Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Seeks Veto Powers Over New TLDs

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the start-requiring-more-vowels dept.

Government 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Governments love power (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141224)

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 (3, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141292)

People want their government to have power of pushing things... which said people want.

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 /. story, anyway? ;p )

Re:Governments love power (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141606)

As an American I'd like to defend this policy, um, but I can't. WTF? Hmm ... I wonder if we can get .gov to transition over to the newly proposed (as in right here, right now) .wtf TLD?

Re:Governments love power (2)

brainboyz (114458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141960)

For some reason the idea of nsa.wtf makes me giggle.

Hey, hey, hey, hey! (0)

madowcopyrightowner (1991028) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141724)

Are you gonna go up my butt?

Re:Governments love power (2)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141368)

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? ...

...well, at least it exists for government. Its detractors will insist that people are stupid or misled, because they cannot stand facing up to the fact that - for the vast majority of people - what we have today is more than good enough.

Re:Governments love power (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141460)

>>>most maniacal, greedy, authoritarian-minded can get into power.

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.

BTW Judge Napolitano calls this "Libido Dominandi" which is a phrase he borrowed from the Romans - lust to dominate - http://freedomwatchonfox.com/ [freedomwatchonfox.com]

Benjamin Franklin called it avarice and ambition - desire for wealth and power.

Re:Governments love power (3, Interesting)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141932)

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:Governments love power (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35142198)

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:Governments love power (1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141694)

Domains to protect the rent-seeking behaviour of US Imperial capital.

They should reserve .anus for themselves.

Re:Governments love power (0)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#35142082)

I bet that would make a great chat room domain you would go into a lot.

The greatest copyright owner (1)

madowcopyrightowner (1991028) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141246)

What slowness can I offer you, .car?

0.25 MPH is such a nice speed...

Just great (-1, Offtopic)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141260)

The US government has noticed that when they shut down freenfl.com they just move to freenfl.cn or something like that, and now they want to prevent this by claiming ownership of all countries' domain names, which they are at least technically capable of doing...

Re:Just great (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141340)

RTFA asshole. Or TFS. Or TFT which reads "US Seeks Veto Powers Over New TLDs".

Re:Just great (-1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141590)

Which is the first step in doing what I said. They've noticed the domains they seize are popping up with new TLDs. It only makes sense for them to limit the selection of TLDs as quickly as possible.

Re:Just great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141634)

Congratulations, your backtracking has gotten you all the way from a reading comprehension fail to a logic fail. Feel free to keep going, I'm sure there are still more ways you can make yourself look like an ass.

Re:Just great (1)

the_hellspawn (908071) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141762)

Obi-Wan...the fail is strong in this one

Re:Just great (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141768)

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:Just great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141782)

Wow... what you're suggesting really has nothing to do with the issue here. Pirate, etc. sites can switch to [almost] any TLD they want. Vetoing new not-currently-existing TLDs has absolutely nothing to do with that at all, nor is it the first step to anything like that.

Next time, actually read the article, actually think critically and logically about it, THEN finally post an informed reply. It helps make you not look like an ass.

What?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141268)

I don't think so.

Dammit my goverment is really starting to piss me off with their epic bullshit. Theres no way i can say i'm proud to be american anymore. Because even i can't defend some of the insane shit they come up with. Like this here.. Who the fuck put the goverment in charge of domain names?

Re:What?!? (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141328)

Theres no way i can say i'm proud to be american anymore.

Get an old pickup truck, a worn-out baseball cap, and a job in mining, farming or manufacturing. It seems to boost patriotism for the Americans in the Republican political ads.

Also joining the military is a lot like playing Halo or Crysis from what I've been seeing recently. Looks pretty bitchin'.

Re:What?!? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141420)

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:What?!? (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141470)

But I've heard the controllers have awesome force-feedback.

Re:What?!? (4, Insightful)

croddy (659025) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141514)

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:What?!? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141784)

You just wait until someone goes and founds their own country to get access to a highly desirable TLD.

Re:What?!? (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141788)

Would Apple sue someone for http://steve.jobs [steve.jobs] ?

Re:What?!? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141872)

But does it really matter? I mean, aside from possible phishing and spoofing attacks, it really doesn't matter that /. is .org, it could very well be .com, .net, or .tech and it would still be the same site.

Re:What?!? (2)

croddy (659025) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141926)

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:What?!? (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141574)

I'm with you. I love most Americans and am proud of what we have accomplished in an historically short span of time, but I am shit-terrified of our government. It stopped being "of and for" the people a long time ago. The citizens have no power over who gets elected anymore and we're starting to see what we thought of as basic human rights being further eroded every day. One of the things that makes me happy when I travel, is that many of the foreign nationals that I meet seem to understand the difference between the U.S. government and its citizens. I doubt you'll find a more generous and friendly population (Canada notwithstanding) and conversely you won't find a more frightening and pants-crappingly insane government (North Korea and Iran notwithstanding).

Dear US Government, et. al. (1)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141278)

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:Dear US Government, et. al. (2)

The Moof (859402) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141362)

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:Dear US Government, et. al. (2)

wizkid (13692) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141416)

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:Dear US Government, et. al. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141588)

Yep, they ALWAYS represent the corporations. I was wondering why we didn't have any labor laws. Or environmental laws. Or product safety laws. Or food safety laws. Or commercial building codes. Or securities laws. Or accounting laws. Or...

Re:Dear US Government, et. al. (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141912)

The purpose of all the laws you mention are to create barriers to the entry of new competition.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35142048)

An EFFECT of those laws may be raising costs and thus providing a barrier to entry. Calling it the PURPOSE of the laws just exposes you as a complete loony.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al. (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141706)

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:Dear US Government, et. al. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35142174)

The only people who want 117 new TLDs, so they can resell their entire sales book 117 more times.

And why should we care? If some clowns want to buy up the entries so that their precious character string is always owned by them, let them. In fact, let's have thousands more TLDs, at high prices, and bleed the bastards dry. Nobody else is likely to use those TLDs. I think the concept that one can "own" a word is stupid, unless he can demonstrate 1) that it is not a word in any known human language, and 2) that they have exclusive rights to the word in all countries (e.g. if it's a trademark when referring to soft drinks, but you don't also have rights to it with reference to coal products or drugs, it doesn't qualify).

Re:Dear US Government, et. al. (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141390)

>>>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.
>>>
The only way you Europeans will be able to make the U.S. listen to this plea, is for the EU to declare war. Or at least the *intent* to declare war, if the US does not back off and let Europe be europe without interference.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141598)

It isn't as though European governments, in general, would have any less interest in this power than does the American one...

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 .hitler TLD..."

"Hey, OAC, I know we aren't really seeing eye-to-eye these days; but I thought I'd warn you that 4chan has begun a competition to see who can buy the most offensive .muhammad domain, once they become available."

Etc., etc.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141616)

Well, the French can lead the retreat. The Germans, in their excitement, will invade someone nearby. The Russians will be too busy fighting amongst themselves to join. The Indians are all on the phone taking calls, and the Chinese are all at work in factories making plastic crap. The English might be miffed but it wouldn't be prudent for them to take an antagonistic position. The Poles will attack themselves.

The Nordics will be snowed in. The Italians will invade, but only after a nice meal. And of course the Arabic countries are all rioting nowadays, so they're busy for the near future fighting over their sand.

Re:Dear US Government, et. al. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141404)

We are the world
We own your children
We are the ones who make surfing safe
So stop your bitching
There's a choice we're making
And you don't have a say
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

Re:Dear US Government, et. al. (1)

nharmon (97591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141534)

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:Dear US Government, et. al. (4, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35142018)

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.

Perfectly reasonable (1, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141294)

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:Perfectly reasonable (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141462)

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 (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141630)

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 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 agree with your assessment that the current direction is one of state + corporations running things. So take away federal power and the pairing will naturally dissolve. Few giant corporations can actually stand up under their own weight and bloat without being propped up by government, so we should let those companies unable to stand without public help die so that a new forest of companies can emerge from the ashes. Preserving the cycle of competition is far more important than preserving any one company.

Re:That is a false choice (1)

HappyEngineer (888000) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141958)

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.

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) then you are living in a fantasy world.

Re:Perfectly reasonable (0)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141648)

The choice was between a Soviet state which plays the stern nanny

You know, I never knew the Super Nanny would yank kids off the street and execute them behind some warehouse, then send their parents a bill for the bullet(s). That's pretty fucking stern.

Re:Perfectly reasonable (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35142114)

Child abuse begins, and usually ends, at home.

Re:Perfectly reasonable (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141484)

Embrace the state, for it knows best!

Don't worry. Soon we will all be working happily at the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen.

OpenNIC (5, Interesting)

ChasmCoder (1818172) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141302)

http://www.opennicproject.org/ [opennicproject.org]

Re:OpenNIC (0)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141662)

OpenNIC is a great idea. Enjoy it while we still have it (it's only a matter of time before the FCC or some other regulatory body decides that OpenNIC has to go away, and then it will).

Wow... (1, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141306)

So the federal bureaucrats still don't get it; when you don't understand something, STFU about wanting to "police" it. At best, you only look like a chapped ass, and more commonly, a clueless federal bureaucrat who is woefully ill-equipped to deal important issues like how the interTubes work. 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?

Re:Wow... (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141546)

The social conservatives didn't think porn would go away if they opposed .xxx. They were just afraid of 'legitimising' it - .xxx would have created a place for porn, while the social conservatives held that porn should have no place at all.

Re:Wow... (1)

Illogical Spock (1058270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141920)

Except that the vast majority of them watch porn behind doors, in the same way a lot of "moralists" make the news from time to time having sex with prostitutes or extraconjugal affairs.

      Its all, absolutely all about hypocrisy, nothing more.

Re:Wow... (1)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141602)

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 opening a bazillion new TLDs either. 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.

Re:Wow... (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141780)

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:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35142252)

Anyone who wants to operate a small site already needs to acquire the .net, .org, .com, .us, and .biz versions.

This is simply not true. There's very little need to register anything but a .com for any small business or "small website". If you want to use (see marketing) something other than .com, such as ".co.uk", it would make sense to also register the .com version (if possible).

Otherwise, the only people who want to register every TLD under the sun are major brand names like Coca-Cola. And those corporations can typically both afford the cost and have a staff keeping track of their domain names and their policy.

Politicians are the Original FUD Machines (1)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 3 years ago | (#35142166)

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 structural overhaul and numerous bug fixes. The new system must promote sanity, competence, justice, freedom, and opportunity.

The incompetent lying demagogic psychopathic sacks of shit version 1.0 has outputted will be cleared away by version 2.0's enhanced garbage collection. Bachman, Baucus, I'm looking at you...

Dear Mr. Obama (2, Insightful)

Gripp (1969738) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141450)

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?

Re:Dear Mr. Obama (1)

joebob2000 (840395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141550)

why are you putting so much energy into ruining one of the few things left that are actually free?

The question contains the answer.

Re:Dear Mr. Obama (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141712)

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:Dear Mr. Obama (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35142212)

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.... (1)

whitroth (9367) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141516)

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"

How about no new TLDs? (3, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141544)

A "fairer" idea: Stop issuing new non-country/U.N. TLDs.
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 .com.us, .edu.us, etc. for anyone with an existing or new .com, .edu, etc. for the next 20 years.

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:How about no new TLDs? (0)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141826)

A "fairer" idea: Stop issuing new non-country/U.N. TLDs.
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 .com.us, .edu.us, etc. for anyone with an existing or new .com, .edu, etc. for the next 20 years.

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.

Don't forget multinationals, whom really run the world. Once IBM replaces their last American with someone in India, (probably what, next year?) would they be forced to move from ibm.us to ibm.india or at least not to renew their ibm.us domain, having no employees there anymore?

Re:How about no new TLDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141860)

It doesn't even make sense to keep adding TLDs, when there aren't IP addresses to assign to them!

Oh well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141562)

I don't view the proliferation of TLDs as a good thing.

The reason for the objections by NTIA should be enough to make one reconsider the wisdom of the TLD for everything under the sun approach in its entirety...tempting governments to flip switches on content by topic already neatly arranged into TLDs I don't view as a positive development. Regarding governments seeking to have a say in the issue... I don't support government interference in principal but they have a valid and obvious point...policies which seek to dare governments to take steps to screw up the network are just going to lead to policy makers within various countries spending more time passing laws related to the Internet...this is always a bad thing.

This has to stop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141570)

At this point, there are two options. And one needs to be chosen NOW.
1) Lock up the USA. Surround their boarders with huge walls, make sure they don't get out. Cut off communications with them too.
2) Let the entire world vote in US politics.

This isn't meant to be taken literally obviously. I just mean to explain how most of the people in the world feel about the USA, specifically the US government and corporations.

Re:This has to stop. (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141866)

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:This has to stop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141946)

If you read the article, it's actually about the US trying to bring other countries into the management of TLDs. Just the opposite of how it's portrayed in the summary, really.

Still probably a bad idea, but 90% of the slashdotters commenting in this thread completely misunderstand the proposal. This is empowering other countries.

At least they're being coy about it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141576)

There are those of us who've been "in the business" long enough to recall some past ICANN meetings during El Busho's illicit administration, when the stuck-up schoolmarm from Stanford would stand up, declare that "the Internet was created by the US, so it will do with the 'net what it damn pleases, so suck it up" or words to the effect, then storm out. Same message, only now the're putting on the facade of diplomatic consensus. With a bit of optimism, could be considered advancement...

Re:At least they're being coy about it... (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141918)

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.

.crap (3, Funny)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141580)

Hopefully my suggestion for a new .crap tld that can be forced upon websites without the owner's consent will be implemented.

on one condition: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141586)

I am alright with this on one condition: that they ALL be vetoed.

Why? (4, Insightful)

atomicthumbs (824207) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141596)

Why do we need more TLDs? .museum, .name, .aero, .biz, etc. already seemed like they were pushing it.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141796)

Why do we need more TLDs?

Because then you can sell all the same names again.

Re:Why? (0)

dissy (172727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141900)

Why do we need more TLDs?

Hookers and blow don't grow on trees ya know ;P

It's like asking "Why do we need to print out two $100 bills when we can just print out the one?"

Or in this case 115 instead of just the 3.

Re:Why? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35142020)

Why do we need more TLDs? .museum, .name, .aero, .biz, etc. already seemed like they were pushing it.

Because ICANN is governed by a board controlled by the big domain registrars and big corporations. AtLarge was a farce, and the DNS community's one board member was ditched. So really, only the registrars, TLD operators themselves have representation in deciding what will happen. The only input the community has is a "comments forum" that the ICANN board has demonstrated they ignore whenever they want to, or they ignore whenever the opinion the vast majority of the community has conflicts with their sponsoring organizations' business interests.

Guess what big domain registrars and TLD registrar-operators want? More domains to sell.

Re:Why? (1)

karl.auerbach (157250) | more than 3 years ago | (#35142050)

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 (5, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141652)

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 (1)

karl.auerbach (157250) | more than 3 years ago | (#35142010)

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 an old never-repealed law in the California Corporations Code that possibly defines a corporation that takes direction from a foreign government to be a "subversive organization". (See sections 35000 through 35007 of the Calif. Corporations code.)

Re:Check the contracts (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35142254)

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.

.stfu.... (1)

chrisj_0 (825246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141672)

Would be epic :)

Not just US, but any of 100 countries could veto (1)

hajus (990255) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141682)

It's not just the US gov't that would have veto powers, it would be the gov'ts of a hundred nations, as per the article. So the veto would not be limited to just Obama, but an international conglomerate. Wonder what the reasoning was which they used to pick those 100 countries rather than all of them...

Re:Not just US, but any of 100 countries could vet (1)

hajus (990255) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141732)

Hate replying to my own comment... but just to point out that it's the title that is kinda misleading. It says that the US seeks the veto powers... but that is what makes one think that the veto powers would reside with the US only rather than all these other countries, which is what is being sought.

There is a solution (2)

karl.auerbach (157250) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141720)

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.

Whats the point? (1)

Illogical Spock (1058270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141728)

Seriously? Let's say they are trying to forbid, for example, the TLDs .FUUSA and .USAMYASS. Then what? Everyone can get a .FUUSA.COM or FUUSA.COM.?? (where ?? is any country TLD) and they can't do shit about it.

      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.

      And these new TLDs, with few exceptions, will be barely used anyway. Here in Brazil we have a bunch of TLDs like .INF.BR, .NOM.BR, etc, and nobody uses it except a few people. Its all about .COM.BR everywhere.

What's his plan? (1)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141730)

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?

TLD? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141754)

I'm confused why the government would care if I write more tag library descriptors.

I'm not too terribly worried. (1)

scourfish (573542) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141760)

I mean, after the morality squads reject the .xxx tld, Ill just have to get my hardcore porn at a website with a working tld: www.titfuck.jesus

I'd definitely veto all of them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35141820)

IMO, new TLDs add no value whatsoever. The com, org and the national TLDs were definitely enough (even .net seems pointless. And don't getting me started on .biz). Beyond twhat we have, the rest are just silly, gives yet another way to squat on names that you really shouldn't have and cause confusion. And another mint for the organizations selling domain names, and those really don't need to get yet another way to earn money on imaginary property.

So please make it so that it requires just one single person on this earth to veto the addition of more TLDs!

Someone was bored (1)

sugarmotor (621907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141862)

Someone was bored, and had some time to waste.

S

This is a Compromise Solution (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141878)

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 sovereign nations, those seem more than a little uninformed. This refers to making sure a large number of nations have input into the procedure, not the other way around. Right now, the US is over represented in ICANN and many other nations are pushing for UN control. This is a compromise proposal where other countries would have more influence, but the UN would not take control (something corporate interests have been fighting hard against). It seems mostly focused on making sure trademark conflicts between nations are resolved by the international community so an '.nfl' TLD would not automatically go to the US football league, when the Canadian province of Newfoundland and the large Indian fertilizer producer have just as valid trademark claims to the acronym.

Taco and Slashdot reader post FUD headline (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35141976)

Seriously, did either of you bother to read the proposal at hand?

Unless you mean the US wants to give other countries a fair part in the process of deciding new TLDs ... instead of being in complete control as it is now ... then you might have been right, but you pretty much said the exact opposite of what the proposal states.

The US already has veto power. TLDs are decided by ICANN, a US Government run organization. The US has complete control already.

The proposal basically makes it so if the US so YES to a TLD, other countries have a way to tell us to fuck off and discuss it and maybe do it anyway or not ... BASED ON CONSENSUS OF THE GROUP.

This would give other countries an ability to veto actions made by the US and would take complete control away from the US which would be effectively removing the US's veto ability.

Seriously, both of you need to actually read the shit you post before hand, slashdot has become truely pathetic thanks to this type of crap, might as well go read facebook wall posts, probably more accurate than you guys are these days.

Re:Taco and Slashdot reader post FUD headline (1)

LastGunslinger (1976776) | more than 3 years ago | (#35142188)

There's no room for rational thought on /. Start acting like we live in an Orwellian dystopia or get your news somewhere else.

Obama Administration Gay Bashing, After All. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35142008)

Take a look. The Obama Administration is GAY BASHING after all. This will give them VETO power to VOID any .gay domain name ... what do you DADT supporters say to that?

.llegal? (1)

IAmAI (961807) | more than 3 years ago | (#35142030)

.llegal?

Please keep your politics out of the core (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35142064)

What if there really was an evil bit and it really did work?

Do you think governments would not pass laws requiring ISPs to filter packets containing such bits?

TLDs containing sexually, politically and morally contentious material is putting the topology of the network at risk by making it a lightning rod for attack by repressive and conservative governments throughout the world. It is a safe bet they will seek the capability to block entire TLDs and eventually rewire/fragment DNS to the detrement of all.

Normally if you don't like an individual site you just blackhole their network. Blocking entire TLDs just makes repression easier (No need to identify individual sites), reduces global cooperation and provides an excuse for entry points to the implementation of laws which uproot the global DNS database.

Dear America (2)

captain_dope_pants (842414) | more than 3 years ago | (#35142160)

Fuck off.
That is all.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?