ICANN extracts $20m signing fee for $1bn dot-com price increases and guess who's going to pay for it?
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/07/icann_verisign_fees/ 98% of the comments were opposed. How many / which companies would have to get onboard in order to get enough support for an icann alternative? Is such a thing even feasible? -Dan
On NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, Dan Hollis <goemon@sasami.anime.net> wrote:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/07/icann_verisign_fees/
Operator of the dot-com registry, Verisign, has decided to pay DNS overseer ICANN $4m a year for the next five years in order to “educate the wider ICANN community about security threats.”
98% of the comments were opposed.
How many / which companies would have to get onboard in order to get enough support for an icann alternative?
Is such a thing even feasible?
Forget about being opposed or not. If ICANN wants to buy education about security threats why are they receiving money? Quite obviously something fishy is going on (or El Reg is full'o'shit). I'd like a Phd in Physics. Please give me $2million for each of the next five years for the privilege of lecturing me. -- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:58 PM Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com> wrote:
On NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, Dan Hollis <goemon@sasami.anime.net> wrote:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/07/icann_verisign_fees/
Operator of the dot-com registry, Verisign, has decided to pay DNS overseer ICANN $4m a year for the next five years in order to “educate the wider ICANN community about security threats.”
98% of the comments were opposed.
How many / which companies would have to get onboard in order to get enough support for an icann alternative?
Is such a thing even feasible?
Forget about being opposed or not. If ICANN wants to buy education about security threats why are they receiving money? Quite obviously something fishy is going on (or El Reg is full'o'shit).
El Reg is more of a tabloid than industry media, but you can read almost the same views at domain industry blogs: http://domainincite.com/25129-breaking-verisign-pays-icann-20-million-and-ge... https://domainnamewire.com/2020/01/03/com-prices-are-going-up-after-verisign... Rubens
In article <CAGFn2k3E7q5GbH6m9PmHp2+bmna33PPtdHFdFSXDBjyeAodRKw@mail.gmail.com> you write:
El Reg is more of a tabloid than industry media, but you can read almost the same views at domain industry blogs: http://domainincite.com/25129-breaking-verisign-pays-icann-20-million-and-ge... https://domainnamewire.com/2020/01/03/com-prices-are-going-up-after-verisign...
I agree about El Reg, and would say the same thing about the other two which are by and for domain speculators. The domainnamewire story is just wrong, claiming that the $20M will go into the ICANN general fund while in fact it's earmarked for security projects. The impact of this is that if you have a .com domain name, you may have to budget as much as an additional $3/yr. Wahoo. I don't necessarily think that Verisign is a pinnacle of virtue (although it has been very good to its shareholders) but it's a tempest in a domain speculator's teapot. R's, John
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:46 PM John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
The impact of this is that if you have a .com domain name, you may have to budget as much as an additional $3/yr. Wahoo.
Hi John, I have no problem paying an extra $3/year for my .com IF every domain speculator must also pay an extra $3 for each of their .coms. Is that what's happening here? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
I have no problem paying an extra $3/year for my .com IF every domain speculator must also pay an extra $3 for each of their .coms. Is that what's happening here?
Yes. The contract very clearly says that everyone pays the same renewal price to the registry. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
participants (6)
-
Dan Hollis -
John Levine -
John R. Levine
-
Keith Medcalf -
Rubens Kuhl -
William Herrin