Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

ICANN Opens .net Redelegation Consultation 26

Posted by michael from the name-games dept.
Joel Rowbottom writes "The first public draft criteria for the redelegation of the .net gTLD to Verisign's successor (due on 30th June 2005) to a new registry operator is out, and the public comments period commenced on 28th May.It's pretty similar to the .org redelegation criteria. The ICANN announcement is here and gives opportunity to submit comments prior to the final procedure which will be posted at the end of June."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ICANN Opens .net Redelegation Consultation More

ICANN Opens .net Redelegation Consultation

Comments Filter:

  • If ICANN doesn't dump Verisign/NSI... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by buelba ( 701300 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @11:31AM (#9335149)
    ...we'll have the last piece of evidence that they're entirely toothless. Verisign has done a lousy job along every axis, from high fees to poor coordination to the ridiculous "SiteFinder" service. ICANN has tolerated all this, even waiting to get angry about SiteFinder until everyone else did.

    ICANN should dump Verisign even if they have the lowest bid. Which they won't. But if they hold onto Verisign, it means they're either scared of Verisign's attorneys (since I'm sure Verisign will sue, since they have no other business) or are totally unable to make important decisions.
    • the ridiculous "SiteFinder" service.

      I think the quotation marks would have been better placed like so:

      the ridiculous SiteFinder "service".

      And maybe even a :-P to make it abundantly clear that calling SiteFinder a service is an insult to the word service.

  • It's government time! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 04, 2004 @11:35AM (#9335205)
    Private industry has shown that they are unwilling or unable to administrate the Internet base services.

    It is time that the government step in and turn the Internet into a public utility. This is the only way to get rid of leeches like Verisign. Put the power back in the hands of the people instead of in the hands of a monied few. Democracy in action, folks. Don't let the door slam those fuckers in the ass on the way out.
    • And which government would that be? The US does not own the Internet.

      • Re:It's government time! (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The US might not own the Internet, but they do own control of the .net, .org, .com, .biz, domain delegation & control. And this is what this article is about, and not the internet in general.
    • Er.

      ICANN derives its authority from the US government. The Department of Commerce, IIRC.

      What did you have in mind, anyway? Say you convinced the legislature that they needed to handpick a replacement for Verisign today.. they'd probably farm it out to fucking Halliburton.
    • More government administration would make it more inefficient, not less. And it would also open the door for censorship, political manipulation, etc. Do you really want the internet in the same hands as the author's of the PATRIOT Act? Or the Oil-for-Food Fraud? No thank you, sir.
      • And it would also open the door for censorship, political manipulation, etc. Do you really want the internet in the same hands as the author's of the PATRIOT Act? Or the Oil-for-Food Fraud? No thank you, sir.

        And a private corporation would be better than this... how? It's not as if businessmen are somehow purer than politicians. Would you like the internet in the hand of Diebold or the MPAA or Microsoft? There's plenty of motivation for censorship, political manipulation, etc. that way too, plus the an

        • But the virtue of the free market is that companies who don't perform to the customers specification soon find themselves out of customers.

          My vision of the internet of the future is one of multiple "internets", with localized DNS servers providing localized roadmaps to the World Wide Web. If you don't like the way your current DNS provider is servicing you, simply switch DNS providers.

          I know I'm being pretty general with an idea that would be very difficult to implement (at least right now), but as comput

    • I agree that it shouldn't be run by private industry, but giving it to governments is not only likely to produce inefficiency but perhaps more importantly, it is likely to give them the opportunity to "regulate" it, meaning censorship. They've already shown interest in doing this. An international non-governmental organization might be the best thing, though exactly how to structure it isn't clear.

    • I wasn't aware there was a single, global government to step in here.

      World Wide Web != United States Of America.

    • Last I heard, the US government was pretty much "the monied few." What, you would have national elections for ICANN members? Come on. Giving it back to the US government (Or, god forbid, some vacuous world government) would destroy the Internet in a quagmire of regulation, faux democracy and stagnation.

      The private sector is doing just fine, and it could probably stand to have less government involvement - remove the Dept. of Commerce from the equation. Don't like it? Make a new Internet. I'm serious;
  • ........I'd say give it to the UN and make internet regulation part of the international bureaucracy. Scared though I would be of unwieldy bureaucracy and pressure from the "monied few" *cough*USgovernment*cough* putting internet regulation into the hands of the international community could be a step on the way towards the internet as a public utility and a "creative commons".
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:If I had any faith in them at all (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I'll stick with the US government. At least they are accountable to _someone_.

        thank goodness ... but have they found that person yet?

      • I'll stick with the US government. At least they are accountable to _someone_.
        Who's that again? Not me, I'm an Australian. Actually, can I hold your government accountable? Afterall, our Prime Minister is just over in the USA now to kiss his buddy George W. Bush.
        Australia: the 53rd US state.

      • After how they managed the Iraqi Oil-for-food program (Kofi Annan's family is doing very well from all that, thank you)

        Ironically enough, all the voices about the bribery and Annan's son involvement in this matter has come from Ahmed Chalabi, the now-not-so-in-friendly-terms buddy of Dubya.

        At least they are accountable to _someone_.

        To "someone" who, please? [poll]I live in the EU, you insensitive clod.[/poll]

        In final analysis, the UN should be the right solution to this problem. Unless, obviousl

Slashdot Top Deals

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin

Close