US Seeks Veto Powers Over New TLDs 220
suraj.sun writes "The Obama administration is quietly seeking the power for it and other governments to veto future top-level domain names, a move that raises questions about free expression, national sovereignty, and the role of states in shaping the future of the Internet. At stake is who will have authority over the next wave of suffixes to supplement the venerable .com, .org, and .net. At least 115 proposals are expected this year, including .car, .health, .nyc, .movie, and .web, and the application process could be finalized at a meeting in San Francisco next month."
Governments love power (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no surprise that Obama wants this power.
It's just the thing they do. All governments and all people who lead them lust for power. Obama is no exception.
Think about it: if you are a politician and aren't crazed with power-lust, you will be crushed by another politician who is. So we have a system where only the most maniacal, greedy, authoritarian-minded can get into power. Democracy? Ha.
Re:Governments love power (Score:4, Interesting)
In the submission, linked below TFS, there's a mention of efforts for ".gay" TLD - many groups in the society would just love to block it. And many nations (and why it didn't make it to
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For some reason the idea of nsa.wtf makes me giggle.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that bothers me more than the idea of the government having "veto powers" over TLDs is the idea of private industry having that veto power via "intellectual property" laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really sure why anybody would want a ".gay" TLD, personally, I wouldn't want that, it would make it way too easy to filter out materials for the gay community. It would also make it a lot easier to figure out if somebody was perhaps a closet homosexual.
But beyond that, when I need information about safe sex and such, those sites aren't going to be any easier to find with a .gay TLD, more likely the TLD would end up being filled primarily with porn.
Re: (Score:3)
it would make it way too easy to filter out materials for the gay community
How polite of them, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
There is no surprise that a human wants this power.
It's just the thing they do. All social groupings and all people who lead them lust for power. Obama is no exception.
Think about it: if you are a member of a group and aren't crazed with power-lust, you will be crushed by another member who is. So we have a system where only the most maniacal, greedy, authoritarian-minded can get into power. Democracy? ...
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you don't have the notion that this article is about Barack Obama wanting power over TLDs.
I hate to suggest this, but if this is what you think you really need TFA.
Re:Governments love power (Score:4, Interesting)
THIS is why the US is supposed to have separation of powers (federalism) between the Member States and the Union government, so no one maniac can become too powerful, but over time many of us have forgotten that basic principal
The term "state rights" is unfortunately now invokes the American Civil War.
We have seen this with health care, immigration, and numerous other issues. It is easier to scream racist than to actually deal with the issue or to even debate who should deal with the issue.
The other problem is people live in the moment. Bush got a lot of flack for not sending the troops immediately during Katrina. They felt that he should have bypassed the governor who was moving to slow. All the people whining at the time did not bother to think of the implications of the Executive Branch deciding on its own to invade (sorry - assist with keeping order) a state. While it may have been a good idea at the time, the precedent it would have set would have been terrible (same with the patriot act - useful at the time but something we will never be rid of now.)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you deal with the biggest problem the US faces, internally and externally: its abuse of military power to dominate rather than to defend? The military is naturally federal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The term "state rights" is unfortunately now invokes the American Civil War.
Of course it does. The main take-home lesson from that war was that the states don't have any rights.
Re: (Score:2)
That could be related to the fact that Germany, France, et al are actually sovereign states...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and they don't quote Hamilton much either. Neither would I. Being a "founding father" merely means that you were on the winning side at a particular time in history. Some were wise, some weren't. Jefferson I usually trust and admire. Thomas Paine was a bit too radical for me. And who was the guy who read the first draft of the constitution and said "I smell a rat. It squints towards monarchy." He was *really* far-sighted.
But being a found father, on it's own, doesn't buy you much credibility a
Re: (Score:2)
Bourbon and (real wood) baseball bats.
Everything else, they're good for nothing.
They can even fuck up great music. How else can you explain starting out with all the great blues and country music and ending up with Charlie Daniels, the Marshall Tucker Band and Lynyrd Skynyrd? Or what about auto racing? Starting out with Le Mans and ending up with NASCAR.
It's like evolution works backward South of the Mason-Dixon line.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Several northern states not only allowed slavery, but endorsed it to lower manufacturing costs.
2) Slavery did not enter into the war as a political objective until Lincoln realized that France, England and Germany were assisting the southern states to the extent of nearly entering the war themselves. England, France and Germany were providing arms and munitions to the southern armies, alo
Re: (Score:2)
It was about more than just slavery. It was also about the wealth created by slavery, spreading slavery to South and Central America, expanding slavery, and forcing Northern states to honor slavery laws.
Anyone who believes there's some aspect of what was then referred to as "States' Rights" that wasn't about slavery is badly misinformed.
The US Civil War was about slavery. Nothing but slavery. Even some of the greates
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Domains to protect the rent-seeking behaviour of US Imperial capital.
They should reserve .anus for themselves.
Re:Governments love power (Score:5, Informative)
There is no surprise that Obama wants this power.
Except, of course, the summary was completely wrong and it is a proposal to spread out power among more nations and provide a place for an international consensus as opposed to a power grab by a single person or government. Now don't you feel silly for having wasted a perfectly good "power corrupts" speech?
Re: (Score:2)
Damn you for trying to inject facts into an otherwise excellent opportunity for knuckleheads to talk shit.
Re:Governments love power (Score:5, Insightful)
A corporation's only drive, and reason for existing, is to increase its profits. Any services, offers, or goods that a corporation provides to you, are only provided if it increases the profits of that corporation, never because the corporation wants to actually help you out. Corporations never, ever do anything because they like you, or because you are a nice person. If they say that they care about you, it's only so that they can maintain a good company image which again, leads to more profit for them. All dealings with a corporation have to be put in the perspective that there is only one thing that matters, ultimately...the bottom line. Failure to understand this makes you a sucker, and corporations love suckers.
In a similar way, the main motivating factor of government is to increase its sphere and scope of its authority, power and influence. That's it. Everything it does, it does in the quest for more power and authority. Any supposed benefits to you only exist if they help the ultimate goal of increasing government's role in your life, and increasing the size, authority, scope, and power of the government. The government never, ever does anything because it likes your or wants to protect you the way your parents might, for example.
I've heard smart but naive people puzzle over why the government maintains the current income tax system when it could switch out to any number of revenue-neutral taxation schemes that would be much more efficient. There is no need to be puzzled, though, the answer is obvious...the current system of taxation aids the government's ultimate goal of extending the scope of its authority and influence. I have heard smart but naive people wonder why the government doesn't cut taxes to help the economy instead of 'stimulus' efforts that go to special interests, when it's pretty clear that lower taxes stimulate an economy. There is no need to puzzle, though, if you simply have the proper perspective on government and what it is. I have heard smart but naive people puzzle endlessly over why marijuana is illegal even though it's relatively harmless. I have heard smart but naive people wonder why we don't use alternate voting systems that are provably more efficient. It doesn't matter the issue, right, left, any aspect of government all of a sudden makes sense once you realize that the status quo is the way it is because it causes an increase in the size, scope, and authority of the government.
It seems that most adult people, at least all but the most naive, understand that corporations' main motivating factor is to increase profits; many of those same people haven't put the government in the same realistic perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
And ultimately that is in part your fault. It's in part my fault and everybody else that votes. I vote for people that I think are going to do the best by the country, the selection is somewhat limited, but I vote primarily against the Republicans because they've been the big government party of my generation. In the 30 years since I was born, the Republican party has increased the size of our national debt to the tune of nearly $10tn and increased the size of the portions of the government that it likes si
Re: people, cults, covenants love power.... (Score:2)
Corporate governance of a nation is a real perspective for US, EU, RU and others.
Religious governance of a nation is a real perspective for Iraq, Iran, Arabia and others.
Dogma governance of a nation is a real perspective for China, Burma, *Stan and others.
Governance, of a nation by leaders (C*Os, clergy, politicians...) without accountability, of people without representation is a real perspective for them all.
IOW: Governments are what "We The People" make them. Governance by the people is not near the burd
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful for what you wish; it may come true.
With about a couple of hundred governments, I think the only TLD to be achievable would be .stc (squash the citizen) which is the only thing that all states seem to have in common.
Dear US Government, et. al. (Score:2)
No.
You are not the world. You do not represent the interests of the world population. Stick to your jobs, and let the rest of us do ours.
Re: (Score:3)
You do not represent the interests of the world population
They rarely represent the interests of their own population. Do you think they care?
Re: (Score:3)
You do not represent the interests of the world population
They rarely represent the interests of their own population. Do you think they care?
But they always represent the corporations... Especially the ones padding there un-audited re-election campaigns.
Re: (Score:2)
You do not represent the interests of the world population
They rarely represent the interests of their own population. Do you think they care?
But they always represent the corporations... Especially the ones padding there un-audited re-election campaigns.
Such as the domain registrars. The only people who want 117 new TLDs, so they can resell their entire sales book 117 more times. So... get used to having 117 more TLDs, heck probably 117 more every week. Eventually we'll end up reimplementing the "aol keywords" thing and we'll have domain names like .ford or .governmentmotors
Re: (Score:2)
It is our DNS. If you don't like it, create your own and compete. I realize the idea of competition may seem foreign to you, and difficult, but in the long run it will be easier than trying to get us to change our system against our wants and toward yours.
Re: (Score:2)
And up until recently we were doing an admirable job of administering it in a way that was equitable. But with ICE seizing domains without any sort of permission and our efforts to gain a veto over the registrations, I think we're about to kill the golden goose, if we haven't already.
I can see this ending about as well as the veto in the UN security council. Requiring a second no in order to prevent the council from acting would go a long way towards having the UN actually doing something.
Re:Dear US Government, et. al. (Score:5, Informative)
You should know by now the title and summary are usually wrong. The proposal is that veto power be given to an international review board made up representatives of at least 100 nations. So what is proposed is exactly the opposite of what you seem to be complaining about. This is spreading out the power to make decisions about new TLDs among many nations to make sure the interests of the world are represented.
Re: (Score:2)
On the surface, not as bad an idea... but why should any government interference be accepted. Isn't the idea of ICANN to be the decision making body? Do we really need another decision making body to review the decisions of the decision makers? What was the Civilization quote? "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the expanding needs of the bureaucracy."
Re: (Score:2)
On the surface, not as bad an idea... but why should any government interference be accepted.
Because governments represent the people through a democratic process.
Isn't the idea of ICANN to be the decision making body?
ICANN mostly represents corporations and has completely failed in their promises to move towards democratic representation of the people from the bottom up. Why the hell do you think sovereign nations from around the world, elected by their people are worse than a completely non-democratic process run by an organization contracted by the US government?
Moreover, from a completely pragmatic view, it is entirely possible that the UN will dec
Re: (Score:2)
Just tell them that they'll need the power to block "hate speech" TLDs and they'll be all over it.
Heck, I suspect that there isn't a nation-state on earth that doesn't have some gremlin that we could use to get them into line.
"Psst... Germany... You'd better agree to this regulatory proposal before David Duke gets his hands on the
"Hey, OAC, I know we aren't
Perfectly reasonable (Score:2, Insightful)
If the government can be allowed to dictate how companies run networks, then it naturally follows they should be able to allow only domain names they approve of.
Embrace the state, for it knows best!
Re: (Score:2)
The increase in power of the state (with technical solutions to oppress dissent) was inevitable. The choice was between a Soviet state which plays the stern nanny and a "capitalist" state which makes you a servant of the corporations which sponsor it. Why is the latter so much better, America?
That is a false choice (Score:3)
The increase in power of the state (with technical solutions to oppress dissent) was inevitable.
That's where you are wrong. The increase of the power of the state is never inevitable, and can be pulled back. Tunisia has already done so.
You don't need to go to those extremes though to pull back state power. In the case of the U.S. that means voting for people who want to cut the budget because the less money the government has, they less power they wield. It's why voting for people who believe in power
Re: (Score:2)
And who exactly is that? By my count there might be one or two people in the entire house and senate who want to cut the budget. The rest just want to cut the budget for programs they don't like and increase the budget for things they do like.
If you honestly believe Tea Party candidates want to cut the budget (as in, cut the budget, period, end of story) t
Re: (Score:3)
And who exactly is that?
Rand Paul for one. Any Tea Party supported candidate would probably do as well (there are more than two of them). Some Democrats feel that way as well, since traditionally Democrats were not aligned with big business, that happened mostly in recent decades...
If you honestly believe Tea Party candidates want to cut the budget (as in, cut the budget, period, end of story) then you are living in a fantasy world.
Since they are actually proposing budget cuts and even debating raising th
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to go to those extremes though to pull back state power. In the case of the U.S. that means voting for people who want to cut the budget because the less money the government has, they less power they wield. It's why voting for people who believe in power being in the hands of the states is better than those wanting the federal government to run things, because the more locally power is concentrated the more obvious abuses will be.
I've got a nice tract of land down in Florida that I'm sure you'd be interested in.
People who vote for politicians that promise tax cuts shouldn't vote. Politicians promise tax cuts and cuts to spending, but I rarely if ever hear of a politician with the stones to tell the voters what he or she intends to cut. As a result what gets cut tends to be programs to help the lower classes earn their way up in society and what gets cut in terms of taxes tends to be on those that already have enough money.
Voting for
Re: (Score:2)
"Why is the latter so much better, America?"
Because that's what the propaganda says. Seriously, Americans are consumers driven by marketing and America is marketed as it exists, and not how it was supposed to exist or could exist, and that marketing is, and will be, consumed as long as there continues to be breads and circuses. Gotta go, almost out of DVR space and don't want to lose American Idol...
Re: (Score:2)
Child abuse begins, and usually ends, at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. Soon we will all be working happily at the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen.
OpenNIC (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How? You are aware that US FCC can't regulate the whole of the internet, right?
At most it can try to block access to OpenNIC servers from the US, but then it's just a matter of a bit of tunneling DNS requests...
Wow... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bush and his people thought that they could make porn go away if they opposed the .xxx TLD. Obama thinks a kill switch is a keen idea. Put down the button and step away from the controls. That's right. Let the smart people run the Internet, m'kay?
There were many governments that opposed the .xxx, and that is why ICANN canceled it after originally giving it the green light. Bush's name has been associated with it the most, though, because his religious persuasions are publicly known, so everyone is quick to assume his motivations.
I can't understand how the porn industry would want the new TLD at all. It opens doors for censorship, and gives an edge to new sites over established ones.
I don't want the government involved, but I don't want ICANN openi
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who wants to operate a small site already needs to acquire the .net, .org, .com, .us, and .biz versions. The more TLDs exist, the greater the cost for running a single site for one year.
This may be the death of that policy, and thus be good. When its 5 TLDs, eh, you pay the cash. When its 4353 TLDs, "F it, everyone only uses .com anyway".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on that, as much as I distrusted President Bush, I'm not really sure that one can assume that it was an effort to kill pornography websites. It could very easily have been an honest effort at helping parents keep their kids away from it without unduly preventing adults from accessing it.
But in this case, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Besides he's hardly the only person that wanted it.
Politicians are the Original FUD Machines (Score:2)
Step 1: Find something that might seem scary/wrong to the average schmuck
Step 2: Use hyperbole and outright lies to whip said schmucks into a frenzy about it.
Step 3: Declare that you're absolutely opposed to this newfound "threat."
Step 4: Get elected.
Step 5: Profit.
Always has been that way, always will be that way with politicians. It's why the American Experiment in Democracy version 1.0 has failed.
We need to convene another Constitutional Convention to release version 2.0 with its necessary structur
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, are you talking about the US Government or Slashdot?
This story is a great example of finding something that seems scary/wrong to the average geek, and using hyperbole and outright lies to whip said geeks into a frenzy about it. Neither the author nor Slashdot says explicitly that they are opposed to this, and the editors don't make a personal profit, but I think the analogy still holds.
Dear Mr. Obama (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What I find amusing is, all the people who said "he was different" well they were right. He is different than say Bush Jr. Of course, that's not in a good way. I guess you, deserve what you vote for.
Re: (Score:2)
There are issues where he's genuinely an embarrassment. But that's in stark contrast to President Bush who was an embarrassment on most issues. Bush wouldn't have pushed for banking reform, health care reform or an end to GITMO. Remember that it's primarily Republicans that are fighting the President on those issues.
Suggesting that he's different in a way which is somehow bad is disingenuous. The differences are mostly positive, it's just that Bush didn't have to fight with members of the other party for mo
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Mr. Obama of all of the massively important/pressing issues, why are you putting so much energy into ruining one of the few things left that are actually free?
Dear Gripp, why did you not inform yourself before forming an opinion? If you vote based upon topics you researched just as thoroughly (reading a misleading summary of a sensationalized article from a single source, without bothering to check the facts) then please just stop voting altogether. Now maybe you can go read the proposal you're complaining about and then write a nice apology to the mid level bureaucrats who wrote this very reasonable compromise on international input into the TLD process.
Maybe.... (Score:2)
It was invented here. It is worldwide, now.
On the third hand (if you're counting), some of the names I've seen are a) idiotic, b) ludicrously too long, and c) not allowable, because THERE ARE ALREADY COUNTRY CODE top level domains. I mean, .nyc? As opposed, say, to nyc.ny.us, or maybe nyc.us?
mark "reality check time"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really sure why we need to go much beyond country codes. Having say a .edu, .com, .org, .gov and possibly a couple others for each country code is more than enough. Even without adding any others to the four I listed. It strikes me that if you need more granularity than that that you're probably doing it wrong.
Most servers aren't meant for only a city, so you're usually better off with a subdomain handling a particular state or city.
How about no new TLDs? (Score:3, Interesting)
A "fairer" idea: Stop issuing new non-country/U.N. TLDs. .com.us, .edu.us, etc. for anyone with an existing or new .com, .edu, etc. for the next 20 years.
Put everyone on notice that if they register a NEW 2nd-level non-country domain name now (foo.com) it will be revoked in 10 years. Give existing domain owners a little longer - say, 15-20 years - to retire existing domains. Reserve
People won't like it but at least it will end the bickering.
Now, as for new 2nd-level.us domains, the USA can do that without stepping on other countries sovereignty and they can make whatever.cc without stepping on America's.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points so I could mod you up as "Funny".
Re: (Score:2)
So where do you look for an international company then?
You first have to figure out where it's actually located?
.crap (Score:3, Funny)
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we need more TLDs?
Because then you can sell all the same names again.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. At this point the domain squatting industry is too big to fail. We need big government to step in and make sure they continue to profit so the proles can get their trickle down excrement. Someone should really think of the children too.
Re: (Score:2)
The point you make is valid - there isn't a lot of clear "need" for new top level domains.
But then again there wasn't a "need" for facebook.
It is simply a matter of allowing people to do what they want to do - or in the case of businesses, allowing people to hope to make some money (but more likely to lose it.)
If we limit the choices that others can make then we ourselves become censors.
Read TFA Carefully, Summary is Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
The Obama administration is proposing (PDF) that domain approval procedures be changed to include a mandatory "review" by an ICANN advisory panel comprised of representatives of roughly 100 nations. The process is open-ended, saying that any government "may raise an objection to a proposed (suffix) for any reason." Unless at least one other nation disagrees, the proposed new domain name "shall" be rejected.
This would create an explicit governmental veto over new top-level domains. Under the procedures previously used in the creation of .biz, .name, and .info, among others, governments could offer advice, but the members of the ICANN board had the final decision.
If you didn't already know, ICANN is under contract [icann.org] to the United States government. So Obama's policy would effectively globalize the approval of new TLDs, in effect giving the US less power.
And if the story is to be believed, a TLD is only automatically rejected if one or more countries object and no countries disagree. If countries disagree or cannot form a consensus, the TLD isn't automatically rejected. Or specifically, from the PDF [internetgovernance.org]:
String Evaluation: The GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct ICANN staff to amend the following procedures related to the Initial Evaluation called for in Module 2 to include review by governments, via the GAC. Any GAC member may raise an objection to a proposed string for any reason. If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application. (Note that the application fees should be refunded to the applicant).
Explanation: This proposal meets a number of compelling goals. First it will diminish the potential for blocking of top level domain strings considered objectionable by governments, which harms the architecture of the DNS and undermines the goal of universal resolvability. Second, affording governments the opportunity, through the GAC, to advise the ICANN Board that there is consensus GAC advice regarding particular proposed strings that should not be processed is supportive of ICANN’s commitment to ensure that its decision are in the global public interest.
(Emphasis added.)
So, in effect, it's creating an international body where members can object, but other members can block an objection. To my understanding, that's pretty much the opposite of veto power, and it's certainly not a US government takeover of DNS TLDs (in as much as they didn't own the process already).
Really, it all depends on how much faith you have that the other, saner countries will block objections instead of being pussies.
Check the contracts (Score:2)
ICANN is no longer operating under the old agreements (which went under various names) and is now under an "affirmation" that amounts to an amicable and somewhat supervised divorce between the US gov't and ICANN.
ICANN is on its own, except for that has duties under a zero dollar purchase order to supply "IANA Functions". But that,although it lacks definitions, has always been considered somewhat separate from the domain name issues.
There is an amusing twist - ICANN is a California corporation and there is
Re: (Score:2)
So then you're stuck with the choice of having a private company direct what TLDs will be accepted, or an international body doing so. Either way, it's not the government takeover that the article and summary seem to be making people think it is.
Also lulz at the subversive organization thing.
There is a solution (Score:3)
It is merely a religious dogma that the internet requires exactly one domain name root.
One way to fight censorship of domain names is to have multiple roots.
It would be bad to have multiple roots that lead to different answers to the same query.
The solution is to have *consistent* but multiple DNS roots. That way any censorship could be obviated simply by users (or their ISP's changing to an uncensored root.)
The definition of "consistent" makes a difference. Some define it as being absolutely the same. I give relax that a bit to say that if a top level domain (TLD) exists then it must have the same contents in all roots that carry it, but that not all roots need carry every TLD.
(If TLDs have disputed contents than I claim that they are tainted goods and that any self-respecting root operator ought to put a pox on both their houses and carry none of the disputants' versions.)
A side effect of this approach is that, like TV channels fighting for space on cable and satellite provider's, new TLDs can arise and fight for visibility and user share without the need of a centralized authority such as ICANN.
There will, of course, be situations in which abc.example won't resolve in a root that doesn't carry .example. But progress is never perfect - look at the way the telephone system collapsed with the introduction of the touch pad and the revolutionary '#' and '*' keys.
What's his plan? (Score:2)
I just changed some settings and then when I plugged in http://www.lbgt2sqqsupport.gay/ [lbgt2sqqsupport.gay] Firefox went right to the site for which I was looking. Is Obama planning on changing the fundamental architecture of the internet, or legally barring alternative DNS schemes? Or is he just too stupid to know better, or not in control of his own administration which in turn is too stupid to know better?
I'm not too terribly worried. (Score:2)
Someone was bored (Score:2)
Someone was bored, and had some time to waste.
S
This is a Compromise Solution (Score:2)
Okay, I read the article. I don't get it. They say the Obama administration is "...seeking the power for it and other governments to veto future top-level domain names". As far as I can tell the action they have taken was to submit a proposal that, "...domain approval procedures be changed to include a mandatory 'review' by an ICANN advisory panel comprised of representatives of roughly 100 nations".
So first off, all those comments here about the US trying to seize power over domain names from other soverei
Dear America (Score:3)
That is all.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear America Fuck off. That is all.
The fact that this is your response to the proposal as written says a lot about media and the ability of people to accurately inform themselves. I'm sure whoever wrote the proposal is wondering WTF right about now. They put together a nice compromise proposal where hundreds of nations would be represented in the TLD process. It isn't US-centric completely controlled by a Californian corporation in turn controlled by the US, but is instead decided by representatives of the international community. At the sam
New TLDs are a racket for registrars (Score:2)
New TLDs are mostly a racket for registrars, who try to get companies to purchase the same domain in multiple TLD's for "protection". This is close to an extortion racket. Since ICANN got rid of those annoying "public" board members, it's just been a trade group for registrars.
Most of the newer TLDs are duds, anyway. ".museum" has so few domains that the whole list is a few pages. ".aero" has an entry for each airport code, but those are mostly redirects put up by the registrar. ".biz" is a strip mall i
The million geek army says "NO" (Score:2)
If there's an Internet kill switch, next year there will be one, or more, open source radio Internets on shifting multiply redundant frequencies. Or underground radio transmission will be revived and improved, or satellite hacking will become the new favorite geek sport, or internet signals will be introduced into powerlines, or cell phones will be hacked into being mobile packet switch devices, or...
And that's what I can think of, just off the top of my head.
Seriously. If anyone in the government is dumb e
Vetoed TLDs are a valuable resource. (Score:2)
One of the problems with trying to set up an alternative DNS to get around things like the seizure of domain names by DNS/ICE is that a DNS registry system provides two services:
- Mapping names to addresses.
- Assuring uniqueness in the identification.
An alternative system has the problem that, if it allocates a name, the OFFICIAL system could allocate the same name to somebody else, causing havoc.
But if there is a set TLDs that this supernational agency had decreed would NOT be allocated, an
Land of not so Free, home of the Super-Parents (Score:2)
Back when Bush was president, I used to watch the news because I like seeing what stupid shit he did next. But now? Oh hell no. When a stupid man does stupid shit, it's funny. When a smart man does stupid shit, it's really fucking scarey.
Re:What?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly someone needs to be in charge of new TLDs. I mean, seriously, we've got .jobs, .mobi, .museum, .aero, .info, .biz? For fuck's sake, when will this shit stop? My main concern with the plan here is that there's no way Obama is going to rule over TLD approvals with an iron fist. He's probably going to fucking allow some new TLDs. We need someone with some fucking balls, someone who will go through the whole goddamned queue and stamp DENIED. DENIED. DENIED. DENIED on the entire stack and then shit on it before delivering it back to the applicants.
Seriously. We were fine with .com, .org, .net, .mil, .gov, .edu and a bunch of country codes. If you want a new TLD, it had better be a goddamn country code or I don't want to even hear you fucking talk about it. Take your stupid industry-specific vanity TLD bullshit and do us all a favor and shut your fucking hole. Forever.
Re: (Score:2)
You just wait until someone goes and founds their own country to get access to a highly desirable TLD.
Re: (Score:2)
Would Apple sue someone for http://steve.jobs [steve.jobs]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's mainly a scam to increase revenue for registrars by getting people to buy $TRADEMARK.foo and $TRADEMARK.bar when they only really want to use $TRADEMARK.baz. And the recent proliferation of stupid TLDs has no positive benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read your history. It's always been like this, and is unlikely to change unless there's a collective push for it. People like the stupid status quo.
We control directly who's elected. You have to cut thru the media hype and propaganda, and do real research, and encourage others to do that, too. Human rights were much worse 30yrs ago than they are now. Now, we have a way to get faster and more accurate observations of the violations. We still have to work harder. Much harder.
So stop living in fear. The reason
Re: (Score:2)
Also joining the military is a lot like playing Halo or Crysis from what I've been seeing recently. Looks pretty bitchin'.
There is a glitch where some of the time, you don't respawn. And even when you do, you have to grind in the hospital level and sometimes loose abilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... or, they may want to veto the .ps TLD being transferred from the Israeli "Palestinian Territories" to the "State of Palestine".
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with the logic of it? It's speculative but not implausible considering that the US has been seizing domains only to see the sites pop back up 5 minutes later under a foreign-controlled TLD. The US government seeking power to limit new TLDs just after the failure of their pre-Superbowl domain crackdown is more than a little suspicious.
Re: (Score:2)
because the article and the summery and everything is pointing to the creation of top level domains not domains in the top levels. This is whatever comes after the dot as in ".com", not what comes before the . as in "whydoibother".com
It has absolutely no bearing on domains being registered in those top level domains. It only has to do with top level domains so things like .offensive can't be made. That being said, it's still not a good idea even though the logic you championed is completely irrelevant to th
Re: (Score:2)
2) Let the entire world vote in US politics.
Thats what we're doing now. Anyone on US soil during polling can vote (for that matter, as many times as they want). No citizenship required.
Furthermore the voting doesn't actually matter, its the money paid to election campaigns. And they accept all currency from everyone, pretty much, although mostly major corporations overwhelm all other contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
While you state it's not to be taken literally, the problem is that it is fundamentally an oddly very protectionist view--which is the same thing the US has been accused of during various points last decade and certainly the decades previous. Remember, too, that it's a two-way street: World War II may not have been started exclusively by protectionism, but the way Germany was treat
Re: (Score:2)
You know this is almost exactly the opposite of what you're claiming right? This is about subjecting TLDs to review by a group of at least 100 nations and giving that group veto power. The proposal is not that the US executive gets veto power.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for mantaining the number of TLDs low, because it will be a mess to try to remember some address when you have no clue of the TLD, but I just can't see the point in not allowing this or that specific TLD.
Aside from the fact that you clearly haven't read the proposal by the GAC, what makes you think anyone is trying to forbid the creation of TLDs? The proposal is that veto power for what used to be called “Morality and Public Order Objections” and which is now called "Limited Public Interest Objection" be replaced in its entirety such that a group of representatives of at least 100 governments be convened and that any of them could object to a TLD, but then any other member could object to the ob
Re: (Score:2)