DIY News wrote to mention a Reuters article reporting that VeriSign will control the .com domain until 2012, according to an agreement with ICANN. From the article: "The agreement settles a long-running dispute between the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, and the most powerful company under its jurisdiction. The settlement comes at a time when ICANN is under attack from China, Iran and other countries that want more direct control over the domain-name system that guides traffic around the Internet."Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='internet,doj';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; VeriSign To Control .com Domain Until 2012 Log in/Create an Account | Top | 137 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 137 comments 0: 134 comments 1: 105 comments 2: 64 comments 3: 19 comments 4: 12 comments 5: 8 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 (Score:5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25, @04:02PM (#13874634) Coincidence? Yeah, probably, but you should call Art Bell just in case. [ Reply to This Re:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 (Score:4, Funny) by mctk (840035) on Tuesday October 25, @04:14PM (#13874792) (http://www.livejournal.com/users/mctk) Not to mention it's the 100 year anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. Coincidence? Probably, but I'd still recommend that you never let go. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by F34nor (Score:2) Wednesday October 26, @12:14AMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by $RANDOMLUSER (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:20PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by LLuthor (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:29PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by LLuthor (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:31PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by DarkHelmet433 (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @05:21PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by DarkHelmet433 (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @05:25PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by $RANDOMLUSER (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @05:25PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by DarkHelmet433 (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @06:09PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by ettlz (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:43PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by fyrie (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:24PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by stupidfoo (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:30PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by fyrie (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:33PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by FST777 (Score:3) Tuesday October 25, @05:11PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by grasshoppa (Score:3) Tuesday October 25, @05:44PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by FST777 (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @06:41PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by grasshoppa (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @06:54PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by Dave2 Wickham (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @08:10PMRe:The Mayan calendar ends in 2012 by FST777 (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @10:25PM fair? (Score:5, Insightful) by ajdlinux (913987) on Tuesday October 25, @04:10PM (#13874743) (http://ajdlinux.64h.net/) Verisign has been known to go around policy: who authorised .root? ICANN is known to be undemocratic and hold meetings in places where people can't access them. Could some non-profit organisation take over .com and make the internet fair again? [ Reply to ThisRe:fair? by Jim Logajan (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:30PMRe:fair? by ajdlinux (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:37PMRe:fair? by monkeydo (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @07:36PMRe:fair? by tony1343 (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @07:55PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:fair? by c_forq (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:32PMRe:fair? by ajdlinux (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:42PMThis is a racist comment. by hummassa (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @06:50PMRe:fair? by galdur (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:40PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:fair? by Xarius (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:56PMRe:fair? by ajdlinux (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @05:08PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Iran? China? (Score:4, Insightful) by Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) on Tuesday October 25, @04:11PM (#13874760) God forbid we should run the Internet in a way that displeases such an open and information-friendly group of countries. [ Reply to ThisRe:Iran? China? by thumperward (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:24PMRe:Iran? China? by thumperward (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:36PMRe:Iran? China? by hitmark (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:29PMRe:Iran? China? by DigiShaman (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:47PM Re:Iran? China? (Score:5, Insightful) by slavemowgli (585321) on Tuesday October 25, @04:47PM (#13875144) (http://venganza.org/) Well, that part of the article was FUD at its best, and you're the perfect example of a naive Slashdot reader who took the bait and fell for it, so to speak.For one, not all the world's Iran and China; admittedly those are dictatorships that you probably don't want having a say in how the Internet is governed, but the majority of the world's countries is not like that. Furthermore, the proposition wasn't that individual countries control the Internet; rather, it was suggested that an international body responsible for this be created. Kind of like the ITU, for example - which is not exactly a prime example of the devastating influence that countries like China and Iran would have, is it?And don't even think about playing the "free speech" card - that coming from a country where an accidentally-exposed nipple on TV causes a major outrage and where the FBI goes after and tries to shut down porn websites is just ironic. If you want the USA to keep control of the Internet, at least be honest enough to admit that you like to feel that you're in power, that you have control, and that you're better than the rest of the world.And now I'll most likely get modded down to oblivion for saying this, probably - again by people who otherwise constantly talk about free speech. Isn't it ironic... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Iran? China? by DNS-and-BIND (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:54PMRe:Iran? China? by belmolis (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @08:21PMRe:Iran? China? by Scudsucker (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @10:41PMRe:Iran? China? by azureice (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @05:07PMRe:Iran? China? by tony1343 (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @08:03PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Iran? China? by ZombieRoboNinja (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @09:58PMRe:Iran? China? by tommyServ0 (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @10:39PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Iran? China? by Xarius (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:59PMI'm from Iran and I DO AGREE with you!! by linumax (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @05:13PMRe:Iran? China? by A beautiful mind (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:37PMRe:Iran? China? by stupidfoo (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:43PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.2 replies beneath your current threshold. Verisign icky! (Score:5, Interesting) by mister_llah (891540) on Tuesday October 25, @04:12PM (#13874765) (http://llahlahkje.deviantart.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday July 12, @09:36PM) They tried to start a 'service' to redirect mistyped domain names to a search engine (with ads)....These same people also make 6 dollars per year for the 35 million .com domain names in use, and then also the .net names.They are icky.===Of course, one has to wonder... WWCD? What would China do? (if they had control) ... or any other nation/entity vying for control...?Mountain View, California-based VeriSign introduced a search engine in September 2003 that directed Internet users who mistype domain names like "www.example.com" to a search engine which contained advertisementsIMHO, The internet should always be 'free' (except for the cost of connection) ... and I think right now its as free as it's going to be... [ Reply to ThisEr, oops? by mister_llah (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:19PMNo, you *don't* have to wonder WWCD by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:29PMRe: Rhetorical, old bean... by mister_llah (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @06:59PM Saw this first thing this morning (Score:2) by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Tuesday October 25, @04:18PM (#13874825) At The Register [theregister.co.uk]. [ Reply to This That means (Score:2, Interesting) by ackthpt (218170) * on Tuesday October 25, @04:19PM (#13874844) (http://www.dragonswest.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday February 24, @01:27PM) Ebay will control .com names until 2012.I wonder if they'll auction off the expired names.You have been outbid on Domain Name www.cgi-ebay-com.com [ Reply to ThisRe:That means by Mattwolf7 (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:29PMRe:That means by ackthpt (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:36PMRe:That means by LLuthor (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:36PMRe:That means by ackthpt (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:38PMRe:That means by $RANDOMLUSER (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:47PMRe:That means by ackthpt (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:52PMRe:That means by $RANDOMLUSER (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:58PMRe:That means by powerg3 (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @05:05PMRe:That means by wombert (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @05:06PMCompletely, Utterly, Wrong. by ciroknight (Score:3) Tuesday October 25, @04:39PMRe:Completely, Utterly, Wrong. by ackthpt (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:41PMRe:Completely, Utterly, Wrong. by Toasty981 (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @05:04PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:That means by ackthpt (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:47PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold. A DNS scam? (Score:3, Insightful) by Jim Logajan (849124) on Tuesday October 25, @04:21PM (#13874863) The ICANN and VeriSign dispute about the content of the root domain name servers makes about as much sense as a dispute between Fred and Joe over which of them can park their car in Bob's driveway.What contractual or legal obligations exist between ICANN, VeriSign, or any of the registrars and the owners of the traditionally accepted root domain name servers? Just how do ICANN or VeriSign intend to force the owners of the root DNS systems to sync their databases to the registrar's if they decide to cut out the middle man? What contractual or legal obligations requires ISPs to resolve DNS queries using the traditionally accepted root DNSs?I'd sure like to know what these missing links are. Seems to me they are fundamental.... [ Reply to This Obligitory.. (Score:5, Funny) by fak3r (917687) on Tuesday October 25, @04:28PM (#13874920) (http://fak3r.com/) "All your .com domains are belong to US" [ Reply to ThisRe:Obligitory.. by Xarius (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @05:01PMRe:Obligitory.. by thuh Freak (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @05:22PMRe:Obligitory.. by Thud457 (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @05:47PMRe:Obligitory.. by fak3r (Score:3) Tuesday October 25, @07:39PM so... (Score:1) by smindinvern (920345) on Tuesday October 25, @04:28PM (#13874931) ...what does this solve? [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Choose your evil (Score:5, Insightful) by fuzzy12345 (745891) on Tuesday October 25, @04:32PM (#13874975) I thight this topic was pretty much mined out, so I don't expect the huge number of "USA, yeah! UN Sux!" posts that have characterized it in the past, but...What's everyone say now? ICANN President Paul Twomey said the settlement shows that issues involving the domain-name system are best resolved within ICANN, rather than through an international bureaucratic body. Am I missing something? Big US corporation uses threat of long, expensive US litigation to bend ICANN to its will? ICANN claims that this proves the system works, sure -- what else could they say and maintain a shred of self-respect?But now y'all have to chose your evil: VeriSign and litigation lawyers, or the UN? Bwahahahaha! [ Reply to ThisRe:Choose your evil by ZachPruckowski (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @04:43PMRe:Choose your evil by ZachPruckowski (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @06:06PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Everyone wins...except the users (Score:4, Interesting) by A beautiful mind (821714) on Tuesday October 25, @04:45PM (#13875116) (https://www.cyberarmy.net/) So let me get this straight: 1. Verisign introduces wildcard2. ICANN tells them to temporarily suspend that3. Verisign sues, but the case gets thrown out4. Verisign sues again and they settle that Verisign keeps its reign over .com until 2012, instead of 2007 BECAUSE they fucked up in the first place with that outrageous wildcard-advertising?5. No ??? here, just profit.Oh yea, and the people wonder why do I and apparently the rest of the world think that ICANN and the USA is not doing the task it had been given properly? [ Reply to ThisRe:Everyone wins...except the users by wayne (Score:3) Tuesday October 25, @05:22PMRe:Everyone wins...except the users by triffidsting (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @07:25PM Why mention only China and Iran? (Score:5, Interesting) by CharAznable (702598) on Tuesday October 25, @05:00PM (#13875298) Why not the EU or any other number of countries that don't have despotic governments?Countries depend on the internet for a number of things, and it's only natural and sensible that they don't want to trust their vital infrastructures to Verisign or the US. Mentioning China and Iran seems like a lame attempt at scaremongering. "Imagine, the internet in the hands of China! Oh noes!" [ Reply to ThisRe:Why mention only China and Iran? by bullitB (Score:3) Tuesday October 25, @06:45PM3 replies beneath your current threshold. Higher prices too (Score:4, Interesting) by karl.auerbach (157250) on Tuesday October 25, @05:06PM (#13875376) (http://www.cavebear.com/) The prices for .com names may go up significantly - 7% per year.And ICANN's slice goes up to 50cents per name per year.All of this adds up to increased taxation on those who acquire domain name, i.e. you and me. Yet we are unrepresented in ICANN's decision-making processes. Can you say "taxation without representation"?And if you really think about it, what is the actual cost to provide a service in which the yearly cost is that of *not* removing an entry for a database and in which the resources consumed are a few hundred bytes of disk space?I've suggested a new domain name selling model - The .ewe Business Model - or - It's Just .Ewe and Me, .Kid(s) (http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000159.ht ml [cavebear.com]) [ Reply to ThisRe:Higher prices too by wayne (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @05:49PM verisign = jamster (Score:1) by digitallysick (922589) on Tuesday October 25, @05:35PM (#13875722) soon you will go to any website, and it will say " get the funny gay elephant on your cell phone" just text the # 1234 i hate that, i cant believe verisign owns them, and then destroys my tv with the stupid commericals, they dont even try to offer content that people would want on their cell phones, i wish someone would destroy verisign [ Reply to This The arguments? (Score:1) by DynamicPhil (785187) on Tuesday October 25, @06:33PM (#13876288) I have yet to hear *good* arguments for not transferring the power to the UN.Does ANYONE have those?Ive currently heard (and you will get my comments on the arguments in non-italic)The US doesn't mess with how its run false: we have the whole mess with the .xxx domain, and not to forget: what's going on with the iraqi domain? Well, since the current owners are in US custody (!??) its in limbo: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/30/iraq_inter net_domain/ [theregister.co.uk]?Transferring power will lead to greater Cencorship Oh, cencorship as in preventing media to display coffins of dead soldiers? Or showing a nipple on tv? Banning Al Jazeera from reporting from iraq? Or pictures from abu ghraib? (where the public - thats us, folks - have the right to know what is actually going on). No, my dear friends - it's time to 'fess up, and admit that there are plenty of countries - participating in the UN, as a matter of fact - that does the whole "Freedom of speech"-thing better than the US. The UN is corrupt Arguably the UN has had its share of scandals - it's no suprise since any political body draws the attention of people out for personal gain. This is solved by actively participating, and demanding increased opaquity of how the UN (or any political body - the US for example) is run. I won't even go into the whole Haliburton, Bush AWOL, Saudi connection, Campain Contributions and Florida vote scandals. Historically the internet came from the US - so it should remain in US control This one is plain dumb. Just because something is historical, doesn't mean that it neccessarily is good today.The US runs it better (technically) Not really. Ever heard of pharming? Im going to do a littel flag-waiving myself, and point out that right now Sweden is on the track to implement DNS-SEC, for examplehttp://www.nic.se/english/nyheter/pr/2005-0 9-14?lang=en [www.nic.se] To keep internet democratic, the US should be in control It IS a issue of democracy. The US has to hand over the power to a international democratic body, any other action is per definition UN-Democratic (no pun intended). I'm sorry, but arguing anything else is just moot.It's the US responsibility to participate and to try to affect the outcome of voting on these issues in the UN. That, my friends, is how democracy is supposed to work.(and I shouldn't have to point out what democracy actually is)I'm scared of that the rest of the world won't put the US intrests first. Well, should they? Honestly?The rest of the world is not, I repeat NOT, by definition Evil. Remember, North Korea, China (as is the US) are a part of the rest of the world. There are enough good countries to balance out the "bad" ones ("bad" as in the _US sense of the word).Ok, I'll probably be modded down for this post, but before bringing out the flamethrowers, I'm actually intrested in hearing good arguments for keeping it in US control.Regards ... [ Reply to ThisRe:The arguments? by tony1343 (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @08:15PM if it ain't broke .. (Score:1) by illuminix (456294) on Tuesday October 25, @07:19PM (#13876635) The US built it, it's working fine. Leave it alone. [ Reply to This Why not just use country codes? (Score:2) by Mustang Matt (133426) on Tuesday October 25, @10:25PM (#13877614) Let each country control the root servers for it's country codes and the U.S. can start using .com.us like every other country does. [ Reply to This VeriSignToControl.com Domain Until 2012 (Score:1) by Bemmu (42122) <lomise.uta@fi> on Tuesday October 25, @11:02PM (#13877789) (http://www.bemmu.com/ | Last Journal: Friday August 22, @11:01AM) But after that, the domain is mine! [ Reply to This US lawyers at work?? (Score:2) by Wolfier (94144) on Wednesday October 26, @12:10AM (#13878026) The FA does not say what happens after 2012.It is too easy but wrong to assume VeriSign to *relinquish* control after 2012."Control until 2012" does not mean "Not control starting 2013".  I think the EU are fooled. [ Reply to This Re:China and Iran? (Score:5, Insightful) by Scrameustache (459504) on Tuesday October 25, @04:34PM (#13874993) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 06, @12:47AM) suppressing our peopleStop doing business with them, then talk about how evil they are. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:China and Iran? by tony1343 (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @08:09PMRe:China and Iran? by Scrameustache (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @06:35PMRe:China and Iran? by Scrameustache (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @06:39PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:Why single out China and Iran? (Score:2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25, @04:38PM (#13875032) It's not simply the U.S. versus the rest of the world.China and Iran are leading proponents of setting up some sort of UN-based body to replace ICANN. The European Union wants to keep ICANN in place, but have it answer to an international group. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and I think Japan back the U.S. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Why single out China and Iran? by andr0meda (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @05:12PM Re:what if... (Score:2) by ciroknight (601098) <awalton@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Tuesday October 25, @04:43PM (#13875085) They'd be retarded. First of all, the root domain ".com" doesn't matter that much; anyone who's got a big-name .com has bought rights to it for years and years to come, and if another country tried to distrupt them, those companies would go bonkers on that country.Secondly, Other countries already have their version of ".com", though many believe that we should follow their lead as well (.co.uk, .co.fr; why not replace .com with .co.us?). [ Reply to This | ParentRe:what if... by Harlan879 (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @04:58PMRe:what if... by $RANDOMLUSER (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @05:23PM Re:PLEASE (Score:2) by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Tuesday October 25, @04:53PM (#13875215) Sure. Visit our website at:129.42.16.99129.42.17.99129.42.18.99129.42.19.99129.42.20.99129.42.21.99Please try to load-balance your requests. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:PLEASE by ajdlinux (Score:1) Tuesday October 25, @05:14PMRe:PLEASE by ilyanep (Score:2) Tuesday October 25, @07:02PM Re:what if... (Score:1) by jzeejunk (878194) on Tuesday October 25, @04:57PM (#13875263) in that case since we've already changed french to freedom, we might as well change cuban and china both to .com ;) [ Reply to This | Parent And read this too! (Score:2) by linumax (910946) on Tuesday October 25, @05:25PM (#13875601) No, I'm totally serious, Plz read it [slashdot.org]. [ Reply to This | Parent