing to create new domain name extensions with. I demand a recount!
  • Just to give an example..

    Try going to chatyahoo.com [chatyahoo.com] or mailyahoo.com [mailyahoo.com].

    I wonder what other addresses has yahoo taken for itself !!

  • They should prevent Network Solutions, Register.com, and any other existing registrars from participating in this stupid ICAN'T thingy. Those guys have ulterior motives for promoting/not promoting certain tld's. Think about it, do you think they want another registrar to be annointed with the ".web" tld, and thus steal potentially lots of money away from the current .com? Of course not... The last thing Network Solutions wants is competition!!!!
  • I was unaware of these other root servers. How would I go about making sure my users could resolve these addresses on my dns server? Just add something to the named.root file? And how would this affect things once the ICANN approved dot biz names go into affect? I guess it all just depends on if they honor the old dot biz names and make sure the new ones don't conflict. I am sorta bummed now though. I really wanted to register a three letter version of our company name with .biz......
    anyway is it worth it to add these alt root servers to dns?
  • The problem here is that the internet is available globally. The domains, therefore, must be shared by everyone using the internet, througout the world.

    I can't think of any other resources quite like this. The only thing close is space, and because of the dificulties of just getting there, so little has been used that there have not been any conflicts, (no big ones anyway).

    Every other resource I can think of, from radio waves to minerals, are owned by the country they reside in. In this case, no single gov't can control the resource, since it resides everywhere.

    The problem with ICAAN is that it has no real authority. They can decree whatever TLDs they want, and set up their nameservers. So can anyone else. ICAAN is well known, but really has no more authority than anyone else...

    I hesitate to say that we should have an internationally sanctioned body governing this, but without one, this type of stuff is bound to happen. All part of the internet's growing pains, I suppose.

  • Re:.pro (Score:3)

    by tylerh ( 137246 ) on Tuesday November 28, 2000 @09:16AM (#597363)

    From the Tidbits Newsletter [tidbits.com]:

    .pro, to be operated by
    RegistryPro [registrypro.com], an Irish company owned by Register.com and Virtual Internet. It is intended to be used by doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other providers of "professional" services.

  • Re:Fox Special: When Lawyers Attack (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Exactly! Getting a new TLD is like getting a license to print money. Now, all of the .com owners will have to go out and register .biz addresses, and "domain-sucks.biz" addresses, just to keep them out of their competitors & critics' hands.

    What a scam!
  • Say I wanted to host a porn site that featured nothing but really, freakishly tall women from all over the world, and I was going to call it something really witty like Amazon Nudes. By your reasoning, instead of going for www.amazonnudes.com, I should go for amazon.nudes.com, or nudes.amazon.com. Assuming nudes.com exists, I might be able to work out an agreement with them. But I'm at their mercy, and have to pay what THEY ask for. My own .com name might be cheaper, and easier to remember. As for nudes.amazon.com... well, let's just say I don't like lawyers, and wouldn't invite them in by even TRYING to do that. This is a terrible example. Your business name would be "Amazon Nudes", so your Domain Name would be amazonnudes.com. You have nothing to do with a business like "Nudes, Inc.", and wouldn't want to be associated with their Domain. Movies and products released by Sony, however, would be better served as 3rd-level domains. playstation.sony.com is a good idea. amazon.nudes.com is not. Understand the system proposed before you criticize it. --D
  • Who made ICAAN god?

    The US Government.
  • This is exactly what I thought would happen when I first found webtld.com, the location of the .web tld. I had the opportunity to get an actual common word.web but decided against it because of this. Nobody really knows what's going on!

  • By-the-way, I been using the ORSC root system for my own systems for a couple of years.

    I've also got cavebear.web in the IOD registry.

    As an experiment I recently created .ewe in the ORSC root (and others) so that if I ever get a few cycles I may build an anonymous registration system - a person would submit a ((name),(list-of-dns-servers)) tuple and if (name) isn't yet taken the system would add the name and serverlist to the zone file and return a management key that can be used to perform updates. All information about the source of the registration will be tossed - if one wants to find out who is running it somebody will have to contact the owners of the machines at the IP addresses in the server list. As for garbage collection - If no queries for (name) are detected for some period of time - say 90 days - then the name and its list of servers (and the key) will be silently dropped.

  • uh...so? (Score:4)

    by kaisyain ( 15013 ) on Monday November 27, 2000 @07:56PM (#597369)
    You aren't paying for some global .biz...you are paying for a .biz served up by root-servers.net or whatever. That other guy charges you money to get served by a .biz that his servers push out. I could create my own .com hierarchy internally on my network but no one is going to be ludicrous enough to write a news story suggesting there is some kind of monumental conflict.

    ICAAN should feel free to ignore whatever anyone else does. After all, this guy ignored what NSI/ICAAN were doing.

    Causing a collision anywhere on the Internet is ethically wrong.

    a. He presumes his ethics are the same as everyone else's.

    b. The collision only occurs when you use non-standard root nameservers. Which is pretty much what you expect to have happen when you try to have two roots in a hierarchy.

  • I rather disagree.

    Competing root systems will no more damage the net than competing telephone number lookup mechanisms damage the telephone system.

    When there are inconsistencies, users will chose with their feet whether to continue to use a name service that doesn't give 'em answers that meet with their expectations.

    To my mind it is better to empower the users with a choice, even at the cost of some hypothetical inconsistencies, than to create a worldwide bureaucracy that forces all users to march to the drumbeat of the marketeer with the biggest budget.

    Take a look at http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm #multiple_roots [cavebear.com]

    Sure there are some potential problems - NS and CNAME records written in one TLD context and resolved in another, web caches that stupidly re-resolve DNS names in URLs rather than using the IP address of the TCP/HTTP connection they intercepted, etc. But I'd happily trade-in a worldwide bureaucracy in return for a couple of repairable technical glitches.

  • People, use your smeggin' brains. .com, .this, .that is archaic! You should be able to register an arbitrary string and the DNS system should be able to resolve it to an IP.
  • You'd think for $50,000 a TLD, someone would have done a little research...

    Kierthos

  • The IETF is working on this and has been for a while. It's a lot more difficult than one might think.

    From the technical point of view it's a choice between somehow encoding non-ASCII character sets into the limited character set of DNS "hostnames". (DNS itself is supposed to be 8-bit clean but there is an ancient limitation called "hostnames" that imposes an alphanumeric plus hyphen character set.) The problem with this approach is that in some languages the size of the names becomes limited because the 63 octets per label get consumed pretty quickly when it takes two or three of 'em to encode a character. The speakers of those languages, understandably, feel that they are getting the leftover after the western nations get the good stuff.

    The other approach is to actually modify the DNS protocols. There are some bit patterns in the length octet of the DNS label to indicate that a whole new label length/encoding mechanism is in place. The concern about this approach is what happens when these packets flow through existing resolvers and through so called "transparent" devices (firewalls, NATs, web caches, etc) that tend to futz with DNS packets.

    NSI is seeing big $$ in all of this and has established an early registration system, oops I mean "testbed" so you can register your internationalized name even though there is no protocol support yet. This "testbed" is up and running now.

  • Interesting Link (Score:3)

    by evilj ( 94895 ) on Monday November 27, 2000 @07:57PM (#597374)
    The Register has an interesting take on the ICANN situation. They cover the possible breaking away of the country TLDs as well as some of the rejected gTLDs from ICANN to alternative root servers. You can find the article here [theregister.co.uk]
    Mass Debate [mass-debate.net]
  • Now that there is democracy in Yugoslavia and election mess in USA maybe we should call it Americanization?
  • I say it's time we went off and started our own damn internet!


    ergh, wait, I guess that's what some people apparently tried to do....
  • Alternative root systems are a nice alternative. I think it would be practical if any suffix was available as a domain. It might be more confusing, sure, but it would make people happy and names would never be used up since they would be multifaceted (eg. ross.com ross.ross ross.cool ross.yeti ross.irc ross.sil ross.silly). The list goes on to infinite(not that infinite is a place or anything :)

  • Let's DO something! (Score:4)

    by the_tsi ( 19767 ) on Monday November 27, 2000 @09:20PM (#597378)
    Instead of talking about this, let's get our act together and move.

    The collective of geeks and what-have-you that are here on slashdot probably have, at their control (or at their influence), a large enough portion of the DNS system to make this kind of thing either a significant issue or a moot point.

    Personally, I say those of us who can push for adding the alternative rootservers to our root caches. You don't lose any functionality from the current TLDs, and you gain lookups in the "alternative" ones. Enough people following "alternative" makes it mainstream.

    I was pissed when InterNIC started charging for domains -- as were the folks who (unlike me and most of us) got off their asses and started the other registries. Now is when their work is going to pay off or go the way of Beta videotapes. :)

    Just from Internet "precedent," ICANN shouldn't be able to push around the existing .biz registrants/registrars. So what if they're "the" governing body? The thing that goes on the internet is what works and what is used. Look at DNS itself! One of the biggest hack-jobs in the history of the net. Now it's one of the most necessary protocols/services.

    ICANN obviously has pissed us off -- look at how many headlines there have been in the past week on /..

    Tomorrow morning I'm going to ask my supervisor (the owner of a regional ISP) if we can adopt the other root servers. Get out there and ask your boss or ISP or company's net admin or your father or whoever to make the change for you, too.

    -Chris
    ...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
  • It seems to me that the most appropriate section to place this article in would be web scams. Here are con artists on the web tricking people out of money and essentially providing nothing in return. This is not an attempt to "free" the web, it is a scam, pure and simple.
  • How can you really use names for such a thing? Because there is a lot of people out there, using this we will stick with this, just because it is so. Internet was not meant to be used like this. To find relevant information, you can use the search engines, the hierarchical databases of
    websites, hopping down 10 links you should be able to find what you need, and book mark it!
    In fact I propose that the generic domain names should be banned. Because internet is linking entrie world together, for greedy corporation it is a plus to have a generic site, like .com - saying we're everywhere and we 0wn y0u. Rather I propose to subdivide domains into geographical regions such as states counties, and other. If a
    company has an office in county, and just mails stuff out to the rest of the world, so make it have name amazon.ta.ws.us. Such the scrapping for stupid domain names should stop. Only govermental organization get to make second level domain names, such as .mil.us .mil.ru .gov.ca Obviously that would make all worldly corporations unhappy, and generate tons of lawsuits about damages, image distortion, and other lame stuff corporations are concerning themselves with. I think flat domain names are lame.
    Check out my friends link http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala/dnsreform.html
  • See! Even Mr. Coward understands the need to open up the TLD space. Imagine the hours of fun you could have if you were able to register a.dumbass!

  • Re:.biz? (Score:1)

    by pod ( 1103 )
    In most countries the local pronounciation of 'business' (either as a direct translation or a borrowed word) includes a very sharp 'z' sound, which is quite softened for English speakers. If the TLD was '.bus' instead I think you'd see much more confusion, not the other way around.
  • Ownership of a domain name is a very controversial issue.

    Does ICANN own ICANN.org, or can I steal it now??
  • Okay...there is superroot.net, youcannn.org, and one other who all seem to use the same addresses for their name servers, leading me to think they are all the same. Then you have opennic which have different servers.

    how do you activate all of the alternate ones? Do you have to manually mesh together bind files or is it just a matter of correct configs?
  • I just love the word "free." It implies that there will be no charge for servers, maintenance, personnel like system administrators, customer service, ... Oh, and who pays for the connectivity for those redundant servers, bandwidth, database management,programming to accommodate registration systems (which are constantly changing and being upgraded), adminstration and record keeping...

    Until recently, US taxpayers footed the bill via USG funding of all of that. NSI was paid for it until they started charging for names.

    You know, it's not the names you are paying for. It's the registration services.

    It's never been "free." Every US citizen has paid for it all along. We are still paying for much of it.

    BTW, .biz registrations (the one in the ORSC root) are $6.00. That's pretty much a breakeven for the cost of doing business for that particular TLD operating with minimal personnel.
  • hmmmm.... There is nothing clandestine about root systems. Unless it is private corporate root (there are countless numbers of those), roots are quite public. For instance you can find the rootzone file for ORSC at http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone/db.root. It lists all the TLDs in the root, the operator, the servers for the TLD and a contact email address.

    No secrets. :)
  • Point one:
    The root has really always been fractured in the manner you describe, but it is "private" roots which would most likely carry duplicate TLDs, not those which are designed to be public.

    If those whose purpose is to provide a public root, there really needs to be an agreement that there won't be colliding TLDs. That way, the user knows that the "basic" channels are consistent. That means that if they carry the USG root as a subset of thier own, that there won't be colliding TLDs initiated by that "basic" channel, i.e. ICANN. By the same token, the roots would not introduce their own versions of .com/net/org. The result is a distributed root system with tremendous redundancy and worldwide agreement that people can count on resolving to the same addresses - no wondering which .web or .biz website you will get when you point to a name.

    It's a simple concept which ICANN/DoC and the TM lobby do NOT want to see. It would erode their power base because the other roots are not forced to adhere to ICANN policies and rules, such as UDRP, sunrise provisions, etc.

    Private, local roots can carry whatever TLDs they like, and always have. There is no commitment to the public, so they are free to structure the system in any way they choose. Nothing wrong with that. Corporations do it every day.
  • If ICANN actually enters .biz into the USG legacy root, there is conflict, yes. .biz has been around in the ORSC root for quite a while. If there is supposed to be a FCFS understanding, then ICANN should not have considered .biz any more than they should consider assigning .web to anyone other than IOD.

    Just because a TLD chooses not to ask for inclusion in the legacy root, it does not mean they do not have the right to exist or that the registrants don't have the right to their domain names and have them resolve properly.

    Why ICANN wants to fracture the net in this fashion is really clear. Kill any competition to the power they want to reinforce. Competition may render them less effectual.
  • One of the main reasons root systems are popping up everywhere is that after years of trying to get DoC to do what was intended - open up the DNS with more TLDs (lots of them) and making it fair and transparent, the oppposite is the norm. UDRP kills individual efforts and udermines any security in having a domain name, and the DNS is more and more controlled by a commercial monopoly. Registries will be forced to comply with "policy" when the only criteria should be technical compliance.

    In a utopian world, ICANN/DoC would stick to the technical and leave the policy to the free market. Fat chance. So we have root systems that do exactly what was intended in the first place. Simple. And it's not going to stop with the few roots that are out there now.
  • The theory is good, but there is still the need to offer the public what they are used to and then add more. How can any root offer com/net/org without using the USG database? We point to servers outside the USG root,but those servers still carry the USG TLDs, right? The answer is, as you say, give up something in order to accomplish it, but still.... DOC must not include the colliders. IOW, add the existing roots as subsets to theirs, and/or agree to not duplicate TLDs which exist. Then we have a distributed root system with no collisions. Ahhh, if it were only that simple. ;(
  • It's youcann.org. :) and you can download SETDNS and just point, click and reboot if you are not inclined to type in a couple of addresses (which is all it takes).

    The process of changing the DNS servers is the same as setting up for an ISP, except that if you are already set up, it is one little change. No big deal. If you change ISPs and that ISP does not point to the servers you need, just use SETDNS again. If you want to change back, it's just as simple.
  • In simple terms, it means a 30 second change of DNS servers. OR use the little program (SETDNS) to do it for you. :) You don't have to understand DNS, really. You just need to point to the right place to see what you want to see.

    ICANN could change that need, but they won't unless the BoD changes severely. It's political more than it is technical, unfortunately, and that means it's controlled by very deep pockets.
  • So, you're anti.pro?
  • This is exactly right. We all just whine and complain about how unfair icann is and we SHOULD do this and that but how many of us have reconfigured our own computers (let alone ISPs) to support the alternate root servers?

    That is why ICANN knows it can act with impunity and dictate its terms to people.

  • Lots, according to Netcraft [195.92.95.5].

    Granted, not all of these are owned by Yahoo, but there are plenty more like the two the previous poster mentioned.


    --
    Turn on, log in, burn out...
  • There is, of course, a catch. Only a minuscule portion of computers connected to the Internet are configured to recognize dot-biz names, and unless you're using one, you'll get one of those irksome can't-find-that-site errors.

    Doesn't a client just talk to a DNS server that translates an address to an ip? So wouldn't the problem actually be with the DNS servers not being correctly configured?

    Here is some info from biztld.net [biztld.net]:
    If your ISP has not yet upgraded their domain servers from the ICANN Legacy Namespace to the ORSC INCLUSIVE NAMESPACE Supported by The PacificRoot, you may not be able to resolve many of the new Internet domain names currently being activated. If that is the case, you will need to Upgrade your DNS here.

    I wish people who wrote articles had a clue.
  • If users ask their ISP for access to .here domains or .online, .mart, .etc, .news... and they can't get them that way without useing SETDNS or an equivalent, they will look for an ISP who does offer it.

    ISPs are, in fact, beginning to offer the augmented roots. Since the augmented roots also carry the USG root TLDs, neither ISPs nor users lose anything at all. As ISPs, you are just carriers. You choose which usenet feeds you wish to carry, so why not rootzones?

    That, people, is a free market as opposed to an imperialist dictatorship. Lawsuits are not going to be any more or less frequent because you can see more TLDs. You carry the "programming" you choose to carry. You offer a value added service at no extra charge.

    If you choose ORSC, great. If you choose PacificRoot, great. Superroot, great. They all carry each others' rootzones plus the USG rootzone. Do you have anything to lose? No. Do your users gain? Yes.
  • As much as I hate to defend any applicant who wishes to steal our tld, I must correct you. I believe it was Affinity who had the proposal to charge $2000 plus a $150 renewal. JVTeam (Neulevel) is not doing that.
  • just try it!! it works just as well. except more domains! who cares if it's fractured? is not the greatest of os's "fractured" unix linux slackware redhat etc. don't let ICANN "control and consolidate" the power!! this practice is known as communisum!! i say fight now, while we still can! well... if u can consider changing DNS servers "fighting" ;) kill.process ^_0
  • You're right... but why stop there? Let's consolidate even more! How about "food.microsoft.com", "shelter.microsoft.com", "doublethink.microsoft.com"... one-stop shopping!!
  • Someone tried to preempt them and lured a some-thousand userbase to give themselves some credence. What do ICANN do here? Reject potentially better-prepared proposals for favour of this one? I don't think that's fair.

    If that were true, I'd probably be first in line to agree with you. However, it is just not the case. .biz has been in the ORSC rootzone for years. We began operating it earlier this year because it had lay fallow for two years. In any case, it was functional well before any announcements by ICANN or their applicants and we were really shocked to see that ICANN would accept applications for any existing TLD. .biz has a history. There were several "suggestions" for it on Jon Postel's list.

    If ICANN had selected .EVENT, that TLD would also have represented a collision with an existing TLD. The same would be true for several others included in applications, including .home. It just so happens they chose .biz. We certainly did not expect or hope to be the poster child for existing TLDs. It just worked out that way.

    ORSC has been around since '96, well before ICANN. .biz is as old as ORSC.

    This was not a pre-emptive strike and ICANN never never entered into it. We also have .online, .etc, .npo (restricted) and .ngo (restricted).

    I would truly appreciate seeing the truth printed. I also have no objection whatever to seeing comments to the contrary, as this brings out the obvious need for communication and education.

    There are over one hundred TLDs in the ORSC rootzone. They should be respected and not duplicated. It is not our .biz which is the culprit here, and we have NEVER made any claim to application to ICANN or decieved anyone. Our TLD resolves to the ORSC rootzone, not the USG root.

    If you have negative comments, that's fine. I would simply ask that they be accurate, okay? :)

    BTW, it is our intention to be fair to everyone. We do not favor control by any faction and open registration on FCFS basis is the rule.

    I,personally don't think that "sunrise" provisions and UDRP are better proposals for internet users, especially individual domain name holders. If you have any questions about where my head is, go to Tldlobby.com [tldlobby.com] I believe in domain name holders rights, but adhere to the fact that domain names are not property. DN holders should, however, feel a measure of security in their registrations and not have to fear a theft by SWIPO. We do not adhere to a UDRP. Our DDRP pretty much states that it is not our place to judge whether there is any infringement on anyone's rights. We will cancel a registration by court order only. Law is law. UDRP is NOT law.
    -Leah-

  • Conceded. I went too far with that comment; thank you for the measured response. There's a lot of FUD about, I really shouldn't be adding to it.

    Best,
    Dave



    --
  • The TLD spectrum is practically infinite, bounded only by length at n^26 possible domains. While some are more desirable than others (as it's generally easier to broadcast over certain ranges compared to others in regards to power consumption and signal quality), all are effectively possible

    If TLD spectrum is infinite than the .com spectrum is also infinite.

    If we already have infinite space then why do we need more TLD's?

    If we are woried about existing TLD's filling up, then shouldn't that tell us that we should be worried about the top level also filling up?

  • One could have the alternate root servers report the new .biz names as ".biz2" or something like that, the older ones remaining as ".biz". Users might have to check both new TLD's to get to the host they wanted, but at least there wouldn't be any conflicts.
  • Rather than have alternate roots, the ICANN needs a simple policy change: Any reasonable name collision results in a subdomain split: Example:
    Ford requests cars.com
    ICANN grants the request because there is no cars.com registered.
    Chevy requests cars.com
    ICANN creates a web page at a web site they host named cars.com, which has links to both ford.cars.com & chevy.cars.com, revokes the cars.com url from ford, & grants ford.cars.com to Ford, and chevy.cars.com to Chevy.

    Here it might be reasonable to order the links on the redirection page in order of their popularity.

  • This gives me an idea.
    Ill set a proxy server to do dns looks of names for a set of root dns servers, and then respond with links from each.

    Pick your site.
    youcan.here

    Open Root
    http://youcann.here @ Address: 199.166.24.43

    ICANN Root
    Not found...

    Then I can link to everyones root servers. God help me if there is more than 5 root servers with the same name...
    -Brook

  • Re:Alternative root systems (Score:3)

    by eric17 ( 53263 ) on Monday November 27, 2000 @10:32PM (#597407)
    Well, I certainly can't remember the last time I actually _typed_ a URL, and if I type it wrong, well, whose fault is that? Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions?

    The whole idea of people a priori "owning" a name--an address, a location--in this non-physical idea world that WE created seems to me to be completely ludicrous. The reason behind trademark law--reducing fraud--seems to be conveniently forgotten these days. The fact is that the URL is only a convenient mnemonic device. It is a label for a web-site, a street address for electrons. It is not a sign or advertisement. A better name is simply a better street for business.

    As for "cybersquatting", the only problem with it is that individuals who honestly paid for a piece of property have had it yanked away from them under the misguided presumption of "ownership" over a string of characters (or even similiar strings!)--no matter what the use is being made of that name. If I was on the ball and snagged www.coke.com before coke did, why shouldn't I be able to sell it to them for an exorbinent price? (Personally I think that any company that shells out big bucks for a web address ought to get some new leadership) On the other hand if I was selling soft drinks on that site using a coca cola like logo, Coke definitely has a case against me, as I am clearly defrauding their customers.

    I for one hope that the ICANN monopoly is demolished and an exploratory chaos ensues. A world where property, no matter how virtual, can't be taken away because of some poorly thought out laws, can only be better.
  • It seems to me that as WIPO has been ordering people to hand over domain names to pre-existing owners of "registered" names that these alternative registrars have a very good case for getting ICANN to hand over .biz, I mean if Madonna can get "her" domain handed over then they should be able to retain .biz.
  • A worthy idea, but the implementation is wrong.

    Network apps do not query DNS servers directly (typically, though there are exceptions). Most simply make calls to the OS's resolver, which then forwards requests to the primary DNS server, which then queries a root DNS server.

    So, adding code into Mozilla to use alternate root servers would simply be a waste of time and space.

    Hacking BIND would be the way to go. You could have bind check to see which kind of TLD is being requested (official or alternate) and then have it query whichever root server. However, the same problems that are associated with having an alternate DNS system are still present (collisions, etc...).
  • ..for there to be "alternative" namespaces on the internet.

    But now that I've spend a good two minutes looking around youcann.net, I don't want to bother mucking with config files just to see "the rest of the web".. and I can imagine a future where we'll see links like "Click _here_, and BTW, you have to connect to Misc. Nameserver XYZ to get there.." ugh.

    Perhaps if as well as nameservers, we could have nameserver servers.. ugh.
  • I wonder if this guy sold brooklynbridge.biz, or perhaps swampland.biz...

    People would have had to be fools to register with an alterate root server that had little chance of ever becoming official.

    This guy (the guy who ran the alternate .biz) reminds me of the guy who sells land on the Moon, Mars, etc... to suckers (he's got a web site somewhere).
  • IMHO, one of the major problems that eat up so many domain names is people and businesses thinking they need a foo.com for everything, when bar.foo.com and xyzzy.foo.com would work just as well as bar.com and xyzzy.com.

    It all comes down to lack of proper management by the registrars. At first companies started registering product names, then .com effectivly became .misc1 with things such as celebrity names, TV programms, personal websites, etc.
    Added to which a fair chunk of .com should be .com/co. (many times .com.us or .com..us) since plenty of the companies concerned only actually do business to specific geographic areas in the first place.

    Movie labels are awful about this. Do we really need somemovie.com/.net/.org? Why can't we have somemovie.sony.com? or someothermovie.newline.com, and so on?

    It's an extension of registering brand names. An alternative would be somemovie.films.ent.
    Really someone should have said a long time ago something to the effect of "if you want a .com then the SLD must be based on either the registered name or a recognised trading name of your company."

    If only dot-commers would pull their heads out their asses just long enough to see what the hell is going on, we might not have any need for new TLDs (well, yet, anyway).

    New TLDs could be useful, but they need to be the right TLDs and properly registered. None of this trying to register .* behaviour which NSI activly promotes. Instead TLDs with a specific purpose and clearly understood criteria as well as appropriate used of second and third level domains.
  • As for dot BIZ - ICANN care nothing for conflict - when they create it.

    Yet when others do, they use UDRP.

    Confirms what I say about them on www.WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk]

  • There's that project they call "Internet 2" - though I fear the day when lusers will invade it just like they did it with this one. It's inevitable!

    --
  • I thought some more about dns conflicts since I posted my above comments, and it strikes me that almost all of the nasty and undesireable bickering and squabbling that happens whith regards to domain names is all because they are a limited resource. They are limited because the space allowed for them is tightly controlled, this makes them rare, which makes them valuable.

    Why should two companies squabble over amazon.biz if they could equally well register amazon.business, amazon.store, amazon.shop, amazon.books, whatever. Given an unlimited number of potential TLDs, then such activities as domain squatting would be meaningless. And it would be stupid to try to sue everybody who had a domain *.amazon.* in a world of unlimited TLD space.

    All the more reason to have an open DNS architecture, and get rid of these hopelessly ridicuulous moderation bodies like ICANN and WIPO. Changing the way the internet is used doesn't require legal battles or desperate struggles with any of these organizations - all it requires is altering your dns records. That's it. If enough people did this, then the internet would be structured differently by the defacto use of its participants.

    So coming down to the nuts and bolts of how does one manage resolution of domains in an unlimitedly large name space? I would see it as the same as we manage usenet - or something analogous to that. Anyone who wants to maintain an as-of-yet unmaintained TLD puts up a server. Or in the case of popular ones like .com, .biz whatever, we implement an OpenSRS system for negotiating the creation of new domains between multiple registrars etc.

    In the extreme case that there are two different databases for the same TLD with conflicting entries for the same domain name - we let the user decide which one they want to use, and allow them to make custom macros to the others.

    For example if you have a collision between foo.bar in one .bar database with foo.bar in another, you prompt the user to choose which one becomes his/her default ( naturally this could be edited at any point later ), and the other entries now appear in this users dns cache as things like:
    foo.bar^2
    foo.bar^3
    foo.bar^junksite
    foo.bar^coolstuffhere
    ( the caret ^ is an invalid dns name character anyway )

    What do people think about this?
  • In fact I propose that the generic domain names should be banned. Because internet is linking entrie world together, for greedy corporation it is a plus to have a generic site, like .com

    .com and for that matter .org & .net would not be such a problem if they were well regulated. The problem is how to ensure that they are regulated. Self evidently the current registrars arn't up to the job.
  • TLD's are like real estate. When new TLD's are created, a huge new grant of this real estate is made to the registrars to sell off (and tax at regular intervals) and the potential for millions of new dollars in initial and residual income is created.

    Rather this is the way they are being seen by ICANN. It certainly isn't the only way to see them.

  • Don't do it! (Score:5)

    by davew ( 820 ) on Tuesday November 28, 2000 @01:16AM (#597418) Journal

    You're right, there's a fair amount of power wrapped up in the various slashdot readers. And this slashdot reader sure as hell won't be joining you in your protest.

    I know it's trendy to slag off ICANN. I know everyone has their problems with it. I know everyone feels like the only thing they can do against this new authority is to shout about it, or to "rebel". And in that context, splitting the root seems like a fantastic idea.

    Don't do it, guys.

    Internet "precendent" says that we've tried to work out problems through consensus building. Seriously! We get together in groups like RIPE and NANOG, present our ideas, and try to build consensus. We can fork, yeah, but we fork as little as possible, because when we fork, we split the user base and we are all weaker because of it.

    But that's not the worst of it in this case.

    Ever since domain space became valuable, there are so many special interests circling it that it's not funny anymore. It's pretty ugly, actually. Consensus building has been pretty impossible because people with dollar signs flashing in their eyes shout louder, and the people who are just plain kooks shout the loudest. That's hurt a lot of the development of DNS in the last few years. The one weapon we've always had against this is caution, and a recognised authority.

    All those special interests are sitting, eagerly awaiting the day when a significant majority of admins reject ICANN and switch to another root. When that happens, they'll turn on each other, and that's when it gets ugly.

    You think you have user problems because people think that "The Internet" is the thing behind the button on their Windows desktop? That's nothing compared to what we (all of us) will have to deal with if we split the root.

    I'm speculating now, but here's my guess. See what you think:

    1. ISPs will start advertising which of the conflicting roots they prefer: "We serve ICANN names!" "We follow AlterNIC!" etc. etc.
    2. Users won't understand a word of this
    3. Users will complain "Why can't I reach mysite.biz!"
    4. Lawsuit free-for-all over misleading advertisements and broken SLAs
    5. Lawsuit free-for-all over conflicting trademarks
    6. AOL, Microsoft and some others will remove DNS access from the user (URL bars, email addresses, etc) and replace it with a directory system that they manage (keyword searches, address books). One of these will gain a monopoly. No one but slashdot readers will care.

    Don't be fooled into thinking that everyone pushing for alternate DNS has the good of the internet at heart. Some of them mean well, I'm sure. Some of them are sound guys. I'm equally sure that some of them are out to grab a piece of the gold mine that is DNS, and are willing to damage it in the process. Believe it or not, ICANN is the one thing standing between us and a corporate takeover of the internet.

    Yeah, I just wrote that with a straight face. I mean it.

    To drag this back on topic? We're seeing the beginning of this now. Everyone's been bitching at ICANN to hurry up and introduce some new TLDs already (watch for buzzwords such as "artificial scarcity" in other slashdot posts near you!) What happened? Someone tried to preempt them and lured a some-thousand userbase to give themselves some credence. What do ICANN do here? Reject potentially better-prepared proposals for favour of this one? I don't think that's fair.

    Guys, you really should know better than to measure something's worth through the count of its [slashdot|newspaper] headlines. Jon Katz had this one nailed down years ago. A lot of the criticism against ICANN is genuine; a lot of it's crud; and a lot of it ignores the best interests of the internet.

    Think for yourselves. Don't be afraid not to fork.

    Dave

    Posted with mozilla 20000112721

    --
  • There are over one hundred TLDs in the ORSC rootzone. They should be respected and not duplicated. It is not our .biz which is the culprit here, and we have NEVER made any claim to application to ICANN or decieved anyone. Our TLD resolves to the ORSC rootzone, not the USG root.

    This may be coming a little late, since this topic has gotten old, but...

    While I am all for alternative roots existing as is evident in my many posts on the topic, I do not think that ICANN (or anyone operating root servers to any DNS) has to respect alternates' TLDs. Yes, that would be great for the alternate - it would save a lot of customer frustration, but just because you made it, doesn't mean you can claim ownership to it. Until you have become the standard DNS - grabbing most of the world population on your root servers, your TLDs don't mean anything to anyone in the world other than your customers. Any attempt at a cease and desist would never hold up in court.

    That said, I think ICANN did make a mistake in choosing .biz . If not for the fact that it is too informal, but for the fact that it is in large use already.

    Chris

    Open DNS Technologies, Inc. [opendnstech.com]

  • Movies and products released by Sony, however, would be better served as 3rd-level domains.

    Yeah, not a bad idea from a neat-freak no-namesolution-pollution perspective, but it's not a grea idea from a practical standpoint. Is someone going to remember movie1.newline.com? No, they will remember movie1.com. People don't ask each other, "Hey, did you see that great new movie from New Line Cinema?" Unless it's a Disney or Lucasfilm movie, most people won't know what studio a movie came from, and probably won't remember if you told them.

  • Look at the EM spectrum; as to prevent pollution of one signal into another, the band has been divided into several segments and 'rented' out appropriately.

    As opposed to having every form of RF transmission known to man on the same band. Which would be a closer analogy with the current domain system. Effectivly .com should become .misc1, .org .misc2, .net .misc3 and .edu .misc4...

    Pollution from one 'domain' into another is very easy to happen here, as the .biz case is demonstrating.

    No the .biz situation is more like IATA wanting to use a radio band already in use by a consortium of civil airlines.
    The cause of the kind of "pollution" is gross mis-managment by existing registrars (NSI especially) and by implication ICANN.

    The only thing that should be restricted here is that any new TLDs should have some charter that all sites within it should abide by (ie, regulated domains), and if too many abuses of this are reported to ICANN, the register will lose that TLD to a default register (NSI most likely) or another register if appropriate.

    The existing .biz already has this kind of charter. NSI is about the worst possible choice for a default, since they are responsible for the mess in the first place. If anything they should loose all their domains immediatly.
  • The Register has an interesting take on the ICANN situation. They cover the possible breaking away of the country TLDs as well as some of the rejected gTLDs from ICANN to alternative root servers.

    There are two sets of country TLDs with the same "sickness" as .com, etc.
    The first set, e.g. .nu, .to, .tv, etc which were never actually used as country specific domains are less of a problem than the second set, .ca, .ie which at one time were used as country specific.
    Maybe the Canadians ane Irish are happy about being .misc5 and .misc6

  • Re:Mozilla To The Rescue? (Score:3)

    by mutende ( 13564 ) <klaus@seistrup.dk> on Tuesday November 28, 2000 @12:19AM (#597426) Homepage Journal
    You could set up a caching nameserver on your local box, e.g., dnscache [cr.yp.to] (AKA djbdns) -- but even BIND will do.

    Then get yourself an alternative root zone [superroot.net] from the SuperRoot Consortium [superroot.net] and let your local nameserver use that one instead. For dnscache [cr.yp.to] users this is as simple as replacing the contents of the .../root/servers/@ file with:

    199.166.24.1
    195.117.6.10
    199.166.24.3
    199.166.31.250
    199.166.31.3
    199.5.157.128
    204.57.55.100
    204.80.125.130
    205.189.73.10
    205.189.73.102
    207.126.103.16
    216.13.76.2
    216.196.48.66
    BIND users will please follow the instructions found here [superroot.net].

    Now, the new root servers provide the same service as the old ones -- i.e., they will resolve names in the .com, .org, .net, etc. TLDs, plus they will provide access to a whole bunch of alternative TLDs like, e.g., .ocean (try www.atlantic.ocean [www.atlantic.ocean]), .wine and so on. This system is plugin-compatible with the old ICANN't system (well, there's now a conflict with the .biz TLD, but who cares?).

    Go try it -- you'll like it! :-)

    // Klaus
    --

  • Sorry, that's the risk you take when you go off on your own like that. For compatibility, and so average users don't have to hack their OS, AlterNIC and the like should apply for (and get) a TLD in the globally recognized (ICANNed) DNS system. Then foobar.biz.alternic will at least be accessible. Though it will make for ugly URLs (boo hoo).

    That said, I think they should also go away. The have good ideas, but I think they should try to influence ICANN instead of creating a rouge system.

    Here's a brief history of DNS, as made-up by me (i.e. I'm doing some guessing, but it seems reasonable):

    When the Internet was new, all people had were IP addresses. Having to remember many of these got to be a pain, so they assigned names to each computer and kept them all in the eqivalent of a hosts file on each computer. Maintaining and updating this file got to be a pain as the Internet got larger. Modern DNS was born to solve this. Root servers, each organization responsible for it's own namespace, etc.

    DNS is a names-to-numbers system for the Internet! People are treating it like a keyword system for the WWW. It's not. If you want one of those, by all means, make one. Or just use Yahoo or something. Don't try to use DNS, because everything ends up as www.keyword.com and www.bignewmovie.com, which is pointless - and has polluted the .com TLD.

    Back to my best guess of history: Our current TLD make sense to me, given the history of the Internet.

    • The Internet started out as a military project, funded by the U.S. governement: .mil, .gov
    • Universities got in on the action: .edu
    • Networks had to be built: .net
    • Commercial organizatoins and non-profit organizations used the Internet too: .com, .org
    • Oh, and other countries got hooked-up too: .us, .uk, .de, etc.

    What new groups have joined the Internet? I see a need for a TLD for individuals, maybe .per (personal) or .idv (individual). I don't quite know how to resolve the dispute when everyone wants johnsmith.per, though.

    If we want to stick with the current TLD, we should enforce, somehow, their correct use. The rules should be strict enough that most organizaions will fit into only one TLD. None of this grabbing foobar.* .

    New TLDs need only be as broad as the old. I mean, what is .museum compared to .com or .org?? The idea of .misc is interesting, but that just encourages the "keyword" behavior. Maybe it could be .keyword if we really can't do without it.

    Or else we could scrap the current TLDs. I like that idea too. Make it all usenet-style too.

  • Re:uh...so? (Score:3)

    by zaius ( 147422 ) <jeff@zai u s . d y ndns.org> on Monday November 27, 2000 @08:05PM (#597435)
    Causing a collision anywhere on the Internet is ethically wrong.

    a. He presumes his ethics are the same as everyone else's.

    He also presumes that this alternative nameserver is causing the collision-that they are the bad guys. Who made ICAAN god?

    I don't think this is really anyone's fault, I think its two groups with different views that now have to recognize the existance of one another and work it out so the internet can be a happy place once again...

    At least, that's my $0.02 USD

  • Yeah, it would be cool, but what happens if my alternative root system has an abc.123 registered, and your alternative root system also has an abc.123 registered, who wins? And how do I check before registering an abc.123 on my system to see if none of the other systems already use that? By aggregating all the data into one central database, you've just destroyed the concept of alternative root systems. It really doesen't work.
  • This isn't really the major ICANN/.biz related problem. The real issue is that they've decided to charge a whopping 1500 dollars for it plus a one hundred dollar registration fee and government issued proof of corporate status. Ummm, I don't think that's going to provide equal playing ground with .com so how the heck do they expect .biz to take a bite out of .com's market share? The general public doesn't care how much you paid for your domain, they just know that zip codes like 90210 are more popular than 34546, and area codes like 212 are more popular than 618, and yes, TLDs like .com are way more popular than .biz.

    1. humor for the clinically insane [mikegallay.com]
  • The real issue is that they've decided to charge a whopping 1500 dollars for it plus a one hundred dollar registration fee and government issued proof of corporate status.

    This is more a reaction to the pollution of .com maybe an over the top one. But one which will stop domains going to the "mom and pops" (who probably should be something under ...us in the first place) as well as all the things in .com which arn't even businesses.

    he general public doesn't care how much you paid for your domain, they just know that zip codes like 90210 are more popular than 34546, and area codes like 212 are more popular than 618, and yes, TLDs like .com are way more popular than .biz.

    Postal codes and telephone numbers are geographic, if you want a completly different one then you either move or get your post forwarded/get an out of area phone line. Anyway I'm sure if there was a soap opera called "XYZ 34546" then that number would become very popular.

  • Re:Alternative root systems (Score:3)

    by guran ( 98325 ) on Tuesday November 28, 2000 @12:36AM (#597441)
    Well altavista thought that the subdomain would be enough and learned the hard way that it wasn't.

    In principal, I couldn't agree more.
    playstation.sony.com is logical, it saves an url-typer the job of typing a redundant "www" (autocompletion will fix the url after a few letters) and it also gives the name "sony" some spotlight.
    In practice, www.playstation.com draws more visitors than playstation.sony.com. Browsers expect that a user typing "playstation" might be looking for www.playstation.com/net/org and will try these if there is no local server called "playstation"

    And as long as the "excesss" domain playstation.com gets more visitors than the alternative, don't expect sony to stop squatting.

  • ent -- entertainment sites (for movies and games)

    You missed the obvious one here, could have something like "music.madonna.music.ent".

    n addition, the registrars would be required by ICANN to have registrants submit a link to the proposed site (or submit a copy of the entire site on a CD, DVD, or other storage media). The registrar would then review the site content, and judge whether or not the requested TLD would be appropriate for the site.

    The assumption that a domain implies website is flawed. Also the idea is too complex and time consuming. Far better IMHO to have a working complaints procedure. e.g. someone could simply email to complaints@register.biz a message to the effect that www.foobar.biz does not appear to be a legitimate business/has ceased trading/etc.
  • Why do you care if amazon.com takes amazon.person?

    Depends if there is someone called "amazon", he or more likely she is likely to be none too happy about some bookseller using their name.

  • Re:.pro (Score:2)

    by mpe ( 36238 )
    I'm concerned about the .pro tld. Who gets this elite status?

    Probably not the "professionals" who qualify for it twice, given that it is also an abbreviation of their profession.
  • ...people and businesses thinking they need a foo.com for everything, when bar.foo.com and xyzzy.foo.com would work just as well as bar.com and xyzzy.com.

    First, what's easier to remember:

    • slashdot.org
    • slashdot.andover.net
    The first one, I'd say. Especially for Ma & Pa Oneclick McNewbie. But that's not the only reason...

    Say I wanted to host a porn site that featured nothing but really, freakishly tall women from all over the world, and I was going to call it something really witty like Amazon Nudes. By your reasoning, instead of going for www.amazonnudes.com, I should go for amazon.nudes.com, or nudes.amazon.com.

    Assuming nudes.com exists, I might be able to work out an agreement with them. But I'm at their mercy, and have to pay what THEY ask for. My own .com name might be cheaper, and easier to remember. As for nudes.amazon.com... well, let's just say I don't like lawyers, and wouldn't invite them in by even TRYING to do that.

    "There's a party," she said,
    "We'll sing and we'll dance,
    It's come as you are."

  • Fox Special: When Lawyers Attack (Score:3)

    by gunner800 ( 142959 ) on Monday November 27, 2000 @08:11PM (#597454) Homepage
    .biz will just be a source of revenue for registrars anyway. Anybody with a .com will sue anybody who registers the twin .biz domain. Do you really think you can get "amazon.biz" if you can just register fast enough? Maybe for a few days, while their lawyers work up a good hunger.

    Maybe the same will happen with the holders of "alternative" .biz domains. They'll just sue to prevent anybody from getting the "legit" version. After all, it's their name, and they have something invested in it.


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • I often hear the radio ads for .tv domains. Which cost more to register. The ads state that since your company is new and fresh to the internet it is better.

    Frankly I think it says you are late to the boat and are lucky to jump on.

    Now with .biz it is even worse. Not only are you late, but you are late and spending a lot more money to make up for it.

    Business-wise this is not something I respect.

  • ICANN: server only computer-illiterate folk? (Score:4)

    by Masem ( 1171 ) on Monday November 27, 2000 @08:21PM (#597458)
    Given the number of DNS articles in the last few weeks, anyone here on /. should know of the existance of a few alternative name servers and may already be using them. The tentative hold that ICANN has over the DNS is weak, in the fact that most computers by default will point to a DNS server run by computer-literate people, and default installs of DNS software point only to the ICANN root servers. Anyone with enough knowledge can easily use additional root servers or the like. But that basically leaves 95% of everyone else, who runs Win98 happily and could care less as long as they can get to amazon.com.

    So this implies that all ICANN is doing now is making sure computer-illiterate people can surf the net.

    Now, there is more to this. Look at the EM spectrum; as to prevent pollution of one signal into another, the band has been divided into several segments and 'rented' out appropriately. Sure, there are a few times where ham radio people can get into teh wrong band that's typically used for air traffic control, but for the most part this works. The internet domain space is the same way, when you consider that there is only a good number of limited 3-or-more letter words that can work as a TLD. Pollution from one 'domain' into another is very easy to happen here, as the .biz case is demonstrating. So does there need to be an organization that divides these domain air waves appropriately, which is what ICANN can do. But if you continue the analogy further, two things show up:

    - The TLD spectrum is practically infinite, bounded only by length at n^26 possible domains. While some are more desirable than others (as it's generally easier to broadcast over certain ranges compared to others in regards to power consumption and signal quality), all are effectively possible.

    - ICANN is maintaining an artifical sarcity on TLDs. Because the spectrum is infinite, and we've only scratched a tiny fraction of the spectrum, ICANN's role should be evaluating proposals for any new domains at *any* time, not just when they feel like it. As long as the domain register is faithful and trustworthy and there isn't conflict with a previous domain, then ICANN should grant the new TLD. The only thing that should be restricted here is that any new TLDs should have some charter that all sites within it should abide by (ie, regulated domains), and if too many abuses of this are reported to ICANN, the register will lose that TLD to a default register (NSI most likely) or another register if appropriate. This will prevent the need for trademark owners to spend thousands to 'complete the set' because there's more than enough domains to effectively protect the trademark in them all, and in some, trademark protection may not even be possible.

    But as ICANN stands right now, they are merely a grinning government appointed panel making sure that Joe Q Public can read his stock quotes every morning and his porn every night.

  • Re:Alternative root systems (Score:5)

    by Osty ( 16825 ) on Monday November 27, 2000 @08:25PM (#597460)
    And how is that much different than using subdomains? Rather than

    ross.com ross.ross ross.cool ross.yeti ross.irc ross.sil ross.silly

    you'd have ross.com, ross.ross.com, cool.ross.com, yeti.ross.com, irc.ross.com, sil.ross.com, silly.ross.com, and so on.

    IMHO, one of the major problems that eat up so many domain names is people and businesses thinking they need a foo.com for everything, when bar.foo.com and xyzzy.foo.com would work just as well as bar.com and xyzzy.com. Movie labels are awful about this. Do we really need somemovie.com/.net/.org? Why can't we have somemovie.sony.com? or someothermovie.newline.com, and so on?

    Other markets are just as bad, however. Why do we need a playstation.com, when playstation.sony.com would work just as well? And don't even get me started on crap like all the planet*.com sites. How about quake.planet.com rather than planetquake.com?

    As much as I dislike themes (not that themability is bad, just that most themes are poorly-designed, pixmap-heavy, vomit-inducing eyesores), themes.org got this right. You want blackbox themes? Try blackbox.themes.org. You want themes for IRC clients? How about irc.themes.org? And so on.

    If only dot-commers would pull their heads out their asses just long enough to see what the hell is going on, we might not have any need for new TLDs (well, yet, anyway).

    Just my $0.02.
  • .biz -- for businesses and corporations
    .sex, .xxx -- porn sites (censorware can just block these TLDs)
    .person -- personal webpages
    .tld -- propose new TLDs to ICANN as needed, plus link to registrars who offer existing TLDs.
    .ent -- entertainment sites (for movies and games)

    I know there are others that can be added to this list, so feel free to suggest more.

    In addition, the registrars would be required by ICANN to have registrants submit a link to the proposed site (or submit a copy of the entire site on a CD, DVD, or other storage media). The registrar would then review the site content, and judge whether or not the requested TLD would be appropriate for the site. If the registrant's application is rejected, the registrar would then suggest a more appropriate TLD for the site to use, and ask the registrant if he/she would like that TLD instead. For example, Amazon.com would be allowed to keep .com, but would be allowed to take .biz, but not .person. On the other hand, Jeff Bezos can take .person, put his page up, and link to Amazon from there.

  • With IE, there is no way to work around this. With Mozilla, you could patch it to use regular DNS lookups for ICANN TLDs, and hit alternative DNS servers for other TLDs.


    So, how about it? Why doesn't Open Source put it's coding where its mouth is? If they did this, it might actually give me a reason to use Mozilla.

    The reason web browsers don't have DNS stuff is that it would just be unnecessary bloat. It doesn't belong in the web browser; it belongs in the TCP/IP stack. The web browser (probably) isn't the only program you run on your computer that needs to look up addresses. If the Mozilla team put DNS stuff into their project, everyone would rightfully laugh at them.


    ---

  • Hi Chris,

    Damn good response. There is a lot to think about in there. To respond individually will take time (I'd be glad to do so in email if you wish) and I think this story will have dropped off the front page by the time I'm done, so with your permission I'm going to concentrate on this:

    You struck a nerve there. Do you REALLY think that the Internet and DNS are not going to evolve over time? I respect your opinion, don't get me wrong, but I really disagree here. As I've said before, the existence of alternatives alone just proves that there is a problem with the way DNS is being managed. And about ICANN standing between us and a corporate takeover - I'm really having trouble holding myself together on that one. A corporate takeover? Of what, DNS?!?

    I think this is at the centre of our differing opinions. Yes, I think the internet needs to evolve. No, I don't think you're doing so in the right way.

    I like how the internet has evolved over time. I think it's fascinating to see a system built on real consensus come so far and overcome so many obstacles. I think it's amazing; there are lessons to be learned here in how we live the rest of our lives.

    I don't think alternate roots are a part of this process - not yet, at any rate. DNS is a rigid hierarchy, and as a result, it's brittle. Conflicts must inevitably arise as we are beginning to see with the alternate .BIZ domains. I think this undermines the usefulness of DNS, and since we have never had to live with an inconsistent DNS before, I don't think the potential consequences are clearly understood.

    I can't buy your assertion that DNS can never be replaced with proprietary solutions. These guys are masters of embrace+extend. It wouldn't happen overnight, but the prize of dominance is high - you become the de facto DNS replacement.

    If this were any other protocol, big deal. But DNS is fundamental to the internet. When someone reports a network problem, it is the one thing I always check first, because it's the one ubiquitous protocol. I believe that:

    • If you own 90pc of named.ca files, you own DNS
    • If you own DNS, you own the internet
    • It is not yet necessary to hand that to someone else

    I've been told "don't hinder progress" a lot. I've seen it used to justify everything from HTML news posts to .DOC as an email standard. That alternate roots exist is not just an indication that there is something wrong with the current system; I think it's a tragedy. But of all the alternate people who could hold the root - and in a world of 90pc Windows desktops, I do believe there'll eventually be only one root that matters - I have more faith in ICANN and its structures to ensure the continued life of a consensus-built net than I do anyone else.

    There's been a lot of frustration at ICANN I think because of the appointed directors. That is changing. Much of the board is different, and what's left are also changing. The At Large directors are taking their seats, and more will be elected (it won't be limited to five as previous slashdot stories may have had you believe). There are a lot of good people on that board now, and not just on the At Large side.

    And if we shouldn't give those guys a chance at making it work, who the hell else should we trust?

    Your reasoning is excellent, Chris, and I wish I could be as optimistic as you. But I fear that in the root DNS we have encountered one of the potential vulnerable spots of the whole internet, and right now I do not wish to take the risk of breaking it.

    Dave

    --

  • OK then, don't hack Mozilla, hack Wsock32.dll. That's supposedly not too hard to do, although I've never had a reason to try it myself. I'm pretty sure there are some instructions on how to hack this DLL on the 'net.

    Thanks for all the "bind" stuff, but it's totally useless on Windows.

  • Think for yourselves. Don't be afraid not to fork.

    I do think for myself, as do most people on the net with the expertise and clout to choose their own root servers.

    Forking is a grand tradition of the internet. Disagreement and chosing one's own path is inherent in the very philosophy behind much of the internet.

    What the ICANN is engaged in is a profound usurping of the open and free nature of the net and a powergrab of megalomaniacal portions, and should be resisted and fought by all good people everywhere.

    Six months ago I changed my employer's root servers to point to opennic [unrated.net]. I saw what ICANN was becoming then and chose not to wait until the proverbial fertilizer struck the rotating blades, but rather to act proactively.

    I must say I have been impressed at how well opennic does work. Not a single DNS problem or complaint in six months, and name resolution times that are actually more snappy than before.

    From a political/freedom point of view Opennic is good in that it is truly democratic, supports both the alternic and icann namespaces (sans the new domains), as well as democraticly created TLDs of its own.

    I encourage others to take a look-see. It is my hope that FreeNet's pending naming/key service will allow us to dump DNS altogether, but until that happens opennic is at least open, fair, and democratic, unlike ICANN and many of its corporate rivals.

    And so what if the internet becomes fragmented? Worst case, we can send each other our IP addresses in the exact same way we share phone numbers today. More likely, such fragmentation would take the wind out of the sails of such entities as ICANN, preventing both their power grab from succeeding and perhaps pre-empting similarly inappropriate powergrabs in the future and leading to some kind of reasonable and equitable compromise. Do you really think entities such as ICANN and NSI would compromise in any fashion otherwise? Based on their behavior to date, not bloody likely.

    With any luck we'll be able to replace the heirarchical, centrally controlled DNS namespace with something less prone to corruption and domination, such as that being proposed by FreeNet. Until then, please consider opennic as a free, democratic alternative to ICANN and Alternnic.
  • Anyone consider swapping .biz with a more suitable, international name? I thought we were heading towards new accepted domains using foreign language characters and such.

    What is someone in another country going to think when they look at the word "business" and look at ".biz" and wonder where the hell the "z" came from?

  • .pro (Score:5)

    by jheinen ( 82399 ) on Monday November 27, 2000 @08:52PM (#597472) Homepage
    I'm concerned about the .pro tld. Who gets this elite status? I can see doctors and lawyers, but what about other professionals? Does a computer consultant qualify for .pro? What about security consultants? Investment bankers? Supposedly you have to have credentials. What credentials count? An MCSE (god-forbid)? A CS degree? What if you don't have a CS degree, but nevertheless get paid $250 and hour for computer consulting services? Having a .pro site strikes me as being potentially very lucrative, in that it could be seen as a credential itself. What about people who may not have the "accepted" credentials, yet are still respected practitioners in the field? Seems to me like a lot of potential for abuse and unfairness is built into this one.

    -Jeff

    -Vercingetorix

  • Mozilla To The Rescue? (Score:3)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Monday November 27, 2000 @08:55PM (#597474) Journal

    OK, I just visited some sites that explained the basic ideas. If I want to view the other TLDs, I have to change my network settings. If I do that, I lose my ISP's fairly reliable dynamicly assigned DNS servers.

    With IE, there is no way to work around this. With Mozilla, you could patch it to use regular DNS lookups for ICANN TLDs, and hit alternative DNS servers for other TLDs.

    So, how about it? Why doesn't Open Source put it's coding where its mouth is? If they did this, it might actually give me a reason to use Mozilla.

    Right now, the only reason I have a Netscape browser at all is to make sure my web pages look OK in Netscape!

Slashdot Top Deals

One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.

Close