VeriSign Usurps .com 191
Big news today is that ICANN's staff - you know, the unelected unaccountable corporation that controls most of the world's domain names? those guys? - has struck up a deal with Verisign (the company that purchased Network Solutions, if you recall). The terms of the deal are just wonderful - Verisign will retain permanent control of the .com registry (they were supposed to separate the registry and registrar businesses), long-term control of .net (plenty of time to make that permanent too), and .org will actually be spun off. There are also apparently plans to reinstate the old limits on .org domains - if you aren't a non-profit corporation, you won't be permitted to register or keep a .org domain. ICANN is taking public comments on this issue before their Board votes on it at their next meeting.
.org should only be used by nonprofits! (Score:1)
The continued control by Verisign is just another reason we will probably have a name space breakup.
Jeff Carr
jcarr@linuxppc.org
microsoft.org (Score:1)
.net owned by microsoft (Score:1)
Wrong...but Mr. Postel can tell you that himself (Score:1)
The U.N.?! (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
VERISIGN *IS* NETWORK SOLUTIONS! (Score:3)
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Re:take away my org? (Score:2)
One of the new domains is supposed to be .nom, which is reserved for individuals.
...phil
Re:.ORG? (Score:3)
So hows does Slashdot plan to keep its domain?
By not making a profit, obviously! Seems that LNUX is quite successful at that..
Not able to register .org, sure, but keep?? (Score:2)
Create at least two or three TLDs that are catchall types -- .web, .site are two possible ones. These cannot be registered by for-profit companies, only by individuals who cannot use the sites to sell anything. Allow any current .org owners to freely switch to these new TLDs.
Alternatively, prevent any new registering of .org domains, but allow those with existing .org domains that are not commercial companies but are also not not-for-profits to hold on to their domains, determined on a case-by-case basis. In such a case, slashdot.org might disappear, but numerous people in the same boat as I would not have to see their site disappear.
More short-sighted business decisions. (Score:2)
Another factor driving the deal was that the perceived need for VeriSign to split into two businesses -- one to manage the master list of Web addresses, another to sell addresses -- had faded of late, as competitors no longer feared the registry gave the company an unfair sales
advantage.
The only reason Notwork Sellutions hasn't managed to use their ownership of the registry to gain an unfair sales advantage is that their customer service and business practices are so abominable that nobody in the know would have anything to do with them as long as there is an alternative. If they were ever to get their act together and start acting like customer service organization rather than a monopoly, they could easily use their ownership of the registry to their advantage. First of all, they don't need to pay any registry access fee to themselves like their competitors do, so they could undercut their competition.
Re:They can have my .org... (Score:2)
Re:They can have my .org... (Score:2)
Except that registration eventually gets back to the databases that NSI maintain, which should be seperate from NSI.
Get rid of TLDs (Score:1)
Re:Domains for software projects (Score:1)
--
Re:So it's a good thing that's NOT what they're do (Score:2)
I hope you're right, but I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. Hopefully, with all the furor on the ICANN message board, the requirements for being an "organization" will be reasonable.
--
WHAT "old limits" on .org???? (Score:5)
There are also apparently plans to reinstate the old limits on .org domains - if you aren't a non-profit corporation, you won't be permitted to register or keep a .org domain.
There never were any such limits. Read RFC 1591 [faqs.org]
In fact, although I can't find into on the IANA [iana.org] website anymore (it's all been "updated"), .org used to be specifically recommended as the place for individuals who wanted their own domain.
Anything more limiting than this wouldn't be old rules -- it'd be something completely new. If new TLDs are created which serve as functional replacements (something for personal and family domains, something for software projects, etc., etc.), that's all well and good for the future, but it's ridiculous and unfair to take away existing .org domains.
--
Re:Okay, lets analyse this (Score:1)
and domains that don't get enough queries disappear??
Take back the internet! (Score:3)
So why don't we come up with something better? Shouldn't it be possible to come up with a way to DNS that doesn't have to be centralized? Or -- since such a thing wouldn't really be DNS any more -- something that would be backward compatible with DNS that wouldn't have to be centralized?
Maybe some kidn of lDAP/DNS gateway?
--
.org vs. new non-profit TLD, and .int TLD (Score:2)
There are a lot of unincorporated organizations that do not have 501c3 status, but serve legitimate non-commercial interests. They should not yank the .org domains from such organizations.
Perhaps a better solution is to create a new TLD for government-recognized non-profit corporations (.npc perhaps), and leave .org as it is.
Since laws for non-profit corporations vary from country to country, it might be even better to make it .npc.us, and let other countries worry about their own. ICANN wouldn't even need to be involved in that.
Speaking of which, when was the .int TLD created? I just started seeing it recently, and don't recall any public announcement or discussion.
www.verisignsucks.org? (Score:1)
Re:www.verisignsucks.org? (Score:1)
Re:Okay, lets analyse this (Score:2)
Yeah. Maybe they could hold elections [slashdot.org]. Like they did [slashdot.org]. Of course, then the current, unelected members chose to not yield their positions [slashdot.org]. Any actions by those board members are suspect.
Re:Take back the internet! (Score:1)
Yeah, let's go back to UUCP and map files!
Remember when you didn't have a domain name, you had a host name -- and it had to be unique in the first 6 characters?
So.... slashdot.COM? (Score:5)
Let's not make the UN even *more* powerful. (Score:1)
Is my .org in danger? (Score:4)
Re:So.... slashdot.COM? (Score:3)
Andover.net (SLASHDOT6-DOM)
50 Nagog Park
Aston, MA 01720
US
Domain Name: SLASHDOT.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
DNS Technical Support (DT1415-ORG) dns_tech@ANDOVER.NET
Andover.Net
50 Nagog Park
Acton, MA 01720
US
(978) 635-5300 Fax- (978) 635-5326
Billing Contact:
DNS Billing (DB2055-ORG) dns_billing@ANDOVER.NET
Andover.Net
50 Nagog Park
Acton, MA 01720
US
(978) 635-5300 Fax- (978) 635-5326
Record last updated on 11-Apr-2000.
Record expires on 11-Apr-2001.
Record created on 11-Apr-2000.
Database last updated on 28-Feb-2001 22:38:04 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.ANDOVER.NET 209.207.224.196
NS2.ANDOVER.NET 209.207.224.197
Slashdot.net on the other hand... that's somebody else's doing.
-Andy
Re:ICANN: Good Evening Gentlemen !! (Score:1)
All your Top Level Domain Are Belong To Us.
There is no 's' at the end of Domain.
Re:take away my org? (Score:3)
The horse is too far gone outta the barn for ICANN to come in and start rewriting the rules like this. Are individuals only going to be able to have geographic domains? Are individuals not going to be able to have domains at all?
The problem is that domains are not considered property (there is legal precidence for this, unfortunately). So how often are people going to have to change? I can move all my stuff over to some ".us" domain, but I have no assurance that a year down the road someone isn't going to do a land grab and I have to move again. The postal service has been talking about taking over
Re:Okay howsabout... (Score:1)
--
you don't own any domain names (Score:1)
that's right, every domain name that is
who here would rather pay $70 for a forced 2 year domain rental (networksolutions.com), instead of a $24 (joker.com) 2 year rental? the same service is being provided, however, joker.com is 1/3rd the price. back in the olden days, there was only networksolutions. if something like this goes through, it will take either a class action lawsuit, or a government intervention to correct.
the only loser out of all of this is the average John Q. Public.
side note: any word on networksolutions and expired domains? there was an artice a few months ago about it. i have been waiting for a particular domain since the middle of november. it's been expired since then, but just not available.
Re:take away my org? (Score:2)
Not for a while, if ever --
-j
restricting .org is great, but to corps is extreme (Score:1)
Re:A napster-like IP# lookup service could compete (Score:2)
Independent TLDs (Score:1)
Check out YouCANN.org [youcann.org] and find out about non-ICANN top level domains (TLDs).
Many of those independent TLDs are organized into the Open Root Server Confederation [open-rsc.org], whose website has a lot of information about how the system operates.
There's nothing intrinsically special about Network Solutions's DNS servers. All that annual registration fee pays for, really, is a couple lines in a BIND configuration file. You could get your DNS from the ORSC's servers or anywhere else if you choose.
The hard part is getting all those institutions using Network Solutions' DNS to query the ORSC's DNS as well.
negative profits... (Score:4)
Re:.ORG? (Score:1)
You don't find it funny?
You must own stock in LNUX
Re:slashdot.com? (Score:1)
Re:take away my org? (Score:2)
Your proposed restriction actually restricts no one. McDonalds forms a dummy corporation in Delaware for $350, assigns part of their trademark rights and has that shell grab the other domain they want. Multiply by 500 and all it does it make it a little more expensive and inconvenient to hold the domains they want.
Let's draw an analogy for a moment. (Score:2)
The limitation on
But the rules changed, and domain name owners were allowed to build a homes and businesses on these domains.
Would we allow an board of corporate individuals whom we did not elect to decide that we were no longer allowed to reside at 219 Main Street, or 1290 Washington Avenue?
Truly, though: so what? (Score:4)
To be honest, I don't have a problem with these proposals. It's only big business which should do, because they need a
And it's not as if Verisign is a bloodsucking corporation anyway. Imagine if they'd sold
Overall - this is so not a big deal.
Re:.ORG? (Score:2)
Good thing OSDN owns slashdot.com [slashdot.com] (but not slashdot.net [slashdot.net]).
Re:They can have my .org... (Score:1)
So if ICANN says that Verisign effectively gets control of .com, .net, and to some extent, what a person can do with .org, what about the other non-NSI registrars?
Sounds dangerously like a quasi-governmental agency enforcing a business monopoly on the most important current web tld's, doesn't it? Or am I missing something?
Argh, .com isn't the problem (Score:4)
The US domain should have
Down with
--
Re:Okay, lets analyse this (Score:1)
Re:Okay, lets analyse this (Score:1)
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:2)
Non-profit corporations have lots of restrictions that are difficult to keep up with. Plus incorporating inheritantly implies maintaining tax records and a pile of other thing most open source projects don't want to deal with.
Anm
Bah. (Score:4)
.com for commercial entities
.net for network infrastructure
.org for other organistations.
They let it down.. and NOW they wanna go back to the other way after taking everyone's money.
Time for new root servers.
slashdot.com? (Score:1)
Not really. (Score:2)
MicroSoft : We need to hang on to MicroSoft.org (which doesn't seem to have a DNS entry BTW)
Lawyers : No prob... we just start up the MicroSoft Envangelical Non-Profit Organization, funded by an Endowment from MicroSoft Inc., who buys the MicroSoft.org domain, and, in the interests of their organization, links it directly to the MicroSoft.com web site (and distributes an e-mail newsletter once a month saying how great MS is, and all the good its done in the world). Best part is, its tax deductable for MicroSoft Inc.
Negative Profit? (Score:2)
Re:So.... slashdot.COM? (Score:4)
Re:Okay, lets analyse this (Score:4)
Well, a private commercial company is not accountable to its consumers when it is in a situation of control over a monopoly. It is only accountable to its shareholders, and it makes very few people with respect to the Internet users.
They can have my .org... (Score:4)
Re:PLEASE read the notice -- (Score:2)
Unintentional or not, I spell just fine, it's that connection between the brain and keyboard that I have problems with.
Re:So it's a good thing that's NOT what they're do (Score:2)
I personally own two
If you do have issues with the proposal, use the message board ICANN set up [icann.org] for discussion of this topic. You're more likely to get authoritative answers to your questions, and if you have a valid point against the proposal, you might even get it stopped or amended.
PLEASE read the notice -- (Score:3)
From the ICANN web site, which was linked to in the slashdot article, section D:
Please note -- the key word was either 'non-profit organization' or 'non-commercial orgranization'. It said nothing about 'non-profit corporation'.I plan on keeping both of my .org domains [the only two domains I have], one of which is a registered non-profit group, and the other one is not-for-profit, as it's a personal site.
Please read the articles to which people are commenting on, as a simple inintentional word change can have a dramatic change on the entire meaning.
So it's a good thing that's NOT what they're doing (Score:5)
Rather than completely post what I already did to another paniced message, let me summarize --
Whomever submitted this to Slashdot in some way mis-read a word in the ICANN proposal [icann.org].
That one word was 'organization', and not 'corporation'. In section D-2:
Now, technically, that may not be exactly what the original intention for
Holy overreaction, Batman! (Score:4)
After reading everyone's overreactions (especially michael's), I went and actually read the proposal! Guess what, kids? This is a win-win.
If VeriSign spun off the NSI registrar business by May 2001, they were going to get an automatic 4-year extension on running the .com, .net, and .org registries. Under this new proposal, they won't have to spin off the registrar entirely, merely make it a subsidiary company. In exchange, they are guaranteed to give up .org after only a two-year extension, and help fund their successor in .org for a while, to the tune of $5 million. They are giving up 22 months of their extension on .net (although they still get preference for extensions there).
Last but not least, they are going to be investing $200 million in research on improving the DNS system and giving better access to the root nameservers to ccTLD and other TLD registries.
As other posts pointed out, there is no reason to expect that individuals or open-source projects would be excluded from the .org domain after it changes hands. How is any of this a bad thing?
Re:take away my org? (Score:4)
This is the way it should be. If you obtain a domain name under one TLD, it should preclude you from obtaining the same under any other TLDs. It could be in the agreement/eula/ToS that a company which claims an address on
This would end most domain speculation, force everyone to be under the most correct TLD, and keep the lawyers at bay. Sanity would rule, the WIPO jackrabbit courts would essentially cease to exist, and the rest of us could get on with building a better network for the future.
Since this would end much domain speculation, the income from domain registry would be significantly less than over the last few years. With only real commercial enitities paying for
If this were to happen, there would be a strong need for
A very good idea, which has been suggested by many intelligent people on numerous occasions. It has always been shot down by the ICANN as unworkable because they pander only to commercial interests, especially billion dollar companies like Network Solutions, who don't want to see their cash cow killed.
the AC
And they're asking the old signups for input (Score:2)
Not only that...
I was one of those who signed up for the Members At Large thingy, back before I realized that it was a bread-and-circuses appeasement move that had fuck-all to do with the actual outcome. And today in my email was a message from ICANN to all the signups saying that input was being solicited via an opt-in mailing list.
My sincere willingness to help is waging a pitched battle with my pragmatism and realism and pessimism and inherent cynicism right now. Hmmmm...
Re:And they're asking the old signups for input (Score:2)
Re:Yes, we all hate them, but (Score:2)
go with another competitor with a clue.
All my domains are now with joker.com. When
I had to change DNS, I logged into the web site,
and easily changed the server. I got a confirmation letter 5 seconds later, and the change was immediately evident at corenic.net.
One domain was still with netsol. It took two
days for the change to take effect. I immediately moved that domain to joker/corenic.
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:2)
Wow. this news is going to crush the stockholders of RedHat, VA Linux, etc. etc.
What's your point? Redhat and VA Linux are both inherently non-profit making. :)
Re:Argh, .com isn't the problem (Score:2)
an NSI whois reveals that the .la TLD is a ccTLD, just like most two-letter TLD's. If you're curious, just go to http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whoi s?STRING=la [networksolutions.com]. enjoy.
--
Distribute Host Tables Via Mbone (Score:2)
Doesn't Slashdot Care At All About Accuracy? (Score:5)
But the WSJ article you're referencing says something completely different, "Icann indicated that it wants "org" Web addresses reserved only for nonprofit organizations "after some appropriate transition period," a restriction that hasn't been enforced in recent years. Details haven't been worked out, though one Icann official suggested that current "org" Web sites may be allowed to continue regardless of their affiliation with nonprofits."
Don't you folks even care about accuracy anymore, or have you been reading Microsoft FUD for so long that you've decided on a "if you can't beat them, join them" policy?
accountable to who? (Score:2)
Shareholder: Do we have them by the shorhairs?
Board Member: Yes we do!
Shareholder: Cool, we can make tons of money!
Board Member: We?
I feel so empowered by my shares, how about you?
Re:The U.N.?! (Score:2)
The reason the UN has problems making decisions is because 5 countries have veto votes, and these countries are diametrically opposed on basically every issue. It's like giving Bill Gates, RMS, Eminem, Dalai Lama and Ronald Reagan the right to veto every decision made by Congress. Do you think anything would be accomplished? Note that this is not the same as the veto the US president has, since he is democratically elected. The permanent members of the security council are not democratically elected.
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:2)
Wow. this news is going to crush the stockholders of RedHat, VA Linux, etc. etc.
While Open Source software itself has no sale value, many business models exists for providing, supporting, and promoting Open Source.
Re:Nonprofit .orgs... (Score:2)
I don't think its quite that simple. Relationships between "sister" organizations of different tax statuses are pretty complicated in my expereince. Its unlikely that a clearly for profit site could keep content the same just because they had a non profit wing of the company.
OTOH, /. is not a particularly commerce based site, and if the accounting worked so that the banner ads only paid for the upkeep of the site itself, instead of producing profit for the holding company, there could be a good argument for keeping the .org.
Kahuna Burger
I spoke with the President of ICAAN about this... (Score:4)
He pointed out that he has already made a post [icann.org] about this on ICANN's Public forum. When I mentioned that I didn't think it was clear enough, and asked him to clarify further to avoid a lot of confusion, he responded that they were "discussing this internally".
This tells me the following:
-
It's not set in stone that you have to be a legally-recognized non-profit to hold a
.org TLD under the proposed changes
- They haven't worked out all the details yet
- They at least appear concerned with the public opinion (read his post [icann.org])
Granted, I'm not a huge fan of ICANN's previous activities, but I will say Mike was responsive and courteous in his emails. Perhaps if we voice our opinions [icann.org] just as politely and courteously (rather than flaming them about) we might get somewhere.Sign me eternally optomistic...
The .TM domain (Score:2)
there would be a strong need for .sucks, .tm, and yadda yadda yadda
All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
The .co.us domain (Score:2)
The US domain should have .com, .net and whatever the hell else we want under it.
Are you talking .co.us? If so, register your domain in Colorado. Equivalents for .net, .org, and .edu can be found in Nebraska (.ne.us), Oregon (.or.us), and Alaska (.ak.us like .ac.uk). Other states have potential for pronounceable names (Indiana best.in.us; Ohio who.oh.us; Connecticut re.ct.us).
And yes, it is possible to get the standard changed so as to drop any mandatory city name that your state may impose.
All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
Domains for software projects (Score:2)
something for personal and family domains
ummm... how about .8m.com [freeservers.com]?
something for software projects
umm... how about .sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net]?
All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
The next step: (Score:3)
--
Re:PLEASE read the notice -- (Score:2)
Re:Okay, lets analyse this (Score:2)
I'm free this weekend so I don't mind doing it.....
Well, I'm working on a DNS server that stores its cache in Freenet [freenetproject.org]. This means the cache can be called up by any other such DNS server. This elimanates the need for a tree-based DNS structure and its centralized control.
------
what about established for-profit orgs? (Score:2)
What will happen to companies that have established pages at a .org? Do they just loose all the money they have put into the site, into brand development, and such when their registration is up? If I was such a company, I would probably end up sueing over it.
Re:They can have my .org... (Score:2)
do you hear that.....it's..... it's ICANN breaking out into song....GOD BLESS AMARICA....
________
Re:Okay, lets analyse this (Score:2)
Thats the problem, shareholders come first. What we need is a system that is accountable to the USERS first and the shareholders second.
I'm free this weekend so I don't mind doing it.....
________
Re:Is my .org in danger? (Score:3)
________
Re:Take back the internet! (Score:2)
Decentralized like gnutella? Where everyone on the decentralized network has to trust everyone else? Decentralized does not work, because if one computer starts sending out the wrong data they can screw up the system for everyone else. Never trust the cleints to forward what you want properly. It just can't work.
A difference that makes no difference? (Score:2)
Now, the only way they can propose to limit .org to 'non-profit organizations' is to require evidence of synonymous legal status, which in my state means establishing a 'not-for-profit corporation.' There's no such animal, legally, as a non-profit organization that's not a corporation.
Or are you suggesting that they will accept a mere assertion of 'Yeah, we're organized, and we're not in it for profit'? If it was handled that way, and if .org domains were only revoked on presentation of a high level of proof that they are in fact being used primarily for profit-making activities (as compared to associated income-generating activities of non-profit organizations, such as a museum shop), then there's not such a problem.
But also, keep in mind that in many states a corporation may consist of one person; the requirements to be an 'organization' should be similarly lax.
Re:Truly, though: so what? (Score:3)
That's an even worse abuse, IMO. .org, at least, was intended as a category for miscellaneous, non-commercial organizations. .cx and .fm were intended for Christmas Island and the Federal State of Micronesia, respectively. While there's nothing I can do to stop them from whoring out their domain space, neither would I endorse them as the replacement TLDs for personal use.
ICANN is soliciting comments (Score:2)
Re:Okay, lets analyse this (Score:2)
Uhm...except of course that it's shareholders only care if they're making money or not. And their consumers can't say, "ok, you guys aren't very good....give control over the
As far as I'm concerned, this is a bad thing. There was the story [slashdot.org] a few months back about Network Solutions not releasing expired domain names. And, personally, I had to do some work with N.S./Verisign recently to make some changes to an account and quite frankly, their customer service rather sucked. It took several weeks to get all the changes made.
correction (Score:3)
Um. This is a proposal. Nothing's been signed yet.
The ugly fact is that DNS is a hierarchical, centralised system, and the one at the top is In Charge. Shame it's Network Solutions :-) Maybe VeriSign can do better?
Okay, lets analyse this (Score:3)
- Someone has to run the Domain name system. It is not a system of anarchy, it is a strict hierarchal system that requires a strong hand at the top.
- ICANN have provided this over the years. For all their faults, they were the only real solution. A governmental, elected body would be unacceptible - ICANN is a global body, it shoulod not be run by the American government and people.
- True, if someone could come up with a method for making ICANN democratically and internationally representative and elected, this would have beena good idea. But at the present stage of our global development, this has just not been possible.
- Verisign is a private commercial company. As such, it can be regarded as more accountable than ICANN, because it has to answer to its shareholders and its consumers, which is a lot more than can be said for ICANN.
My take is that this development is far from ideal, but is better than the current situation. Until such time as the Internet is not such a hierarchal system, or such time as a globally accountable body under the UN can be created, this is a better and more accountable solution, even if it is far from perfect.I would lobby for a body under the UN, perhaps a special branch of the UN to deal with the Internet, as the fairest and most accountable solution, but I realise that this is a pipe dream at the moment. I therefore, with extreme reservations, welcome this move, for the meantime.
Re:take away my org? (Score:3)
With any luck, that might actually tone down the vituperative disputes we're currently seeing over
MICHAEL'S HEADLINE IS MISLEADING! (Score:3)
--J
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:2)
Dude, pull up a stock quote. It already has.
What's wrong with this? (Score:3)
As long as ICANN start enforcing the rules on .org domain names I don't see why we should have any problem. Open Source software is inherently non-profit making, and so any projects we would want to start would fall under the auspices of the .org TLD.
We can leave the commercial bickering over .com domains to companies well-able to afford to pay rip-off merchants, erm, I mean corporate lawyers.
The .net domain was always destined to fail in its stated purpose - demand was too high for catchy domains compared to the number of organisations providing network services. But there are at least as many non-profit organisations out there as companies, and making sure the .org TLD is set aside will cut down on trademark battles and user confusion.
Honestly, does it matter which corrupt company runs the .com TLD? :)
Re:.ORG? How to keep it. (Score:2)
1) a statement that the "org" belongs not only to NON-PROFITS but to organizations.
2) request that a waiver application be on line. The way I see
3) domain name protection request. (this one's open for many abuses )
State that there could be abuse of your trademark and your requesting a waiver that let's you hold the name but you can loose it to any NON-PROFIT or something simular to that.
OFF TOPIC - NON PROFITS
I quickly spoke to my accountant about non-profits. He said that the IRS / US Government is making it very difficult to form a non-profit. He mentioned the paperwork is somewhat difficult and that you have to "prove" the non-profit status.
I would also like to know
1) What is a non-profit like in other parts of the world Simular to the USA version or are they completely different.
2) How would they apply for domain?
3) Would a non-profit in asia / europe / central,south america that has a name in english characters spelled like a curse still qualify ?
Thanks
ONEPOINT
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
The ability to name onself == right (Score:2)
After you stop laughing at my rediculous analogy, try to think of a reason why restricting
I have to agree, I like the idea and motivation behind a non-profit only TLD, but I dislike the implications.
I think organizations should have the right to choose their name as they please. If we're going to let
Even if we like the idea of an enforced
Non-profit organizations can protect their names through traditional means of trademark. Looser, non-legal organizations cannot. Why does there need to be enforcement when other means, such as trademarks protect the interests of individual not-for-profits.
1.) The ability to determine one's own name, or of an ogranization to determine it's own name, are cleary a fundamental right. Compramising this may not lead to the end of humanity, but I do believe it to be a very wrong path to go down.
2.) Restricting
3.) It is totally unreasonable to revoke
4.) Because individual
Although I think it's clear ICANN exists in a way that it's motiveations push it directly away from the world's public interest, which it is supposed to represent, I'll hold off ranting on that. I personally don't see any way ICANN can be 'fixed' or replaced at this point.
Re:Truly, though: so what? (Score:2)
Except that Versign (Network Solutions) already has control of .us [www.nic.us], which quietly changed hands around November of last year. Supposedly, they are running it for a year, on contract from the Commerce Dept., but I don't believe that they will ever give it up. Rumour has it that they may start charging.
I remember when they sent out the letter to all the admins of the .us. It was over Thanksgiving weekend, and it said something like, "If you don't agree to this contract, notify in 7 days, and we will revoke your .us domain. Otherwise, we take no notice as agreement."
Funny thing is that the mailing list they created to send to all the domains was left open, and all the admins of the .us domains started chatting (Ok, fumming) with eachother. Seems that Verisign/NSI can't even set up a mailing list correctly. We expect them to be able to manage most of the worlds TLD?
So, if you are in the US, and they lock out .com, .org and .net, you can't turn to .us without dealing w/ the same jerks. I suppose you've got to go offshore... (Anyone heard anything about Sealand lately?) This was much more fun when it was the wild west, I tell you...
Gyp.
Hey, it's an OlympicSponsor IMPERSONATOR (Score:2)
Buy why would someone do that?
Maybe because he's pointing out trolls? [geekizoid.com] and spoiling your fun?
NetworkSolutions.org (Score:3)
Registrant:
Network Solutions, Inc. (NETWORKSOLUTIONS4-DOM)
505 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20170 US
Domain Name: NETWORKSOLUTIONS.ORG
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Network Solutions, Inc. (NSOL-NOC) noc@NETSOL.COM
Network Solutions, Inc.
505 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20170
US
703-742-4777
Billing Contact:
idNames, Accounting (IA90-ORG) accounting@IDNAMES.COM
idNames from Network Solutions, Inc
440 Benmar
Suite #3325
Houston, TX 77060
US
703-742-4777 Fax 281-447-1160
Record last updated on 20-Nov-2000.
Record expires on 13-Dec-2002.
Record created on 12-Dec-1997.
Database last updated on 28-Feb-2001 22:41:26 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.NETSOL.COM 216.168.224.200
NS2.NETSOL.COM 198.17.208.71
NS3.NETSOL.COM 216.168.224.201
take away my org? (Score:3)
Really, how long do you think it will be before they require all
Obviously, this is all trending towards the corporatization of the web... yee-haw.
Look what happened to secure certificates (Score:2)