×

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 OKs Tiered Pricing for .org/.biz/.info

CowboyNeal posted more than 6 years ago | from the net-worth dept.

182

wayne writes "As reported on CircleID, Vint Cerf has confirmed that ICANN's new contracts for the .org/.biz/.info domain prices can be tiered, so that google.biz could cost $1 million per year, while sex.biz could cost $100,000/year. This is very similar to how the .tv TLD already works. The domain registrar could also could also use pricing for political purposes, claiming that pricing sex.biz high would be to 'protect the children,' while icann.org could be priced at $1/year. Verisign's contract for .com and .net have recently been renewed, so those domains are safe for now, but I'm sure they would want similar treatment."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

182 comments

Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (5, Insightful)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976659)

Shouldn't these be non-profit, or at the most, low-profit? Shouldn't ICANN only be charging enough to keep themselves running as is? How much are they going to be making off this? Is this kind of thing really necessary?

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15976692)

You mean "low profit" like slashdot.org is(n't)? The rules have long since been broken.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976800)

You mean "low profit" like slashdot.org is(n't)? The rules have long since been broken.

I'm guessing you mean slashdot doesn't belong in .org? Probably true, but not relevant to this thread. The GP was saying that registrar of .com/.org/.net/etc domains should be low profit, nothing to do with net companies using .com, non profit organisations using .net & commercial companies using .org.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976802)

I'm not sure what you mean. A bit of a grammar mess is what we have.

What I meant is as follows. The ICANN organization, the one that has to do with dot-org, dot-biz, and dot-info, needs money to keep themselves running. The ICANN organization needs money, but I'm not sure what they are considered. Are they non-profit, or are they for-profit? I am against them being for-profit, whatever that would be defined as. When I said low-profit, I mean someone slightly above non-profit, maybe 110% or less of what their non-profit income is considered.

Another example, to help clear up this grammar mess, is as follows. The U.S. government I think pulls in $3 trillion or so per year. I think the lowest amount they can survive on and perform necessary government actions (without any of the major services) would be $50 billion. This is 6000% of what they need to do the very basic stuff.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (1)

joto (134244) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977641)

The U.S. government I think pulls in $3 trillion or so per year. I think the lowest amount they can survive on and perform necessary government actions (without any of the major services) would be $50 billion. This is 6000% of what they need to do the very basic stuff.

So what is "necessary government actions" then?. Given 1/60th of what they normally get, these "necessary government actions" surely can't include such necessities as schools, higher education, police, military, firemen, medicare/medicaid/social security, roads/electricy/water/sewage/garbage/infrastructur e, etc... All of these are in my opinion "necessary government actions".

If on the other hand, you only consider legislation as "necessary", then I'll be willing to take over the job at an even lower cost. Those $50 billion would go to exactly the parts of the government most people consider "unnecessary paperwork".

Feds vs. others (2, Interesting)

zogger (617870) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977879)

I think "US government" refers to the Federal government. Most on your list is controlled by state or local governments, or should be. For just one instance, there's no need for a federal department of education. You could eliminate that entire bureaucracy. Military-we aren't supposed to have a perpetual large standing Army, especally one used in non defensive interventionist wars. The fathers were especially critical of that idea, saying it would lead to despotism. Police/firemen, etc,are local issues for the most part. We don't need near three dozen federal police agencies (yes, there are almost that many). Sewage/garbage/infrastructure, etc, local for the most part.

I think it's rather easy to see how disfunctional the federal government has become, they have exclusive control over one small basically urban area, DC. Can they run even that? Always been a mess near as I can see.

We are supposed to have by design a federation of 50 near completely soverign States, and the Federal government was severely restricted in the beginning, now they operate on a default everything under the sun is their business, they assume all rights, well beyond their lawful powers, they assume the only rights you have are the ones they grant, and seem all too eager to take those away completely and restrict the rest whenever they feel like it.

Yes, the Feds could get by on much less cash, we would need to return to Constitutional governmnet, not this mishmash of government by federal executive branch decree and laws (and lawmakers) bought by transnational corporations.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15976754)

this is to eventually make direct mega money out of renewals for existing popular websites.

Wonder how much ICANN will charge slashdot.org will cost when it expires next October.

Even *IF * there is a transional period This concept is so wrong.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15976783)

It could still be low/no profit, if they simply have raise their expenses (e.g wages) according to the raised income

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (4, Insightful)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976796)

Yes, but they can simply raise the CEO's pay to stay nonprofit.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976810)

ICANN needs to publically itemize each and every thing they spend money on. This includes all expenses and any monetary comepensation they pay themselves. They need to readjust the cost of registering domains so they don't go over this, or at most, don't go over 110% of this. 100% of the cost, plus 10% as a safety buffer, a rainy day type thing.

What stops people from transfering (1)

MECC (8478) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977160)

What would stop someone from transfering their tier-priced/abused domain to another registrar?

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15978251)

I just bought a pen. It cost $1.29. Should I add it to the list?

For the tiered pricing under discussion the money wouldn't go to ICANN, it would go to the registry (like VeriSign and NeuStar) ICANN gets a fixed amount of a domain registration (e.g. 75c for a .net domain), the rest goes to the Registry.

(Yes, I work for ICANN)

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (1)

ripcrd (31538) | more than 6 years ago | (#15978346)

fags. CEOs are fags, plain and simple. Put that up your pipe and smoke it.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (1)

Stellian (673475) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976819)

How much are they going to be making off this? Is this kind of thing really necessary?
Yes, it really is necessary. That domain name has a real market value, the only question is, who is making the money: ICANN who can hopefully use them to enhance the infrastructure of the Internet, or some domain squatter who can use them to buy himself a new Ferrari.
To late for the biz TLD tho, it's so infested with spammers and scammers that you don't miss anything by blocking it completely.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976844)

The problem lies with the definition. Once a tiered pricing thing is in place, how easy would it be for ICANN to keep constantly changing the rules? Also, why should ICANN make a profit off of this, or offset the cost of domains for everyone else?

dot-biz is so infested with spammers and scammers? I don't think tiered pricing would solve this. People who spam and perform scams are always going to find a way around. The victims and attempted-victims need to contact the proper authorities to report people who are breaking the law.

Concerning domain squatters, I guess that is a real problem because it denies some people the availability of registering the domain they want without paying a high price for it. I think the solution could be found in tiered pricing, but done carefully. I don't know the statistics for this, so let us do this hypothetically...
-
I assume more domains are registered to squatters than non-squatters. That squatters can go out there, register a bunch of names (for either to hold to sell to someone, or to forward to a site with advertisements if someone makes a typo). To discourage squatters, to register (not to renew) a brand new non-registered domain, we could charge like a fee. Maybe the fee would depend on the domain, how popular it could be. It could range from $20 to $500 for a new registration. However, after the 15 year mark, the person who owns the domain at that given point could then get this fee, whether or not they are the person who originally paid for it. That way it discourages people from registering domains just to maybe sell it. Not selling a domain after paying a fee would be a bigger loss to them than as now.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Please correct me on that above idea.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (3, Interesting)

Bostik (92589) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977236)

Once a tiered pricing thing is in place, how easy would it be for ICANN to keep constantly changing the rules?

Such as require renewable domain names to go through a competetive bidding process? ICANN wouldn't even need to monitor or assess the potential market value the domain names - the bidders would do this on their own and ICANN could just reap the profits.

So if the rules are subject to change, this will be likely abused and will eventually take on a nasty tone.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977432)

Such as require renewable domain names to go through a competetive bidding process? ICANN wouldn't even need to monitor or assess the potential market value the domain names - the bidders would do this on their own and ICANN could just reap the profits.

I'm more worried about what happens to .org if you do this. Imagine if you decide to start outbidding <orgyouhate>.org, forcing them to spend more and more money on their domain name. Imagine, for instance, if it was George Soros doing this to a small conservative-oriented NPO, meanwhile, he can spend millions if he has to to keep moveon.org from being outbid.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (1)

theelectron (973857) | more than 6 years ago | (#15978176)

Yeah, a bidding process on .org sites, or any TLD, would lead a crazy amount of extortion.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 6 years ago | (#15978248)

bad idea, one important design idea of domain names is they are supposed to be permanent (or as close to permanent as is reasonable) identifiers.

allowing a rich player to extort away a domain name from its long time user by outbidding them on registration fees would bring cahos to the net.

lets not replace an annoyance (cybersquatting) with something that will totally destroy the integrity of the naming system by allowing anyone to steal anyone elses name by paying a registration body more than the names owner can afford.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976894)

The highway running by my house has real market value too, but that doesn't mean it's right for me to put a roadblock up and start charging money. What benefit is ICANN performing in exchange for these increased prices? None? Okay, then it's not a market issue.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (2)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976934)

That domain name has a real market value

But the questions are: value to who, and who gets to profit from it? If I had the foresight to register "buy.com" many years ago, and someone wanted to give me $1 million, but the registrar wanted the same amount to reup it, then my investment or foresight would be for nothing, and the registrar is simply profiteering off my "risk".

There is plenty of squatting and such going on, but I would rather leave it to the courts and marketplace than a handful of registrars who are not adding ANY value to the names, just sitting in judgement and suppressing free expression by controlling prices.

The registrars do not OWN the names, the individuals do. To allow them to charge more for some names is so anti-capitalistic it is rediculous. This will allow them, over time, to force more domain names to default back to them, so they can RENT them out and maintain control over who uses them, and of course, what those people do with the domain name. If that isn't chilling free speech, I don't know what is.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15977024)

That is what most of the world wants, that ICANN is replaced by a non-profit independent international organisation which is not controlled or censored by any single nation or a toy for exploiting companies. UN is the most realistic umbrella for such an organisation.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (1)

Tekzel (593039) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977331)

Say what? haha. I guess you think the UN is a neutral organization too, right? Please. The UN is about useless for anything, and I certainly wouldn't trust it any more than ICANN.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15977775)

Spoken like a true "conservative" American idiot.

Google created that value (5, Interesting)

zzg (14390) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976660)

The word google meant nothing (I know there are other views). And now some other organization should cash in? What are googles options here?
1. Pay and redirecto to google.com
2. Don't pay, someone else will, can google then sue for trademark infringement?

Re:Google created that value (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15976737)

1.unnecessary, except for googles bank service maybe .... but that would redirect to cash.google.com i guess ;)
2. exactly, there is noone allowed to use that word now for something else than for -google- .... so even if someone other buys it, its about worthless to him, except google really wants to have .biz

on the other side, the competition for sex.biz should be really big, as a lot might want to have this, i hardly understand why its less worth then google.biz, as there is only one senseful client for that ... thats not capitalistic market force working there yet imho

and despite providing the root dns, what else produces costs when setting up domains ....

Re:Google created that value (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15977242)

They are basically setting up a system whereby the price you charge a company for their domain is based on how much the company earns, not on how much the domain is worth. It is nothing short of a regulatory body exploiting their monopoly on the domain system to extort money from successful business. Without google.com there is no google. While someone leasing office space to google could try to raise the rent on the same basis, google could move if it became ridiculous, or more likely they would buy and own the buildings on which their company depends. The domains is an artificial system, google can neither buy nor get an alternative to the domain name they need to conduct business. It will be an interesting case when a supposedly neutral governing body ends up being sued for exploiting its monopoly position which is exactly what they are doing. Google.com is inherently no more valuable than sfsafdsfd.com, it is only worth more because google added the value. On the plus side this may finally be the spur required to force people to look at building a viable alternative to the currently broken system.

Re:Google created that value (4, Insightful)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976757)

I guess one of the benefits are that as the domain would cost so much more, it is more difficult from someone to cybersit. No average joe can stump up $1m (or however much) to grab google.biz, just in order to get them to payup for the site (and it makes it less profitable to do anyway).
My biggest concern is that ICANN knows that Google et al are going to buy the google name for every TLD simply to prevent confusion and domain squatting, so what is to stop ICANN just making a new TLD every couple of years and then charging through the nose for the right to take a name on that TLD? it would be like a license to print money. I never think that the regulator should also be the body that profits from that system it regulates.

Re:Google created that value (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15976807)

3. use their massive storage and databases of cached websites, create their own protocol to access said websites, sell cheaply/give away domains on their new protocol, thus inticing people wishing to set up sites to use their protocol instead, thus inticing people to use their procols because they have more content, and crush their opressor.

from the article... (4, Insightful)

legoburner (702695) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976661)

Vint said it would be "suicide" for a registry to do it, because there'd be the 6-month notice period to raise prices and the ability for registrants to renew for up to 10 years at "old prices", that supposedly "protects" registrants. Personally, as a business, my time horizon is a lot longer than 10 years

Let the .info/.biz/.org landrush.... begin!

And ICANN's still fine.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15976679)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, that's it. Well, no, it's broken, and it has been for a long time (VeriSign's wildcards on TLDs and THEN renewal of their contract, IDN, and much, much more). I don't see the US relinquishing ICANN's control to UN's ITU, but if it ever happens, I will have a few beers (not that I need a reason).

ICANN'T strike again (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15976694)

Why would they permit this? Icann.org current registration expires in 2011, however if PIR act now we can have poetic justice by 2017 when the icann.org domain renewal costs $15billion/y.

Come on PIR, Icann't object to tasting their own dog food ;-)

Market rates... Choose your poison (3, Interesting)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976701)

Either the domain registrars will make the money or domain squatters will. Choose.

Personally I reckon they should auction names rather than selling them at a flat rate.

 

Re:Market rates... Choose your poison (4, Insightful)

Eivind (15695) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976780)

Yeah. But the registrars are the ultimate squatters:

The effectively squat *ALL* of the TLD that they administer, and run -ZERO- risk of investing in domains that they are then unable to sell, aswell as -ZERO- risk of being convicted for abusing others trademarks etc.

utter bullshit (4, Insightful)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977482)

Traditional economics doesn't come into play when corrupt organizations worm their way into a position that gives them a right to practically print money.

Re:Market rates... Choose your poison (1)

theelectron (973857) | more than 6 years ago | (#15978217)

I fail to understand how auctioning would work. How long would bidding be open? Does that time frame start when someone first wants it? Why wouldn't extortionists just wait until someone wanted a domain then start running up the bid until the person who really wants the domain gives in to them?

Auctioning off domain names sounds like a completely ridiculous idea to me. Why do people keep suggesting it? Are people that clueless?

Don't bother, I laready know the answer is yes.

Why? (1)

bloodredsun (826017) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976705)

What's the justification on this?

They are cashing in on the efforts of successful companies without any hard work of their own. It takes just as long to register one domain as another, and yet the apparent worth will be altered to fit the pockets of the current owners as to maximise revenue. This is naked greed and nothing else.

Economic theory 101 (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976726)

It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it only has to do with supply and demand, if it isn't worth it to them, then they won't pay.

 

Re:Economic theory 101 (1)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976788)

It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it only has to do with supply and demand, if it isn't worth it to them, then they won't pay.

It has nothing to do with supply and demand, it has to do with monopoly control of the domain system. The whole point is that the registrar has been given free reign to charge any amount they like, and the customers have no choice but to pay or lose their domain. The reason google.* is a valuable domain name is because Google, Inc gave it value, not because the registrar did anything special, and not because there was a great demand for the name on the open market.

Re:Economic theory 101 (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976881)

What monopoly? Are you trying to say there is just one top level domain?

There's now likely to be high demand for the name google, so it's value is high.

As I said. Supply and demand. If Google don't like it they can bugger off and use another top level domain instead.

 

Re:Economic theory 101 (0)

MECC (8478) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977178)

use another top level domain instead.

If it meant the end of .biz, then good. Talk about a lame TLD. Its like telling the world you're stupid, or hanging a 'crack me' sign on your website.

Keys to Success (4, Insightful)

Crash Culligan (227354) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976745)

What's the justification on this?

Because they can! They own the TLDs uncontested, they can charge whatever they think the market will bear for service that had been decently regulated until that time.

Pretty much the same thing threatens net neutrality: because they can claim to be a part of it, telcos have a justification to charge for cross-traffic. It flies in the face of the equal-peerage internet that was the original intent, but there it is.

They are cashing in on the efforts of successful companies without any hard work of their own.

So? That's what makes their plan so brilliant. Companies are always seeking to increase profits and eliminate costs, to the point where they can spend nothing and do nothing but rake in the dough and brainstorm how to rake in more dough. It's morally bankrupt and ethically bereft, but as long as the actions are legal, such things are of little concern to the successful modern businessman.

It has nothing to do with morality or ethics (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976928)

And everything to do with economics. Money never has. It's simply a commodity which allows the exchanging value between two parties. You are particularly naive to try to attribute morals or ethics to money.

If you don't want to pay the price, if you object, then bugger off elsewhere you'll fine cheaper domain names. It's how markets work.

 

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976769)

For the same reason that an acre of land in Beverly Hills California costs more than an acre in Jock Itch Wyoming. Location, location, location.

Seriously, only the top-tier Google/HP/IBM domains are going to bother with registering some of the variants. Hell, even HP can't be bothered with registering "hp.biz".

Why? (4, Insightful)

onion2k (203094) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976720)

I can see two reasons for doing this:

1. To push the price of unregistered domains up .. fair enough, if the registrar wants to 'auction' domains they should be able to, but as the article states they'd never get any real money from it because of the 6 month notice period. If the site then becomes popular over the 10 year period then it's effectively just..

2. ..ransoming companies running sites on already popular domains such as gamesindustry.biz into paying a lot in 10 years time because they're successful today.

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Besides, the registrar doesn't actually do any more work registering sex.org than registering IwantApurpleMonkey.biz .. so they're just cashing in on percieved value. I suppose it depends on whether you consider your money is going toward paying for the domain name itself like a physical product, or going toward paying for the service of registering a domain name. I'm in the latter group .. I don't see it as 'buying' the domain, just paying for access to the registry.

Re:Why? (0)

Triv (181010) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976798)

Besides, the registrar doesn't actually do any more work registering sex.org than registering IwantApurpleMonkey.biz .. so they're just cashing in on percieved value.

Welcome to economics 101: the value of any given property is exactly equal to what somebody is willing to pay for it.

Re:Why? (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977170)

However, domain names are not free for the one who pays the most but are restricted due to for example trademark issues. So in many cases, there is not nessecarilly anyone else to pay more to start with.

Re:Why? (1)

Itchy Rich (818896) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976885)

Besides, the registrar doesn't actually do any more work registering sex.org than registering IwantApurpleMonkey.biz...

The DNS servers are put under more load by more popular domains. While I wouldn't agree with Registrars being able to invent their own prices, it seems no more unreasonable to charge per DNS lookup than an ISP charging for bandwidth used.

Re:Why? (3, Interesting)

speculatrix (678524) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976905)

icann control the root nameservers, which carry a pointer to e.g. the name server which hosts google.com's DNS

very popular sites like google will have their DNS cached almost everywhere, meaning very little actual traffic hitting the root nameservers - there will probably be MORE traffic from typo'd non-existent lookups than real ones.

Re:Why? (1)

Itchy Rich (818896) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976975)

icann control the root nameservers...

You've been misinformed [wikipedia.org] .

That's not really the point though. My point was that no-matter who runs which bits of DNS, somehow it has to get paid for. If your DNS entry is cached all around the world then you're relying on those caching servers for the response time of your system. If your site has a massive volume of traffic, surely it makes sense to charge more for that. Your point of billing is with the registrar, so that's where you pay. An optimistic flipside could be that personal low-traffic domains would cost less.

There doesn't seem to be much evidence to suggest what the registrars are actually going to do with this so this is all speculation at the moment, and the idea that it'll be used in a perfectly fair way is obviously an optimistic one.

Disclaimer: I work for Verisign, who run two of the root nameservers (although do not speak for them, and they don't speak for me, etc. etc.)

Re:Why? (1)

Unipuma (532655) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977193)

Uhmm, so if I follow you correctly, the trafic to the DNS is what should be payed for? So if I run a DNS server, and it has a DNS entry cached from the registar, I can send Verisign the bill for that trafic, since they are already charging more for it?

Re:Why? (1)

Itchy Rich (818896) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977259)

Uhmm, so if I follow you correctly, the trafic to the DNS is what should be payed for?

I said I didn't think it was unreasonable for DNS to be paid for by those sites that benefit from it the most. To use the word "should" is to put a far greater certainty than I did on my opinion on the subject. Personally I think the overheads involved in all that tracking and billing would be unappealing.

Re:Why? (1)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977225)

That's not really the point though. My point was that no-matter who runs which bits of DNS, somehow it has to get paid for. If your DNS entry is cached all around the world then you're relying on those caching servers for the response time of your system. If your site has a massive volume of traffic, surely it makes sense to charge more for that.

Cached all around the world at end users ISPs, who already get paid by the end users to get access to these high volume sites.

Your point of billing is with the registrar, so that's where you pay.

The problem is that because of the nature of DNS caching these high volume sites put less strain on the root servers than a lot of low volume ones. Does ICANN pay to maintain the root servers anyways? I'm thinking no at this point. So why do they need the extra money at all? This is nothing but government sanctioned extortion: "Pay us more money for your highly profitable sites domain name or we'll take it away!"

Disclaimer: I work for Verisign

It shows. When was the last time you heard about a registrar going bankrupt? When was the last round of layoffs at Verisign? Why do these fat cats need more money for nothing?

Re:Why? (1)

Itchy Rich (818896) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977309)

The problem is that because of the nature of DNS caching these high volume sites put less strain on the root servers than a lot of low volume ones.

Less strain on the root servers, more strain on the caching servers. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

It shows.

Haha... I'd like to know how. My business unit is independent from DNS. If we don't make money we get chopped just like anyone else.

When was the last round of layoffs at Verisign? Why do these fat cats need more money for nothing?

They don't. RTFA.

Thing is, it doesn't matter how you see it (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976940)

The majority, most of the people out there see it as ownership of the name, or at least the right to use it.

 

Mapping is the answer (4, Insightful)

BlueCoder (223005) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976732)

There isn't anything to prevent a register from taxing the hell out of any website that gets popular. This ammounts to extortion by registers not being banned. The internet community will not stand for it and the offical DNS servers will cease to be recognized as such. Instead ICANN will be religated to it's own TLD. This can both be done at a user and register level. www.slashdot.org.icann It's how TLD DNS should work, with mapping to whom you recognize as the authority.

Re:Mapping is the answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15977717)

That's not really doing anything. Somebody, somewhere, needs to keep a list of root name servers. The only other option is for every user's DNS server to maintain a list of ALL authorities. *. ... .*.*.icann will not magically be resolved.

poilitical interest like this !!! (1)

b1ufox (987621) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976739)

FTA

The domain registrar could also could also use pricing for political purposes, claiming that pricing sex.biz high would be to 'protect the children,' while icann.org could be priced at $1/year.

so does a repetition means an indication of desperation to attract political interest in least non-political issue :)

Net Neutrality (3, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976746)

This is essentially network non-neutrality in other clothing. Registrants would be charged based on content or popularity, rather than by the actual level of resources provided by the registrar that are consumed by the registrant.

The only thing that makes traditional network non-neutrality more insidious is that the companies trying to impose non-neutrality want to do so because they have a product in competition with the companies they want to charge out the nose for access.

Re:Net Neutrality (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976864)

Registrants would be charged based on content or popularity, rather than by the actual level of resources provided by the registrar that are consumed by the registrant.

Actually, here, you could make the case that the more popular a domain is, the more load it causes on the TLD servers. How many hits a day do you think the servers get for fredspersonalwebsite.com, and how many hits does the server take, serving up the address for google.com? Should fred's rates be raised, when google is causing more load on the servers?

Of course, the problem with this is that only one entity is getting all the money for the load, while anyone running a major DNS server will face the same disproportionate network loads, but certainly won't be seeing any of this money.

The underlying issue here is the ongoing struggle of between regulations and commercial interests. Everyone is making it up as they go along.

Re:Net Neutrality (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976919)

I was just thinking that more popular domains put more load on the root servers. Of course, I highly doubt that google.com puts $1 million worth of load on the root servers, but I could see maybe $500 per year. Not that the pricing will actually be based on anything real and measurable like root server load. I also wonder if we'll see the converse good thing about this idea. If popular domain names like google.biz are worth millions of dollars, does that mean I can get someworthlessdomainname.biz for $1 per year, since practically giving it away is the only way anyone would ever take it?

Re:Net Neutrality (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977323)

I suppose what would be fair is to charge instead of by domain two fees: a storage fee and a bandwidth fee

So they could price google.biz at something fees like like $2 storage + $0.10 per billion root server hits for their domain

Bullshit (0, Redundant)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976750)

How to make money as a domain name person (whatever they call them...) 1. Let them start cheap. 2. There is no 2 we know of. 3. Gouge them once they are set up and their domains worth something. 4. Profit!

latex.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15976776)

What would that cost? Those perverted LaTeX users.

Alternate DNS (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15976820)

What a load of shite! Why should someone with lots of money pay for the same service that someone with little money can get? Sounds like the idea of someone that wants to get rich off someone elses work without having to work hard themselves. Pay rises all round for everyone at ICANN?

I can see the death of ICANN as a result, with the governments of the world uniting to create an alternate DNS and making whan ICANN does irrelevant forever.

ok, maybe not. But I can dream can't I? How do I get a job at ICANN?

Maybe not the governments ... maybe Google. (2, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977542)

Google has the brightest people and the technology.

Could Google redesign DNS and move it to a more neutral platform? I'm sure they could.

If Google handles this right, Google becomes the new center for DNS and ICANN is abandoned when they start ratcheting up the prices.

At the very least the threat from Google keeps ICANN from changing their pricing structure.

should be public service, not a license to print $ (2, Insightful)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976823)

Look at license plates. You want "STALLION" on the back of your car, you pay extra. Fair 'nough. Problem is there seems to be a competition in money making schemes. Just look at the use of international characters. If you register citib ä nk.com, what the fuck are you going to use that for? Skandinavian characters should only be allowed in scandinavian TLD's. Period. And if the Danes allow spelling ø as oe then føbar.dk and foebar.dk should point to the same IP adress. ALWAYS. Any other behaviour is misguiding the public as part of a grab-the-money-and-run scheme. If you have "google" in your adres, you claim to be part of Google. Google paid for its own name, and nobady else should make money on that.

Re:should be public service, not a license to prin (1)

TimTucker (982832) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977852)

Skandinavian characters should only be allowed in scandinavian TLD's. Period.

Let's say you have a company based in Sweden with non-English characters in its name. If they do business internationally, should they be limited to only registering their name in Sweden? Or should they be allowed to register the .com address?

And I thought it was worse already (3, Insightful)

elronxenu (117773) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976863)

So now ICANN has legalised domain name extortion.

What the hell happened to the fundamentals of a domain name representing a company or organisation, or even an individual?

Re:And I thought it was worse already (1)

sjwest (948274) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977006)

Domains like .org and .biz suffer from a lack of control and governance. Raising the price will mean more money coming in and a continuing misuse of the namespace. .biz is a sewer, .org has many which are not organisations. I doubt the raising of the price will not stop that 'misuse' - look at the w3c - massive sums to be a member and some lame brained standards supported by our friends at microsoft.

As to .info it never took off imho - i cant remember ever visiting an .info

Re:And I thought it was worse already (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977186)

They were thrown out when CIOs saw first light of new flashy money from domain selling business.

Money defeats everything.

Google isn't going to rule the world... (3, Insightful)

x-vere (956928) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976925)

...Registrars are. How about that. ICANN decides that registrars can exploit their power to shape the content of the web or make the more successful pay more for their domain. How arrogant and bold. My bet is that these three TLD's are a test bed to see how well the public receives this crap. If it goes without much outcry, then they'll throw in the big dog domains .com and .net. This type of behavior shouldn't go unpunished.

This kills startup and OSS. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15976930)

I suppose that's the true vision of free markets by the Bush goverment:
You are free to buy, but not to compete.

Re:This kills startup and OSS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15977800)

What with the Bush comment? You moron. Someone with some mods, list parent as troll. Stay on topic.

My Price to Read This Post (2, Funny)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976942)

$.05 USD if I like you (category 1).

  $1000 USD if I don't (category 2).

  If my post gets popular, my price for reading this post will jump to $100 in category 1 and $10,000 in category 2.

mes amis: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15976956)

just point your DNS resolution to my dns server.

you can be on our darker-net in no time.
www.microsoft.com / www.nasa.gov / and a few others
are still available!

by the way: www.pr0n.net DOES point to pr0n here :)

all the other "real" addresses also work, but u have to add
"xyz" before, so "www.xyzmicrosoft.com" does point to
the "real" microsoft.

necessity (1)

stud9920 (236753) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976972)

This doesn't change a thing to the fact that .info and .biz has no necessity further than racketing trademark holders who have to "defend and enforce" their trademarks.

Re:necessity (1)

n2art2 (945661) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977841)

of course you are forgetting about .org, that changes things. I maintain a number of non-profit .org domains. If the cost of these domains go up, I'll advise all my clients to switch to and only use .com or .net domains. . . Until this happens to them as well. So effectively, this will kill the .org, .info, and .biz TDLs.

Re:necessity (1)

stud9920 (236753) | more than 6 years ago | (#15978149)

Not forgetting, ommitting. .com makes sense for corporations in a global economy. .org makes sense for non-profit world organization. .net makes sense as a meta domain on a network of networks. cctlds make sense to provide localized info. .edu should arguably be available to any UN country's education system. As it is now they actually mean ".edu.us". .mil and .gov should become .mil.us; .gov.us, there is nothing more national than defense or government. .mobi, .aero, .pro, .museum make no sense at all (they might be suitable SLD). Why no .energy, .auto, .biz and .info are redundant racket. The latter is actually doubly redundant, everything is info on the Internet.

Also IMHO, I don't believe second or further level domains should be used for visible (customer facing) internet addresses. gandalf.appmath.ctu.ac.za may be fine for some local purposes, but don't forget people have to type them. If a domain is to be popular, it should have a short name on a SLD.

This is more problematic for .co.uk domains. This must account for about 95% of .uk domains. Why the f*** not just use .uk ? In the current situation, either the .co.uk DNS is handled by the .uk DNS server (then why bother indeed), either it is handled by a separate .co.uk DNS server (2 serial points of failure not including the root servers and the third level DNS, way to go!)

Monopoly? AntiTrust? (3, Interesting)

transami (202700) | more than 6 years ago | (#15976988)

Can anyone say "Monopoly?" How about "AntiTrust"? Do those terms apply to such an organization?

This is fucking bullshit (1)

jeffs72 (711141) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977031)

Excuse my french here, but wtf?!?

It's time for Google to put their 'information available to everyone' and 'do no evil' mantra to work here. Build some DNS infrastructure, and start their own DNS system ending in .google, or maybe .fuckicann.

That worked so well for Usenet... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977066)

I've had google based Usenet posters tell me there's nothing wrong with them posting anything they want on "their" Google Groups.

I don't understand the argument... (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977164)

My impression is that there's multiple registrars that can sell all domains, and you can freely transfer ownership between them. So say you owned pussy.org with Network Solutions and they suddenly got bought out by Jerry Fallwell and he decides to charge 1 billion dollars/year for pussy.org because he hates uhh... cats. What's to prevent you from transfering the domain over the goDaddy before the domain expires? They then charge you the same $12 a year (or whatever they normally charge)? Unless all the registrars collude on certain domains, I don't see how it's possible for a single registrar to hold people hostage.

Whats happenning to this world? (3, Insightful)

gorrepati (866378) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977198)

Looks like lot of wrong people out there are in power, and are out to extort money. What has the world come to? First there was internet as tubes comic strip, then there was somebody who came up with a brilliant plan of charging for e-mails (supposedly to prevent scam! duh!!) and now ICANN wants to charge these insane amounts of money...

These incompetents dont see how to make money by innovation and thus they resort to bullying.
Taxing businesses unnecessarily is the surest way to kill the market place.

Sigh. Another bad sign. (1)

TheNoxx (412624) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977244)

So, should the board in charge of zoning for a particular city be able to charge certain people more for licenses because of the name of their companies? I'm pretty damn sure we'd see every corporation active today screaming fire if something like that came up. Seems to me that we're heading in completely the wrong direction when it comes to regulation and business interacting with technology; everyone with money and power is trying to exploit the inexperience of various legislative bodies when it comes to newfangled things like software patents and the internet.

ICANN (1)

JerryLs (587277) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977255)

If they really want to protect the children, they can deep six the porn domain altogether.

Re:ICANN (1)

Drachemorder (549870) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977873)

Actually, if you make it harder for pornographers to get porn-related domain names, what are they going to do? They're still going to set up shop, but they're going to get domain names that are not obviously pornographic. That makes it harder for people who want to avoid the porn to do so, and makes it more likely that people who don't want to see it will stumble across it by accident. The porn is going to be out there no matter what you do; you might as well adopt policies that encourage it to carve out its own niche that people who don't want to see it can avoid.
It's none of my business if someone wants to download porn. I just don't want to have to see it when I don't want to.

Alternate name resolution system? (2, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977264)

One nice thing is that we can always create an alternate DNS-like service if we get too pissed off at ICANN. Not that it would be easy, but we're not entirely held hostage.

We could do any of the following:

A) Create a parallel infrastructure that uses DNS still, but that has an alternate set of servers.

B) Do something similar to what TinyUrl does: Hang our own infrastrucutre off of the current one. For instance, we register just one name such as z.com, then all names in the replacement service end in ".z.com"

C) In the most extreme case, we add new name resolution APIs to the popular operating systems, permitting us to go with a name resolution system that has a significantly different structure than DNS does.

Am I getting this straight? (3, Interesting)

dave-tx (684169) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977325)

OK, so if I'm reading this correctly....If my current registrar wanted to, they could decide to charge me $1000/year to renew forbis.org, my "vanity" domain name. Assuming no collusion between registrars, I would then be compelled to shop for a different registrar, one of which would likely want to offer me a low price, comparable to what I'm currently paying, knowing that it's basically free money for them.

As annoying as this seems to me, it seems like the only hassle for a non-profit like myself who has no incentive to keep the domain name (other than the fact that it is my name) would be in shopping registrars for a better price. My current registrar may want to try to price-gouge me in hopes that I don't know enough to find a new registrar, but a competing registrar would be more likely to try to attract my business.

Is this about right? Am I missing something here?

You know... (1)

CodemasterMM (943136) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977374)

There should be some sort of way to report squatters to ICANN or such; that's one of the biggest annoyances I have on the Internet; fuck squatters and their tricky ways of getting new cars.

On topic to the article, I think that there should be more uniformity instead of a "we'll decide the price on what we think is right." Reason being is let's say Walt Disney wishes to purchase a .org domain - I think ICANN would charge them a larger sum of money than they would a small business they never heard of - even if it was for the same domain.

Is ICANN really still a non-profit organization?

Slippery Slope (2, Insightful)

grapeape (137008) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977590)

With all the fuss over "Net Neutrality" how in the heck does ICANN think they can do something like this? First they screwed over the small registrars through rate increases and vote weighing, then they dropped the .xxx from the last agenda (something pretty much everyone in the world wanted with the exception of bush and friends), Then the IANA contract renewal without so much as discussion, and there have already many decisions made favoring big business and less than neutral positions. Its really past time for ICANN reform or dismissal. So ICANN can regluate the internet but who regulates ICANN? ICANN should be replaced with an ELECTED international governing body.

Democrats vs Republicans? (4, Insightful)

coyote-san (38515) | more than 6 years ago | (#15977710)

Domains can be priced due to political reasons? The example given is sex.com (which points out to just how far into the weeds this country has gotten).

What about the political parties? What's to keep a registrar from saying Republican domains can be registered for $10/year, but Democrat domains will cost $100/year? We might think that no shareholders would stand for this, but rogue corporate management is no longer rare. (They have to have annual meetings? Sure, on the second week in January in Fargo, North Dakota, and stockholder questions will only be accepted for two hours. Answers not guaranteed.)

That might be too naked, but you could easily have subtle biases. The two major parties get "preferred rates" since they buy so many domains. Third-parties and upstart challengers get higher rates. BushSucks type sites get the highest rates. Subtle, but real, pressure against change.

as a .info owner (1)

boojumbadger (949542) | more than 6 years ago | (#15978179)

I am concerned about this because it allows them to jack up my cost if I should post something they don't like.

for example:

You have 10 days to remove your link at xxxxxxxxx.info/icann_sucks.html (fake link for arguments sake)or we will raise your registration fees one billion percent.

regards ICAAN

that is all

corruption @ work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15978360)

Step right up folks and watch as the wealthy pervert our public places.

Welcome to the plutocracy.
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...