Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

ICANN Mistakenly Publishes Applicant Addresses

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the was-that-wrong? dept.

The Internet 52

angry tapir writes "ICANN's program to expand the number of domains on the internet has suffered another embarrassing setback. The organization has been forced to temporarily take down details of domain suffix applications after it inadvertently published the addresses of applicants. In April, ICANN was forced to suspend the application process after it was found that its system could reveal details about top-level domain applicants. The organization is already facing criticism for its proposal to deal with TLD applications in batches of 500 instead of all at once."

cancel ×

52 comments

Confidence (5, Interesting)

Mattygfunk1 (596840) | more than 2 years ago | (#40333659)

How can anyone have confidence in ICANN's systems when they repeatedly screw up? At something like $180,000 an application, you know, maybe, they might be more careful.

Re:Confidence (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40333783)

What part of the $180000 do you think goes to the people actually running the application servers? I bet the money basically all goes to insurance and lawyers, and the techs need to explain why they want a real server and isn't a virtual machine not enough, since money is so tight.

Re:Confidence (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#40336649)

What part of the $180000 do you think goes to the people actually running the application servers? I bet the money basically all goes to insurance and lawyers, and the techs need to explain why they want a real server and isn't a virtual machine not enough, since money is so tight.

None of it.

The application fee is merely just a deterrent against entry - basically if you can spend $180k, you probably have the money and resources to manage a TLD. Those who can pay will probably do a lot of work in maintaining their TLDs and not let it become a haven for spam and viruses and other malware because well, they paid this money and if it becomes a universal ban everywhere (like .biz and .info) then it's that money down the drain.

Basically they want interested people determined to keep things working properly, not random Joe. It's why Apple prices their iOS SDK at $99/year, Microsoft same (for Windows Phone and Xbox Indie), etc. If you're as good as you say you are, it's put up or shut up.

Re:Confidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340221)

It's why Apple prices their iOS SDK at $99/year, Microsoft same (for Windows Phone and Xbox Indie), etc. If you're as good as you say you are, it's put up or shut up.

or to deter the average person from even attempting to get into the game. also, for $99, i should be able to test the apps on my device directly.

Re:Confidence (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40342721)

Um, you can. Once you pay the fee you can run anything with your digital signature on your device without any involvement from Apple/MS.

Re:Confidence (4, Funny)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334701)

More interestingly, how can a company that basically runs the internet be so bad at using the internet?

Re:Confidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40336181)

Are you new here? Would you be surprised to learn that the people responsible for making and enforcing the laws are also bad at obeying them?

Re:Confidence (0)

Mattygfunk1 (596840) | more than 2 years ago | (#40336869)

Thanks man. +5 funny,informative,interesting, and insightful all in one. You win Slashdot tonight my friend.

Re:Confidence (1)

sortadan (786274) | more than 2 years ago | (#40342311)

And be named ICANN, more like ICANT!

[crickets]

Re:Confidence (2)

billstewart (78916) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338019)

I think if you want to run a TLD, the public should be allowed to know who you are. And since it costs $180K to apply, you're probably a corporation, so the public should be allowed to know who you are. And if you're a rich individual trying to buy a TLD, you're probably using your office address, not your home anyway.

coment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40333665)

nice by
http://www.edipurwanto.web.id/2012/06/susu-inovasi-yang-sehat-dan-halal-untuk.html

Hey, I know... (2)

wet-socks (635030) | more than 2 years ago | (#40333679)

This whole fiasco is going to be revealed as a huge practical joke.... isn't it? please say it is. Please?

Re:Hey, I know... (3, Insightful)

philipmather (864521) | more than 2 years ago | (#40333715)

I'm afraid the 1st of April has been and gone.

The only benifit to the population at large in this entire exercise is that we now have the names and addresses of the people stupid enough to pony up ~$180,000 for an almost certiainly pointless TLD. 419-fodder if ever there was any.

Re:Hey, I know... (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334879)

Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be able to get this all sorted out in around 9-10 months - right on schedule.

Re:Hey, I know... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#40335773)

This whole fiasco is going to be revealed as a huge practical joke.... isn't it? please say it is. Please?

You'll get your answer as soon as someone buys icann.joke and puts up some content ;-)

This is getting stupid. (5, Interesting)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 2 years ago | (#40333681)

We all know the new top-level domains (and some of the existing top-level domains) are basically a money grab and a way to force people to pay as many times as possible for their name.

And the registrar system, which supposedly enables competition, is also just a money grab. For each top-level domain we have one registry, which is a simple database run by one organisation, but then we have a whole lot of commercial infrastructure and multiple companies around it which serve no purpose except to skim profits off the top.

Now the problems with the new TLD registration process are starting to make ICANN and the domain industry look incompetent as well as greedy, for those of us who hadn't decided that was the case already.

So, what can we do? I know it's been suggested and unsuccessfully tried before, but is it time someone replaced ICANN?

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40333791)

I really wish we could replace them. Every single god damn decision they have made has just made the DNS worse.
First, the very fact the DNS is the way it is now, subdomains.domain.tlds, is their fault. It was going to be the other way around, similar to newsgroup ordering, which makes FAR more sense.
Then there is lax enforcement of any of the TLDs, besides .mil and .gov.

A better system would be ccTLD.siteType.domain.subdomains.
ccTLD can have a gbl for companies which operate in a minimum number of countries or languages, whichever is reached first. (half?)
It shorts to your local country-code if it is omitted.
siteType is a basic site description, search, shop, social, bank, military, government, medical, whatever.
http://us.search.google.images, http://uk.social.facebook.groups, http://news.slashdot.tech/story/12/06/15/030241/icann-mistakenly-publishes-applicant-addresses
It makes far more sense this way. Not only that, this method would have made ISCAMMs idea even easier to implement than with the current DNS mess.

Personally I am hoping P2P or other alternative DNS take off.
They won't, not now. But I am hopeful.
They will forever be for the geeks, niche and illegal markets it seems.

Re:This is getting stupid....? (1)

djsmiley (752149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40333877)

Your biggest issue with ICANN is that their domains are "backwards".

There is far far FAR bigger issues.

Re:This is getting stupid....? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40334129)

AC spelled out one problem in detail, the one that bothers it most, which makes its post way better than your vague reply.

Re:This is getting stupid. (4, Interesting)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334495)

> First, the very fact the DNS is the way it is now, subdomains.domain.tlds, is their fault.

This was decided at a meeting in 1982. The minutes of this meeting are available as RFC 805. As this decision was made before ICANN and the domain name industry existed, it would be wrong to blame them.

You're right that the ordering of the DNS names is inconsistent with many other naming systems. It seems to me that the rationale (which made a lot of sense at the time) was that you can email someone at a local host the same way you always could, user@host, and you can email someone at another domain by just affixing the domain to their email address, user@host.domain. Makes more sense than sticking something in the middle and having user@domain.host.

> [ccTLD] shorts to your local country-code if it is omitted.

I think this is a horrible idea which would encourage the fragmentation of the global Internet, create many name conflicts and create a huge opportunity for phishing attacks. A URL referring to a public website should point to the same website no matter where it's accessed from.

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

Yoda222 (943886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40337493)

Do you really think that a organisation based in a country using imperial system and middle endian date format could put the naming in the right order ? You should thank them to not have used something like subdomains.tld.domain

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

HappyEngineer (888000) | more than 2 years ago | (#40337501)

Reverse domain names would be inconvenient to type. Right now I can type "s" in the address bar and slashdot.org will come up. Reverse that and I'd need to type "org.s" to get it to come up. Perhaps browser makers would have done things differently so that "s" would actually bring up "org.slashdot".

What advantage would reversing the order give anyone? My first thought is that it'd allow alphabetical sorting of domains so that all the tlds would be together. I can't think why that'd be useful to anyone though.

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

gmanterry (1141623) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339817)

I have two domains. If you go to whois on GoDaddy it lists everything about me. Name, address and phone number. Is this supposed to be private?

Cue music... (1)

philipmather (864521) | more than 2 years ago | (#40333685)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLegSgWi0cI [youtube.com]

March of the Gladiators (Circus Clown Music)

Re:Cue music... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40333731)

I was thinking Yakity Sax, myself.

THANK YOU FOR BEING A FRIEND (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40333691)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true your a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you through a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say thank you for being a friend.

Re:THANK YOU FOR BEING A FRIEND (0)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334355)

Cosmonaut? Surely you mean platypusbea^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hconfidant.

ICANN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40333697)

The proof U$A is made of retarded-fuckyeah-eagle-mcdonalds-morons...

They should make a super-great wall around that shithole...
So the world wouldn't get infected by U$tArdism...

Suck my glorious ..!..

Re:ICANN (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40333703)

These colors don't run, asshole.

I am going to run you over in my ford truck.

Re:ICANN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40333725)

These colors don't run, asshole.

...or vagina.

Re:ICANN (1)

Vernes (720223) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334083)

So which is it?
Do they, or don't they run over?

Re:ICANN (1)

6ULDV8 (226100) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334635)

I have a Ford truck and can confirm that it runs. I'm also old and can confirm that I do not. Does that help?

Re:ICANN (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40334717)

Almost, wear this wig and high heels.

Re:ICANN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40338367)

These colors don't run, asshole.

I am going to run you over in my ford truck.

Ofc not, those colors "drive" to McDonald's and KFC...
Feeling heavy U$tArd?

Re:ICANN (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40335597)

You're right - if ICANN were headquartered on Grand Cayman, all of its problems would magically vanish.

Read the truth about ICANN and the DNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40333859)

Re:Read the truth about ICANN and the DNS (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40342739)

Now if you could just link to a credible source, we'd all be very interested I'm sure.

Their systems were horrible (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40333943)

I personally prepared around 23 applications, and I can tell you from experience that ICANN's application process was miserable. How so? For starters:

  1. - It was IMPOSSIBLE to speak to someone on the phone at ICANN. Accidentally forgot one of the 3 passwords required to start an application? Prepare for 4 days of emails back and forth, and dealing with their archaic ticketing system
  2. - All applications had to be prepared inside of a remote virtual machine. ICANN hosted a buggy Citrix environment that was down for maintenance all the time. If it was up, it was slow and overloaded
  3. - Applicant creation was manually intensive. The virtual machines were extremely locked down, and automated data entry of any kind was impossible. Entering first names, last names, positions, etc for every executive in a company was extremely painful. My former company had roughly 40 people doing strictly data entry.

Re:Their systems were horrible (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40335653)

- All applications had to be prepared inside of a remote virtual machine. ICANN hosted a buggy Citrix environment that was down for maintenance all the time. If it was up, it was slow and overloaded

It's good to see that their IT is still from 1998 when they first set up shop. This web thing will never catch on...

Really, though, if they couldn't figure out how to set up a secure website, why would anybody trust them to run the TLD's? They could have outsourced the applications to Namecheap, MarkMonitor, et. al. for a small cut and it sounds like everybody would have been happier.

What's the big deal? (4, Interesting)

leroy152 (260029) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334383)

So ICANN accidently posts the addresses of those wanting a TLD. What's the big deal here? Surely if you are a company wanting a TLD you're large enough to be able to handle the general public knowing your address details.

This smells of something that was done deliberately in good faith that is now garnering bad press because of someone who doesn't want anyone to know they're after such and such TLD.

If you want a TLD then be man enough to put your hand up to the world and say you want it... oh wait, you already did that by registering your interest with ICANN.

Any other complaints against ICANN are irrelevant for this issue I think.

Re:What's the big deal? (3, Informative)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334623)

Because they were also required to provide home address details of the people actually applying (i.e. the CEO's, etc.) and nothing related to the company at all.

That's the part that was published and was never supposed to be, not the address of the company (which, in UK law at least, is legally required to be displayed somewhere at all places of business which is taken to include websites too!).

Re:What's the big deal? (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40335535)

Because they were also required to provide home address details of the people actually applying (i.e. the CEO's, etc.) and nothing related to the company at all.

Which non-corporate people are also required to do to register domains in many TLD's... I can understand both sides to this.

Re:What's the big deal? (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 2 years ago | (#40335635)

Which of course is doubly embarrassing if the TLD you had applied for was ".porn" or something similar. Nothing wrong with that per se, but the CEO applying for it probably doesn't appreciate having his family address visible to every religious fundamentalist and whatnot out there in the world.

New Acronym (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334443)

ICANN = Imbecilic Claptrap Association Needs Negation

ICANN HAZ CHEESEBURGER? (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 2 years ago | (#40338067)

With the new TLD system, you'll be able to get bureaucracy.icannhazcheeseburger, or at least icannhazcheezeburger.lol.

Re:ICANN HAZ CHEESEBURGER? (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40342757)

Unless of course your preferred TLD is purchased by Amazon, who are buying up TLDs such as ".kids" for the express purpose of ensuring noone other than Amazon may use them. Fuckwads.

Who's buying which names? (4, Interesting)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334711)

Might be interesting to see who is registering for which names. Is Coke buying up Pepsi.foo names etc? Could maybe be considered anti-competitive type practices. Is this information typically visible to the general population?

Re:Who's buying which names? (2)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 2 years ago | (#40335691)

It is:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en [icann.org]

Incidentally, I seem to remember that Coca-Cola was one of the companies not getting involved. They, like a number of "big brand" companies, complained that this is nothing but an attempt to extort money out of them on threat of losing their precious trademarks to someone else (which is probably a pretty fair assessment of the whole thing).

Rules for thee but not for we (3, Insightful)

Catbeller (118204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40334729)

If I request a domain, I have to publish my name and address. And it has to be the real name and real address where they can find me, else [throat-cutting-motion].

Wealthy people paying 180,000+ USD per app: they expect PRIVACY, goddammit. And they apparently get it. And if they fail to get it, big problem.

Ruling class/serfs. People with absolute privacy/people who can never expect a moment alone with a phone or browser without someone logging the event. Bosses/scum. Corporatocracy means never having to say I'm sorry - it suffices to merely say "Fuck you." This is what happens when the mask drops, liberalism dies, and the real bosses take over. Not a shred of decency, nor none expected.

And ICANN is supposed to be a goddamed traffic cop, not a billion dollar business. They are becoming a new boss, albeit it seems one who grovels before the wishes of the wealthy. Who died and elected them king? Or the USA, for that matter? We need a new internet.

transparency (3, Insightful)

markhahn (122033) | more than 2 years ago | (#40335991)

sorry, why aren't all applications published in full, as a matter of course?

Well then (0)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40336825)

Time to turn control of All Things Internet over to the UN - that august body that also asks tin-pot dictators to lend a hand in promoting international tourism.
Check for New 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...