The internet's very own Muslim ban continues: DNS overlord insists it can freeze dot-words Internet overseer ICANN has insisted it has the authority to maintain a six-year online Muslim ban, despite being told otherwise by its own independent oversight panel. In a letter sent to the Turkish organization that applied for the rights to operate the .islam and .halal generic top-level domain names back in 2012, ICANN's …
Don't create a new TLD unless it is 100% crystal clear from the get-go, beyond any question of debate, who it should belong to, and what authority should get to say who administers it.
This isn't hard. National TLDs are administered by an agency nominated by their respective governments. Similarly I have no objection to creating ".disney' or '.pepsi' if you really must, though I think it's a shocking waste of everyone's time.
But taking a regular word with no specific trademark attachment and making it into a TLD? Just don't fucking do it. And revoke the ones you've already done, starting with ".info'. We won't miss them.
Why would Disney corporation be entitled to .disney? There are people with that last name who might have a stake in that, I would think. I suppose if it comes down to "who is willing to pay" then the six digit fees for creating a new TLD would tend to guarantee it is the mouse house that gets it but is that how we want to do things?
A TLD is effectively a worldwide trademark for a name covering EVERY line of business. Apple had to pay Apple Records to get involved in the music business, but there are enough other businesses named Apple so they truly never get "clean title" to a .apple domain. Heck even NYC might have wished to be https://big.apple!
Only companies with totally made up names that were trademarked early on, like say Facebook, would be eligible for TLDs. The only way the rest could get involved would be if you simply make it an auction, but did we want the company with the deepest pockets (at the time, because Apple may be huge now but 20 years ago many thought they wouldn't survive to see Y2K) to get the TLD?
I have no problem with new TLDs ... it makes my job on the mail server so much easier, I can just blacklist *.junk_tld domains and speed up the mail server by eliminating the junk TLDs from spam processing. Note, I've nothing against .islam or .halal, new TLDs are only be added to the junk_tld list when spam starts arriving.
Don't create a new TLD unless it is 100% crystal clear from the get-go, beyond any question of debate, who it should belong to.....
Similarly I have no objection to creating ".disney' or '.pepsi' if you really must, though I think it's a shocking waste of everyone's time.
You're actually contradicting yourself.
Have you ever visited Nissan.com ? There's an interesting tale....
Might the "hold" (for lack of a better word) be due to the two factions within Islam? They don't really get along and by dragging it's feet, ICANN might be trying to avoid a legal and public nightmare along with personal pain as the fanatics within these groups prove at the least, weekly. If governments are involved and they happen to be from the Middle East, then this might be the reasoning.
The lace of transparency in this seems to suggest there's more to them dragging their feet then meets they eye.
Indeed. As I recall, it went something like this:
ICANN: We think we'd like to let people create all sorts of new gTLDs.
Techies: No, that's stupid. Don't do that.
ICANN: We're going to do it.
Techies: Weren't you listening? We said it's a terrible idea. Here are many reasons why you should throw this plan in a pit and set it alight.
ICANN: Hooray! In response to overwhelming demand, we are now going to let anyone create a new gTLD.
ICANN: ... oh, except for all the ones we arbitrarily won't allow.
ICANN (subsequently): Jeez, what a horrible mess. Who could have imagined that new gTLDs would create problems? Why did no one warn us of this?
...ICANN (subsequently): Jeez, what a horrible mess. Who could have imagined that new gTLDs would create problems? Why did no one warn us of this?
You left off the part where ICANN go on to repeat the same mistakes over and over again because really, why should they care?
The idea of the Ottoman Empire Mark II bidding for .islam is LOL crazy. I'd rather see the Saudis get it than them, but it really ought to go to the Indonesians by weight of numbers. But as noted below, there's Sunni, Shia, Ismaili, Twelvers, and let's not forget the Sufis, who brought Islam to India and Indonesia, and have been cheerfully murdered as heretics by all latecomers since then.
Mebbe copy the Americans with something like "Icann shall make no gTLD respecting an establishment of religion, ..." ?
"They already gave out .bible, .catholic and .church - despite objections."
OTOH they have not given out .christ, .christian or .christianity.
If somebody applied for .koran, .shia or .mosque would they approve those?
This "prejudice" cry seems a tad lacking in supporting evidence.
Keep that banhammer swingin' ICANN, and keep poking those tickbox merchants 'til they change the rules.
Well, the Bible is a real book (As is the Koran and the Torah), and churches are a real place (as is mosques and synagogues). However, Christianity is a religion, and so is Islam and Catholic. I can see that .catholic is a strange one because that religion is centered around what the Vatican (which is a separate country in and of itself) says and does. This is similar to .judaism because Israel is the only Jewish theocracy in the world that I'm aware of.
"I can see that .catholic is a strange one because that religion is centered around what the Vatican (which is a separate country in and of itself) says and does. "
Nit-pick: what we in the West usually refer to as the orthodox church actually lays claim to being the catholic church. The word just means universal and consequently both sides of the Great Schism believe they are the *legitimate* claimants. This is also why the term /Roman/ Catholic exists.
I'm sure there are other religion-based TLDs out there. I found '.guru' and '.yoga' but most likely they're not in reference to eastern religions at all.
One reference suggested 10 TLD's were "religious" but I didn't want to wait for their slow scripted site.
The place I searched was gandi.net but they don't have EVERY TLD (just the vast majority of 'em from what I can tell). Notably did NOT find '.christ' or '.zen' or '.buddha' or '.hindu' or anything similar.
But as for NOT registering '.islam' etc.: if terrorists and/or jihadists were to get '.islam' TLDs wouldn't it make it easier to TRACK them? Seriously someone isn't thinking very well...
/me points out that if believers in Islam use '.church' it would be just as applicable as a christian religion. And I saw several TLDs listed in foreign lingos and so I couldn't read 'em, so maybe they're at least slightly religious? Anyway, I think ICANN wanted to avoid this entire thing, but I say open the gates and let it all happen, equally.
This post has been deleted by its author
If you're going to relegate them to a subdomain, why have .islam at all? They can be shia.com or shia.org or shia.ir already.
They would want .islam (as would the Sunnis) because they think they are the true Muslims, and the others are heretics, or at least misguided.
Imagine if someone wanted to create a .christianity TLD. Who gets control of it, the born agains, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans? I guess the Catholics are out of the running for .christianity since they already have their own - but at least since they all recognize the Pope there's a central authority they'd agree is justified in controlling stuff like a .catholic TLD. There's no central authority over Islam any more than there's a central authority over Christianity.
So I think ICANN is justified here - better to keep it "on hold" indefinitely since there's no right decision about who gets .islam.
How US centric - although in the US you have religions and sects for any taste and inclinations - what about the various Orthodox churches? Do you believe Russia would have nothing to say about it? And do you believe Catholics would leave others take control of it, even if they already have their own, when they developed the "credo" to assert they are the only good ones? And the list is still not exhaustive, I'm afraid.
Any religion old enough will incur in the same issues, I'm afraid...
ICANN created a minefield with the new TLDs... and something will explode (figuratively, I hope) under their assess...
I didn't intend an exhaustive list, I'm aware there are various Orthodox flavors of Christianity, the Church of England, and so forth. Pretty sure all Catholics will submit to the authority of the Vatican though, or by definition they are no longer members of the Catholic church. That's the difference between .catholic and .christianity and .islam.
I wish it could be so simple... I'm afraid each of them believe to be the true and only one... and there could be even internal fights for controlling who controls what.
It happened in the past with other religions, including Christianity, as well, and may not be over yet, albeit less bloody.
The fact that other Middle East countries objected about a registrar in Turkey managing it tells a lot about it.
ICANN may deserve a lot of troubles - but I wouldn't really like to be the one who have to manage issues like this.
Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I can tell ICANN has power only because the rest of the world allows them to. What is to stop engineers around the world to tell ICANN to go jump off a roof and set up a new gTLD system?
After all: "the internet re-routes around what it perceives as damage"
Nothing, except for the fact that you could never get "engineers around the world" to agree on one single new gTLD system and who runs it. ICANN is a terrible solution, but it may be the least worse of the possible alternatives.
If engineers around the world bypassed ICANN, we'd have a dozen different gTLD systems within a year and since they'd all still have to point to ICANN roots for .com, .net, .org and country specific TLDs they'd be the lowest common denominator so that's all anyone would use. Which defeats the purpose of this hypothetical engineer led revolt against ICANN...
"since they'd all still have to point to ICANN roots for .com, .net, .org and country specific TLDs they'd be the lowest common denominator so that's all anyone would use. Which defeats the purpose of this hypothetical engineer led revolt against ICANN..."
On the contrary, I rather took this to be the point of the exercise. But on the other hand, DNS is a hierarchical system, so these hypothetical engineers can already configure their own systems to drop all the gTLDs on the floor.
What is to stop engineers around the world to tell ICANN to go jump off a roof and set up a new gTLD system?
Not a lot, just some complexity. And the return of balkanisation. It's been done before with several alt.roots and resulted in RFC2826 explaining why it's a Bad Thing!. Especially for ICANN and their revenue streams. It's also a bit of a deja vu because the alt.roots were created to expand on the original trinity+country TLDs.
All it needs is the creation of non-authoritative (in an ICANN sense) records that show .islam delegated to a DNS server operated by the alt.root. That's made easier where countries (eg Saudi) that attempt to restrict/intercept/block unwanted content. So Saudi could create a Sunni .islam and direct DNS requests to that. Iran could do the same for a Shia version. Just modify named.root and named.cache on official name servers and away you go.
If people still want to use ICANN-approved DNS, unless DNS is blocked/redirected they could choose diffferent DNS servers.. But that also brings up some civil liberties/human rights risks, ie given some Muslims view others as heretics, being able to monitor access to heretical sites could be a Bad Thing.
It's also where ICANN's actions may encourage balkanisation. The whole DNS structure has pretty much relied on trust for authority and delegation, and if they lose that trust, then they'll lose control.
I've pretty much reached the point where balkanization isn't the boogyman that it used to be. It's not wonderful, but we're increasingly accepting quite a lot that's worse.
The Titanic, with almost no watertight bulkheads, was wonderfully free in terms of passenger movement....
A lifeboat is an inferior means of transport to almost all others...
...except a sinking ship.
What was it they said in the early days of HiFi as loudspeakers and amplifiers got better and better high frequency response?
"The more you open the door, the more the dirt flies in"
The globalists just loved the internet, until it stated transmitting messages that they did not control.
I think that techies should control the Internet and politicians should be given a walled garden.
Perhaps the TLD .CNUTS would be appropriate.
I honestly don't understand the point you're making here, but let me try to clarify what I said.
I'm not in favor of balkanization. However, there are a lot of other things that are happening with the internet that I'm equally opposed to, and can see that there's a nonzero chance that balkanization could actually become the lesser evil. I hope that day never comes, but I'm not terribly optimistic about that at the moment.
The organization should deal with the root domain servers directly and give up on ICANN. I would suggest dealing with the Wide Project and JPRS to start with. These two run the M root server and "endeavors to coordinate operational service" with the others. That does not look like an absolute rule to me though. The next organization to deal with is RIPE NCC - which runs the K root.
None of these are under the control of ICANN. Furthermore "Anyone may apply to host a K-root node. Get details on the expansion plan and application process."...
It's not Muslims terrorizing the internet -- it's these ass hats. Countries should just start their own DNS servers and fracture the root server system. Basically cut the head off the snake. Of course, it'll leave the internet in ruins but it's already a dumpster fire thanks to these clowns.
ICANN is just another example of how the United States refuses to play nice with the rest of the world. I am ashamed of my country's conduct, on- and offline. I'm totally serious -- Europe should shove their collective foot right up the ass of our tech companies, along with these kinds of organizations that project US policy while claiming to be neutral.
It's already started,Europe has lost patience with the USA over how it handles data, spies on us (allies) and how big US Corps play fas and loose with tax and legal laws.
I can see a day when each region has a walled internet, with controlled gateways between each, blocking what each other don't like or don't have dat sharing agreements with.
The big losers will be USA, Russia and China, as nobody will trust them.
"Countries should just start their own DNS servers and fracture the root server system."
Not the solution. Let countries (by which I wake it you mean national governments) get involved and you'll end up handing it to the ITU. What needs to happen is for the registrars (who, I believe are supposed to be ICANN "stakeholders" but not, apparently, treated as such) to do it in a coordinated fashion. The root server has a number of mirrors around the world; all they have to do is agree to treat one of those - and has to be just one - as the new definitive server and ICANN is on a downward slide as fast as you can say "fait accompli".
As I posted above, you'll never get everyone to agree on a new gTLD system and who runs it. You'd end up with a balkanized system but since they'd still need to point to ICANN roots for .com, .net., .org, and CC TLDs for obvious reasons so everyone would go on using those and nothing is really changed.
Dear Journalist,
since when is "broke" a word that can be used in the context that you used it in? "broken" is the word you were looking for.
Dear Editor,
please make sure to read articles before they are published, so that you can avoid bad English. This reading of articles also gives you a clear opportunity to replenish failing keyboards that, for example, lack a working "N" key...
Best regards,
Guus
@sabroni
Unfortunately tips and corrections involves sending an email (its a mailto link) which may not be possible depending on someones machine set up, or someone may not want the email address of that machine made known to the reg (e.g. if "private" address whereas signup email address used was a "public" address - i.e. one user does not want to keep private) or may be work email with strict no personal email rules
I have no idea why the tips & corrections does not fire you to a webform....
since when is "broke" a word that can be used in the context that you used it in?
Sigh. English-language prescriptivism continues to be a marvel of conjoined ignorance and certainty.
avoid bad English
Put the ruler down, son. "Bad English" is a figment of your imagination. While there are many possible grounds on which to reasonably critique diction and usage, your personal set of predilections is not one of them.
I wonder what would happen if .judaism was proposed or .christianity
with .catholic and .shia already approved they really cant refuse anything .denomination
they can't realy deny .halal as they already approved .kosher
Someone with teeth needs to regulate ICANN, sureley as a california registered org, eithter state or fedral organisations have some jurisdiction
And we knew then, that the invisible barrier - that stretched from end to end, as far as our eyes could see - would never end and never vanish. At first we crimed and then we scree'd, and we cried and we screamed, for what else could we do? But as we died in our multitudes in front of the beautiful light we could not reach - we sang and made poems with our bodies, so we could be remembered, so our deeds and tiny lives meant something. We sang of the flower, of the wind and of the sun, we sang of each other, our children and the children they would never have. We sang of soaring over water, of hovering on the breeze, of alighting on the green blanket that gave us food and life. And as we sang, we died. Who would bury us now? Who would remain? Only our creator could tell us that, and He had deemed to test us first. And we had failed his glorious test.
“US-based ICANN placed the applications for .islam and .halal "on hold" in 2014 after a number of Middle Eastern governments objected to the top-level domains being added to the internet”
“The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has repeated its objection to the gTLDs .islam and .halal ever seeing the light of day.”
That again is where ICANN screwed up. Where the proposed gTLD is generic but contentious, it shouldn't just be flogged off to the highest bidder. If the OIC is a respected and trusted muti-faith Islamic organisation, they would seem a far better custodian. Same with say, .christian given there's a multitude of Christian faiths/sects.
All that I see here are issues with no solutions. Well, maybe one...
1. Fracturing the DNS root system is not a good idea because that is how someone from the US like me, can read and comment on these forums. It will be like the .onion TLD which was never approved but is in use on the dark web and requires a special browser to access.
2. This issue started when ICANN was under the purview of the US-DOC. But now that they are on their own, they have gone completely out of control. If they will not follow their own bylaws, then it makes me wonder if they will follow a court order issued by a judge in a court of law. I know they probably won't if the court is in a foreign jurisdiction, but even in the US...
3. Currently, ICANN's regulations that the registrars must follow are in direct conflict with the laws of some countries. Case in point is Germany, which puts the registrars between a rock and a hard place. Either follow your country's laws and risk your status as a registrar or follow ICANN's regulations and risk getting sanctioned by your country's legal system.
4. The fact that this as been going on for six years already makes me ask the question Why? According to the article, they are disobeying their own bylaws, which a judge in the US should be able to make them follow with a court order. This just demonstrates the abuse of power they are committing since they are no longer under the purview of the US Government.
In the past, I was against making internet governance part of the UN-ITU. However, seeing how ICANN has been abusing their authority lately, that may not be such a bad idea considering that every man, woman, and child is a stakeholder in the global internet which crosses international borders.
"Either follow your country's laws and risk your status as a registrar or follow ICANN's regulations and risk getting sanctioned by your country's legal system."
Well I'm not sure I ever followed the argument here. It seemed perfectly plain to me that the ccTLD belongs to the local government, not ICANN, and that if ICANN wanted *any* influence over how it was run then they would have to have a legal presence in the country concerned, at which point they are subject to local law.
Obviously it is open to ICANN to simply punt and give up on a ccTLD. I think you'd have to say they've done that in a fair number of cases. (Can you really see ICANN dictating policy to China, Iran, Russia or North Korea?) The much-feared balkanisation of the internet has already happened and the sky remains defiantly above our heads because ICANN don't control the technical standards and those are what matters.
Surely the main* point of TLDs is to break up and delegate the work of network addressing? As more TLDs are created, doesn't that slow everything down? I'd appreciate if someone can point out the flaw in my logic isn't it more efficient to for root DNS servers to hand off requests to the approprate server for the domain, who in turn hand off to the authoritative server for the subdomain? The more TLDs there are, the more work for the root servers to track down the authority to delegate to. Where do we stop? Do we all get our own TLD?
* Some people seem to think the main point of TLDs is to keep inventing new ones, milking a constant stream of revenue from organisations who have a trademark to protect, or a desire to protect their customers from legitimate sounding impersonators. I couldn't possibly comment...
"The more TLDs there are, the more work for the root servers to track down the authority to delegate to."
Not really. The algorithms to look up values for a given key don't care how many entries their hash lists or binary trees have. Root- and TLD-NS run high-performance software optimized for just this case. Most requests to root NS are for nonexistent junk domains anyway.
Recursive resolvers might need a few more bytes to cache additional TLD NS entries but there's really no argument to make that new gTLDs would slow down DNS in general.
This post has been deleted by its author
I guess that's not the problem - a Turkish company proposed it, and I'm sure no abuses like yours would be ever allowed, or heads will fall (figuratively, at least).
Try with .catholic, which is managed by the Vatican.
The issue other Muslim countries are afraid of is Turkey, and thereby its version of Islam, would try to use it for their own aims, maybe trying to keep out everyone who's not aligned with them.
The issuance of .catholic and .kosher make it clear that ICANN isn't the least bit concerned about bias and the like. I can very much believe that they ARE concerned about starting a war that is likely to extend to "highly energetic" packages at their personal doorsteps.
ICANN might be a perfect showcase for almost everything that can go wrong in an organization of its sort, but the demonstrated danger of making a ruling on these two gTLDs makes me suspect that there is actually useful intelligence behind their actions. Especially when you consider that a "delayed" application is a source of ongoing revenue, while a permanently denied one is not. :/
But not politicians
Sigh.
Farewell Internet, I knew thee well..
$dig SOA globaljihad.islam
dig v7 (multiroot)
checking ICANN
checking European Union of confederated name servers
checking Freespace.Russia,DNS
checking United ASEAN DNS
checking DARKNET,ONION
Checking Chinese walled garden of wonderfulness
Checking United Islamic Brotherhood of Terror
...one result found
Checking CIA.DNS
...one result found
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
