Nineteen Registrars Decry ICANN Arrangement 150
hpcanswers writes "ICANN, the governing body for Internet domain names, recently gave VeriSign exclusive control of the top-level .com domain until 2012. Now, nineteen registrars, including GoDaddy and Network Solutions, have petitioned ICANN to reconsider on the basis that VeriSign will most likely increase registration fees. A few of the registrars have also asked the US Department of Commerce to veto the deal." From the article: "The new deal permits VeriSign to increase the price of domain name registrations by 7 per cent in four of the next six years. In the two remaining years, VeriSign will only be able to raise prices if it can show the rises are necessary for security reasons. It also gives VeriSign a presumptive right to renewal of the .com registry, on the proviso that it complies with certain aspects of the agreement."
Security Reasons. (Score:5, Insightful)
Come again?
Re:Security Reasons. (Score:5, Insightful)
WTO (Score:2)
You see,
I don't want to start all that discussion on taking the net control from the US (I do believe it should be again reconsidered, though.) But maybe the international bodies should start interfering with all this crap ICANN is doing.
Re:Security Reasons. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is great. Am I the only one who thinks that ICANN needs a serious blow to the side of the head to get things back in order? I remember paying $100 for a .com a few years ago when there was no choice of registrars. Now they are like $7. Here comes "inflation."
Re:Security Reasons. (Score:5, Funny)
The foundation of our economy!
Re:Security Reasons. (Score:2, Interesting)
Remeber Alternic? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is almost what occured before Internic gave up its monopoly on Domain registration in the 90's. I believe that what is happening is that we are seeing a re-monopolization of Internet and telecommunication. The telcos are mergering as well as many different ISP's. Once this monoplolization is completed, the small voice will once again be drowned out. Yes, there will be those in Congress who will decry this re-monoplolization, but in the end, it will still happen.
There will be token concessions by the giant telcos as well as giant ISP's that will somewhat limit the power that these entities will wield, but eventually the eneviable will happen. All of this can be prevented, but it will take more than voicing ones opinion to congress and complaining to the press. It will take work and innovation by us average Joes.
Verizon recognizes the dangers (or true competition) presented by muninets, FreeNets, FreeWans, as well as other types of networks. This is why this company is purchasing legislation in order to prevent local governments from working to set up these types of networks. Average Joes do not have the legal force required to seize land in order to install buried cables, nor do the have access to taxpayer financed cables that have already been laid. There are many miles of "dark fiber" that has been laid but never activated by the telcos for Interet infrastructure, yet the average joes does not have the legal authority to use these resources.
What the average Joe does have is the ability to research and innovate. These average Joes include amateur (ham) radio operator as well as hackers. These are the type of people who can build local local wide area networks. Even when only a hundred different computer users are connected together, a vast wealth of information can be shared with withing the network. Combine local wide aread networks or FreeWan cells with "Sneakernets", then just about all filesharing needs can be met. A box full of DVD's packed with files can be a huge chunk of information! Muninet or FreeWan cells that have limited or no connection between them can still have information relayed between them via roving computers or the proverbial sneakernet. Of course, instant messaging, fast email, and many type of rapid communication between different networks is nearly impossible without relying on cartel controlled infrastructure, this may change in the future with enough innovation. Todays technology is more than sufficient to meet nearly all filesharing needs independently from the cartels.
My FreeWan cell is set up as a mini Internet. Visit http://plaza1.net/FreeWan [plaza1.net] to get a small taste of what can be made available for little cost. If one connects to my FreeWan Cell wirelessly, that person will quickly see an introduction to the FreeWan system when a URL is typed into their web browser. I provide the DNS from the top-level on down for my little area. If this does not sound impressive, then maybe the blazing transfer speeds will.
10 Mbit per second at 0 cost will. This is the type of speed that should be made available across the United States, However, rather than being limited by technology, we are limited by the greed of the cartels.
Alternic was orginially put together t
Re:Remeber Alternic? (Score:2)
Re:Security Reasons. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Security Reasons. (Score:2)
Come again?
Maybe 'securing their profits' counts?
Re:Security Reasons. (Score:2, Insightful)
2012? (Score:5, Funny)
Coincidence? I think NOT!!!
[the Internet will destroy the human race as we know it...]
Re:2012? (Score:2)
13 cycles 0 katuns, 0 tuns, 0 uinals, o kins -but who's counting?
Re:2012? (Score:2)
Vint Cerf Sell Out (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Vint Cerf Sell Out (Score:5, Interesting)
It's interesting now that these US companies are now asking the US government to force ICANN in exactly the same way that everyone abroad was concerned about.
Not to say that one way is better than the other... just that ICANN and the US gov keep insisting that the US gov won't regulate it, and the irony of VeriSign's competitors asking for exactly such an action.
Are you for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
This cult of personality crap with ICANN is just exhausting. Say something like "Vint Cerf Sell Out!" and heads nod everywhre, but if you were to say the same thing about, say Amadeu Abril i Abril, Nii Quaynor or Masanobu Katoh they wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about, but would happily drone on about how it's all a conspiracy of U.S. control blah blah blah blah blah.
Are *you* for real? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mainly, I'm saying I think money changed hands in unsavory ways.
I got that... (Score:2)
Re:I got that... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it does. Vint Cerf advertises himself as a forward thinker, a Renaissance Man of the Internet. But his agreement to sell Dot Com to VeriSign shows that he has fallen into the Greed Trap.
Quoi? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.icann.org/topics/vrsn-settlement/board
"First, while some opposed the new registry agreement because of the terms of the "renewal" clause, in truth, the renewal clause in the new agreement is little changed from the 2001
Greed?
Re:Quoi? (Score:1)
Re:Quoi? (Score:5, Informative)
1. VeriSign is the Registry, not a Registrar. VeriSign is the authoritative registry for
2. Registrars (goDaddy, Register.com) take your money and then give the info to VeriSign. They pay about $5 to VeriSign to run the registry.
3. Verisign used to own NSI/Network Solutions, but they no longer do, so they don't have a retail presence. They have a retail presence for security certs, and payment services. You, as an individual, do NOT register a name with VeriSign.
So to repeat VeriSign = Registry GoDaddy = Registrar
Re:Quoi? (Score:2)
worldcom (Score:2)
exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
UNIX (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus, the foundation was laid for BSD and Linux.
Re:exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:exclusive (Score:2)
Personally, I think the WTO should require member states to pass legislation that allows companies to not register N websites to maintain their marks. As far as [3] is concerned, well, that's what Search and Bookmarks are for, isn't it?
VeriSign used to say that the
Re:exclusive (Score:2)
I'm talking about company A being able to buy (and not just by proxy) any or all of those domain names through any registrar. Currently, each TLD has different costs, based on who has exclusive control over it -- if you buy a
Re:exclusive (Score:2)
I'd like to see an independent international non-profit entity manage creation and maintenance of domain names. I'm hesitant to suggest the UN cause they might ban stuff that we accept in the U.S., like hate speech. It's fine if they do like ICANN and let people bid to become registrars, but I think you're right that it shouldn't be segmented by TLD... because there should be zillions of TLDs, IMO.
Ch
Re:exclusive (Score:2)
Re:exclusive (Score:2)
(The same is technically true of street addresses, on those few occasions when cities change names. Except there are zip codes, and the USPS knows about such changes and can continue to route mail correctly, but I don't see them being required to do so forever. We're still talking about a PK changing, and there's no built-in mechanism to fix the FK's everywhere else. You don't know who
Re:exclusive (Score:3, Funny)
Clearly this won't work, because I clicked on both of your example links and got nothing.
http://abcxyzwww./ [abcxyzwww.]
http://conhugecoabcxyzwww./ [conhugecoabcxyzwww.]
Re:exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, rural electrification?
Long-distance telephone calls?
Community sewage?
Mail?
Sometimes monopolies occur because it's not economically feasible or not a social good to have competition if that competition results in a race to the bottom. At least at the outset.
Your quote sounds very much like someone who's taken neither a civics nor microeconomics course. No wonder /. modded you insightful! :-)
Re:exclusive (Score:1)
Half right. Never took a civics class.
I agree that in some cases it is necessary, however, i don't see how this situation qualifies. My profession is neither in economics nor civics, but i still find it hard to believe that it's not economically feasible, nor how competition would not serve a social good here. ICANN is giving exclusive rights and allowing "VeriSign to increase the price of domain name registrations by 7 per cent in fo
Re:exclusive (Score:2)
the article does not provide any information about any checks and balances against these raises, save that they are below 7 per cent
The checks and balances are all the other TLDs. You don't *have* to have a dot com, after all. In fact, in the post-Google Internet, domain names really don't matter all that much anyway.
Re:exclusive (Score:2)
Whereas yours sounds like you've never taken anything BUT a civics and a microeconomics course (Ooooooh, was MACROeconomics too sca-a-ary?).
Re:exclusive (Score:2)
GoDaddy Blog (Score:5, Informative)
"The fact that this deal was approved is a loud signal that major changes are needed at ICANN. If we don't take this opportunity and step up and replace the incredibly inept leadership at ICANN, it will go a long way in providing the United Nations with the ammunition it needs to begin taking control of the Internet."
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:1)
Some people think that would be a good idea. What with the current ICANN fiasco and the specter of tired Internet, maybe having the UN take over would be a good idea? It's clear the Corporate America has some ideas for the Internet, is this what we really want? (Yes I know, some people say the Internet does not belong to the United States. But clearly, ICANN does...)
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:4, Interesting)
In addition, although the monolithic entity known as "the UN" is rife with corruption, but there are still plenty of individual agencies within the UN that do good work in a reasonably efficient manner. There is no reason to believe an agency within the UN would be anywhere near as bad at running DNS than ICANN already is.
The primary reason there is so much resistance to the UN taking over boils down to American pride, and the hit it would take (among people who care about these things) if such a visible role were taken over by a global agency.
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:3, Insightful)
More to the point, the US government is clearly corrupt and inefficient.
"Verisign have my complete confidence. They do a heck of a job!"
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither Verisign, ICANN,nor the UN are elected bodies, and none of them exist for the wellbeing of individuals or businesses. Verisign exists to make a profit, ICANN seems to exist to make sure they continue to exist, and the UN operates on the positions of governments (both the elected and/or corrupt types equally). Also, they each make the tasks they perform way more expensive than they have to be (this goes doubly so for the UN).
Are you sure it isn't that the primary reason you want the UN to take over is because you dislike the US government so much? If you ask me, the primary reason to oppose a UN takeover of DNS is that the UN answers to governments instead of people. Maybe you European types like that sort of thing. You did, after all, basically eliminate any individual level involvement in your new government when you set up the EU. I, however, would like a body that is actually accountable to ordinary people to be in charge... even if, for now, that means a subset of ordinary people.
Let's find some organization to run things that is actually democratic, and world representative, instead of handing it over to the UN just because people don't trust the US. Or better yet, let's trade a tiny bit of the reliablilty of the DNS system for distributed, de-regulated management.
(Yeah, I know, I'm going to get modded as Flamebait. Let me tell those moderators in advance that they're biased and wrong.)
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:1)
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:2)
Uh, no they're not. What's "required" is that consenting adults create a contract with each other agreeing how to go about accomplishing something that they will all benefit from. When I want to build a house, I don't need a monopoly...I need the architect, the various contractors, and the bank to all agree on the same outcome so that the proc
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:2)
Unfortunately monopolies are rquired for many different function such as the organization of telephone numbers, assignment of domain names, ip addresses and so on.
Monopolies are required, to some extent, for the current implementation of telephone numbers, domain names, and ip addresses. But telephone numbers, domain names, and ip addresses are not required for communication.
At the same time, for this reason, as long as no one *forces* me to use ICANNs domain name system in order to communicate via TCP
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:2)
What is so good about democracy? Do the people really have anything to say?
That aside, 99.9% of people have no clue about DNS, or even what it stands for, and thus their opinions on it would do no good, and probably do harm. The people with an interest in DNS are corporate entities, mostly, and letting them have to much control might also be a bad thing, being that they exist only for their own interest, and not that of the system. So if screwing the system com
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:2)
That aside, 99.9% of people have no clue about DNS, or even what it stands for, and thus their opinions on it would do no good, and probably do harm.
People that don't know or care about DNS probably wouldn't bother to express their opinion with a vote...
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:2)
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:2)
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:2)
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but where do you see that? No matter how much you may hate the sightfinder fiasco, that's not 'corruption'. There was no attempt to mislead. They implemented a service, got hammered into the ground for doing it, were forced to remove it, but never offered bribes to hide it. Pretty sure they actually applied for permission to implement from ICANN, which basically stalled the application forever.
I don't seem to recall VeriSign CEO or CFO going on trial like Ken La
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:2)
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:3, Insightful)
Go Daddy doesn't ask its customers what they plan to do with their domains. Are you suggesting that people should be required to justify their intended domain use before they can buy it? Do we set up some committee to decide who is worthy and who is not? Sounds like a big c
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GoDaddy Blog (Score:1)
So nyah!
hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmm (Score:1)
Re:hmm (Score:1, Offtopic)
TV Commercials [godaddy.com]
Re:hmm (Score:3, Funny)
When are they going to come with out with "European" version of the commercial?
Re:hmm (Score:1)
As soon as the FTC assimilates Europe and enforces thier puritanical "decency" norms.
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Re:hmm (Score:2, Informative)
We now return to your regularly-scheduled
Re:hmm (Score:4, Funny)
Where's the increased cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the increased cost? (Score:1)
-Jason
Re:Where's the increased cost? (Score:1)
Re:Where's the increased cost? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is real.
Well, you see, it's like this... (Score:3, Informative)
Now, the present value of future money is given as FV=PV((1+i)**n). In our case:
Now, let's do the math:
$7.95=PV((1+.06)**4)
$7.95=PV(1.26247696)
PV=$7.95/1.26247696
PV=$6.29714462274226
So, you can see that Verisign is going to lose $1.65 ($7.95-6.29) on e
Can you say... Executive Salary Increases? (Score:1)
Re:Where's the increased cost? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are production costs, to be sure. Someone has to take phone calls, someone has to take complaints, someone has to pay the light bill, someone has to pay the people, someone has to process the registrations, someone has to fix it when it breaks, etc. I'm sure it's 99% automated, but SOMEONE has to do SOMETHING at some point.
They can't have level prices year over year for 12 years since their costs will r
oh please (Score:2, Insightful)
So would GoDaddy have turned down the same contract offer? Would Network Solutions have turned ICANN's offer down? Would ANY registrar have turned down this offer? Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes to me...
Re:oh please (Score:2)
It would be a difficult decision. But that ethical dilemma does not make it right. So they are all greedy fuckers, we should let them fight over the meat? The meat does not belong to any of them it should not be given to any of them to exploit.
Re:oh please (Score:2)
Re:oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:oh please (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:oh please (Score:1)
We can trust verisign (Score:5, Funny)
That's reasonable. I mean, verisign would never do anything to violate an agreement with ICANN, right?
Goodbye.... (Score:1)
Re:Goodbye.... (Score:2)
Re:Goodbye.... (Score:2)
You'll just see these cheap websites switch back to third level domains. Remember ml.org? The market for third level domains largely died out when the price of second level domains went from $100 to $10. And cheap hosting has been around longer than cheap domains anyway.
Re:Goodbye.... (Score:2)
Too many domain names (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't Verisign own Network Solutions? (Score:1)
Apparently they were sold (Score:5, Informative)
If Verisign gets pre-emptive renewal of
Re:Apparently they were sold (Score:1)
Re:Doesn't Verisign own Network Solutions? (Score:2, Informative)
It doesn't affect me... (Score:1)
(Joking!)
I Hate TLDs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I Hate TLDs (Score:2)
You eliminate top domains, and then instead of having a different group responsible for managing each subset, you now have to give control of managing the ENTIRE domain space to ONE group.
Isn't that what ICANN does now anyway?
We need a Lewinsky in the whitehouse. (Score:2)
(2) Obtain exclusive access to a major part of the net.
(3) Profit!!!
I wanna know how Verisign is pulling off what its pulling off right now.
registration costs (Score:2)
Re:registration costs (Score:2)
You should be slightly concerned if you got your domains from one of the really cheap services. If they didn't pay in advance to the registry, and the registry raises rates, the registrar might just wind up going bankrupt. You'll get to keep your domain by transferring it elsewhere, but you might have to pay all over again for all those years you prepaid for.
Re:registration costs (Score:2)
Re:Meh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I find it ridiculous... (Score:2)
They still don't acknowledge that the wildcard was a bad idea, and they've as much as promised to do it again, once they have the legal clearances in place to stop ICANN from messing with them.
Verisign has proven themselves untrustworthy, and the root o
Re:I find it ridiculous... (Score:1)
Actually it isn't nonsense. For example a few years ago the base registrar for the .org domain was removed from Network Solutions. Not to repeat look here [wikipedia.org]. Anytime you register or renew a .com domain, the base sponsor gets a cut. What they are
Re:I find it ridiculous... (Score:2)
VeriSign is NOT a registrar any more, so they don't care if you get your name from goDaddy or Register or some other sketchy outfit that sends you false renewal notices in the mail.
So the 19 companies whining about this all have a vested interest in keeping VeriSign from becoming a competitor for any services.
Re:I find it ridiculous... (Score:2)
It's confusing, but there is a clear division between tasks.