Internet Ownership Is Still Debated

Domain name on internet is like real estate on the planet. Not that it is capped, like our planet's real estate, but it is still a scarce resource. Though its supply keeps increasing (addition of new domains like .tv, .info, .biz, .mobi, etc.) but the adoption rate of new domains is painfully slow. So conventional economics (& thus the pricing) comes into play when it comes to its allocation like allocation of any other scarce resource. So while hosting got free & remains free due to abundant supply, second level domains (like YOU.com) never got free. Except for some short-time promotional offers by NameZero.com & similar others.

.com/.net/.org are international domains, but the similar TLDs .gov & .mil are not. .US was supposed to be the one to be used by US enterprises, but this never picked off. It is used by U.S. State and local governments. This made .com continue serving both as US as well as International one. And thus more pressure on .com domain.

Getting money out of innovation is not bad in itself, otherwise there will be little incentive to innovate. What is bad is the exploitation arising from innovation. Its just that the regulator should intervene at the right time to promote openness & adoption in larger public interest & curtailing/limiting profitably- but this should be done at the right time. So far this is no problem when the dictators continue to act benevolent, regulator remain vigilant & consumers are aware!

So as far as the control over domain names is concerned I would not term it as controlled. I would label it as regulated & moderated & also partly-paid-for so that incentives for quality as well as innovation remain there.

Verification of the facts listed here plus other details are at:
http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/

When it comes to search terms and keywords, Google is the tool you need.

 I'm not sure Google is the only tool you need. What about Yahoo, microsoft and Cuil? They may not be as important as Google, but their impact should not be ignored.

I think we're missing some critical points here.  DARPA ceded the Internet to NSF, and NSF privatized it.  Since then, what we call "the Internet" has been a federation of service provider network services connected by either formal peering points (NAPs and MAEs) or through private bilateral agreements.  Thus, the "real Internet" is a federation of provider networks.  I would argue that the question of the role of ICAAN and the way that domains or DNSs are added, provided, or controlled is less an issue to the "ownership" of the Internet than the question of who provides the capacity.

The business value of the Internet to the people who provide the networks and connections varies, and their investment directions to get value from their networks also varies.  Will that combination of variables add up to the kind of Internet we have now, or want in the future?  That's the REAL question, IMHO!

Tom

I definitely agree with the fact that the core infrastructure of today’s Internet was developed by U.S. Defense Advanced Research Project Agency project and therefore should be controlling it. But following the same logic, wasn’t the World Wide Web (the major Internet kick-off step) developed by a British scientist as part of an European research project?What I’m trying to say is that even though the Us Governmental Agencies deserve most of the credit for developing the Internet infrastructure, it is always ‘healthy’ to open up to the international community, especially with something like the Internet. Bringing research, development and administrative efforts together generally improves results and helps saving a LOT of resources.

So what is ICANN ? does ICANN earn a percentages on domain names regsitrations ? if so i think ICANN is
a rich organistion becuse today's domain registration is over billions names .

I think intrnet maybe be controlled if goverment created an organisation which gather all
countries representatives to settle new policies .

I can be an internet ownership when i register a doimain , but no one has a total ownership
of internet , but everyone o us might be a pat of the internet ownership .

 

I aggree that internet policy and DNS systems is being controlled by ICANN organisation
which distribute name and numbers such and IPs and domain names such such DN conflict , right

But today's internet is cannot be controlled by anyone , because internet is far today , we
cannot catch internet traces anymore .

Hi Matt,

The infrasturcture that makes up the core of todays Internet was afterall a U.S. Defense Advanced Research Project Agency project was it not??...

Sorry to the rest of the world, but we developed this technology and like it or not we're going to maintain and oversee it's existence until the extinction of mankind.

I won't claim to be a 'Net insider or expert, but I believe fundamental control and maintenance of the Primary and Secondary servers is still a function of some division of the U.S. and that VeriSign and a few others happen to be under contract to maintain a facility hosting the hardware infrastructure...

 

Sure Drowlord. These things can exist.  In fact, before the internet became so ubiquitous, they did exist.  They were called Bulletin Board Systems. Now, they are called VPN (virtual Private Networks)

The technology of the intnernet is not owned by IANA.  But, it does rely on a set of addressess that are.  And Domain Names are exclusively controlled by ICANN/IANA.  So, if you want to have a dial-up network that routes on the 192.168.1.x or the 10.10.x networks then you have a possible solution.  Not real "scalable" but a solution none-the-less.

Provided the various governing and serving entities behave as benevolent dictators and do not adopt practices which favor one group of users rather than another, then I assumed most people will be happy.

Of course, there can be differences in interpretation on what is fair to all users. ... and there is the rub.

Not disputing you -- you're totally correct -- but...

Recently, I've pondered the viability of a grass-roots internet.  Not one that interfaces with "The Internet" (tm), but a collection of routers and servers and cables that a community, or many communities, could construct with inexpensive equipment and cabling.  It seems technically and financially viable, even if organizing a community sufficiently would be horrendously difficult.  Every critical piece of internet infrastructure can be purchased at Fry's by even people with modest incomes.