×

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!

Can World Governments Veto Your Domain Name?

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the a-website-by-any-other-name dept.

Government 177

AugstWest writes "There's been talk recently of the Obama administration wanting the right to shoot down possible TLDs, but it looks like things may be going even a step further — According to this article by Laura Stotler, 'the NTIA is asking for the power to object to any proposed Internet address for any reason.' What happens if, say, the government of Germany decides they don't like your domain name? ICANN's had its share of bureaucratic nightmares, what happens when world governments also have a say?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

177 comments

ahh... I was gonna have Nazimohammed.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163364)

Damn... my idea to have NaziMohammed.com goes down the drain.
grrrr

Re:ahh... I was gonna have Nazimohammed.com (1)

memyselfandeye (1849868) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163384)

Didn't read the story did you? NaziMohammed.com is good to go. Mohammed.Nazi may be a bust though.

Re:ahh... I was gonna have Nazimohammed.com (2)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163402)

Read the story?!? haha... I was too busy wanting to get first post

Re:ahh... I was gonna have Nazimohammed.com (2)

mlingojones (919531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163648)

Didn't read the story did you? NaziMohammed.com is good to go. Mohammed.Nazi may be a bust though.

Didn't read the story, did you? NaziMohammed.com and Mohammed.Nazi may both be busts.

From the article:

In fact, the NTIA is asking for the power to object to any proposed Internet address for any reason.

That is a power not limited to TLD proposals.

Re:ahh... I was gonna have Nazimohammed.com (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163900)

But what about subdomains? Those are entirely under the direct control of the domain admins. If the owner of mydomain.org wanted to create a subdomain called "screw.[insert country here].mydomain.org", there's nothing stopping him/her.

If they really want to be able to veto any name, methinks this proposal was made by people who don't understand how the Internet works---not that this should come as any surprise.

oh noes! (5, Funny)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163378)

All your domain are belong to US!

Re:oh noes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163424)

Actually they belong to the world now, not just the US

Re:oh noes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163784)

More points here please!

Re:oh noes! (1)

the phantom (107624) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163918)

I teach college students who are unfamiliar with that meme. Thank you for making me feel not so old again. :\

Not much point in... (1)

Akratist (1080775) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163390)

...registering www.gayspacenazis.com now...

Re:Not much point in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163558)

You realize they are only talking about TLD's don't you? "www.gayspacenazis.com" is perfectly ok since the TLD '.com' has been part of the spec since the beginning.

Re:Not much point in... (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163710)

You realize they AREN'T just talking about TLDs right?

the NTIA is asking for the power to object to any proposed Internet address for any reason.

Didn't even bother to read the summary, eh?

Re:Not much point in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163716)

You realize you clearly didn't RTFA so maybe you shouldn't try to correct other people don't you? Ability to veto new TLDs was yesterday's story, today's explains they actually want to be able to veto any domain for any reason.

Wonderful Idea! (4, Insightful)

SgtKeeling (717065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163396)

This is a really wonderful idea. I certainly wouldn't want to register a domain that might not be acceptable to every bureaucrat in every government on the planet. This way, if there's something that a particular government doens't like, they can just remove it for me. Simple! This will be awesome!

I love .freespeech (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163410)

"ooops, nope, can't use that one!" - NTIA

Re:I love .freespeech (1)

memyselfandeye (1849868) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163524)

How about ".protest"?

Re:I love .freespeech (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163624)

.FreeSpeech and .protest are probably fine. However, .fuckNKoreaanditsdogfacedbitchking

might cause a bit of controversy. I think that's where the NTIA is coming from. Personally, .fuckfoxnews might be really good. Sub domains could include:

bircherbeck.fuckfoxnews

might be a hit.

Not News (4, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163418)

Of course they quote this line:

“Any GAC member may raise an objection to a proposed string for any reason.”

Then in order to push their pov they ignore the very next line:

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.

No single country can veto something, it takes a majority to agree to the veto.

Re:Not News (1)

memyselfandeye (1849868) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163484)

Wouldn't that still lead to a tyranny of the minority? Kind of like how a lot of tiny little Caribbean and Pacific nations happily take bribes from richer and larger nations in order to get what they want in these wonderful World Forums, like eating whales. Is this going to be like the UN, will there be a Security Council? Will there be quarterly meetings where a bunch of blowhards try to look serious while talking to an large empty room?

Government isn't the problem. Government helped create this Internet thingy. Politicians are the problem. More specifically, politicians whose only goal in life is to earn as much graft and kickbacks from corruption as possible.

Re:Not News (3, Insightful)

non-registered (639880) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163622)

It requires someone to speak up against it. Why risk a political foofarah if you don't have a pony in the race? Don't be fooled. This is very cleverly architected.

Re:Not News (1, Insightful)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163632)

But of course. Slashdot summaries are typically as shrill and outrageous as the very worst of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Osama Bin Laden, and Sarah Palin combined. And on steroids. With a bad headache to make them grumpier and more shrill. And without the self-restraint typically exhibited by those individuals. And a bad dose of PMS. And deploring the overly-rigorous editorial standards of Fox News.

And that's what the comments have to go on, because god forbid anyone should read the article.*

* If we are so lucky as to have an actual legitimate article to read rather than a Photoshopped screenshot of a Twitter feed from someone who thought they read a blog somewhere by ImTheRealBillGatesHonest that's been printed out, scanned in at 50 DPI and then run through a prehistoric OCR reader.

Re:Not News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163776)

Dammit how did you know I was getting ready to submit that?

--
ImTheRealBillGatesHonest

Re:Not News (3, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163672)

No single country can veto something, it takes a majority to agree to the veto.

No single country can veto something, if a majority disagrees with the veto. It's more than semantics, nobody needs to confirm a veto. In practice it probably means each country do their own thing and unless someone starts blocking "global" terms you won't be able to raise enough shit about it to make the rest of the world intervene.

Re:Not News (2)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164104)

No single country can veto something, it takes a majority to agree to the veto.

That's not what it says. Assuming that by "consensus" they mean "majority", then unless a majority of the GAC members oppose the veto, ICANN shall reject the application. If a bunch of people don't bother to object to some dinky country's objection, you lose by default.

Re:Not News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164398)

Assuming that by "consensus" they mean "majority"

Normally, "consensus" means "unanimity".

Alternate DNS Server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163446)

While it might not get you very recognized, you could setup your own DNS root servers for your friends to use. With this approach, you could choose any name you wanted, and just forward all unknown requests to a ICANN root server.

Veto Them All (2, Interesting)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163448)

We don't need any more TLDs. We should be phasing out some of the existing ones, not creating new ones. The .mil and .gov TLDs should be transitioned to reside under .us, and .net and .edu should be transition to reside under the appropriate country. Everything else other than .com, .org, and country TLDs should be phased out.

Re:Veto Them All (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163488)

Actually, different countries have different rules for what constitutes a commercial or non-commercial organisation - so perhaps .com and .org should be under the ccTLDs too. What does that leave? .net?

Re:Veto Them All (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163574)

Why, exactly?

Re:Veto Them All (3, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163758)

New TLDs serve no useful purpose, and make things worse for everyone but the registrars. Legitimate organizations will now have to buy even more TLDs to prevent impersonation or typos. Users who are accustomed to everything residing under .com, .org (or .co.XX) will now have to remember the TLD in addition to the domain name. While the total number of available domains will theoretically increase, when you consider that organizations will be buy their name under all of them, this isn't true in practice. The only people who win are the registrars who now get paid more since people have to register more domains.

As far as removing old domains, there are two reason. Removing .biz and all the other crap domains is for the same reason above, to undo damage that has already been done by creating worthless TLDs. Transitioning the .mil, .gov, and .edu domains is mostly just an aesthetic / fairness thing; they are US specific domains, and really ought to reside in the .us TLD, but I could tolerate them remaining for legacy reasons.

Re:Veto Them All (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163926)

What about .tel or .name? New generic TLDs may be useless, but not all new TLDs are generic - they may have specific rules and purposes.

Re:Veto Them All (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163578)

I'd like to amend that by stating that .arpa will need to stick around, and I also don't have any problems with other supra-national government TLDs like .int and .eu.

Re:Veto Them All (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163584)

Do you realise your posts states "we don't need TLDs any more; let's keep 99% of TLDs"?

Re:Veto Them All (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163780)

Do you realise your posts states "we don't need TLDs any more; let's keep 99% of TLDs"?

Reading comprehension fail: "we don't need TLDs any more" (which is what you said) and "we don't need any more TLDs" (which is what GP said) are two substantially different statements.

Re:Veto Them All (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163742)

.net is perfectly valid for ISPs, leave it alone.

Re:Veto Them All (1)

Broolucks (1978922) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163824)

Why not just open the registration of all TLDs, then? If we are stuck with .com, .org and country TLDs, we might as well promote the x.com domain to the x TLD. If the TLD pool cannot be expanded, then there should be no TLDs to begin with, and all names should reside at the top level. Now, I wouldn't necessarily want that to happen, but it's better than what you are suggesting. Better than both would be to sell TLDs at very high prices with zero approval process, and let the market take care of the rest.

Re:Veto Them All (2)

SethThresher (1958152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163856)

But think of all the good things an internet with a TLD of .bacon would have to offer! How can you turn down such an obvious benefit to mankind??

Re:Veto Them All (1)

Broolucks (1978922) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164378)

You know, I'm certain that would be more popular than .info, .name, .biz, .museum and all that stale junk. If I wanted to register a personal domain, I would register a .bacon one, no questions asked.

domains by country (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163452)

why can't each country have their own TLD (already off to a good start), and they can manage their TLD however they want to...

how you want to deal with the .com/.net/.org domains is up for debate... perhaps transition them over to the appropriate country domain (ex: google.com.us), or just prevent further registration, and leave them with US.

Re:domains by country (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163480)

Because the internet should be free, not constrained by arbitrary borders.

Re:domains by country (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163520)

and how do you propose we mandate freedom? we can't... the DNS servers have to physically exist somewhere. the TLD determines what country the DNS server resides, and therefore what laws/policies affect it.

Re:domains by country (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164312)

That is precisely how things presently work.

Re:domains by country (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164430)

i suppose i'm not being clear... the idea is the same as the more popular thread "Veto Them All" above...

the larger idea is that we shouldn't be adding category-based TLDs (.museum, .jobs, etc), but instead attach TLDs to specific countries (i.e., only have ccTLDs)... and if a particular country wants to do categories, they can do .museum.us or something similar. that way we wouldn't need a "world government" to approve/disapprove of anything... each country takes care of their own however they see fit.

then all we would need is a minimal staff to add/maintain ccTLDs based on physical DNS server locations... i don't know how many new countries appear per year, but i imagine the job would be quite small after the initial start-up

A competing DNS, that's what happens (3, Interesting)

toriver (11308) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163456)

There is no law that says there can be only one DNS root. If the Governments start censoring domain names, a competing DNS structure will arise, e.g. based from OpenDNS or some other entity.

Re:A competing DNS, that's what happens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163498)

Seems like we need a better system that is free from government controls. Maybe some kind of trusted peer-to-peer system. Something that would allow you to announce your presence assuming there wasn't already a top-level node with that name registered on the network. Forget about TLDs, you would just have microsoft or google or aceplumbing. You could verify your identity using SSL certificates. Once you announced your presence, it would be good for some period of time, after which the peers would forget about it and allow a new registration. There are plenty of ways to pass trusted information through an untrusted network.

Re:A competing DNS, that's what happens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163806)

Really? A competing DNS...like maybe OpenRoot or AlterNic? Because they're all so successful that even you've already heard about them before posting to Slashdot...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root

Re:A competing DNS, that's what happens (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164140)

Just because they exist doesn't mean they've arisen yet. The internet simply does not yet consider the censorship it's experiencing to be sufficient damage to necessitate routing around it.

really? (0)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163458)

Come on, there's a problem with someone registering IRS.usa. I could think of 100 worse abusive and misleaing TLDs. Custom TLDs was a stupid and dangerous idea to begin with.

Re:really? (2)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163496)

Don't forget Cyrillic characters which have some that look like the Roman alphabet, but are not in reality.

So someone gets told to go to a site "theirbank.com", when in reality, the ".com" TLD is really a different set of three letters than the original .com top domain. Phishers would be in hog heaven.

Of course, the SSL certs would show green, perhaps with the EV logo, so even people who know enough to check the cert validity would be nailed by this.

Why do we need to grant more powers? (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163464)

Can't anything be done through the legal system anymore? Or is that just for those without money?

Re:Why do we need to grant more powers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163588)

I'm speaking of the Obama matter, of course. Shoulda been more specific...

Time for a replacement (2)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163508)

It's time for a peer to peer DNS system that doesn't have an easily controllable central server.

I'm thinking perhaps a mix could be used. P2P for the replacement of the root servers, and the rest of the system kept the way it currently is. The root servers are what all this is targeted at anyway.

Figuring out how to deal with collisions and attempts at impersonation will be tricky though. Certs can be used, but the CAs reintroduce he same problem.

TLD Silliness (3, Interesting)

heypete (60671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163512)

Does anyone else thing it's rather silly that ICANN is seriously considering new, highly-specific TLDs?

For example, a .nyc TLD is rather silly, as one can already get example.ny.us domains. If one has a New York office for their company, why not simply set up a subdomain of nyc.example.com? That way the organizational hierarchy is preserved without needing additional TLDs.

The article also mentions that the dotGAY Initiative and the .GAY Alliance are looking to get a .gay TLD. Why? Why not get gayalliance.org, assuming they don't already have it?

I'm curious as to the utilization of the less-common TLDs like .info, .jobs, .museum, and so on. I can't imagine they're terribly useful; why would a company buy example.jobs rather than simply use jobs.example.com?

Sure, ICANN wants to make money and trademark holders would need to re-purchase their names in different TLDs, so I see the financial motivation to create new TLDs, but it still seems like a bad idea for the internet as a whole.

Re:TLD Silliness (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163668)

The article also mentions that the dotGAY Initiative and the .GAY Alliance are looking to get a .gay TLD. Why? Why not get gayalliance.org, assuming they don't already have it?

Because that would only work for one website?
Yes, they could use subdomains, but that has security implications - any subdomain could sniff the cookies of the main domain.

Re:TLD Silliness (1)

heypete (60671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163740)

Because that would only work for one website?

So?

I simply don't see why it's a bad thing to have the GAY Alliance have, for example, gayalliance.org. A gay dating website could have gaydating.com or something like that. Why is it necessary to add a whole new TLD?

Also, adding a new TLD specifically for gay-related things (much like .xxx for sex-related things) would make censorship that much easier.

Re:TLD Silliness (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163886)

Sure, I'm just saying that it doesn't accomplish the same; TLDs can have rules required to register, just like many ccTLDs have, for example. .gay may not be a good example, but .tel and .name have specific rules for registration, for example.

Re:TLD Silliness (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163982)

So?

I simply don't see why it's a bad thing to have the GAY Alliance have, for example, gayalliance.org. A gay dating website could have gaydating.com or something like that. Why is it necessary to add a whole new TLD?

As long as they make a .nohomo, I'll be fine with the .gay TLD.

Re:TLD Silliness (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163952)

I've developed a site that uses a .info domain. It held scientific data, so .info seemed most appropriate (it's not an organisation, or a company, and it doesn't belong to any one country). It was a joint project with several organisations, each with their own domain, but it was not owned by any one organisation -- so it wasn't appropriate to use someone's subdomain.

I don't see any point to new domains that could easily fall under an existing TLD.

Re:TLD Silliness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164136)

"For example, a .nyc TLD is rather silly, as one can already get example.ny.us domains. If one has a New York office for their company..."

You are, of course, aware that there are about 14 million people living in the 54,000 square miles of the state that is NOT New York City, right?

Of course you are.

Re:TLD Silliness (1)

nuckfuts (690967) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164286)

Does anyone else thing it's rather silly that ICANN is seriously considering new, highly-specific TLDs?

It doesn't surprise me at all. Selling domain names is a huge business. Consider what happened when the .asia TLD was created. My first hit on Google [asiaregistry.com] offers .asia registrations for $59 USD. According to this article on [wikipedia.org], 505,838 applications were received by the end of the "land rush" phase. That works out to about $30M USD in commerce generated by the addition of just one TLD - a revenue stream that will keep on flowing because domain registrations require periodic renewal.

Anytime there is money to be made this easily, there will be people lining up for a piece of the action.

good use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163536)

goodbye whitehouse.com

Related issues (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163542)

How much time is going to be wasted while the world's governments pick over each domain level name? I can see it adding weeks or months to each application.

And what happens when, not if, when a government rejects an application so that one of their own businesses can picked up the domain?

In conclusion, I think the only solution here is to keep governments out of the domain assigning business.

I fully support the right of Vanuatu, Brazil, (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163592)

Germany, Costa Rica, Mozambique, or any other country to veto any domain they want... within the borders of their own country, not outside them

Re:I fully support the right of Vanuatu, Brazil, (1)

Jon Stone (1961380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163844)

The only top level domains should be the country code TLDs. Each TLD could then be delegated to the appropriate government to manage and control as they see fit. The USA shouldn't impose its standards on other TLDs any more than Iran should be imposing its standards on the USA domains. If the USA wants an XXX domain (for example), let them have xxx.us and they can do what they like with it. DNS is all about delegating subtrees to other authorities.

Re:I fully support the right of Vanuatu, Brazil, (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164088)

no. because the government of iran is illegitimate. the government if the usa is legitimate, meanwhile. only democracies in this world are legitimate and are to be respected. i do not respect the government of iran and i grant them no right of authority over anything. why? because the government of iran does not respect its own people. on that logical basis alone. as such, in solidarity with the iranian people, i do not respect anything the government of iran wants. the same is true with china. if your government is not a democracy, i stand with you against your government. meanwhile, if china or iran became democracies, at that point in time i would respect what those governments say. until then, i grant those governments no right of authority in my mind, even within that country's borders. democracy or fuck off

Smart people should control the internet (2)

Arch_Android (1989386) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163594)

As I've always thought, why don't we have people who know about the internet be in control of the internet. To politicians, posting you latest campaign meeting on Facebook does not mean you know about the internet!

technosavvy my ass (2)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163608)

Looks like all the hopes of technosavvy Obama electorate were in vain. Obama uses his techno awareness mostly for evil.

Re:technosavvy my ass (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163866)

Yeah, the minute the internet is used to bring democracy to an oppressive dictatorship, it's time to announce another round of pork for network providers:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380048,00.asp [pcmag.com]

To encourage tech innovation, Obama's plan also calls for a $3 billion Wireless Innovation (WIN) Fund

Funding Access to Internet Lolcats (FAIL)

Irony (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163680)

“Ironically, the US has become the most formidable world advocate of burdensome government oversight and control in internet governance,” said Milton Mueller, a Syracuse University professor.

Yes, that is ironic. Because in all other ways the US is a shining beacon of hope and joy and all things wonderful to us all.

Re:Irony (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163788)

Yes, that is ironic. Because in all other ways the US is a shining beacon of hope and joy and all things wonderful to us all.

And if we hear anything different from you, we'll be sending in the Marines!

All jokes aside (1)

mfh (56) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163736)

Domain names are addresses. I think in general it's time we stop thinking about our vanity and start thinking about the fucking CONTENT located on each website, from a kind of internet quality perspective. While it isn't any government's business what I call my website, I don't know if it matters that much what my domain name is, so I don't care if it had to be changed for some viable reason.

glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/ (now a dead link) comes to mind here as being one of those domains I wouldn't want to see sabotaged by a government, just because it's a possibly slanderous domain name. It's an address and it's a freedom of speech issue that someone can put anything they want as a domain. I think this is why we need a free internet.

But here's the other rub. If some governments are going to start imposing restrictions on domains, I can see a totally viable internet business as being a forwarding one, where you put your server IP in and alias it to whatever the fuck you want, which actually wouldn't be that fucking hard right now. Then people of a particular mindset could use the forwarding service to bypass any form of government restriction and we can all say fuck you to big government, but unlike the Tea Party -- we could really mean it.

History repeats itself -- remember radio? (1)

unil_1005 (1790334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163774)

In the beginning anybody could set up a radio station, only needing to conform to the standards of the radio receivers.

Then came government regulation: on frequencies, on receiver standards, on power, and even on call letters.

-----------------

Are there lessons to be learned from Egypt? (Something about not just being a disturbed observer, sitting at your keyboard?)

World Governmets (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35163832)

Tell me, what CAN'T World Governments do, dude?

A possible solution (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35163840)

We should study this problem through a National Url Tiered Systems Appellations Control Comitee. Look them up on nutsacc.com

Government trying to monopolize internet (1)

syleishere (1811744) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164110)

ITs nothing new, egypt tried and failed horribly. If they put to much pressure on domain names to point of being able to disconnect them from internet, an underground dns server will startup in no time, just as file sharing overcame all no matter how many laws corrupt music and movie industry law makers made, this will be no different, you cannot stop a majority from getting at what they want, wiki leaks has proven this, file sharing has proven this, there is nothing people cannot do united.

And one veto shall rule them all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164158)

Sorry, Couldn't help posting the obligatory Lord of the Rings reference. Carry on.

ICANN has .cheezburger? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164250)

NITA: NO!! (slam)

.

When are Internet Addresses Polititical Speech? (2)

unil_1005 (1790334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164284)

We're already seen this.

In the US, where political speech is mostly protected, this may be an argument for persevering our freedom of address-ing.

That's what happened (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164372)

I wondered why my .teabagger got turned down.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...