Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Communications Government The Courts News

Texas Company's Legal Troubles Hold .iq In Limbo 337

aducore writes "According to The Inquirer, the (American) company running the Iraqi .iq domain name .iq is under criminal indictment and cannot transfer control. So no Iraqi organization can get a .iq domain name, including the government. Iraq's National Communications and Media Commission and the U.S. administrator in Iraq are trying to get ICANN to free up the domain."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Texas Company's Legal Troubles Hold .iq In Limbo

Comments Filter:
  • by Yonkeltron ( 720465 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @04:15AM (#9558372) Homepage
    So does this mean that the Iraqi BitTorrent trackers won't be up? Now how am I supposed to download the latest episodes of "This Old Palace"???
  • huh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Joceyln Parfitt ( 756037 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @04:19AM (#9558384)
    why is an american company running the iraqi tld?
    • Re:huh (Score:5, Funny)

      by Disevidence ( 576586 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @04:20AM (#9558391) Homepage Journal
      Didn't you get the memo? Iraq is sovereign. Nothing of theirs is under American control.

      Pish Posh. Must of been a typo.
    • Re:huh (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @04:50AM (#9558472) Homepage
      Conspiracy theories aside, there is nothing unusual in a country outsourcing the management of its ccTLD, although usually the outsourcing goes from the 2nd/3rd world to the 1st instead of the other way around. Libya's .ly ccTLD is run by a company [lydomains.com] based in the UK for example. Plus, we have the blatent commercialisation of ccTLD domains like ".tv" that happen to have meaning in one language or another. Usually the government of the country concerned will retain some modicum of control and first dibs on second level domains, but this is not always the case.
      • Re:huh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Lurker McLurker ( 730170 ) <(allthecoolnames ... (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @05:08AM (#9558525)
        But Iraq didn't choose to outsource its domain. ICANN made the decision for them. Abhorrent as censorship is, did they have the right to do that? Should a body like ICANN be involved in politics?
        • Re:huh (Score:3, Insightful)

          by nacturation ( 646836 )
          But Iraq didn't choose to outsource its domain. ICANN made the decision for them. Abhorrent as censorship is, did they have the right to do that? Should a body like ICANN be involved in politics?

          A TLD is virtual property and is owned by the creator. So whoever thought up the TLDs gets to control them. The interesting thing that could happen is if Iraq were handed control of the .iq TLD, they could simply wipe out all existing entries and decide to start fresh.
          • Re:huh (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward
            The interesting thing that could happen is if Iraq were handed control of the .iq TLD, they could simply wipe out all existing entries and decide to start fresh.

            What existing entries? The .iq TLD was deactivated some time ago, and currently doesn't appear to exist at all except on paper.
        • Re:huh (Score:5, Informative)

          by dtrent ( 448055 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @08:46AM (#9559440)
          But Iraq didn't choose to outsource its domain. ICANN made the decision for them. Abhorrent as censorship is, did they have the right to do that? Should a body like ICANN be involved in politics?

          No, but they should be involved in domain name registration. At the time this happend (if you'd bothered to read the article), Iraq was blocking all internet access to the country and so stewardship of the .iq domain had to go somewhere (Iraq simply wasn't interested in internet access). I suppose ICANN could have sat on the name, but I don't think it is in their charter to manage top level domains, so they put it out to bid. I'd say judging on what happened, ICANN was doing their best just to stay out of it.
      • Tuvalu profited immensely from the sale of their ccTLD. I can't blame them for doing it because it was in the best interest of their country, and will generate a revenue stream for this otherwise poor island nation.

        Or are countries no longer allowed to sell their resources anymore?

    • why is an american company running the iraqi tld?

      If you'd RTFA, you'd know.... Oh yeah, this is Slashdot. And you got modded interesting for that?!?

  • by Joff_NZ ( 309034 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @04:19AM (#9558386) Homepage Journal
    Why was a Texan company managing the .iq domains anyhow? Shouldn't have this been in the control of at least some kind of Iraqi authority in the first place?
    • Shouldn't have this been in the control of at least some kind of Iraqi authority in the first place?

      In the Neocon world, the .iq being held by a private American company is perfectly logical. They've been busy privatizing Iraq - selling off previously government owned industries, mostly to their friends and family [iht.com].
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @05:06AM (#9558519)
        That would make sense, except InfoCom had control of the domain prior to the US takeover, which would also mean prior to the the privatization taking place in Iraq. In fact, in the article it says InfoCom was only given the go-ahead to take the domain because at the time Saddam Hussein was in power, and his government in essence said "we don't want it" because internet access was blocked.
        • Infocom... (Score:3, Funny)

          by yo303 ( 558777 )
          (C) 2004 InfoCom.
          You awake, as if from a dream.

          You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
          There is a TLD here.
          There is some computer equipment here.

          >get TLD
          You now have the .iq TLD.

          >get computer equipment
          You pick up the computer equipment.

          >sell computer equipment to Libya
          You drop the .iq TLD!
          You have been eaten by a grue.
          yo.
    • by ranmachan ( 320399 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @04:51AM (#9558476)
      From TFA:

      |According to a report from AP, the problem started
      |in 1997, when Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was
      |blocking access to the Internet.

      |An ICANN body granted responsibility for the ".iq"
      |domain to InfoCom a Texas-based company and
      |purveyor of computers and Web services in the Middle East.

      So they gave it to them because the rulers of Iraq did not allow internet access at the time.
      • by BiggerIsBetter ( 682164 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @05:16AM (#9558547)
        So why can't they just take it back? ICANN should just forget InfoCom exists and pass the TLD to the Iraqi Goverment to do whatever they want with. Why is it even an issue? Oh right, because it's suddenly worth something now the country is free of Saddam and finally under it's own Government.
    • by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @05:48AM (#9558628) Homepage Journal
      In America, TEXAS messes with YOU!
    • by The Ultimate Fartkno ( 756456 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:54AM (#9560195)

      Just gonna post this here since it would address about 40 posts.

      From CNN reports about Infocom, it seems that the primaries at the company were "Ghassan Elashi, 49; Bayan Elashi, 47; Basman Elashi, 46; and Hazim Elashi, no age given."

      Remember, kids - living in Texas != American, and since said Texans are now awaiting sentencing on charges of illegal export of computer equipment and funding Hamas, I'm pretty sure they are *not*, in fact, friends of Dubya.

      Now mod this up to +5 informative so those jackasses down there will see it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @04:19AM (#9558387)
    How about puppet.gov.iq
  • No hurry? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hermeshome.se ( 233303 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @04:20AM (#9558389) Homepage
    I am not quite sure what state the infrastructure of Iraq is in, but I guess that fresh water, electricity and roads comes higher on the priority list.

    "Hey, someone is blocking .iq!"
    "Hey, someone is blocking our watersupply!"

    • Re:No hurry? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They had all this before the US freed them.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      The full text of this article from The Economist [economist.com] follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.

      --

      Rebuilding Iraq

      Without peace, reconstruction stalls

      May 13th 2004 | BAGHDAD
      From The Economist print edition

      Why it is proving so hard to rebuild the country

      [Image] [economist.com]

      IF THE Americans left Iraq today, their most obvious physical legacy, in the eyes of ordinary Iraqis, would be concrete blocks. The big slabs protecting ad
    • Re:No hurry? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DerPflanz ( 525793 )

      While you are right, it doesn't mean that this is not weird (if not stupid or outright outrageaous). The Iraqis should have that domain.

      My opinion by the way about building up a country is that it can and should be done in parallel, so work at everything at the same time, if possible. Not sequential; first the water, then electricity, etc. Perhaps there are regions where it is relatively quiet and water and electricity is working more or less okay. They will want that TLD and start building up an informati

    • Re:No hurry? (Score:5, Informative)

      by hyperlinx ( 775591 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @05:20AM (#9558561)
      Well, i'm in Iraq now, and the infrastructure is in poor shape in many areas, but the cities are getting around 4-16 hours of electricty each day and fresh water is available in most areas too....the main roads and highways are mostly ok too, some potholes, but i've seen worse in ohio and pennsylvania!...there is however a booming (no pun intended) computer market in baghdad, and there's been a couple of reporters who mentioned they can get some kind of dsl service there at like 256k....there's also a linux users group at http://www.iraqilinux.org/...u only hear the bad things on the news, but we (the iraqis and us) have been able to reopen like 1200 schools, the hospitals, and even the colleges. Entrepreneurs are opening up shops again, and they should get their IQ domain back....
      • Re:No hurry? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by wsapplegate ( 210233 )

        > there's been a couple of reporters who mentioned they can get some kind of dsl service there at like 256k

        Yes, Uruklink has 256kbps ADSL available to some parts of Baghdad, the Iraqi LUG guys mentioned it on /. (AFAIK, the rest of the city and all the country is still on dialup, except perhaps in the Kurdish-controlled zone). But how many people can afford the service ? The fact that cybercafes are described as ``packed'' is reminiscent of Africa, where residential Internet access is still unusual.

  • But surely... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Polkyb ( 732262 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @04:25AM (#9558404)

    If ICANN can remove control from Saddam and grant it to InfoCom, it can take it back as well..?

    It's not as though they would have got permission to take it in the first place, so, why would they need it this time?

    • Probably because there is a clause in the contract regulating the transfer of control (from ICANN to company X.tex.us) which gives the company a certain amount of courtesy time to fix problems before ICANN can terminate the contract prematurely.

      At least I would have wanted such a clause, so I wouldn't go bankrupt overnight. On the other hand, ICANN should probably have seen this problem coming earlier.

  • Bizarre (Score:2, Funny)

    by mr_tap ( 693311 )
    InfoCom got control of the domain because they sell computers and services to the middle east, but they are in trouble because they sold computers to particular countries in the middle east. On an aside, I have to stop myself typing iRaq - you can tell than I use Macs :)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @04:30AM (#9558427)
    Firstly, they were indicted shortly after 9/11... whether it was based on the fact that the US were targetting every possible arab owned company because of terrorist scares or whether they indeed committed crimes that included, (quote) "charges that they exported computer equipment to Libya and Syria and funneled money to a member of the Islamic extremist group Hamas. ", is a decision I leave up to you.. since there has been no progress or update on the case..

    Second, "to a member of the Islamic extremist group Hamas" draws doubt to me. Ok, they were sending computer parts to Libya and Syria.. (oh no.. embargo.. and for, *GASP*, computer parts!) How is InfoCom supposed to know their customers background? How many customer(s) were involved in Hamas and how were they connected to InfoCom (if the money was funneled, why haven't we heard of any sort of medium or who/what the money was funneled through).. I mean.. an IT company based in Texas.. only just after 9/11 convicted of funding terrorists?

    And why why why does the media never tell us the entire story? etc..

    Again.. just my 2 cents.. and no.. i'm not unpatriotic.. I speak based on what I observe..
    • by JosKarith ( 757063 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @05:12AM (#9558536)
      Sad isn't it - the parent poster felt compelled to write that he's not unpatriotic just because (s)he was airing facts that don't support the government line.
      Reminds me of when the story about BT blocking child pr0n sites was up and everyone who was raising concerns about the ramifications of that felt compelled to state they didn't condone child pr0n.
      It's a dangerous path we're treading - where to raise a question immediatley pus you under suspicion of guilt...
      • by Animaether ( 411575 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:25AM (#9559817) Journal
        Well now hold on a second... dangerous path, or common sense ?

        Hicksville, population:2000.
        A woman gets raped.
        The police, after a long investigation, are at a loss.
        They decide to run a wide-scale voluntary DNA test (can't force them anyway, at least not here).
        700 of the men fit in the age group that the woman could at least identify the rapist into.
        699 cooperate and have a DNA sample taken.
        1 does not cooperate.

        No matter what excuse this 1 person comes up with (civil liberties, slippery slope, dangerous path, yadda yadda), please tell me how the police should just say "Okiedoke, your fair right" and not have a closer look and see if maybe there's a different/another reason for him not to cooperate ?

        And that is the police, who at least have to live by some form of rules, however arbitrary they may seem sometimes.

        In the case of people saying "We shouldn't block websites that are arbitrarily judged to be child pornography websites", you better understand that a vast majority of the population is going to at least raise an eyebrow. It is in the best interest of those people to state that they explicitly don't condone child pornography, and are only trying to point out that there will be unjust collateral damage. Though that will only offer a partial redemption.
        And it doesn't help that people like Hugh Russ Campbell have used these same arguments before, and then get convicted (on a guilty plead) of not only owning and distributing child pornography, but creating it as well.

        With such circumstances - well, I'm sorry, but I too would be suspicious of such people.
        The difference between suspecting a person and doing something about it is the 'vigilante' aspect. If one is worried about vigilantes, deal with them - but you can't blame a person for having a pretty reasonable opinion for this day and age.

        Just my 2 cents.
        • Because this whole precedent violates the principle of Innocent until Proven Guilty.
          True, nowadays it's more Innocent until a media hack decides it'll make a good story and then Guilty no matter what the outcome of the case, but the original principle is still there.
          Guilty until Proven Innocent is called Inquisitorial law, and for a very good reason.
          You walk _that_ path friend, you walk it without me.
    • And why why why does the media never tell us the entire story?

      It's too complicated. Don't worry - relax - we'll put the Simpsons back on shortly.

      • "Now that no one buys our votes, the public has long since cast off its cares; the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things - bread and circuses." - Juvenal

        The first sentence seems somewhat less applicable in current times, however.
      • I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of the current political situations, but when the media is reporting about technology stories (which I do know about) it is clear that they always completely miss the point and don't understand what they're talking about. It seems quite likely that the same would be true about all of the other news they report, it's just that I don't notice it as much because *I* don't know anything about it either.

        You would hope that if someone is writing a published, authorat
  • Just move it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @05:04AM (#9558512) Homepage
    I don't understand, so what the company has been indicted.

    Just move the domain. They don't need to physically move anything, heck they claim that domain names aren't even property.
  • by ac7xc ( 686042 )
    We should invade ICANN HQ with a squad of Marines!
  • by OzPhIsH ( 560038 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @05:24AM (#9558574) Journal
    Meanwhile the new government, national institutions or regular Iraqis are having to register themselves as ".com," ".org" or ".net".

    Dagnabbit! Those domains belong to God's Blessed America! Not the international community! Give em a TLD of their own that won't infringe on our territory. Perhaps .us
  • by i_want_you_to_throw_ ( 559379 ) * on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @05:27AM (#9558583) Journal
    I am waiting to register high.iq.
    ......Stephen Hawking

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @06:01AM (#9558657)
    This is surprising, considering how smooth and flawless the rest of the Iraq operation has been.
  • It seems to me that investigators could subpoena whatever hardware is necessary to make their case, while Iraq can start using the .iq legitimately. It's not as if someone's going to walk into court with a plastic bag labeled "Exhibit A" with the letters ".iq" in it, right?
    • All it takes is to change one record in the root DNS servers. It can be done in a few minutes and will propagate in 72 hrs max.

      It is a political, or more correctly, a legal rather than a technical problem. ICANN has contractual obligations toward ccTLD operators (including the current .iq operator) and can't just do that without exposing themselves to liabilities.

      IANAL, but can't the US DoC and DoJ cooperate to get a quick warrant from a judge, ordering ICANN to transfer the domain to another ccTLD oper

  • I checked that one and (not?) surprisingly I was redirected to an advertising company... :-P

    So at least some IQ domains have been registered.
  • by WanChan ( 548461 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @06:51AM (#9558804)
    Why doesn't the Iraqi government just use .gov? I mean, let's be realistic here...
  • Is it important? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HuguesT ( 84078 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @07:06AM (#9558859)
    This has got to be one the least of the problems the new Iraqi government is facing right now.

    Let's see: the new gov has a legitimity problem, a lot of people want to blow them up, neighbours are considering making things even harder, they have to justify a continued US presence to a skeptical population, they have to organize free elections in a country racked by terrorism, and hmm, oh yes, their web site is on a .org domain somewhere instead of .iq

    Jeez, which problem should they tackle first?
    • Jeez, which problem should they tackle first?

      Maybe it's not so much a question of priorities but just that the media is getting tired of reporting news of bombings, shootouts and beheadings?
      • Maybe it's not so much a question of priorities but just that the media is getting tired of reporting news of bombings, shootouts and beheadings?

        The media will never tire of bombings, shootouts or beheadings. At least until the next high profile celebrity criminal case or politician-based sex scandal.
  • consistency (Score:3, Funny)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @07:09AM (#9558870)
    At least there's some comfort in knowing that ICANN's incompetence transcends political, economic and social barriers.
  • ...did it HAVE to be Texas?
  • Methinks they should get a new domain: .tiq for "transitional iraq"...

    Or .qi for Iraq, written from right to left the arabic way. After all, they are iraqi domains.

  • "... the (American) company running the Iraqi .iq domain name..."

    Huh??? The tld ".iq" is NOT Iraqi (yet). I agree they "should" get it, but it is not theirs yet. Saying it is so is jumping the gun.

    This is like saying John Q. Citizen is guilty of XYZ before his trial, rather than saying "alleged" first. The internet suffix ".iq" remains under the control of InfoCom (albeit by litigation only) until ICANN is able to rule otherwise.

    It would have been a lot more accurate to say "presumptive tld recipient
    • IQ is Iraq's two-letter ISO country code, and there's almost certainly (I didn't check that) a provision in the ICANN regulations that all ISO country codes should be exclusively used by ccTLD operators.

      Of course, a country is free to delegate "their" ccTLD to any company (local or foreign) they wish. This happened with some ccTLDs already.

      Now, if the Iraqi government required control over their ccTLD, ICANN would have to take this into account and act accordingly. They are probably not compelled to act

  • You can also spell Iraq --> Irak

    So why don't they just drop the .iq and use .ik instead?
    • The Germans spell Iraq "Irak," and they were against the US waging war against Saddam. They could provide a .ik.de subdomain for irakis who don't want to be managed by a texan ccTLD operator... :-)

  • by Aidtopia ( 667351 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @10:57AM (#9560874) Homepage Journal
    In 2002, a grand jury indicted InfoCom, and its owners on charges that they exported computer equipment to Libya and Syria and funneled money to a member of the Islamic extremist group Hamas.

    In other news, the next installment in the Zork series has been delayed.

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Working...