ICANN Announces DNS Registrars 108
As many of you know, today is the day that ICANN is supposed to
announce the 5 companies that will be competing with NSI for
registering domain names.
You can see the
announcements here...
except that the server is bogged.
Update: 04/21 04:16 by CT : Here is the List:America Online ,
CORE (Internet Council of Registrars),
France Telecom/Oléane,
Melbourne IT,
and register.com. You can see more on ICANN if it
wasn't so slow.
AOL does PPP (Score:1)
I look forward to all of these registrars.. If AOL has the best prices, they will get my business. Religious issues aside.
Here's Why! (Score:1)
It's not an anti-capitalism issue. We should restrict these private transactions of domain names because speculators have made it nearly impossible for legit users to reasonably get a decent domain name. The fact that this network was built with tax money means that areas for abuse like this are appropriate for regulation.
Although this might deter some speculators, it would also make it impossible for companies who logically out to have a given domain name from getting it.
As it is now, it's almost already impossible to get a domain name because so many have been snapped up by speculators. By disallowing private sale, you take away their incentive, and it would make many more domain names available.
I think another part of the problem is that
how does this affect me? (Score:2)
Will my DNS server numbers change? will i have alternatives to my DNS servers? will i need or want alternatives?
will i be able to register a domain name with someone other than the InterNIC? will the someone other be cheaper? is that all?
will there suddenly be five competing, seperate, warring domain name factions i'll have to remember which to type every URL i use into? Should i start writing down the raw IP numbers of every website that matters to me, just in case the domain name system goes all to hell?
will this even affect me? will it affect anyone?
the ICANN press release doesn't seem to answer those questions, or for that matter say much of anything meaningful. someone please explain this to me.
--Anonymous coward
who has a
and can't remember it
and is not at home right now
A word on cybersquatters and speculators (Score:3)
This whole thing of squattters running scripts to re-register thousands of domain names every 90 days without ever paying for them, while still putting up a webpage with "this domain name for sale" has got to stop!
As for the speculators who do pay the fee and still sit on the names, there needs to be a total ban on the private resale of domain names. This is a real problem and we need a measure like this to stop it.
Re: AOL is more than just an Online Service (Score:1)
AOL does much more than the AOL we know such as ICQ, Netscape, and corporate Internet services.
All of which were purchased (from Mirablis, Netscape and Compuserve respectively) rather than anything AOL actually did.
Usually, when they enter a market, prices drop.
In the computer industry, usually prices drop, I have yet to see any cause and effect relationship between AOL and industry pricing, particularly since they usually charge above the average for whatever services they offer.
AOL might be good for this.
Perhaps, if they don't require somthing like AOL's special DNS client software to set up your system. They do have a bad tendency to require their own proprietary software.
France Telecom? Owww my gawd! (Score:1)
AOL is some weird online-service which was
profiteur on the internet, sucking content while
not providing any (except for _their_ memebers)
for some years. It's not the guys you'd put
it charge for something like that.
The second one is France Telecom. Well, that's
some bureaucrats. They're not anymore part of
the french state for not so many years, still
have all those people... Furthermore, their
own internet-connectivity (as they provide for
providers) used to be slow and frequently
mis-routed...From Zürich to Zürich by Paris..
Also not the guys you want to run your network.
What about .biz, .arts? (Score:1)
MelbourneIT? How did those crooks get on the list? (Score:1)
Grrr! Enjoying a private, self-serving and corrupt monopoly in Australia... Looks like they're keen to take the same techniques to the world at large!
What about .biz, .arts? (Score:1)
The only way it will work is to contracturally enforce the meanings of the new TLDs. Some enforceable ones would be .per (personal must be an actual person), .npc (non-profit corperation, must present proof of np status) etc. An additional benefit is that the contract itself could probably be used as proof against trademark infringement.
Move away from NetSol (Score:1)
If important people notice the way everyone flocks *away* from NetSol despite their possibly lower prices, it might make them take note of NetSol's poor ethical practices in the past with respects to internic.net and whois, and hopefully, similar incidents will not be repeated by other companies in similar positions.
Don't think you're locked in (Score:1)
a. Cancel your registration with InterNIC and re-register the domain with another registrar; or
b. Wait until your InterNIC domain registration expires and re-register it with another registrar.
Of course, unless you have prior arrangements with said registrars, there might be a sort of race condition during which any Joe Bloe might come along and register your domain while you aren't looking. I've known people that set up minute-by-minute cron jobs performing whois lookups on particular domains and setting off all sorts of alarms, etc., when the domain comes up unregistered. It's usually re-registered shortly thereafter, oftentimes to the dismay of the original holder.
You snooze you lose.
Domain scalping (Score:1)
IMO, this should be made "illegal" at the top level, namely ICANN. The registrars should be asked to enforce the rule and those found scalping domains should simply lose them and perhaps be barred from registering domains in the future.
If this practice is ignored or even legitimized, what's to stop our friendly new registrars from doing the same thing? Is there a rulebook someplace that states what the registrars can and cannot do with respects to their new power over domain names? I'm going to go read the site here shortly, so if it's talked about there, you don't have to respond...
Nothing will change. (Score:1)
The only thing will change is that you will have more people from which to purchase domain names, and yes, the prices will be significantly lower than what NetSol is charging now (from what I've read, almost a tenth of the cost).
Most people will never know the difference, nor do they really need to.
Privacy vs selling names (Score:1)
I would happily check a privacy button, even if it had a, say, $25 fee to remain publically unlisted (much like many phone companies).
Article at News.com (Score:1)
-Virgil
--
Damnit! (Score:1)
The server is bogged... (Score:1)
The five registrars are... (Score:1)
Will these companies be handling
Irritainment in its purest form (Score:1)
As for banning it, I'm afraid that no law will ever prevent fools from parting with their money, and helpful third parties from assisting them in fulfilling this desire.
A word on cybersquatters and speculators (Score:1)
As for squatting, that's a different matter altogether; it's more akin to fraud than anything else.
it's not a possession, it's a license (Score:1)
The airwaves and the land belogn to everyone, and those who abuse it should lose their license to use that frequency/plot.
Interesting concept, but a little out of touch with reality.
Re: (Score:1)
France Telecom? (Score:1)
--
Worries (Score:2)
Firstly and most importantly the fact that NSI continue to run the master database. Whatever they may say about competing fairly with their new counterparts they have an underlying advantage; users are likely to think that the company running the system is somehow *better* than the rest.
Secondly has been some confusion recently about the status of domain names. Are they property or not ? This has implications here as well. If we treat them as property, as a judge did recently, then renewal fees would surley have to be paid to the original registry, in effect you are renting the property from NSI at the moment. However if they are not property but a license to use the domain then any registry could renew it. This, I think, will have the most impact on the ability of the other registries to compete with NSI.
Finally what happens when someone ceases to use a domain ? or when someone sells a domain ? None of these issues appear to have been addressed. Can any registry sell a domain that has lapsed from another registry ? Can a company sell a domain and do the transfer to a different registry ? If not NSI have a lock in on all domains registered to this point.
If any of these issuse have been addressed I'd be interested in a URL.
AOL is more than just an Online Service (Score:2)
Something is missing... (Score:2)
how does this affect me? (Score:1)
Now maybe it won't take a WEEK to get a nameserver IP address change done...
What about .biz, .arts? (Score:1)
AlterNIC (Score:1)
As I recall they had some odd ideas involving expansion of the TLDs. The bottom line was, they never took it through a standards process of any kind, they just put up a site and started running DNS. It's as if somebody started offering a new mail transport protocol; how long would it take to get adopted?
The five registrars are... (Score:1)
heh heh.
Their database is already hosing up.
$9 is NOT cheap! It's still a ripoff. (Score:1)
If we (the Internet community) had been allowed to start our own non-profit DNS registry, we'd have done it a lot cheaper and Network Solutions would have gone away a long time ago.
James
Worries... (Score:1)
(correct me if I am wrong on any of these facts)
I don't think this would realy work but... (Score:1)
A friend of mine would also like a new top-level domain: .wombat
Frankly, I wouldn't mind having a .wombat vanity domain...
Schwab
The five registrars are... (Score:5)
CORE (Internet Council of Registrars)
France Telecom/Oléane
Melbourne IT
register.com
Take a look at http://www.icann.org/icann-pr21apr99.htm
Already been done (Score:1)
As it is now, every DNS looks to a pre-defined set of servers - the root servers - to find out where to look for information about a particular domain name. Those root servers are currently set up to handle information about only the
Again, not a matter of difficulty, but a matter of an old, entrenched mechanism that's not so easy to replace.
private IP address ranges in DNS? (Score:1)
If you use those IP ranges, just set up a custom zone file for those ranges on the nameserver in your intranet.
--
That fscking beeping noise... (Score:1)
It's damn annoying...
private IP address ranges in DNS? (Score:1)
I assume this is a mistake? It seems to have happened within the last day or two, I think. I only noticed because my IP-masq box stopped letting me telnet/ftp in! (I have pretty strict hosts.deny & hosts.allow... when I was trying to log in, rpc looked up the IP address of the machine I was logging in from, 192.168.1.10, and got a DNS reply for a subnet that wasn't allowed, which prevented me from telnet'ing in.)
What about .biz, .arts? (Score:1)
The five registrars are... (Score:1)
.com,
It's cheaper (and quicker) to pay NSI's $70 US with a Visa card, working out at around $110 to $120 AU...
Uh oh. For an AOL subscription + $10 extra (Score:1)
You too can have your own domain name!!!!*
* Sorry, metoo.metoo.metoo.scriptkiddie.com is already taken.
Good thing... (Score:2)
:) I can even tolerate having AT&T, MS, and AOL in the mix as long as there are a bunch of others to force them to keep clean.
A word on cybersquatters and speculators (Score:1)
Dodger
I'll try to use words of one syllable or less... (Score:1)
The Grid isn't going to be a private data network that companies subscribe to. It'll be a public data network that anyone can join by becoming a shareholder in. In other words, it'll be owned by the companies who use it.
Now I know that this whole idea of co-operatively owned, non-profit companies is probably quite foreign to you Yanks, but just think of it as being a bit like Socialism.
At the moment, the Internet is merely a bunch of private data networks which are hooked together at peering points. Administratively, it's a fucking disaster, as this whole domains issue amply illustrates. The lack of a centralised controlling authority for the Internet is a major problem. The Grid solves this problem by having the main backbone network owned and operated by a single company (let's call it "GridCorp"). Therefore, there'll be no need for peering. Except for peering with the Internet, which will be handled by the GridCorp.
Now, in terms of the Grid, GridCorp will have a monopoly. But, because it's a co-operatively-owned company, noone will give a shit, and because it owns the network, over which it has the monopoly, there's no legal issues involved. If people don't like it, they can fuck off and set up their own hugely expensive private network.
If they do like it, they can join the network, become a shareholder in GridCorp and have a say in how the network is run.
Gee, you know, I think this could almost be described as "democracy"!!!!
Dodge
Network Solutions has no real power... (Score:2)
For example, over the past six months or so, I've been involved in a discussion between representatives of a number of major international corporations, mostly in the financial services sector, who are considering building a kind of a next-generation Internet, co-operatively owned and operated (similar to the UK's NIC [www.nic.uk]), based upon IPv6, with all of the advantages that entails. The Project is referred to as the Grid.
From what I've heard in the meetings I've attended, they plan to build an intial backbone around the world, centred and controlled from London, linking to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt, Berlin, Moscow, Hong Kong, Tokyo and a couple of cities in the United States. It would initially only be used by the companies involved in initially setting it up, but, later, anyone would be allowed to join and become equal shareholders in the non-profit company which will own and operate the backbone (and the DNS system), as long as they pay their share of the cost of maintaining the backbone. Any profits would be ploughed back into improving the network.
The technical details aren't really an issue at the moment. One of the committee invited me along after hearing me speak at a conference and I've been advising them as to what's possible and what's not.
It's all quite interesting. Whether it'll actually pan out is another matter, but their reasons for wanting to do this (dissatisfaction with the current ownership and administration of the Internet and with it's security) aren't exactly unreasonable.
Funnily enough, the main things they end up discussing in their meetings are related to the administration of Grid - i.e. how the administrating company would be set up and owned, whether all the stakeholders should have an equal vote or not, how to ensure that no one company or organisation can gain too much power, etc. They're not all that worried about the technical side, because it's all pretty much possible - or rather will be when IPv6-capable networking equipment and operating systems become available.
It's a lot of fun sitting there and watching them all get into seriously deep legal discussions and so on... It's even more fun imagining the upheaval that will occur when it launches.
The Dodger
Hacker & International Network Architect
AOL as Domain Registrar (Score:2)
--
A solution (?) for cybersquatters and speculators (Score:1)
A good compromise would be simply make it illegal/impossible to actually sell a domain until it has been paid for in the first place.
Incidentally, I'm somewhat certain there's a URL or some other resource that you can check to see if a domain is registered already, but I dunno it offhand.
Won't work (Score:1)
Why? (Score:1)
I see no justification for this. Why should we restrict private transactions simply because some people are making a profit off of them. Although this might deter some speculators, it would also make it impossible for companies who logically out to have a given domain name from getting it. If I own an Apple orchard, and I register apple.com, it is perfectly reasonable that Apple computer should pay me a premium for the domain. To ban that would mean that anyone who wants Apple's home page gets my apple orchard instead.
Private property is needed on the 'net every bit as much as in real life. Whether domain names are sold or liscenced, the people who obtain them should be free to use them however they please, including selling them.
Domain scalping (Score:1)
Nothing. Both should be legal. When you choose to buy a domain name or a ticket, you are making a gamble that it will be valuable. At this point, all the really valuable domain names are already taken, so banning their resale is not gonna stop many squatters.
If this practice is ignored or even legitimized, what's to stop our friendly new registrars from doing the same thing?
Well in this case they have been granted a government-imposed monopoly, and so if they misbehave, the government certainly should bring them into line. But *anyone* has the opportunity to buy domain names, and so there is no reason for the government to restict their use once they are sold to private individuals.
private IP address ranges in DNS? (Score:1)
A student group at the University of Trondheim, Norway did just that: Added "langnese" (trans: "long nose") as name for 127.0.0.1 to the database for the "nvg.unit.no" domain. After publicising the name, they even got angry mails from someone accusing them of ripping their FTP site...
Re: (Score:1)
Something is missing... (Score:1)
Network Solutions has no real power... (Score:1)
It seems the discussion is going like this:
1) Private networks offer security and QOS - let's use them.
2) No, the Internet is cool and cheap - let's use it.
3) Hey - the Internet has low security and QOS - let's use a private network! Aren't we smart!
--
Hmm (Score:1)
You've never heard about the worldwide WINS server?
--
A word on cybersquatters and speculators (Score:1)
A ban on private resale won't do any good. You could still tie up a domain name and then charge $10,000 to drop the registration.
A better system would be to make the charges incremental. So, you'd pay $20 for one domain name, $30 for the second, $40 for the third, etc. Somebody who's just registering a few names can soak the extra cost but speculators would go broke registering even dozens.
I'll take ANYTHING over NSI, AOL included. (Score:1)
Hell, I'll even use Verio if I have to and dont get me started on what's wrong with that company (I worked there for 6 months while they destroyed the ISP I worked for).
-Rich
A solution (?) for cybersquatters and speculators (Score:1)
This is akin to a video store perpetually keeping the new "Matrix" (hypothetical situation, of course) videotapes for their town on perpetual order, but not being delivered or paid for, to keep all the OTHER video stores from getting it... then when someone comes into their store (which they inevitably have to), they pay their distributor however much, have a kid run over and get the tape, and charge the customer oodles more.
Re: AOL is more than just an Online Service (Score:1)
Well, that's just for the actual AOL client. The did, for instance, release the specs to the AIM protocol (of course, that's after someone had almost completely reverse-engineered it)
A word on cybersquatters and speculators (Score:1)
What type of braindead idea is that? Just because you own more than one domain doesn't mean you're a sepculator. I suggest you do a whois and see just how many domains someone like say Microsoft owns. You'll note that Internic returns the first 50 and gives up. Second, this will make a mess of the database. Nobody will use consistent NIC handles because they won't want to be owning more than one domain. And the organization fields will have the same sort of thing happen.
The five registrars are... (Score:1)
It is a possession (Score:1)
Sprint, AT&T, MCI, the baby bells, and many others ould be fascinated to hear your theory that you are a part-owner of all their routers and cable.
I'll take ANYTHING over NSI, AOL included. (Score:1)
It took me since last August to get two domains and one handle set with the correct addresses since I moved.
Pay less? Hell, I'd pay more to get better service. Get the messages registrars: IT'S NOT THE MONEY. It's how you treat us.
A word on cybersquatters and speculators (Score:2)
1. Domain names may not be transfered. They may only be cancelled.
2. Upon cancellation, the domain name must sit "dead" for a period of around 6 months.
If we do this, the speculators would have a difficult time in convincing buyers that they would be guaranteed to actually be able to register the domain name after the speculator drops it.
If we combine this with domains going live upon receipt of payment and a maximum of 30 days holding time before receiving payment, I think we can make it much less profitable for speculators.
If the need to legitimately transfer domain names is to great for this kind of solution, perhaps there could be a minimum domain holding time before transfers are processed or they could be approved by some impartial body. Approval by committee would be prone to abuse too though.
That's my
Something is missing... (Score:1)
I went to make modifications on the "new" NSI page the other day, and it took me longer to find the form than it used to take me to just fill the thing out and send it in. I don't care who does the main TLDs anymore, and I don't care paying. I don't care if they have a monopoly. I want ONE company with a CONSISTENT interface and CONSISTENT rules to do it so that when I want a domain, I don't have to shop around and compare. This isn't like buying hardware or software, it's registering for an entry in a database that was a hack in the first place.
Screw DNS. Lets start a new naming system to coincide with the rolling out of IPv6.
-Chris
And after the Testbed phase is over: (Score:3)
9NetAvenue; A Technology Company; Active ISP;
Alldomains.com; All West Communications;
American Domain Name Registry; AT&T;
Domain Direct; DomainRegistry.com; eNom, Inc.;
InfoAvenue; InfoNetworks; InfoRamp;
Interactive Telecom Network; Interdomain;
Internet Domain Registrars; interQ Incorporated;
MS Intergate; NameSecure.com; Name.Space Inc.;
NetBenefit; NetNames; Nominalia;
Port Information System AB; RCN;
Telepartner AS; Verio; Virtual Internet; and WebTrends
The five registrars are... (Score:1)
it's not a possession, it's a license (Score:1)
Bzzzz... thanks for playing. Hasn't been that way for quite a while.
when do we get the cheap domain names then ? (Score:1)
AOL is more than just an Online Service (Score:1)
IANA? (Score:1)
Hmmm... Postel hasn't been dead for a year yet and already everything is changing at IANA... Sounds suspicious...
Could somebody clarify how exactly IANA, ICANN, the NICs, the NSI and ISOC are supposed to interact? (And you might as well add the IETF, IAB, IRTF and IESG to the list to make sure things are confusing enough.)
The five registrars are... (Score:1)
Too much FUD going around here (Score:1)
An Interesting question... (Score:2)
RB
AOL is more than just an Online Service (Score:2)
RB
The five registrars are... (Score:1)
All this domain rush depresses me. (Score:1)
It's so disgusting to see someone selling domains like theforcewillbewithu2.com for $100,000. I'm not kidding. Look at ebay.com. WWW became too lose. It would be a good idea to stop Network Solutions monopolizing the domain registration but... I think the registration should be very strict. The registered domains should not be sitting without content. And private domain trade SHOULD BE STOPPED.