U.S. OKs VeriSign Domain Deal 32
mduell writes: "The U.S. government approved a deal allowing top Internet domain registrar VeriSign to retain control of the lucrative ".com" Web addresses, the Commerce Department said Friday." ICANNwatch has a couple of stories about the deal finally reached, and the steps taken by the Commerce Department to promote competition in the DNS.
Re:What does this mean for OpenSRS et al? (Score:1)
--
Re:Market system? (Score:1)
First a giant trial about Microsoft's monopoly and then they simply grant a company a monopoly for several years??
What amazes me is that there are idiots out there who find it somehow surprising that NOT EVERY AMERICAN AGREES ON ANYTHING, and that therefore "our" actions are not always consistent. (Well, DUH!)
Not everyone thinks a Microsoft monopoly is bad. And not everyone thinks a VeriSign monopoly is good.
Endrin, if this sort of pluralism and disagreement amazes you and seem out of place, then I'm certainly glad I don't live in whatever country you do. I'd hate to live in a place where this sort of thing is unusual...
--
Re:Market system? (Score:2)
Department of Commerce, I believe (since they're the ones who regulate the
But I also believe that Europeans and Japanese (and just about everybody else in the world) would not like that much.
Sure, it could go in funding for standards-promoting agencies such as IETF and W3C, but I fear that it would just be wistful thinking...
Re:Market system? (Score:2)
Well, real soon now we'll have seperate registries for
But i think the new regirstries will charge close to $6 as well. It's not easy to run a database of that size with zero tolerance for downtime or latency. Plus, you know, also running root DNS.
--
Exactly what is bad about this? (Score:5)
The part of Verisign that people seem to have a problem with is the Registrar. This is -not- a monopoly. If you don't like the customer service, don't use it.
The part of Verisign that is a monopoly is the Registry. This is not a part that any of you interact with, unless you work for a registrar.
Again, how is any of this bad? If you don't like the Verisign registrar, don't use it. If you don't like the registry, be happy with this deal, because it gives Verisign's registry -less- power.
--
Re:What does this mean for OpenSRS et al? (Score:5)
There are two parts - one is the Verisign registrar, which is all 99% of the world ever interacts with. This registrar has dozens of competitors, including OpenSRS.
There's also the Verisign registry, which is what all the registrars talk to, in order to keep things in sync.
Under the old plan, Verisign could either keep control of the
Under the new plan, Verisign phases out control of the
And yes, there are strict regulations in place to keep the Verisign registry from giving special treatment to the Verisign registrar.
If you don't like the Verisign registrar, don't use it. It's not a monopoly. Only the Verisign registry is, and nobody ever complains about that.
--
Re:Interesting landmark decision for the internet (Score:1)
Remember your roots. Don't be so quick to shrug off what the net was built upon for a quick buck.
Best Site About ICANN (Score:2)
http://www.paradigm.nu/icann/icannstage.html [paradigm.nu]
All I have to say is, (Score:1)
CRAP!!
That, and the lameness filter is pretty lame.
- - - - -
Re:What's the problem (Score:2)
American Centrism? (Score:3)
A real shame, the vision of "the net" as held by those who created is less and less a reality every day something like this occurs..
Glacial review cycles (Score:3)
"The second review will take place in March 2004."
Obviously they don't understand how much the Internet changes in 18 months.
Verisign will be audited (Score:1)
------------------------------------------
What does this mean for OpenSRS et al? (Score:1)
Hard work alone? (Score:1)
Remember how www.internic.net got redirected to Network Solutions Commercial registrar service even after competition began? How about the ongoing tales of horrible service, e-mail-loop-hell, and deliberate scarfing up of expired names. It took me months to get Network Solutions to "allow" me to transfer one of my domains to another registrar. They kept finding reasons why they couldn't process my transfer even though I'd filled out all the templates properly.
Verisign as a Registrar is about where AT&T as a phone company was in 1967 - "we're the registrar, we don't have to care". They are doing everything they can to hold on to what's left of their monopoly.
Re:Hard work alone? (Score:1)
"if you can get them to cooperate" regarding freedom not to use Verisign as a Registrar.
Oh, so a company whose service is so bad that you have to hope "you can get them to cooperate" in order NOT to use them, is worthy of having its monopoly continued in another area?
I'm well aware of the difference between a Registry and Registrar. Bad Acts as a Registrar should absolutely have been considered in any decision to extend its monopoly as a Registry.
That standard is applied in most realms of business and consumer activism - why do you think people boycotted Nestle chocolate when they were protesting unethical distribution of infant formula in 3rd-world countries that couldn't afford to use it safely?
I don't care if Netsol/Verisign is an absolute saint as a Registry. They are absolute slime as a Registrar, and that should disqualify them from a continued monopoly as registry and especially from still being able to be both.
Re:Okay, (Score:1)
Market system? (Score:3)
Re:Okay, (Score:2)
What are some better alternatives for handling domain registration, other than having a corporation in charge?
Originally, universities were the keepers of such things. A not-for-profit such as IEEE, ACM, or even The Verisign Foundation would be able to handle the job. (The last is a made-up name, although I would not at all be surprised to hear that Verisign has such a philanthropic arm.)
The military-industry complex is more used to for-profit companies taking on these function -- it makes it easier to sue for damages if the contracted company doesn't do the job. Unfortunately, the Dept. of Commerce doesn't have an effective and measurable performance clause in the contracts...
Re:American Centrism? (Score:2)
I question the right of a US body to continue to make decisions concerning what is a global resource.
As I recall, each country with a two-letter TLD has the right to do whatever it wants with the second-level domain names -- and that includes .com.. Does Verisign control .com.uk.? I didn't think so.
Of course, the right answer is to eliminate the TLD .com, .net, .org, .edu, and so forth and move all existing United States sites to .com.us, .net.us, .org.us, .edu.us, and so-forth.us. That would necessitate creating a TLD called .multi, so that multi-national organizations and corporations could have a home.
It would take the pressure off the .com database, wouldn't it?
I thought Republicans were supposed to deregulate? (Score:1)
Verisign can keep it's stinking .com! (Score:1)
---
Re:Verisign will be audited (Score:4)
There certainly does need to be oversight and this solution seems to adress that issue.
--CTH
--
Okay, (Score:1)
What are some better alternatives for handling domain registration, other than having a corporation in charge? What else would be feasible -- a government body? I think I'd prefer government in control of it, rather than a profit-motivated corporation...
Re:What does this mean for OpenSRS et al? (Score:2)
On the contrary, that's exactly what people have been complaining about. Most everyone on this thread knows that there are a lot of competing registrars-- you didn't point this out for the first time. The monopoly is with the registry, and that's what this whole discussion has been about (what did you think people were complaining about??)
Verisign makes a lot of money off of the registry, and every registrar has to pay for it. The problem most people have with the decision is the back-room nature of the deal. This is a public resource, yet it has been granted to a single for-profit company for a large number of years (by Internet standards), with very little room for public comment.
In any case, to say "there are lots of competing registrars, so customers are never going to suffer as a result of the Verisign monopoly" does not an argument make. You could as easily say "there are lots of competing DSL providers, so customers aren't going to suffer because Verizon owns all the lines."
Alliteration and my topic of greatest concern. (Score:1)
---------Phew----------
I really despise these situations that cultivate political favoritism. For a historical perspective, consider the Teapot Dome Scandal [yahoo.com] For a contemporary example, refer to George W. Bush's Plans to drill Alaska [thetimes.co.uk]: The government bought the lands from Russia. The land and the oil in it belongs to the American people. We ought to work out some way to use it's revenues for the public good, but in the past (read:teapot) land like this has been given to political friends. Geoge W. Bush has no shortage of friends in the oil business.
This sort of thing also occurs whenever a local government subsidizes sports arenas.
Now the same corrupt process is taking place with the internet. More public money thrown into private corporate pockets.
I wonder if this corporation was created for this purpose, and if so who created it? I wonder if it existed previously, and if so under what name and what sort of bidding process did it have to go through.
Re:Market system? (Score:1)
But we have a right to choose.
Monopoly is bad.
Re:Market system? (Score:1)
Europe will be assimilated into the Microsoft Ameri-Gatesonian Capitalist State.
What is your favorite color, future citizen?
*favourite
*colour
Re:Market system? (Score:1)
First a giant trial about Microsoft's monopoly and then they simply grant a company a monopoly for several years?? Free market anyone? What about anti-trust laws?
BTW, I don't think auctioning it off to the highest bidder would solve anything; it seems to me that VeriSign has lots of cash and other smaller companies simply can't compete with that.
Endrin (still glad to live in Europe, but who knows for how long...)
This is almost overwhelming (Score:3)
It reminds me how Presidnet Lincoln responded when he told about confederate spies in his government. He said:
Sometimes I wish I could just have my illusions back that at least some things are done fairly and justly, that someone with power cares about the rights of people who cannot reward him, that the tree isn't completely hollow.
-----------------------
What's the problem (Score:1)
Re:Okay, (Score:1)
Yes, VeriSign is profit-driven, but this (in theory) applies only to the registrar not the registry. That's what the audits are for. To make sure VeriSign isn't abusing its privileges. It would be harder to crack down if a government body was abusing privileges.
This ain't good, this ain't bad. It's just the way it is.
The one and only entity in control of my bodily functions,