ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    Country-Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) NeuStar explains why it broke .us
    posted by tbyfield on Tuesday September 24 2002, @05:40AM

    NeuStar's director of Policy and Business Development James Casey recently sent an email to the "usdom" list (at abuse.net), and perhaps to other lists, explaining the logic behind the company's decision to create a slew of new categories of reserved names under the .us ccTLD: www.thestateof*.us, www.thecommonwealthof*.us, www.stateof*.us, www.commonwealthof*.us, www.(state name).us, www.(state motto).us, www.(state slogan or tagline).us, www.countyof*.us, www.*county.us, www.cityof*.us, www.*city.us, www.townof*.us, www.*town.us, www.boroughof*.us, www.*borough.us, www.parishof*.us, and www.*parish.us..



    The supposed need for this policy stems from NeuStar's decision to commercialize .us à la Tonga's .to and miscellaneous other South Seas islands (albeit without the Jon Postel-sanctioned grace and foresight of Crown Prince Tupouto'a and his Two Erics, Gullichsen and Lyons). Doing so involved trashing RFC 1480, which was "based on" -- and limited delegations to "political geography."

    This liberalization, of course, opened the door to a new class of would-be parvenus (usually called "squatters") -- which, in the topsy-turvy world of ICANN's Keystone Kop-style "regulation," needed to be shut pronto. Hence the torrent of new reserved names.

    The problem is, where holding a delegated name under the .us hierarchy used to be fairly simple and cheap, if a bit of a hodgepodge, these new reserves impose a host of burdens and costs on hosts. For example, if you formerly held the delegation for Anytown, you now have the "opportunity" -- and with rights come responsibilities -- to hold any or all of cityofanytown.us, townofanytown.us, anytowncity.us, anytowntown.us, parishofanytown.us, and anytownparish.us, lest someone else confuse matters -- for between $152 and $395 per domain. (The low-end price doesn't actually let you use the domain: it merely prevents someone else from registering it. In less genteel circles, this might be seen as a protection racket.)

    Ah, but NeuStar anticipated this problem by -- get this -- appending the two-letter state code to the domain name in order to "differentiate" them. No more anytown.ca.us: now it's anytownca.us (etc. etc.).

    Did I say that was the problem? Excuse me: there's another one. Under RFC 1480, delegation was hierarchical, as noted, according to political geography. Thus, if you wanted the delegation for Anytown, California, you'd get anytown.ca.us. But NeuStar broke that taxonomy, so now everyone in every state that has an Anytown (and anyone else) can compete (read: pay) for the right to the above-mentioned litany. In the specific, this isn't especially funny for places with famously common names like Fairview, Midway, Oak Grove, Franklin, Riverside, Centerville, Mount Pleasant, Georgetown, Salem, or Greenwood; in general, it's idiotic to break a well-founded and well-implemented RFC.

    It's hard to know who's responsible for this brain-dead innovation. It's tempting to blame NeuStar, but the only people who seemed to expect much from them were the ICANN functionaries who effectvely created NeuStar by approving its bid for .biz, and then, when .biz proved to be a dog, bailed them out by giving them .us.

    And now, finally, for the NeuStar letter to the "usdom" list:

    Subject: Reserved Names
    Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:30:47 -0400
    From: Casey, Jim
    To: usdom@lists.abuse.net

    Greetings:

    There has been some discussion on this list of NeuStar's state and local name reservation list and the recent publication of the registration process and price list. I wanted to take a moment to provide further background and clear up certain misconceptions.

    NeuStar developed the federal, state and local name reservation list at the request of the Department of Commerce. The Department understood that once the .US domain was opened to direct second-level registrations, name speculators likely would seek to register federal, state and local names. Therefore, we worked with the Department to reserve for future registration by the appropriate parties (federal agencies and state and local governments) a set of names corresponding to these governmental entities. NeuStar used official census data to develop the state and local list. In those instances where there were multiple jurisdictions with the same name, the two letter state code was appended to differentiate the names. The "City of", "County of", etc. designators were added to avoid conflict with trademarks and/or legitimate name registrations (such as family names) by individuals and entities not associated with a state or local government.

    These second-level names are not intended to replace the existing locality space. Rather, they are intended to provide federal, state and local governments with the option to register a second level name, e.g. newyorkcity.us, which they can use as they see fit. If we had not reserved these names upfront, they likely would have gone to peculators. The fee schedule for these registrations was designed to recover NeuStar's costs in conducting outreach to federal agencies and state and local governments, as well as to operate a manual registration and registrant authentication process. NeuStar agrees that the current locality space is a valuable Internet resource and is committed to maintaining and enhancing the space.

    We want to clarify that the fact that we have created no new "delegated managers" since taking over administration of .US is unrelated to the reserved name list. We are prevented by the terms of our contract with the Department of Commerce from creating new delegated managers until NeuStar and the Department have completed together an analysis of the locality names and their operation. NeuStar submitted the required report at the end of April and will publish it publicly upon approval to do so by the Department of Commerce. I can assure you that, although we make several recommendations with respect to future operation of the locality names based upon the requirements of our government contract, the report is supportive and appreciative of the important and quality work of the vast majority of the existing delegated managers.

    I hope that this response clears up some of the concerns raised.

    Best Regards,
    James Casey
    Director, Policy and Business Development


     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
      Related Links  
  • Jon Postel-sanctioned
  • RFC 1480
  • create a slew of new categories of reserved names
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    NeuStar explains why it broke .us | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 13 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: NeuStar explains why it broke .us
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Tuesday September 24 2002, @07:45AM (#9363)
    User #2810 Info
    I think most of what you've written is correct. Not sure about that last part of them also being registrar for awhile. That bears more looking into as NeuStar made a big deal in its .org bid that they haven't been and they would never be both a registry and registrar. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: NeuStar explains why it broke .us
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Tuesday September 24 2002, @02:18PM (#9371)
    User #2810 Info
    While I think Neustar is close to broken, and that this is a stupid policy (and not unique, in .ca: fuck.ca is restricted but fuck-you.ca and fuckoff.ca, for two of a number of examples containing that string, are registered, at least one other I haven't listed hosts yer pr0t0typical p0pup pr0n site), your complaint that your domain containing that string was taken away to your surprise is either bogus or you should get out more.

    Both the icann.blog and right here at icannwatch it was covered by the time .us registrations opened. You either knew, or could reasonably have known, that you ran the risk of losing the name. You gambled, you lost. Admittedly they changed the house rules at the last minute but that's what you get when you play the ICANN crap game. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com