[Smaug] question about meeting

relsqui@armory.com relsqui at armory.com
Wed Jun 15 01:14:54 PDT 2005

DAMN it. Did it again. *ahem*

----- Forwarded message from relsqui at armory.com -----

> The example of NetSol seems to suggest that sometimes you _wish_ you got
> what you pay for.  ;->


> To be very explicit:  They have delegated authority under contract (and
> subject to contractual restrictions) from the US Department of Commerce
> to operate and regulate the .com, .net, and (I believe) .org gTLD
> namespaces.  They have no statutory power whatsoever, and no
> _legitimate_ authority over the many other namespaces, such as the
> ccTLD ones.  They also have no _legitimate_ authority over IP address
> namespaces.  {Cue ominous music.}

Ahh, interesting. I had not gotten that impression from their site.

[more ICANN being lame, lamer, lamest]

So... what body is there to even complain to? I suppose there aren't many
people who both know and care enough to do so (mostly through no fault of their
own), but in theory.

[Tonga and TONIC, generally]

I'd heard about that, but not in as much detail. If I were a) still in the
market, b) willing to pay that much, and c) interested in a non .com, I'd
look into it. I feel a bit silly about that last one--especially now that I
know more about what it's supporting--but it is a lot more convenient.

Huh. Too bad it wouldn't really be feasible to arrange a TLD boycott, what with
contractual obligations and existing sites and all. I WILL warn people about it
who are looking into buying a domain.

By the way, $50 a year, not $25. $40 if you buy five (a.k.a buy four, get one
free). It must've changed.

> They have an enlightened policy on trademark issues:
> http://www.tonic.to/faq.htm?C7AA5CD3;;;#7

That's the one it's easy for me to forget. I make the mistake of assuming
people are rational about this--it's ludicrous to me that anything except first
come, first served would be used. I bought it first, I own it. Companies, I
suppose, want protection against individuals who buy up domains just to sell
them to said companies. They have no right to that protection, any more than
they have a right to seize land from someone that bought it with the intent of
selling it off again!

Okay, I'm getting really irritable now. Moving on.

> One of the things they told the Cypherpunks about was the year 2000
> "invoice" they received from ICANN for $8,172.41.  An accompanying
> letter explained that this is the sum that ICANN figured represented
> Tonga's fair share of ICANN's annual operating budget, as calculated by
> ICANN's Task Force on Funding.

If I weren't convinced it was a scam yet, that would do it. I feel annoyingly
helpless about it.

> I really don't know how that ended, but I admire their spirit.

Hear, hear. I'd love to know how that ended; let me see if I can find out
quickly . . . nope, no luck. Maybe I'll email 'em and ask.

> Frankly, I'd much rather have nothing at all
> in [ICANN's] place.

Leave it only to consensus, you mean? Big business wouldn't be too happy
about that, but hackers would love it, and ordinary citizens would probably
learn a lot about DNS quickly. I'm not sure that's the right way to go, and
it certainly wouldn't be an easy one. But it should definitely not be run by
a commercial organization--the compromise that comes to mind is for there to be
a central, nonprofit international registrar that requires some fairly
obnoxious paperwork to use. Middlemen can still profit by doing that work for
people, clueless persons wouldn't even notice the difference, and geeks can
get stuff done without interference. But that's, to understate, a bit

On a semi-tangent, how do domains deeper than three levels work?
(My school used to be cabrillo.cc.ca.us, although it's cabrillo.edu now.)

And on a complete tangent, I just found out that we had a tsunami warning
tonight. I'm somewhat disturbed that I didn't find out until hours after it
was retracted.


----- End forwarded message -----

More information about the Smaug mailing list