Category Archives: Uncategorized

Directv – The History of Domain Names

DirecTV Wins First Ever .So Domain Arbitration

July 1, 2011

DirecTV has won what may be the first ever .so domain name arbitration case.

The case over DirecTV.so was filed with World Intellectual Property Forum by Fairwinds Partners, the group behind Coalition for Domain Name Abuse.

I’m not sure winning this domain name was worth the filing fee. .So “commercialized” itself earlier this year to little fanfare. TheDomains reported that traditionally great keyword domains like books.so sold for only $51.

.So is the country code domain name for Somalia. So it’s even more disappointing to hear that Pirates.so — the activity for which Somalia is known to most people who only watch the nightly news — sold for only $10.

DiscGolf – The History of Domain Names

Disc Golf Associations Buys DiscGolf.com Domain Name

July 9, 2011

Company that “founded” disc golf buys DiscGolf.com.

Go to any major park in Austin during the day and you’ll see people “throwing plastic”, a.k.a. playing disc golf. If not trademark attorneys are around you might also call it “frisbee golf”. It’s like golf but cheaper and less pretentious.

Heck, the church down the street dedicated much of its green space to an 18 hole disc golf course designed by a famous course designer. So apparently God approves of the sport, too.

Now Disc Golf Association, which apparently invented the sport 30 years ago, is the proud new owner of DiscGolf.com. The company acquired the domain name from a Santa Cruz man.

It’s a nice upgrade for the company, which no longer has to use DiscGolfAssoc.com. The purchase price was not disclosed.

The company’s general manager told the Santa Cruz Sentinel that he “hopes the Discgolf.com address will boost traffic and further solidify DGA’s position in the disc golf market.”

DNS Invented – The History of Domain Names

DNS is Invented

Date: 01/01/1983

Before the DNS was invented in 1983

By the following November, 1983, the conceptand schedule were developed and published in The Domain Names Plan and Schedule,RFC 881, Domain Names — Concepts And Facilities, RFC 882, and DomainNames — Implementation And Specification, RFC 883. Some of the technical discussion involved indeveloping the DNS was carried out on the name droppers list. BIND. Because theDNS is such a fundamental part of the operation of the Internet network, the software that runs it must be nearly fault free, easily upgraded when a bug is found, and completely trusted by the Internet community — in other words, free open source software. The application that runs almost every DNS server on theInternet is called BIND, for Berkeley Internet Name Domain, first developed as a graduate student project at the University of California at Berkeley, and maintained through version 4.8.3 by the university’s Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG). The initial BIND development team consisted of Mark Painter,David Riggle, Douglas Terry, and Songnian Zhou. Later work was done by Ralph Campbell and Kevin Dunlap, and others that contributed include Jim Bloom, SmootCarl-Mitchell, Doug Kingston, Mike Muuss, Craig Partridge, and Mike Schwartz.  Application maintenance was done by Mike Karels and O. Kure. Versions 4.9 and 4.9.1of BIND were released by then the number two computer company, Digital Equipment Corporation. The lead developer was Paul Vixie, with assistance from Paul Albitz, Phil Almquist, Fuat Baran, Alan Barrett, Bryan Beecher, AndyCherenson, Robert Elz, Art Harkin, Anant Kumar, Don Lewis, Tom Limoncelli, Berthold Paffrath, Andrew Partan, Win Treese, and Christopher Wolfhugel. After Vixie left to establish Vixie Enterprises, he sponsored the development of BIND Version 4.9.2, and became the application’s principal architect. Versions 4.9.3on have been developed and maintained by the Internet Systems Consortium. A major architectural update called Version 8 was co-developed by Bob Halley and Paul Vixie and released in May 1997. Another major architectural rewrite called Version 9 with enhanced security support was developed and released in the year 2000.

1983 It wasn’t long before people realized that keeping multiple copies of the hosts file was inefficient and error-prone. Starting with a formal proposal for centralization in Host Names On-line, RFC 606, inDecember, 1973, proceeding through agreement in Host Names On-Line, RFC 608,and further discussions in Comments on On-Line Host Name Service, RFC 623, it was settled by March, 1974 with On Line Hostnames Service, RFC 625, that the Stanford Research Institute Network Information Center (NIC) would serve as theofficial source of the master hosts file. This centralized system worked well for about a decade, approximately 1973to 1983. However, by the early 1980’s the disadvantages of centralized management of a large amount of dynamic data were becoming apparent. The hosts file was becoming larger, the rate of change was growing as the network expanded, more hosts were downloading the entire file nightly, and there were always errors that were then propagated network-wide. Change was required, but a spark was needed.

1983 At the request of Jon Postel, Paul Mockapetris invented the Domain Name System in 1983 and wrote the first implementation. The original specifications were published by the Internet Engineering Task Force in RFC 882 and RFC 883, which were superseded in November 1987 by RFC 1034 and RFC 1035.Several additional Request for Comments have proposed various extensions to the core DNS protocols.

DNS – The History of Domain Names

Domain Name System (DNS)

Date:01/01/1983

The Domain Name System (DNS) is a hierarchical decentralized naming system for computers, services, or any resource connected to the Internet or a private network. It associates various information with domain names assigned to each of the participating entities. Most prominently, it translates more readily memorized domain names to the numerical IP addresses needed for the purpose of locating and identifying computer services and devices with the underlying network protocols. By providing a worldwide, distributed directory service, the Domain Name System is an essential component of the functionality of the Internet.

The Domain Name System (DNS) is basically a large database which resides on various computers and it contains the names and IP addresses of various hosts on the internet and various domains. The Domain Name System is used to provide information to the Domain Name Service to use when queries are made. The service is the act of querying the database, and the system is the data structure and data itself. The Domain Name System is similar to a file system in Unix or DOS starting with a root. Branches attach to the root to create a huge set of paths. Each branch in the DNS is called a label. Each label can be 63 characters long, but most are less. Each text word between the dots can be 63 characters in length, with the total domain name (all the labels) limited to 255 bytes in overall length. The domain name system database is divided into sections called zones. The name servers in their respective zones are responsible for answering queries for their zones. A zone is a subtree of DNS and is administered separately. There are multiple name servers for a zone. There is usually one primary nameserver and one or more secondary name servers. A name server may be authoritative for more than one zone.

The Domain Name System delegates the responsibility of assigning domain names and mapping those names to Internet resources by designating authoritative name servers for each domain. Network administrators may delegate authority over sub-domains of their allocated name space to other name servers. This mechanism provides distributed and fault tolerant service and was designed to avoid a single large central database. The Domain Name System also specifies the technical functionality of the database service which is at its core. It defines the DNS protocol, a detailed specification of the data structures and data communication exchanges used in the DNS, as part of the Internet Protocol Suite. Historically, other directory services preceding DNS were not scalable to large or global directories as they were originally based on text files, prominently the HOSTS.TXT resolver. The Domain Name System has been in use since the 1980s. The Internet maintains two principal namespaces, the domain name hierarchy[ and the Internet Protocol (IP) address spaces. The Domain Name System maintains the domain name hierarchy and provides translation services between it and the address spaces. Internet name servers and a communication protocol implement the Domain Name System. A DNS name server is a server that stores the DNS records for a domain; a DNS name server responds with answers to queries against its database.

The most common types of records stored in the DNS database are for Start of Authority (SOA), IP addresses (A and AAAA), SMTP mail exchangers (MX), name servers (NS), pointers for reverse DNS lookups (PTR), and domain name aliases (CNAME). Although not intended to be a general purpose database, DNS can store records for other types of data for either automatic lookups, such as DNSSEC records, or for human queries such as responsible person (RP) records. As a general purpose database, the DNS has also been used in combating unsolicited email (spam) by storing a real-time blackhole list. The DNS database is traditionally stored in a structured zone file.

Function

An often-used analogy to explain the Domain Name System is that it serves as the phone book for the Internet by translating human-friendly computer hostnames into IP addresses. For example, the domain name www.example.com translates to the addresses 93.184.216.119 (IPv4) and 2606:2800:220:6d:26bf:1447:1097:aa7 (IPv6). Unlike a phone book, DNS can be quickly updated, allowing a service’s location on the network to change without affecting the end users, who continue to use the same host name. Users take advantage of this when they use meaningful Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), and e-mail addresses without having to know how the computer actually locates the services.

Additionally, DNS reflects administrative partitioning. For zones operated by a registry, also known as public suffix zones, administrative information is often complemented by the registry’s RDAP and WHOIS services. That data can be used to gain insight on, and track responsibility for, a given host on the Internet. An important and ubiquitous function of DNS is its central role in distributed Internet services such as cloud services and content delivery networks. When a user accesses a distributed Internet service using a URL, the domain name of the URL is translated to the IP address of a server that is proximal to the user. The key functionality of DNS exploited here is that different users can simultaneously receive different translations for the same domain name, a key point of divergence from a traditional “phone book” view of DNS. This process of using DNS to assign proximal servers to users is key to providing faster response times on the Internet and is widely used by most major Internet services today.

History

Using a simpler, more memorable name in place of a host’s numerical address dates back to the ARPANET era. The Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) maintained a text file named HOSTS.TXT that mapped host names to the numerical addresses of computers on the ARPANET. Host operators obtained copies of the master file. The rapid growth of the emerging network required an automated system for maintaining the host names and addresses.

Paul Mockapetris designed the Domain Name System at the University of California, Irvine in 1983, and wrote the first implementation at the request of Jon Postel from ISI. The Internet Engineering Task Force published the original specifications in RFC 882 and RFC 883 in November 1983, which established the concepts that still guide DNS development.

In 1984, four UC Berkeley students—Douglas Terry, Mark Painter, David Riggle, and Songnian Zhou—wrote the first Unix name server implementation, called the Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) Server. In 1985, Kevin Dunlap of DEC substantially revised the DNS implementation. Mike Karels, Phil Almquist, and Paul Vixie have maintained BIND since then. BIND was ported to the Windows NT platform in the early 1990s. BIND was widely distributed, especially on Unix systems, and is still the most widely used DNS software on the Internet.

In November 1987, RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 superseded the 1983 DNS specifications. Several additional Request for Comments have proposed extensions to the core DNS protocols.

Structure and message format

The drawing below shows a partial DNS hierarchy. At the top is what is called the root and it is the start of all other branches in the DNS tree. It is designated with a period. Each branch moves down from level to level. When referring to DNS addresses, they are referred to from the bottom up with the root designator (period) at the far right. Example: “myhost.mycompany.com.”.

DNS is hierarchical in structure. A domain is a subtree of the domain name space. From the root, the assigned top-level domains in the U.S. are:

GOV – Government body.

EDU – Educational body.

INT – International organization

NET – Networks

COM – Commercial entity.

MIL – U. S. Military.

ORG –      Any other organization not previously listed.

Outside this list are top level domains for various countries.

Usage and file formats

If a domain name is not found when a query is made, the server may search for the name elsewhere and return the information to the requesting workstation, or return the address of a name server that the workstation can query to get more information. There are special servers on the Internet that provide guidance to all name servers. These are known as root name servers. They do not contain all information about every host on the Internet, but they do provide direction as to where domains are located (the IP address of the name server for the uppermost domain a server is requesting). The root name server is the starting point to find any domain on the Internet.

Name Server Types

There are three types of name servers:

The primary master builds its database from files that were preconfigured on its hosts, called zone or database files. The name server reads these files and builds a database for the zone it is authoritative for.

Secondary masters can provide information to resolvers just like the primary masters, but they get their information from the primary. Any updates to the database are provided by the primary.

Caching name server – It gets all its answers to queries from other name servers and saves (caches) the answers. It is a non-authoritative server.

The caching only name server generates no zone transfer traffic. A DNS Server that can communicate outside of the private network to resolve a DNS name query is referred to as forwarder.

Cricket – The History of Domain Names

Cricket Communications Reaches Settlement Over Cricket.com

July 11, 2011

Parties working on settlement documents to resolve trademark infringement lawsuit.

Cricket Communications and Cricket.com owner Global Cricket Ventures have reached a “settlement in principle” over the parties’ trademark infringement suit.

Cricket Communications filed the suit in February alleging that Cricket.com was charading as a cricket sport site but was no more than a site created to take advantage of the wireless carriers’ trademark. The company alleged that Global Cricket Ventures hard coded a Cricket Wireless logo into its web site in a position made to look like it was part of an ad.

Since then Cricket.com has removed all advertising related to wireless phones and has scaled down the site from even the basic shell that it was before.

My guess is the deal doesn’t involve handing over the Cricket.com domain name as the plaintiff wants, but Global Cricket Ventures stops displaying anything related to mobile phones.

CSNET – The History of Domain Names

Computer Science Network (CSNET)

Date: 01/01/1981

Short for Computer Science Network, CSNET is a computer network that was developed by the U.S. National Science Foundation in the early 1980’s. Its purpose was to extend networking benefits, for computer science departments at academic and research institutions that could not be directly connected to ARPANET, due to funding or authorization limitations. It played a significant role in spreading awareness of, and access to, national networking and was a major milestone on the path to development of the global Internet. CSNET was funded by the National Science Foundation for an initial three-year period from 1981 to 1984.

History

Lawrence Landweber at the University of Wisconsin-Madison prepared the original CSNET proposal, on behalf of a consortium of universities (Georgia Tech, University of Minnesota, University of New Mexico, University of Oklahoma, Purdue University, University of California-Berkeley, University of Utah, University of Virginia, University of Washington, University of Wisconsin, and Yale University). The US National Science Foundation (NSF) requested a review from David J. Farber at the University of Delaware. Farber assigned the task to his graduate student Dave Crocker who was already active in the development of electronic mail. The project was deemed interesting but in need of significant refinement. The proposal eventually gained the support of Vinton Cerf and DARPA. In 1980, the NSF awarded $5 million to launch the network. It was an unusually large project for the NSF at the time.  A stipulation for the award of the contract was that the network needed to become self-sufficient by 1986.

The first management team consisted of Landweber (University of Wisconsin), Farber (University of Delaware), Peter J. Denning (Purdue University), Anthony Hearn (RAND Corporation), and Bill Kern from the NSF. Once CSNET was fully operational, the systems and ongoing network operations were transferred to Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) of Cambridge, Massachusetts by 1984.

By 1981, three sites were connected: University of Delaware, Princeton University, and Purdue University. By 1982, 24 sites were connected expanding to 84 sites by 1984, including one in Israel. Soon thereafter, connections were established to computer science departments in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Korea, and Japan. CSNET eventually connected more than 180 institutions.

One of the earliest experiments in free software distribution on a network, netlib, was available on CSNET.

CSNET was a forerunner of the National Science Foundation Network (NSFNet) which eventually became a backbone of the Internet. CSNET operated autonomously until 1989, when it merged with Bitnet to form the Corporation for Research and Educational Networking (CREN). By 1991, the success of the NSFNET and NSF-sponsored regional networks had rendered the CSNET services redundant, and the CSNET network was shut down in October 1991.

Components

The CSNET project had three primary components: an email relaying service (Delaware and RAND), a name service (Wisconsin), and TCP/IP-over-X.25 tunnelling technology (Purdue). Initial access was with email relaying, through gateways at Delaware and RAND, over dial-up telephone or X.29/X.25 terminal emulation. Eventually CSNET access added TCP/IP, including running over X.25.

The email relaying service was called Phonenet, after the telephone-specific channel of the MMDF software developed by Crocker. The CSNET name service allowed manual and automated email address lookup based on various user attributes, such as name, title, or institution. The X.25 tunneling allowed an institution to connect directly to the ARPANET via a commercial X.25 service (Telenet), by which the institution’s TCP/IP traffic would be tunneled to a CSNET computer that acted as a relay between the ARPANET and the commercial X.25 networks. CSNET also developed dialup-on-demand (Dialup IP) software to automatically initiate or disconnect SLIP sessions as needed to remote locations. CSNET was developed on Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) VAX-11 systems using BSD Unix, but it grew to support a variety of hardware and operating system platforms.

Recognition

At the July 2009 Internet Engineering Task Force meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, the Internet Society recognized the pioneering contribution of CSNET by honoring it with the Jonathan B. Postel Service Award. Crocker accepted the award on behalf of Landweber and the other principal investigators.  A recording of the award presentation and acceptance is available.

Cyberspace – The History of Domain Names

24 Hours in Cyberspace, the largest one-day online event

Date: 01/01/1996

24 Hours in Cyberspace (February 8, 1996) was “the largest one-day online event” up to that date, headed by photographer Rick Smolan with Jennifer Erwitt, Tom Melcher, Samir Arora and Clement Mok. The project brought together the world’s top 1,000 photographers, editors, programmers, and interactive designers to create a digital time capsule of online life.”

Overview

24 Hours in Cyberspace was an online project which took place on the then-active website, cyber24.com (and is still online at a mirror website maintained by Georgia Tech). At the time, it was billed as the “largest collaborative Internet event ever”, involving thousands of photographers from all over the world, including 150 of the world’s top photojournalists. Then Second Lady Tipper Gore was one of its photographers. In addition, then Vice President Al Gore contributed the introductory essay to the Earthwatch section of the website. In this essay, he discusses the impact of the Internet on the environment, education, and increased communication between people. The goal was not to show pictures of websites and computer monitors, but rather images of people whose lives were affected by the use of the growing Internet. Photographs were sent digitally to editors working real-time to choose the best pictures to put on the project’s website. The website received more than 4 million hits in the 24 hours that the project was active.

24 Hours in Cyberspace served as a cover story for U.S. News and World Report.

The technological infrastructure of the project was provided by a startup company spinoff from Apple Computer named NetObjects that was founded by Samir Arora, David Kleinberg, Clement Mok and Sal Arora. The system supplied by NetObjects allowed Smolan’s international network of editors and photojounalists to submit text and images through web forms; it ran on Unix, relied on a database for content storage (Illustra) and used templating for easy and near-instantaneous page generation that obviated the need for the site’s editorial staff to have any coding skills. NetObjects was first to create the technology that would enable a team of the world’s top picture editors and writers to become instant Web page designers. It let them do what they do best—edit and write—and automatically generate finished, sophisticated Web pages that millions of people were able to see only minutes after they were designed. Three million people clicked onto the 24 Hours site; the blaze of publicity surrounding the 24 Hours in Cyberspace project helped NetObjects raise $5.4 million in venture capital.

The project reportedly cost as much as $5 million, and was funded with assistance from 50 companies, mostly in the form of loans of computer hardware and technology experts. Adobe Systems, Sun Microsystems and Kodak were listed as major supporters. 1996: “Cyberspace” is not yet a household word but is about to get a big boost in the public consciousness with an international, one-day event, 24 Hours in Cyberspace. Top editors, photographers, computer programmers and designers, contributing from all over the world, collaborated to document a single day on the internet. It became not only a digital time capsule but a coming-out party, of sorts, for a medium whose impact was as dramatic in its day as television was a half century earlier. 24 Hours in Cyberspace was the inspiration of photographer Rick Smolan, who created the “Day in the Life” photo-essay series. Smolan used the same formula as “Day in the Life,” recruiting 150 photojournalists to go out and chronicle a slice of everyday life, in this case as it pertained to the then-counterculturish phenomenon of the web. The technology of the internet was not the subject: Smolan wanted (and got) pictures of how different people in different cultures were using the internet, and the effect that the medium of cyberspace was having on their lives.

The resulting work was edited and then displayed on a website. It also appeared as the cover story of that week’s edition of U.S. News and World Report and, soon thereafter, as a coffee-table book. The project, billed as the “largest one-day online event,” cost around $5 million and was bankrolled by companies — like Sun Microsystems and Adobe — with a vested interest in the internet’s growth, as well as by individual contributors.

As it turned out, Feb. 8, 1996, fell on the very day that President Bill Clinton signed the Communications Decency Act (later overturned in court). Many activists turned their websites black that day, a protest mentioned briefly on the 24 Hours website and in the book.

Cyclades – The History of Domain Names

CYCLADES network demonstrated

Date: 01/01/1973

The CYCLADES computer network (French pronunciation: [siklad]) was a French research network created in the early 1970s. It was one of the pioneering networks experimenting with the concept of packet switching, and was developed to explore alternatives to the ARPANET design. It supported general local network research.

The CYCLADES network was the first to make the hosts responsible for the reliable delivery of data, rather than this being a centralized service of the network itself. Datagrams were exchanged on the network using transport protocols that do not guarantee reliable delivery, but only attempt best-effort. To empower the network leaves, the hosts, to perform error-correction, the network ensured end-to-end protocol transparency, a concept later to be known as the end-to-end principle. This simplified network design, reduced network latency, and reduced the opportunities for single point failures. The experience with these concepts led to the design of key features of the Internet protocol in the ARPANET project.

The network was sponsored by the French government, through the Institut de Recherche en lnformatique et en Automatique (IRIA), the national research laboratory for computer science in France, now known as INRIA, which served as the co-ordinating agency. Several French computer manufacturers, research institutes and universities contributed to the effort. CYCLADES was designed and directed by Louis Pouzin.

Conception and deployment

Design and staffing started in 1972, and November 1973 saw the first demonstration, using three hosts and one packet switch. Deployment continued in 1974, with three packet switches installed by February, although at that point the network was only operational for three hours each day. By June the network was up to seven switches, and was available throughout the day for experimental use.

A terminal concentrator was also developed that year, since time-sharing was still a prevalent mode of computer use. In 1975, the network shrank slightly due to budgetary constraints, but the setback was only temporary. At that point, the network provided remote login, remote batch and file transfer user application services.

By 1976 the network was in full deployment, eventually numbering 20 nodes with connections to NPL in London, ESA in Rome, and to the European Informatics Network (EIN).

Technical details

CYCLADES used a layered architecture, as did the Internet. The basic packet transmission like function, named CIGALE, was novel; however, it provided an unreliable datagram service (the word was coined by Louis Pouzin by combining data and telegram). Since the packet switches no longer had to ensure correct delivery of data, this greatly simplified their design.

“The inspiration for datagrams had two sources. One was Donald Davies’ studies. He had done some simulation of datagram networks, although he had not built any, and it looked technically viable. The second inspiration was I like things simple. I didn’t see any real technical motivation to overlay two levels of end-to-end protocols. I thought one was enough.”
— Louis Pouzin

The CIGALE network featured a distance vector routing protocol, and allowed experimentation with various metrics. it also included a time synchronization protocol in all the packet switches. CIGALE included early attempts at performing congestion control by dropping excess packets.

The name CIGALE—(French pronunciation: [siɡal]) which is French for cicada—originates from the fact that the developers installed a speaker at each computer, so that “it went ‘chirp chirp chirp’ like cicadas” when a packet passed a computer.

An end-to-end protocol built on top of that provided a reliable transport service, on top of which applications were built. It provided a reliable sequence of user-visible data units called letters, rather than the reliable byte stream of TCP. The transport protocol was able to deal with out-of-order and unreliable delivery of datagrams, using the now-standard mechanisms of end-end acknowledgments and timeouts; it also featured sliding windows and end-to-end flow control.

Demise

By 1976, the French PTT was developing Transpac, a packet network based on the emerging X.25 standard. The academic debates between datagram and virtual circuit networks continued for some time, but were eventually cut short by bureaucratic decisions.

Data transmission was a state monopoly in France at the time, and IRIA needed a special dispensation to run the CYCLADES network. The PTT did not agree to funding by the government of a competitor to their Transpac network, and insisted that the permission and funding be rescinded. By 1981, Cyclades was forced to shut down.

Legacy

The most important legacy of CYCLADES was in showing that moving the responsibility for reliability into the hosts was workable, and produced a well-functioning service network. It also showed that it greatly reduced the complexity of the packet switches. The concept became a cornerstone in the design of the Internet. The network was also a fertile ground for experimentation, and allowed a generation of French computer scientists to experiment with networking concepts. Louis Pouzin and the CYCLADES alumni initiated a number of follow-on projects at IRIA to experiment with local area networks, satellite networks, the Unix operating system, and the message passing operating system Chorus.

Hubert Zimmermann used his experience in CYCLADES to influence the design of the OSI model, which is still a common pedagogical tool.

CYCLADES alumni and researchers at IRIA/INRIA were also influential in spreading adoption of the Internet in France, eventually witnessing the success of the datagram-based Internet, and the demise of the X.25 and ATM virtual circuit networks.

Data.com Domain – The History of Domain Names

UBM Confirms Sale of Data.com Domain Name Sale for $4.5 Million

September 7, 2011

Financial report mentions sale of “portfolio” of domains for $4.5 million.

The Group Company sold a portfolio of domain names for total consideration of $4.5m (£2.8m). The sale of Data.com domain name was completed in the month of June.

It is found interesting that the company refers to this as a “portfolio of domain names”, which means that more than just Data.com changed hands. But any other domains sold have negligible value compared to Data.com.

Data-IO – The History of Domain Names

Data I/O Corporation – data-IO.com was registered

Date: 11/17/1986

On November 17, 1986, Data I/O Corporation registered the data-io.com domain name, making it 42nd .com domain ever to be registered.

Data I/O Corporation is a manufacturer of programming and automated device handling systems for programmable integrated circuits. The company is headquartered in Redmond, Washington with sales and engineering offices in multiple countries. Data I/O was incorporated in 1969. Before the IBM PC was introduced, the company developed equipment that allowed electronic designers to program the non-volatile semiconductor devices with data stored on punched cards or ASCII-encoded (eight-level) punched paper tape. Over the next three decades the company rode the non-volatile technology wave as Bipolar, EPROM, EEPROM, NOR FLASH, Antifuse, FRAM and most recently, NAND FLASH devices were introduced by semiconductor vendors.

While not manufacturing semiconductors itself, Data I/O’s business is the design and manufacture of equipment that transfers data into various non-volatile semiconductor devices. These devices commonly are Flash Memory, Microcontroller devices and Programmable Logic Devices. Introduced in 2000, Data I/O FlashCORE technology is optimized for programming of NAND and NOR based flash devices and Flash microcontrollers and is sold in FlashPAK, PS-System, FLX500, and ProLINE-RoadRunner programmer models spanning engineering to high-volume offline and inline “just-in-time” manufacturing. Data I/O provides Tasklink for Windows software to set up FlashCORE programmers and specify data sources. In addition, they develop software that manages automated and remote programming, secures data and manages device serialization. Many of these work with TaskLink, while others are independent software packages. Data I/O manufactures two device programmers that can accommodate DIP (through-hole) devices, the Plus-48 and the Optima. Both are aimed at the small, (relatively) low-cost, desktop programmer (engineering) market.

Mass Storage Module

The revisions to the UniSite main board were done to support a new option. Data I/O created the Mass Storage Module (MSM). This consisted of an additional circuit board containing a miniature hard disk drive (either a 2.5 inch PATA/IDE device or a PCMCIA Type III card drive, depending on revision level) and appropriate interface circuitry. All the programmer’s operating software and device algorithms could be transferred to the MSM’s drive in less than a half-hour, obsoleting floppy diskettes. The latest revision is entirely solid-state, consisting of a single large FPGA chip as the board’s glue logic, an SPROM (Serial Programmable Read-Only Memory) chip, containing the FPGA’s operating code, a few SRAM chips for buffering and a solid-state or ‘Flash’ drive. The MSM remains an optional, field-installable module for the 3900 and Unisite. Unisite programmers require 8MB of user RAM and controller board revision 701-2313-00 or higher to utilize this option. In addition, the MSM requires operating software revisions of 6.6 or above.

All 3900 series programmers are MSM-compatible at the hardware level. Successful installation of the MSM in a 3900 programmer automatically turns it into the model 3980. MSM adds another option, a high-speed parallel port interface that supplements the programmer’s serial port. In conjunction with a Windows-based PC, and Data I/O’s TaskLink software, the parallel port greatly enhances the speed of data transfers to and from the programmer. As one example, a 1MB data file takes at least two minutes to be transferred into or out of a Unifamily programmer via the serial port at its highest available speed (19200 baud). The same file, transferred with the parallel port’s help, takes around 30–40 seconds. Any Unifamily programmer with ‘XPi’ after its name (Unisite-XPi, 3980-XPi) already has the MSM and parallel port options installed as standard equipment. These programmers represent the end of the Unifamily line and, although no longer in production, are fully supported.

Datacube – The History of Domain Names

Datacube – datacube.com was registered

Date: 04/23/1987

On April 23, 1987, Datacube registered the datacube.com domain name, making it 68th .com domain ever to be registered.

Datacube Inc. (1978–2005) was an image processing company that developed real-time hardware and software products for the industrial, medical, military and scientific markets.

Early history

Datacube was founded in the mid-70’s by Stanley Karandanis and J Stewart Dunn. In the early days, Datacube manufactured board level products for the Multibus, which was one of the first computer buses developed for microprocessors. Early boards designed by Dunn were PROM, RAM and character generator boards. Of these, character display boards such as the VT103 and VR107 were the best sellers, and were used in programmable read-only memory (PROM) programmers and similar systems. Karandanis, Datacube’s President and CEO, in his early career followed the leaders in the semiconductor field from Bell Labs through Transitron to Fairchild. Karandanis was director of engineering at Monolithic Memories (MMI) when John Birkner and H.T. Chua designed the first successful programmable logic device, the programmable array logic (PAL) device. His contacts in the semiconductor field were instrumental in providing Datacube with leading-edge components for its products.

An OEM asked Datacube if a frame grabber could be built on a Multibus board. At the time, a frame grabber was a large box with multiple boards. The VG120 was the first ever commercial single board frame grabber: based on programmable array logic (PAL), it had 320 x 240 x 6 bit resolution, grayscale video input and output. Karandanis hired Rashid Beg and Robert Wang from Matrox to develop the first Q-Bus (DEC LSI-11) frame grabber. They developed the QVG/QAF120 dual board, 8-bit product primarily for a new startup named Cognex. While the latter were developing the hardware for Datacube, they were also planning to spin off and form a competitor, Imaging Technology, which was later purchased by Dalsa. To recover from this loss, and to complete the QVG120 product, Dave Erickson was hired as a consultant in 1981 from Octek, by the engineering manager Paul Bloom. Dave came on full-time in 1982, as did Dave Simmons who was to head applications, and Bob Berger, who was to head software. At this time, Imaging Technology Inc. (ITI) was developing a line of frame grabber products for Multibus and Q-bus, with a ‘real time’ image processor based on a single point multiplier, adder and lookup table (LUT). In 1983, Karandanis hired Shep Siegel from Ampex, who had worked on the advanced and successful Ampex Digital Optics (ADO) real-time video spatial manipulator for the broadcast TV market.

With Dunn’s help, Simmons developed the VG123 Multibus and Q-bus frame grabber boards. During this development, Paul Bloom was killed in what was apparently a gangland style murder. The mystery of why this happened has never been solved. Dave Erickson was promoted to engineering manager to replace Bloom. Siegel came to add the SP123 image processor to the ‘123 family. But having worked on ADO, Siegel saw the limitations of the single-point architecture, and had a vision of what could be done by applying pipelined real-time imaging. He came with an understanding of digital signal processor devices (DSPs), image processing, filtering, and 2D warping, and with programmable logic in hand, saw what could be done. Erickson and Dunn had developed frame grabber boards deployed on most standard busses. Each potential new customer required features not currently available, and designing, laying out (using hand taped artwork) and manufacturing a board for a single customer was risky, slow and expensive. What was needed was a way to leverage the technology developed so that it could be applied to a wider customer base. Erickson felt that a modular architecture where functions could be easily added and a system tailored to a customers needs was critical.

At this time, the VME bus was being introduced by Motorola for their Motorola 68000 processors. The automotive and military markets liked the VMEbus because it was open and rugged. Datacube developers embarked on a marketing road trip to visit potential customers in the medical, automotive and military markets to inquire what imaging functions they needed.

MaxVideo 10

A Modular and expandable system based on the VMEbus form factor could meet many customer needs. MaxVideo and the MaxBus were born. Marketing research determined the primary functions required and a road map for the next few years. The first seven MaxVideo boards were Digimax (digitizer and display), Framestore (triple 512^2 framestore with unprecedented density), VFIR (first real-time 3×3 image filter, SNAP (3×3 Systolic Neighborhood Array Processor), Featuremax (real-time statistics) SP (single point general purpose processor) and Protomax (MaxVideo prototyping board). 10 beta customers were lined up to receive the first 7 boards. MaxWare was the software and drivers written to control the new boards. The first demo of the new hardware consisted of a camera’s output being processed in real time by VFIR and displayed on a monitor. Siegel wrote a loop that varied the VFIR coefficients on a frame-by-frame basis to demonstrate not only the video real-time functionality, but that the function could be easily changed. In the spring of 1985, the product was not production-ready, so private viewings were set up with potential customers at the Detroit Vision ’85 show. Customers’ reaction was positive and three months later the first shipments to customers went out.

MaxBus was based on the ‘123’s expansion bus. It required accurate synchronization: clocking and timing of each board plus a flexible way to route data from function to function. A simple differential ECL bus with a driver on one end and terminator on the opposite end was used. For data, 14 pin ribbon cables allowed 8-bit 10 MHz data to be routed from any output to any input. At this time the company started to grow. Barry Egan was brought on to head manufacturing, entrepreneur Barry Ungar was brought on as President. Bob Berger expanded the software department, and moved the main computers from CP/M machines to Unix machines based on LSI-11s from Digital Equipment Corporation. A Unix based Pyramid mainframe computer was purchased for hardware and software development. Berger bought the first Sun workstations and set up an Ethernet LAN. He registered “datacube.com” as the 68th internet domain name in existence (now owned by Brad Mugford). In hardware, John Bloomfield was hired from Ampex. The second tier of MaxVideo products was developed. Siegel began the first image warper consisting of Addgen, Interp, and XFS. John Bloomfield expanded the fixed 512 x 512 processing to include Regions-of-interest (ROI) processing. He began developing with the new FPGAs from Xilinx. RoiStore, MaxScan (first arbitrary sensor interface), VFIR-II and MaxSigma. These products established Datacube as the technology leader in real-time imaging.

It was clear that a better way than the low-level control of MaxScan was needed to manage complex new imaging pipelines. ImageFlow was developed. It provided full pipeline delay management and optimization, and a consistent API for programming imaging hardware. Key software programmers were brought on: Ken Woodland, Stephen Watkins and Ari Berman. Recognizing that not every imaging function could be best done in a pipeline, Siegel teamed with Analog Devices new digital signal processor (DSP) group to develop Euclid, based on the ADSP-2100. Color digitization was required for some markets, so Siegel teamed with broadcast consultant Robert Bleidt to develop Digicolor.

Datacube’s first generation image warper caught the attention of the ‘image exploitation’ industry and in particular, Lockheed. Later, Siegel developed the second generation warper for ROIs: Addgen MkII, based on the Weitek 3132, and Interp MkII. Dunn developed Megastore to handle the large images that this market required. By now the original SP and Featuremax were running out of steam so SP MKII and FeaturemaxMkII were developed. Erickson developed MaxMux, the first Datacube board to use a custom ASIC. The MaxMux ASIC was also used on ROIStore to route signals. To address the need to combine imaging and workstation graphics, Dunn and Erickson developed MaxView, a high resolution display with the ability to perform real time image display in a window. Watkins ported X Window to this display. Despite the fact that a single box of maxVideo hardware could replace a room full of hardware at Lockheed, the product was not bought. Lockheed made too much money on the legacy system to want to update to the newer, smaller, better system. A typical system now consisted of a MaxBox 20 slot VMEbus chassis with up to 20 boards installed. The largest MaxVideo system ever built was by Honeywell for aerial target identification. It consisted of five 20 slot chassis full of MaxVideo Hardware. A new MaxBus repeater was developed for these very large systems. Another important design-in for MaxVideo 10 was the FLIR pod test system built by Martin Marietta. Sandia National Labs adopted MaxVideo for a Radar image targeting system.

MaxVideo 20

The next step was to implement up to a full rack of MaxVideo 10 hardware in a dual slot VMEbus package, increase the pipeline to 20 MHz, maintain the modularity and flexibility, and eliminate most of the blue MaxBus cables. MaxVideo 20 was born. This required a new 3-port image memory module base on the 72 pin SIMM form factor and was developed by Dunn. Up to 6 memories were used on each Max20. Max20 also leveraged a new line of Imaging chips from LSI Corporation, including a 32 x 32 digital crosspoint and an 8×8 20 MHz finite impulse response (FIR) filter. Dunn developed a new display controller, AG capable of up to 40 MHz display, and Erickson developed a new family of 20 MHz analog and flexible digital front ends, AS and AD. Dunn developed the color digitizer, AC. Another feature of MaxVideo20 was the new general processing ASIC, AU developed by Dunn. This device contained many innovative linear, nonlinear and statistical imaging functions. Its architecture was to be the core of not only Max20 but the next generation imaging system as well. Built in the pre-RTL age of schematics, Dunn’s AU ASIC incorporated booth multipliers designed by mathematician Steve Gabriel. The memory SIMM was implemented with CPLDs, FPGAs and Graphics DRAM. It was limited to 1MB of memory and required 14 devices tightly packed onto the SIMM. Siegel developed VSIM, a fast and powerful ASIC to control high density SDRAMS and built a 3 device replacement SIMM. It was a triple ported image memory capable of 1, 4 or 16MB memory sizes, up to 40MB/s input and output bandwidths, and contained numerous image processing functions as well. VSIM technology was to be used on numerous future products.

A number of MaxModule processing modules were developed for MaxVideo 20. One of these was Siegel’s MiniWarper, a 20 MHz real-time warper based on a new ASIC design, MW4242. With the advent of MaxModules, it was now possible to implement an imaging function on a small and simple board with much less overhead than a full VME board. IBM military division in Gaithersburg MD was interested in a new image exploitation system, and so Datacube developed a third generation exploitation system for them. This powerful system used an extremely high bandwidth image memory and an address generator by Erich Whitney, capable of 7×7 spatial transformation matrices, all calculated with double precision floats. A powerful new display system, XI was developed to display the results. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a firm contract, IBM took only a couple of these systems and one year of Datacube’s talented engineering efforts were effectively wasted. But Datacube had other projects going. It leveraged several key technologies with MaxVideo 20. An off-the-shelf disk storage system was integrated to be used for medical and image exploitation systems, but this system had unsolvable technical problems, so Siegel developed MD, based on an off-the-shelf external SCSI RAID box A 12 bit digitizer, Digi-12 was developed by Erickson and was a key element in the Picker Digital Radiology system. Datacube designed an interface to a Sky array processor to obtain a GE military contract for a submarine sonar system.

MaxPCI

Until 1996, MaxVideo has been entirely VMEbus based. VMEbus, Unix, OS-9, VxWorks and Lynx-OS had served markets well, but Windows 95 and Pentium-based personal computers (PCs) with PCI bus were coming on strong. Clearly a PC version of MaxVideo was required. MaxPCI was developed over 2 years. VSIM was already capable of MAX PCI’s target processing speed of 40 MHz, but everything else needed to be updated or redesigned. The core of MaxPCI was a new, giant crosspoint ASIC: 50 x 40 x 8 with full ROI timing crosspoint and many imaging functions as well, developed by Whitney. Dunn redesigned the AU ASIC to operate at 40 MHz, and a new statistics unit was developed. Tim Ganley developed the acquisition subsystem and Simmons developed a new family of 40 MHz analog and digital front-ends, QA and QD.

For an integrated display, a VGA board from another imaging company, Univision was used. For a real-time disc solution, Shep developed NTD, a software solution for real-time disc access. Meanwhile, Datacube recognized the need to better help its customers develop complex solutions in the medical, web inspection and machine vision markets. So three vertical integration development groups were formed. Siegel headed Medical, Simmons headed Web, and Scott Roth headed Machine vision. Each of these groups developed systems for OEMs in their respective markets.

Technologies

Karandanis’ contacts in the semiconductor market gave Datacube a competitive edge in applying new technologies. In the early days, Video digital-to-analog converters (DACs) were large modules or expensive and power hungry bipolar devices. Datacube worked with Silicon Valley startup Telmos to develop the first integrated Video DAC. This was used on the ‘128 family as well as Digimax. It was the starting point for all Video DACs and RAMDACs by Brooktree and others. Datacube was to ride several technological waves including fast ADCs, disk drives, DRAM, DSP devices and custom ASICs. Programmable logic was the key to Datacube’s functional density: from the early days of bipolar programmable array logic (PAL) and programmable read-only memory (PROM) to generic array logic (GAL), to every generation of FPGAs from Xilinx and then Actel and Quick Logic, and Altera CPLDs. Many semiconductor manufacturers acknowledged that Datacube could help bring their new products to market. Datacube was an ideal beta site and they shared their roadmaps, latest offerings, and support. ASICs were critical to Datacube’s success. From the first small crosspoint: 3000 gates in 2 micrometres, AU: 40,000 gates in 0.8 micrometre, through VSIM, MiniWarper, AU40 and IXP. Each of these devices were leveraged across several products. After IXP the density and cost of FPGAs began to catch up to full ASICs and so FPGAs were the technologies of choice.

DataGeneral – The History of Domain Names

Data General Corporation – DG.com was registered

Date: 12/11/1986

On December 11, 1986, Data General corporation registered the dg.com domain name, making it 49th .com domain ever to be registered.

Data General was one of the first minicomputer firms from the late 1960s. Three of the four founders were former employees of Digital Equipment Corporation. Their first product, the Data General Nova, was a 16-bit minicomputer. This used their own operating system, Data General RDOS (DG/RDOS), and in conjunction with programming languages like “Data General Business Basic” they provided a multi-user operating system with record locking and built-in databases far ahead of many contemporary systems. The Nova was followed by the Supernova and Eclipse product lines, all of which were used in many applications for the next two decades. The company employed an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) sales strategy to sell to third parties who incorporated Data General computers into the OEM’s specific product lines. A series of missteps in the 1980s, including missing the advance of microcomputers despite the launch of the microNOVA in 1977, and the Data General-One portable computer in 1984, led to a decline in the company’s market share. The company did continue into the 1990s, however, and was eventually acquired by EMC Corporation in 2002.

Company History

Origin, founding and early years: Nova and SuperNova

Data General (DG) was founded by several engineers from Digital Equipment Corporation who were frustrated with DEC’s management and left to form their own company. The chief founders were Edson de Castro, Henry Burkhardt III, and Richard Sogge of Digital Equipment (DEC), and Herbert Richman of Fairchild Semiconductor. The company was founded in Hudson, Massachusetts in 1968. Edson de Castro was the chief engineer in charge of the PDP-8, DEC’s line of inexpensive computers that created the minicomputer market. It was designed specifically to be used in laboratory equipment settings; as the technology improved, it was reduced in size to fit into a 19-inch rack. Many PDP-8’s still operate today, decades later. De Castro, convinced he could do one better, began work on his new 16-bit design. The result was released in 1969 as the Nova. Designed to be rack-mounted similarly to the later PDP-8 machines, it was smaller in height and ran considerably faster. Launched as “the best small computer in the world”, the Nova quickly gained a huge following, especially in scientific and educational markets, and made the company flush with cash, although Data General had to defend itself from misappropriation of its trade secrets. With the initial success of the Nova, Data General went public in the fall of 1969. The Nova, like the PDP-8, used a simple accumulator-based architecture. It lacked general registers and the stack-pointer functionality of the more advanced PDP-11, as did competing products, such as the HP 1000; compilers used hardware-based memory locations in lieu of a stack pointer.

The original Nova was soon followed by the faster SuperNova, then later by several minor versions based on the SuperNova core. The last major version, the Nova 4, was released in 1978. During this period the Nova generated 20% annual growth rates for the company, becoming a star in the business community and generating US$ 100 million in sales in 1975. In 1977, DG launched a 16-bit microcomputer called the microNOVA to poor commercial success. The Nova series plays a very important role as instruction-set inspiration to Charles P. Thacker and others at Xerox PARC during their construction of the Xerox Alto.

Late 1970s to late 1980s: crisis and a short term solution

In 1974, the Nova was supplanted by their upscale 16-bit machine, the Eclipse. Based on many of the same concepts as the Nova, it included support for virtual memory and multitasking more suitable to the small office environment. For this reason, the Eclipse was packaged differently, in a floor-standing case resembling a small refrigerator. Production problems with the Eclipse led to a rash of lawsuits in the late 1970s. Newer versions of the machine were pre-ordered by many of DG’s customers, which were never delivered. Many customers sued Data General after more than a year of waiting, charging the company with breach of contract, while others simply canceled their orders and went elsewhere. The Eclipse was originally intended to replace the Nova outright, evidenced by the fact that the Nova 3 series, released at the same time and utilizing virtually the same internal architecture as the Eclipse, was phased out the next year. Strong demand continued for the Nova series, resulting in the Nova 4, perhaps as a result of the continuing problems with the Eclipse. In 1976, Digital announced the VAX series, their first 32-bit minicomputer line, described as “super-minis”. The first products would not ship until February 1978. This coincided with the aging 16-bit products, which were coming due for replacement. Data General immediately launched their own 32-bit effort in 1976 to build what they called the “world’s best 32-bit machine”, known internally as the “Fountainhead Project”. When Digital’s VAX-11/780 was shipped in February 1978, however, Fountainhead was not yet ready to deliver a machine, due mainly to problems in project management. DG’s customers left quickly for the VAX world.

Soon afterwards, Data General launched a hyperactive 32-bit effort based on the Eclipse known as the “Eagle Project”. By late 1979, it became clear that Eagle would deliver before Fountainhead, igniting an intense turf war within the company for constantly shrinking project funds. In the meantime, customers abandoned Data General in droves, driven not only by the delivery problems with the original Eclipse (including very serious quality control and customer service problems), but also the power and versatility of Digital’s new VAX line. The Eagle Project was the subject of Tracy Kidder’s Pulitzer prize-winning book, The Soul of a New Machine, making the MV line the best-documented computer project in recent history. The MV/8000 was a straightforward, 32-bit extension of the Nova-based Eclipse, yet still lacking a hardware stack pointer adopted by most new computers since the late 1960s. It was backwards-compatible with 16-bit Eclipse applications, used the same command-line interpreter as the 16-bit Eclipse, and achieved improved 32-bit performance over the VAX 11/780 while using fewer components.

Software

Data General developed operating systems for its hardware: DOS and RDOS for the Nova, RDOS and AOS for the 16-bit Eclipse C, M, and S lines, AOS/VS and AOS/VS II for the Eclipse MV line, and a modified version of System V Unix called DG/UX for the Eclipse MV and AViiON machines. The AOS/VS software was the most commonly used DG software product and included CLI (Command Line Interpreter) allowing for complex scripting, DUMP/LOAD, and other custom components.

Related system software also in common use at the time included such packages as X.25, Xodiac, and TCP/IP for networking, Fortran, COBOL, RPG, PL/I, C and Data General Business Basic for programming, INFOS II and DG/DBMS for databases, and the nascent relational database software DG/SQL.

Data General also offered an office automation suite named Comprehensive Electronic Office (CEO), which included a mail system, a calendar, a folder-based document store, a word processor, a spreadsheet processor, and other assorted tools. All were crude by today’s standards but were revolutionary for their time. Some software development from the early 1970s is notable. PLN (created by Robert Nichols) was the host language for a number of DG products, making them easier to develop, enhance, and maintain than macro assembler equivalents. PLN smacked of a micro-subset of PL/1, in sharp contrast to other languages of the time, such as BLISS. The RPG product (shipped in 1976) incorporated a language runtime system implemented as a virtual machine which executed pre-compiled code as sequences of PLN statements and Eclipse commercial instruction routines. The latter provided microcode acceleration of arithmetic and conversion operations for a wide range of now-arcane data types such as overpunch characters. The DG Easy product, a portable application platform developed by Nichols and others from 1975 to 1979 but never marketed, had roots easily traceable back to the RPG VM created by Stephen Schleimer. Also notable were several commercial software products developed in the mid to late 1970s in conjunction with the commercial computers. These products were popular with business customers because of their screen design feature and other ease-of-use features. The first product was IDEA (Interactive Data Entry/Access) which consisted of a screen design tool (IFMT), TP Controller (IMON) and a program development language (IFPL). The second was the CS40 line of products which used COBOL and their own ISAM data manager. The COBOL variant used included an added screen section. Both of these products were a major departure from the transaction monitors of the day which did not have a screen design tool and used subroutine calls from COBOL to handle the screen. IDEA was identified by some market watchers as a precursor to fourth-generation programming languages.

The original IDEA ran on RDOS and would support up to 24 users in an RDOS Partition. Each user could use the same or a different program. Eventually IDEA ran on every commercial hardware product from the MicroNova (4 users) to the MV series under AOS/VS, the same IDEA program running all those systems. The CS40 (the first of this line) was a package system which supported four terminal users, each running a different COBOL program. These products also led to the development of a third product, TPMS (Transaction Processing Monitoring System (announced in 1980)) which could capably run a large number of COBOL or PL/I users with a smaller number of processors, a major resource and performance advantage on AOS and AOS/VS systems. TPMS had the same screen design tool as the earlier products. TPMS used defined subroutine calls for screen functions from COBOL or PL/I, which in some users’ eyes made it more difficult to use. However, this product was aimed at the professional IS Programmers as were its competitors—IBM’s CICS and DEC’s TRAX. As with IDEA, TPMS used INFOS for information management and DG/DBMS for database management.

Dasher Terminals

Data General produced a full range of peripherals, sometimes by rebadging printers for example, but Data General’s own series of CRT-based and hard-copy terminals, were high quality and featured a generous number of function keys, each with the ability to send different codes, with any combination of control and shift keys, which influenced WordPerfect design. The model 6053 Dasher 2 featured an easily tilted screen, but used many integrated circuits; the smaller, lighter D100, D200 and eventually the D210 replaced it as the basic user terminal, while graphics models such as the D460 (with ANSI X3.64 compatibility) occupied the very high end of the range. Terminal emulators for the D2/D3/D100/D200/D210 (and some features of the D450/460) do exist, including the Freeware 1993 DOS program in D460.zip.

Most Data General software was written specifically for their own terminals (or the terminal emulation built into the Desktop Generation DG10, but the Data General One built-in terminal emulator is not often suitable), although software using Data General Business BASIC could be more flexible in terminal handling, because logging into a Business BASIC system would initiate a process whereby the terminal type would (usually) be auto-detected.

Desktop Generation

Data General also brought out a small-footprint “Desktop Generation” range, starting with the DG10 that included both Data General and Intel CPUs in a patented closely coupled arrangement, able to run MS-DOS or CP/M-86 concurrently with DG/RDOS, with each benefiting from the hardware acceleration given by other CPU as a co-processor that would handle (for instance) screen graphics or disk operations concurrently. Other members of the Desktop Generation range, the DG20 and DG30, were aimed more at traditional commercial environments, such as multi-user COBOL systems, replacing refrigerator-sized minicomputers with toaster-sized modular microcomputers based around the microECLIPSE CPUs and some of the technology developed for the microNOVA-based “Micro Products” range such as the MP/100 and MP/200 that had struggled to find a market niche. The Single-processor version of the DG10, the DG10SP, was the entry-level machine with, like the DG20 and 30, no ability to run Intel software. Despite having some good features and having less direct competition from the flood of cheap PC compatibles, the Desktop Generation range also struggled, partly because they offered an economical way of running what was essentially “legacy software” while the future was clearly either slightly cheaper Personal Computers or slightly more expensive “super minicomputers” such as the MV and VAX computers.

Joint venture with Soviet company

On December 12, 1989, DG and Soviet Union software developer NPO Parma announced Perekat, the first joint venture between an American computer company and a Soviet company. DG would provide hardware and NPO Parma the software, and Austrian companies Voest Alpine Industrieanlagenbau GmbH and their marketing group Voest Alpine Vertriebe would build the plant.

Final downturn and EMC takeover

Despite Data General’s betting the AViiON farm on the Motorola 88000, Motorola decided to end production of that line. The 88000 had never been very successful, and DG was the only major customer. When Apple Computer and IBM proposed their joint solution based on POWER architecture, the PowerPC, Motorola picked up the manufacturing contract and killed the 88000. DG quickly responded and introduced new models of the AViiON series based on a true commodity processor, the Intel x86 series. By this time a number of other vendors, notably Sequent Computer Systems, were also introducing similar machines. The lack of lock-in now came back to haunt DG, and the rapid commoditization of the Unix market led to shrinking sales. DG did begin a minor shift toward the service industry, training their technicians for the role of implementing a spate of new x86-based servers and the new Microsoft Windows NT domain-driven, small server world. This never developed enough to offset the loss of high margin server business however.

Data General also targeted the explosion of the internet in the latter 1990s with the formation of the THiiN Line business unit, led by Tom West, which had a focus on creation and sale of so-called “internet appliances”. The product developed was called the SiteStak web server appliance and was designed as an inexpensive website hosting product. CLARiiON did better after finding a large niche for Unix storage systems, and its sales were still strong enough to make DG a takeover target. EMC Corporation, a major data storage company, announced that they would buy Data General and its assets in January 2002 for $1.1 Billion or $19.58 a share.[7] Although details of the acquisition specified that EMC had to take the entire company, and not just the storage line, EMC quickly ended all development and production of DG computer hardware and parts, effectively ending Data General’s presence in the segment. The maintenance business was sold to a third party, who also acquired all of DG’s remaining hardware components for spare parts sales to old DG customers. The CLARiiON line continued to be a major player in the market, and was marketed under that name until January 2012.[8] The Clariion and Celerra storage products evolved into EMC’s unified storage platform, the VNX platform. Data General would be only one of many New England based computer companies, including the original Digital Equipment Corporation that collapsed or were sold to larger companies after the 1980s. On the Internet, even the old Data General domain (dg.com), which contained a few EMC webpages that only mentioned the latter company in passing, was sold to the Dollar General discount department store chain in October 2009.

DE Domains – The History of Domain Names

Celebrating 25 years of .DE domains

November 9, 2011

On 2011-11-11, the domain extension .DE will celebrate its 25th birthday. On November 5, 1986, .DE was the 10th country code top-level domain to be added to the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) database. Since then, more than 14.6 million .DE domains have been registered. The domain portal domaindiscount24.com celebrates with .DE: for 25 days dd24 customers pay 25 % less than the regular dd24 price for one year registrations of .DE domains.

With more than 14.6 million registrations .DE currently has the most registrations in comparison with other country-specific top-level domains, followed by Great Britain (.UK) with around 9.7 million registered domains and the Netherlands (.NL) with 4.7 million registered domains. 25 years after the introduction of .DE, an average of 178 domains account for 1.000 German citizens. Thus, from a mathematical point of view every sixth German has his own website under .DE. Furthermore, nearly 80 percent of all .DE domain holders are private persons.

About 100,000 times per second a .DE internet address is accessed worldwide. More than 14.6 million .DE Internet addresses are currently registered and about 3,000 new ones are added every day. dd24 celebrates the anniversary and the success story of the .DE extension with a special anniversary price for. DE domains. The special price of 5.25 EUR incl. VAT is only valid for the first year of registration, with the second and subsequent years the regular price applies according to the current dd24 price list. The jubilee offer is effective from November 3 until November 27, 2011 and applies to new 1-year registrations but not to domain renewals or transfers.

Compuserve – The History of Domain Names

The 1980’s Compuserve

Date: 01/01/1980

In 1979, CompuServe became the first service to offer electronic mail capabilities and technical support to personal computerusers. The company broke new ground again in 1980 as the first to offer real-time chat with its CB Simulator. Other major dial-in networks were AmericaOnline (AOL) and Prodigy that also provided communications, content, and entertainment features. Many bulletin board system (BBS) networks also providedon-line access, such as FidoNet which was popular amongst hobbyist computer users, many of them hackers and amateur radio operators.

CompuServe was founded in 1969 as Compu-Serv Network, Inc. (the earliest advertising shows the name with initial caps) in Columbus, Ohio, as a subsidiary of Golden United Life Insurance. While Jeffrey Wilkins, the son-in-law of Golden United founder Harry Gard, Sr., is widely credited as the first president of CompuServe, the initial president was actually Dr. John R. Goltz.[1] Goltz and Wilkins were both graduate students in electrical engineering at the University of Arizona. Early employees also recruited from the University of Arizona included Sandy Trevor (inventor of the CompuServe CB Simulator chat system), Doug Chinnock, and Larry Shelley. Wilkins replaced Goltz as CEO within the first year of operation.

The company objectives were twofold: to provide in-house computer processing support to Golden United Life Insurance; and to develop as an independent business in the computer time-sharing industry, by renting time on its PDP-10 midrange computers during business hours. It was spun off as a separate company in 1975, trading on the NASDAQ under the symbol CMPU.

Concurrently, the company recruited executives who shifted the focus from offering time-sharing services, in which customers wrote their own applications, to one that was focused on packaged applications. The first of these new executives was Robert Tillson, who left Service Bureau Corporation (then a subsidiary of Control Data, but originally formed as a division of IBM) to become CompuServe’s Executive Vice President of Marketing. He then recruited Charles McCall (who followed Jeff Wilkins as CEO, and later became CEO of medical information firm HBO & Co.), Maury Cox (who became CEO after the departure of McCall), and Robert Massey (who followed Cox as CEO). Barry Berkov was recruited from Xerox to head product development and marketing.

In 1977, CompuServe’s board changed the company’s name to CompuServe Incorporated. In 1980, H&R Block acquired CompuServe. The purchase provided cash to expand operations, and helped H&R Block diversify its tax-season based earnings.

Technology

The original 1969 dial-up technology was fairly simple—the local phone number in Cleveland, for example, was a line connected to a time-division multiplexer that connected via a leased line to a matched multiplexer in Columbus that was connected to a time-sharing host system. In the earliest buildups, each line terminated on a single machine at CompuServe’s host, so different numbers had to be used to reach different computers.

Later, the central multiplexers in Columbus were replaced with PDP-8 minicomputers, and the PDP-8s were connected to a DEC PDP-15 minicomputer that acted as switches so a phone number was not tied to a particular destination host. Finally, CompuServe developed its own packet switching network, implemented on DEC PDP-11 minicomputers acting as network nodes that were installed throughout the US (and later, in other countries) and interconnected. Over time, the CompuServe network evolved into a sophisticated multi-tiered network incorporating Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), Frame relay (FR), Internet Protocol (IP) and X.25 technologies.

In 1981, The Times explained CompuServe’s technology in one sentence:

Compuserve is offering a video-text-like service permitting personal computer users to retrieve software from the mainframe computer over telephone lines. CompuServe was also a world leader in other commercial services. One of these was the Financial Services group, which collected and consolidated financial data from myriad data feeds, including CompuStat, Disclosure, I/B/E/S as well as the price/quote feeds from the major exchanges. CompuServe developed extensive screening and reporting tools that were used by many investment banks on Wall Street.

CIS

The consumer information service had been developed almost clandestinely, in 1978, and marketed as MicroNET through Radio Shack. Many within the company did not favor the project; it was called schlock time-sharing by the commercial time-sharing sales force. It was allowed to exist initially because consumers used the computers during evening hours, when the CompuServe computers were otherwise idle. As it became evident that it would be a hit, CompuServe dropped the MicroNET name in favor of their own. CompuServe’s origin was approximately concurrent with that of The Source. Both services were operating in early 1979, being the first online services. MicroNet was made popular through the Issue 2 of Commodore Disk User, which included programs on how to connect and run MicroNet programs.

By the mid-1980s CompuServe was one of the largest information and networking services companies in existence, and it was the largest consumer information service in the world. It operated commercial branches in more than 30 US cities, selling primarily network services to major corporations throughout the United States. Consumer accounts could be bought in most computer stores (a box with an instruction manual and a trial account login) and awareness of this service was extremely high. By 1987, the consumer side would be 50% of CompuServe revenues. The service continued to improve in terms of user interface and offerings, and in 1989 CompuServe purchased and dismantled one of its main competitors, The Source.

The corporate culture was entrepreneurial, encouraging “skunkworks projects”. Alexander “Sandy” Trevor secluded himself for a weekend, writing the “CB Simulator”, a chat system that soon became one of CIS’s most popular features. Instead of hiring employees to manage the forums, they contracted with sysops, who received compensation based on the success of their own forum’s boards, libraries, and chat areas.

In September 2003 CompuServe Information Service, which had become a division of AOL, added CompuServe Basic to its product lines, selling via Netscape.com. AOL offered the CompuServe Basic service to departing AOL members, possibly in response to reports earlier that year that AOL was losing significant business to low-cost competitors.

Connecting Networks – The History of Domain Names

Connecting the Networks

Date: 01/01/1970

Connecting the Networks

1970 Donald Davies of the National Physical Laboratory (United Kingdom) proposed a national data network basedon packet-switching.The proposal was not taken up nationally, but by 1970 he had designed and built the Mark Ipacket-switched network to meet the needs of the multidisciplinary laboratory and prove the technology under operational conditions. By 1976 12 computers and 75 terminal devices were attached and more were added until the network was replaced in 1986.

1971 December The merit Network, With initial support from the State of Michigan and the National Science Foundation (NSF), the packet-switched network was first demonstrated in December 1971 when aninteractive host to host connection was made between the IBM mainframe computer systems at the University of Michigan in Ann Arborand Wayne State University inDetroit.

1972 The Merit network In October 1972 connections to the CDC mainframe at Michigan State University in East Lansing completed the trial. Over the next several years in addition to host to host interactive connections the network was enhanced to support terminal to host connections, host to host batch connections (remote job submission, remote printing, batch filetransfer), interactive file transfer, gateways to the Tymnet and Telenet public data networks, X.25 host attachments, gateways to X.25 data networks, Ethernet attached hosts, and eventually TCP/IP and additional public universities in Michigan join the network. All of this set the stage for Merit’s role in the NSFNET project starting in the mid-1980s.

Convergent – The History of Domain Names

Convergent Media Systems Corporation – convergent.com was registered

Date: 12/11/1986

On December 11, 1986, Convergent Media Systems Corporation registered the convergent.com domain name, making it 49th .com domain ever to be registered.

Convergent Media Systems Corporation provides digital media solutions to the enterprise market in the United States and internationally. It offers digital media solutions for applications, such as digital signage, interactivity, video walls, iBeacon integration, social media, sales assistance, wayfinding, employee communications, meeting rooms, and endless aisle. The company also media strategy, systems integration, content creation, network operations, and solution support services. It serves retail, bank, corporate digital, and healthcare digital signage markets. Convergent Media Systems Corporation was formerly known as EDS Video Services and changed its name to Convergent Media Systems Corporation in 1992. The company was founded in 1980 and is based in Alpharetta, Georgia with a location in Toronto, Canada. As of October 1, 2013, Convergent Media Systems Corporation operates as a subsidiary of Ballantyne Strong, Inc

Founded in 1980, Convergent Media Systems manages digital solutions for customers that span over 95,000 displays spread across over 22,000 locations, which are seen by more than 10 million people per day. Convergent Media Systems has long-standing customer relationships with companies such as Kroger, Safeway, and Best Buy Canada. Bryan Allen will continue to manage the Convergent Media Systems team.

The combination of Ballantyne Strong and Convergent Media Systems will create one of the largest and best capitalized companies providing digital technologies for out-of-home messaging, advertising and communication (the Digital Out-of-Home or DOOH market) and Enterprise Video Solutions (EVS), which provides enterprises with the infrastructure necessary for communication, collaboration, training and education of employees. In aggregate, the domestic DOOH and EVS markets are estimated to be more than $4.0 billion annually.

“This is a transformative acquisition that extends Ballantyne’s core expertise into adjacent markets experiencing strong growth,” said Gary L. Cavey, President and CEO of Ballantyne Strong. “Industry analysts expect the DOOH and EVS markets to grow at compounded annual rates of 26% and 16%, respectively, through 2015. With these markets being highly fragmented, there is a clear opportunity for Ballantyne to capture market share with a unique end-to-end, single source solution covering design and development of customer solutions, system integration, software, hardware, content creation and distribution, network monitoring and field services. With the addition of Convergent Media Systems’ existing customer base, we will be able to further leverage the established infrastructure of our Network Operations Center to enhance efficiencies within the combined company and provide a strong platform for continued growth. Following this acquisition, we will continue to have a very strong balance sheet, which will be a key differentiator in the DOOH and EVS markets, and will enable us to continue investing in growth opportunities going forward.”

Couponcodes – The History of Domain Names

Austin Company Vertive Buys Couponcodes.com

September 20, 2011

Couponcodes.com domain name was purchased by a Austin company Vertive for an undisclosed sum.

Vertive is now stranger to the power of domain names. It operates Offers.com (it also owns Offer.com) and company founder Steve Schaffer sometimes attends domain name conferences.

Craiglist – The History of Domain Names

Craigslist classified advertisements

Date: 01/01/1995

Craigslist (stylized as craigslist) is an American classified advertisements website with sections devoted to jobs, housing, personals, for sale, items wanted, services, community, gigs, résumés, and discussion forums.

Craig Newmark began the service in 1995 as an email distribution list to friends, featuring local events in the San Francisco Bay Area. It became a web-based service in 1996 and expanded into other classified categories. It started expanding to other U.S. cities in 2000, and now covers 70 countries.

In March 2008, Spanish, French, Italian, German, and Portuguese became the first non-English languages Craigslist supported. As of August 9, 2012, over 700 cities and areas in 70 countries have Craigslist sites. Some Craigslist sites cover large regions instead of individual metropolitan areas—for example, the U.S. states of Delaware and Wyoming, the Colorado Western Slope, the California Gold Country, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan are among the locations with their own Craigslist sites.

History

Having observed people helping one another in friendly, social, and trusting communal ways on the Internet via the WELL, MindVox and Usenet, and feeling isolated as a relative newcomer to San Francisco, Craigslist founder Craig Newmark decided to create something similar for local events. In early 1995, he began an email distribution list to friends. Most of the early postings were submitted by Newmark and were notices of social events of interest to software and Internet developers living and working in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Soon, word of mouth led to rapid growth. The number of subscribers and postings grew rapidly. There was no moderation and Newmark was surprised when people started using the mailing list for non-event postings. People trying to get technical positions filled found that the list was a good way to reach people with the skills they were looking for. This led to the addition of a jobs category. User demand for more categories caused the list of categories to grow. The initial technology encountered some limits, so by June 1995 Majordomo had been installed and the mailing list “Craigslist” resumed operations. Community members started asking for a web interface. Newmark registered “craigslist.org”, and the website went live in 1996. In the fall of 1998, the name “List Foundation” was introduced and Craigslist started transitioning to the use of this name. In April 1999, when Newmark learned of other organizations called “List Foundation”, the use of this name was dropped. Craigslist incorporated as a private for-profit company in 1999. Around the time of these events, Newmark realized the site was growing so fast that he could stop working as a software engineer and work full-time running Craigslist. By April 2000, there were nine employees working out of Newmark’s San Francisco apartment.

In January 2000, current CEO Jim Buckmaster joined the company as lead programmer and CTO. Buckmaster contributed the site’s multi-city architecture, search engine, discussion forums, flagging system, self-posting process, homepage design, personals categories, and best-of-Craigslist feature. He was promoted to CEO in November 2000.

The website expanded into nine more U.S. cities in 2000, four in 2001 and 2002 each, and 14 in 2003. On August 1, 2004, Craigslist began charging $25 to post job openings on the New York and Los Angeles pages. On the same day, a new section called “Gigs” was added, where low-cost and unpaid jobs and internships can be posted free.

Operations

The site serves more than 20 billion page views per month, putting it in 72nd place overall among websites worldwide and 11th place overall among websites in the United States (per Alexa.com on June 28, 2016), with more than 49.4 million unique monthly visitors in the United States alone (per Compete.com on January 8, 2010). With more than 80 million new classified advertisements each month, Craigslist is the leading classifieds service in any medium. The site receives more than 2 million new job listings each month, making it one of the top job boards in the world. The 23 largest U.S. cities listed on the Craigslist home page collectively receive more than 300,000 postings per day just in the “for sale” and “housing” sections as of October 2011. The classified advertisements range from traditional buy/sell ads and community announcements to personal ads. In 2009, Craigslist operated with a staff of 28 people.

Financials and ownership

In December 2006, at the UBS Global Media Conference in New York, Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster told Wall Street analysts that Craigslist had little interest in maximizing profit, and instead preferred to help users find cars, apartments, jobs and dates.

Craigslist’s main source of revenue is paid job ads in select American cities. The company does not formally disclose financial or ownership information. Analysts and commentators have reported varying figures for its annual revenue, ranging from $10 million in 2004, $20 million in 2005, and $25 million in 2006 to possibly $150 million in 2007.

On August 13, 2004, Newmark announced on his blog that auction giant eBay had purchased a 25% stake in the company from a former employee. Some fans of Craigslist expressed concern that this development would affect the site’s longtime non-commercial nature. As of April 2012, there have been no substantive changes to the usefulness or non-advertising nature of the site—no banner ads, charges for a few services provided to businesses.

The company was believed to be owned principally by Newmark, Buckmaster and eBay (the three board members). eBay owned approximately 25%, and Newmark is believed to own the largest stake.

In April 2008, eBay announced it was suing Craigslist to “safeguard its four-year financial investment”. eBay claimed that in January 2008, Craigslist executives took actions that “unfairly diluted eBay’s economic interest by more than 10%”. Craigslist filed a counter-suit in May 2008 to “remedy the substantial and ongoing harm to fair competition” that Craigslist claimed was constituted by eBay’s actions as Craigslist shareholders; the company claimed that it had used its minority stake to gain access to confidential information, which it then used as part of its competing service Kijiji.

On June 19, 2015, eBay Inc. announced that it would divest its stake back to Craigslist for an undisclosed amount, and settle its litigation with the company. The move came shortly before eBay’s planned spin-off of PayPal, and an effort to divest other units to focus on its core business.

Creditcards – The History of Domain Names

CreditCards.com sold for $2.75 million

Date: 07/01/2004

CreditCards.com Domain Name Sells for $2.75 Million

“CreditCards.com, the domain name, has been purchased for $2.75 million by ClickSuccess, L.P., an Austin, Texas-based firm specializing in marketing financial products online. The purchase, announced yesterday (July 20, 2004), represents the fifth highest selling price for a domain name on record.” I have to admit, when I looked at those opening lines from a new press release today I started trying to find out who was behind the joke!

Not because CreditCards.com isn’t worth that kind of money (in fact many experts tell me it was probably worth more), but simply because we haven’t seen that kind of number attached to a pure domain name (no other business assets involved) for several years now. Casino.com was part of a $5.5 million dollar deal last October that included other assets (though that name alone would undoubtedly be in the same league). After consulting with a few people in the know, it soon became evident that this report was for real.

When close to $3 million changes hands for a domain name, it catches everyone’s attention, including the mainstream media, and that should go a long way toward educating buyers about the intrinsic value in high traffic domain names. Indeed, just minutes after I had starting looking into the details of the CreditCards.com sale, MSNBC called our office to get some background information on a story they are running on this purchase and the current boom in the domain market. Reporter Bob Sullivan told me that when the CreditCards.com price was announced in their newsroom everyone said “Well, here we go again!” assuming we were returning to late 90’s domain-bubble madness.

I explained that things are quite different today, with increased advertiser demand for highly targeted traffic producing reliable revenues that can be used to calculate true inherent value for a domain name (just as business revenues can be used to calculate a fair selling price for real world companies). Sullivan found the notion that there is some actual substance behind the pricing this time around to be fascinating and we spent a half hour talking about it. If other news outlets grasp this and accurately relay the message to the general public it can only have a positive impact on an industry that is already enjoying a rosy outlook after years in the briar patch.

There’s no doubt the new owners have a money machine on their hands with CreditCards.com. They have already installed links to virtually every major card offering as well as card comparison tools that should have thousands of regular visitors clicking like crazy, ringing up revenue from click-throughs and new customer conversion fees.

Cisco – The History of Domain Names

Cisco Systems – cisco.com was registered

Date: 05/14/1987

On May 14, 1987, Cisco Systems registered the cisco.com domain name, making it 73rd .com domain ever to be registered.

Cisco Systems, Inc. is an American multinational corporation technology company headquartered in San Jose, California, that designs, manufactures and sells networking equipment worldwide. It is the largest networking company in the world. The stock was added to the Dow Jones Industrial Average on June 8, 2009, and is also included in the S&P 500 Index, the Russell 1000 Index, NASDAQ-100 Index and the Russell 1000 Growth Stock Index.

Company History:

Cisco Systems, Inc. is the world’s leading supplier of computer networking products, systems, and services. The company’s product line includes routers, switches, remote access devices, protocol translators, Internet services devices, and networking and network management software, all of which link together geographically dispersed local area networks (LANs), wide area networks (WANs), and the Internet itself. Cisco serves three main market segments: large organizations–including corporations, government entities, utilities, and educational institutions–needing complex networking solutions that typically bridge multiple locations; service providers, including Internet access providers, telephone and cable companies, and providers of wireless communications; and small and medium-sized businesses whose needs include operating networks, connecting to the Internet, and/or connecting with business partners. The company is increasingly developing expertise in the area of fiber-optic networking as well as the concomitant expertise in multiservice networks, which offer video and voice capabilities in addition to the traditional data capability.

Beginnings in Multiprotocol Routers

Cisco Systems was founded in December 1984 in Menlo Park, California, by a husband and wife team from Stanford University, Leonard Bosack and Sandra Lerner. Bosack was the manager of the computer science department’s laboratory, and Lerner oversaw the computers at the graduate school of business. At Stanford, Bosack devised a way to connect the two local area networks in the respective departments where he and his wife worked, 500 yards across campus.

Lerner and Bosack initially tried to sell the internetworking technology that Bosack had developed to existing computer companies, but none were interested. They then decided to start their own business, Cisco Systems, based on this technology (they came up with the name, a shortened form of San Francisco, while driving across the Golden Gate Bridge). Bosack and Lerner were joined by colleagues Greg Setz, Bill Westfield, and Kirk Lougheed, as cofounders. Stanford University later tried to obtain $11 million in licensing fees from the new company, because Bosack had developed the technology while an employee at the university, but eventually the university settled for $150,000 and free routers and support services.

The company was established on a very tight budget. In fact, Bosack and Lerner had to mortgage their house, run up credit card debts, and defer salaries to their friends who worked for them in order to get the venture off the ground, and, even after two years of business, Lerner maintained an outside salaried job to supplement the couple’s income.

Cisco’s primary product from the beginning was the internetworking router, a hardware device incorporating software that automatically selects the most effective route for data to flow between networks. Cisco’s routers pioneered support for multiple protocols or data transmission standards, and could therefore link together different kinds of networks, those having different architectures and those built on different hardware, such as IBM-compatible personal computers, Apple Macintosh computers, UNIX workstations, and IBM mainframes. Cisco thus became the first company to commercially provide a multi-protocol router when it shipped its first product in 1986, a router for the TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) protocol suite. A year later, Cisco was selling $250,000 worth of routers per month. Sales for the fiscal year ending July 1987 were $1.5 million, and the company had only eight employees at the time.

Cisco initially marketed its routers to universities, research centers, the aerospace industry, and government facilities by contacting computer scientists and engineers via ARPANET, the precursor to what was later known as the Internet. These customers tended to use the TCP/IP protocols and UNIX-based computers. In 1988, the company began to target its internetworking routers at mainstream corporations with geographically dispersed branches that used different networks. To that end, Cisco developed routers serving an even greater array of communications protocols and subsequently distinguished its routers by enabling them to support more protocols than those of any other router manufacturer. By the late 1980s, when the commercial market for internetworking began to develop, Cisco’s reasonably priced, high-performance routers gave it a head start over the emerging competition.

Although Cisco had a high rate of sales growth, the young company was still short of cash; in 1988 Bosack and Lerner were forced to turn to a venture capitalist, Donald T. Valentine of Sequoia Capital, for support. Valentine, however, required that the owners surrender to him a controlling stake in the company. Valentine thus became chairperson and then hired an outsider, John Morgridge, as the company’s new president and chief executive officer. Morgridge, who had an M.B.A. from Stanford University, was chief operating officer at laptop computer manufacturer GRiD Systems Corp. and prior to that had spent six years as vice-president of sales and marketing at Stratus Computer. Morgridge replaced several Cisco managers, who were friends of Bosack and Lerner, with more qualified and experienced executives. In February 1990, Cisco went public, after which Bosack and Lerner began selling their shares. Sales for the fiscal year ending July 1990 were $69.8 million, net income was $13.9 million, and the company had 254 employees.

Under Morgridge, Bosack had been given the title of chief scientist and Lerner was made head of customer service. However, Lerner reportedly did not get along well with Morgridge and, in August 1990, she was fired, whereupon Bosack also quit. When they left the company, Bosack and Lerner sold the remainder of their stock for $100 million, for a total divestiture of about $200 million. The couple subsequently gave away the majority of their profits to their favorite charities.

Early 1990s: Rapid Growth As Networks Proliferate

Meanwhile, Morgridge built up a direct sales force to market the products to corporate clients. At first, Cisco’s corporate clients were the scientific departments of companies which already maintained large internal networks. Later, Cisco was able to market its products to all kinds of major corporations to help them link the computer systems of their headquarters, regional, and branch offices. As Cisco’s client base grew, the company’s greatest challenge became meeting customer support service needs. The large size of the network systems for which Cisco supplied products made the user support task especially complex.

The company grew at a tremendous rate as its market rapidly expanded. In the early 1990s, companies of all sizes were installing local area networks (LANs) of personal computers. As such, the potential market for linking these networks, either with each other or with existing minicomputers and mainframe computers, also grew. Cisco’s sales jumped from $183.2 million in fiscal 1991 to $339.6 million in 1992, and net income grew from $43.2 million to $84.4 million during the same period. In 1992, Fortune magazine rated Cisco as the second fastest growing company in the United States. In its role as the leading internetworking router provider, Cisco could redefine and expand the market as it grew.

While new communications technologies became widespread, Cisco adapted and added the capabilities of handling new protocols to its products. In the fall of 1992, Cisco introduced Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) and Token-Ring enhancements to its high-end router. Around the same time, the company also introduced the first Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) router for the Japanese market.

Until 1992, Cisco’s products had not addressed IBM’s System Network Architecture (SNA), a proprietary network structure used by IBM computers. In September 1992, however, after IBM announced plans to license its Advanced Peer-to-Peer Networking (APPN) protocol used for SNA, Cisco responded by announcing plans for a rival Advanced Peer-to-Peer Internetworking (APPI) protocol for supporting SNA. By August 1993, Cisco had decided not to develop a rival protocol, because IBM made it clear that APPN would be a more open, multivendor protocol than originally intended. Cisco then proceeded to work with IBM on further defining the APPN standard and bought a license to use APPN technology.

The emergence of asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) technology as a new standard method for multiprotocol data communications posed a challenge to Cisco and the router industry. ATM is a cell-switching technique that can provide high-speed communications of data, voice, video, and images without the use of routers. In early 1993, Cisco entered into a joint development project with AT & T and StrataCom to develop standards that would ensure that ATM operated within existing Frame Relay networks. Cisco also became one of the four founding members of the ATM Forum to help define the emerging standard. In February 1993, Cisco announced a strategy to include ATM among the protocols supported by its products. In fiscal 1994, Cisco introduced its first ATM switch.

In January 1993, Cisco introduced a new flagship product, the Cisco 7000 router, which featured a 50 percent improvement in performance over the AGS+, Cisco’s existing high-end router. In June of that year, Cisco introduced a new low-end, lower-priced product line, the Cisco 2000 router family. The Cisco 2000 was aimed at companies desiring to link their smaller, remote branches or even remote individual employees, but unwilling to pay a premium price. Also during this time, the first network with over 1,000 Cisco routers was created.

International sales became an important part of Cisco’s business. Subsidiaries were established in Japan and Australia, and a European Technical Assistance Center was established in Brussels, Belgium. In March 1993, Cisco Systems (HK) Ltd. became a new subsidiary in Hong Kong. International sales steadily increased, accounting for 35.6 percent of sales in fiscal 1991, 36 percent in fiscal 1992, 39 percent in fiscal 1993, and 41.9 percent in fiscal 1994. Most of Cisco’s international sales were through distributors, whereas in the United States the majority of sales (65 percent in early 1994) were made directly to the end users.

Cisco also began to market its technology, especially its software, more aggressively to long-distance telephone companies, as the deregulation of U.S. telephone carriers enabled these companies to provide more kinds of data communications products and services. For example, Cisco entered into a joint marketing agreement with MCI International to integrate Cisco’s routers into end-to-end data networks over telephone lines. In 1992, Cisco entered new distribution agreements with Bell Atlantic Corp. and U.S. West Information Systems Inc. Cisco also signed marketing agreements in fiscal 1993 with Pacific Bell, whereby Cisco became a preferred router supplier for the company’s network systems.

Cisco similarly began contracting with major European telecommunications companies at about the same time. British Telecom became an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) client of all of Cisco’s products. Other European telecommunications companies that entered into OEM relationships with Cisco included Alcatel of France and Siemens A.G. of Germany. Olivetti of Italy agreed to market Cisco’s products under a value-added reseller agreement late in 1992.

Cisco made other strategic alliances to position itself better in the maturing internetworking market. To reach out to less technical clients, Cisco entered into joint agreements with Microsoft Corporation to market Cisco’s first PC-based router card with Microsoft’s Windows NT Advanced Server networking software through Microsoft’s marketing channels. Similarly, Cisco established a partnership with Novell to integrate Cisco’s routers with Novell’s Netware network software so as to provide links between Netware and UNIX-based networks. Additionally, Cisco began working with LanOptics Ltd. to develop remote-access products.

1993-94: First Wave of Acquisitions

In September 1993, Cisco made its first acquisition. For $95 million, it acquired Crescendo Communications, which had pioneered products for a new technology called Copper Distributed Data Interface (CDDI). Crescendo’s development of ATM technology was also a leading reason for the acquisition. Crescendo Communications was renamed the Workgroup Business Unit, and its switching technologies under development were later incorporated into Cisco’s routers. Cisco made its second acquisition, that of Newport Systems Solutions for $93 million in stock, in August 1994. Newport Solutions sold the LAN2LAN product line, software used in linking local area networks.

Early in 1994, Cisco announced a new networking architecture, CiscoFusion, to provide clients with a gradual transition from routers to the new switched networking technologies of ATM and LAN switching. CiscoFusion allowed users to take advantage of both routing and switching techniques. As part of this architecture, several new switching products were introduced in March 1994, including the ATM Interface Processor and the Catalyst FDDI-to-Ethernet LAN switch. The latter was the first new product of the Workgroup Businesses Unit since the acquisition of Crescendo.

During this time, Cisco moved its headquarters from one end of Silicon Valley to the other, from Menlo Park to a newly constructed office building complex in San Jose, California. The growing size of the company had necessitated larger office space. The company’s workforce had grown from 1,451 in July 1993 to 2,262 in July 1994, as Cisco hired talent from smaller, struggling networking companies which were laying off personnel. In fiscal 1994, Cisco topped $1 billion in sales, ending the year on July 31, 1994, with $1.24 billion in net sales, a 92 percent increase over the previous year, and $314.9 million in net income, 83 percent more than fiscal 1993. Later in 1994, in October, Cisco completed two more acquisitions of firms involved in the switching sector. It spent $240 million for Kalpana, Inc., a maker of Ethernet switching products; and $120 million for LightStream Corp., which was involved in ATM switching and Ethernet switching and routing.

Astounding Growth Under John Chambers Starting in 1995

In January 1995 John T. Chambers was named CEO of Cisco, with Morgridge becoming chairman and Valentine vice-chairman. Chambers, who had previous stints at IBM and Wang Laboratories before joining Cisco in 1991, stepped up the company’s acquisition pace to keep ahead of its rivals and to fill in gaps in its product line, aiming to provide one-stop networking shopping to its customers. The company completed 11 acquisitions in 1995 and 1996, including Grand Junction, Inc., maker of Fast Ethernet and Ethernet switching products, purchased for $400 million in September 1995; and Granite Systems Inc., a maker of high-speed Gigabit Ethernet switches, bought for $220 million in September 1996. The largest deal during this period, however, was that of StrataCom, Inc., a $4.67 billion acquisition completed in April 1996. StrataCom was a leading supplier of ATM and Frame Relay WAN switching equipment capable of handling voice, data, and video. The addition of Frame Relay switching products to the Cisco portfolio was particularly important as that technology was being rapidly adopted by telecommunications companies needing to increase the capacity of their networks. The deal was also a key step in Cisco’s attempt to move beyond its core customer area of ‘enterprise’ customers–i.e., large corporations, government agencies, utilities, and educational institutions–into the area of telecommunications access providers, an area in which it faced entrenched and formidable competition in the form of such giants as Alcatel, Lucent Technologies Inc., and Nortel Networks Corporation.

Cisco continued its blistering acquisitions pace in 1997 and 1998, completing 15 more deals. The largest of these was the April 1998 purchase of NetSpeed, Inc., a specialist in digital subscriber line (DSL) equipment, an emerging technology providing homes and small offices with high-speed access to the Internet via existing telephone lines. Another emerging networking technology was that of voice-over-IP (Internet Protocol), which essentially enables the routing of telephone calls over the Internet. The acquisitions of LightSpeed International, Inc. in April 1998 and Selsius Systems, Inc. in November 1998 helped Cisco gain a significant presence in the Internet telephony sector. The areas of DSL and voice-over-IP provided additional examples of Cisco’s strategy of acquiring its way into emerging networking sectors.

By the late 1990s Cisco Systems was the undisputed king of the networking world. In July 1998 the company’s market capitalization surpassed the $100 billion mark, just 12 years after its initial public offering–a time frame believed to be a record for achieving that level. Revenues reached $12.15 billion by fiscal 1999, a more than sixfold increase over the fiscal 1995 result of $1.98 billion. During 1999 Cisco became even more acquisitive, snatching up an additional 17 companies, in the process gaining presences in two more emerging areas: fiber-optic networking and wireless networking. Several fiber-optic companies were acquired, including start-up Cerent Corporation, which was purchased for about $7.2 billion in the company’s largest acquisition yet. Fiber-optic networks were particularly being built by telecommunications firms aiming to take advantage of their capacity for handling massive quantities of voice, video, and data, making Cisco’s entry into this segment of vital importance. In late 1999 Cisco announced that it would acquire the fiber-optic telecommunications equipment business of Italy’s Pirelli S.p.A. for about $2.2 billion, gaining Pirelli gear that takes a beam of light and breaks it into as many as 128 ‘colors,’ each of which can carry a separate stream of voice, data, or video. Cisco’s key wireless acquisition also came in late 1999 with the announcement of the $800 million purchase of Aironet Wireless Communications, Inc., maker of equipment that creates LANs without wires in small and medium-sized businesses. The technology was also expected to be transferred to the home environment, where Cisco aimed to capture what was predicted to be an area of rapid early 21st century growth: the networked home. During 1999 Cisco also acquired GeoTel Communications Corp., a maker of software for routing telephone calls, for about $1.9 billion.

By early 2000–following 1999’s frenzied bull market in high-tech stocks–Cisco’s market value surpassed $450 billion, making it the third most valuable company in the world, behind Microsoft and General Electric Company (for a brief period in late March, Cisco actually ranked as the most valuable company in the world, with a total market capitalization of $555 billion). Revenues were soaring, as were earnings, which reached $906 million for the second quarter of the 2000 fiscal year alone. Rather than slowing it down, Chambers planned to increase the company’s acquisition pace, with the addition of as many as 25 companies during 2000. Through acquisitions and through strategic alliances with such industry giants as Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard Company, and Intel Corporation, Chambers aimed to increase Cisco Systems’ revenues to $50 billion by 2005. Cisco’s presence in nearly every networking sector, the speed with which it typically entered emerging areas, and its proven ability to absorb and expand acquired companies provided evidence that the company was likely to reach this lofty goal and to continue in its role as the undisputed leader of the networking equipment industry.

CIX – The History of Domain Names

Commercial Internet eXchange (CIX)

Date: 01/01/1991

The Commercial Internet eXchange (CIX) was an early interexchange point that allowed the free exchange of TCP/IP traffic, including commercial traffic, between ISPs. It was an important initial effort toward creating the commercial Internet that we know today.

Goal

The goal of the CIX was to be an independent interconnection point with no U.S. government-defined “acceptable use policy” on the traffic that could be exchanged; and just as critical, a “no-settlement” policy between the parties exchanging traffic. The no-settlement policy became a “given” during the modern era of the Internet, but was immensely controversial at the time.

The Early History

The early history of the Internet was dominated by U.S. government agencies such as ARPA/DARPA through ARPANET, the Defense Communications Agency (DCA) through MILNET, the National Science Foundation (NSF) through CSNET and NSFNET, the NSF sponsored regional research and education networks, and a handful of national networks sponsored by various federal government agencies. The focus of this group was either military/government or research and education communications, especially support for the separately funded NSF supercomputing initiatives that started after Nobel laureate Ken Wilson’s testimony to Congress in the 1980s.

In general these federally supported networks did not allow commercial traffic that was not in direct support of a federal agency’s mission or in support of research and education. There were of course many organizations that wanted access to the Internet, but did not do work directly for or with federal agency or in support of research and education.

In 1988, the Federal Networking Council allowed the Corporation for National Research Initiatives CNRI to develop a gateway between the commercial MCI Mail. It became operational in 1989. That same year, many other commercial e-mail providers got permission to build and operate similar connections, leading to the interconnection of many, heretofore disconnected e-mail services to become linked via the Internet.

In 1991 the NSF allowed Advanced Network and Services (ANS), a non-profit company established by the Merit Network, IBM, and MCI to carry commercial traffic over the ANSNet backbone, the same infrastructure that carried traffic for the NSFNET Backbone Service. NSF required ANS to (i) charge at least the average cost of carrying the commercial traffic, (ii) to set aside any revenue in excess of the cost of carrying the commercial traffic in an infrastructure pool that would be allocated to enhance and extend national and regional networking infrastructure and support, and (iii) to ensure that carrying commercial traffic did not diminish the NSFNET service.

Some saw allowing ANS CO+RE to carry commercial traffic as a good next step in the evolution of the Internet and as a way to bring about economies of scale that would reduce the cost of the Internet for everyone. Others were concerned by this approach to commercialization/privatization of the Internet and the manner in which ANS, IBM, and MCI received a perceived competitive advantage in leveraging federal research money to gain ground in fields in which other companies allegedly were more competitive. There was also disagreement about a settlement policy that seemed to require payments based on the amount of traffic exchanged.

The “com-priv” public mailing list at PSInet (com-priv@psi.com) was created to provide an open forum where the pros and cons of approaches toward the commercialization of the Internet could be debated. The concept for the CIX was disclosed and debated on the com-priv list.

The CIX is born

In mid-1991 meetings that lead to the formation of the CIX were held in Reston, Virginia. The original signatories to the CIX agreement were PSINet, UUNET and CERFnet.

The great compromise

The CIX was growing as more and more commercial ISPs connected. NSFNET traffic continued growing based on research and education usage. ANS CO+RE was carrying commercial traffic. But ANS refused to connect to the CIX and the CIX refused to purchase a connection to ANS. Thus it was not always possible for organizations connected to one provider to exchange traffic with other organizations connected via a different provider.

A “compromise” was needed in order to maintain a fully interconnected Internet. Mitch Kapor took over the CIX chairmanship from Marty Schoffstall and in June 1992 forged an agreement with ANS allowing ANS to connect to the CIX as a “trial” that they could leave with a moment’s notice and without having to become a CIX member. This compromise resolved things for a time, but later the CIX started to block access from regional networks that had not paid the $10,000 fee to become members of the CIX.

This unfortunate state of affairs kept the networking community as a whole from fully implementing the true vision for the Internet—a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks allowing any connected site to communicate with any other connected site. These problems would not be fully resolved until a new network architecture was developed and the NSFNET Backbone Service was turned off in 1995.

Legacy of the CIX as an exchange point

The CIX established the business model for the settlement-free exchange of Internet traffic between Network Service Providers. From an engineering perspective this was an important precursor to the Internet interconnection architecture that followed such as the Metropolitan Area Ethernet (MAE) and the NSF sponsored Network Access Points (NAPs) that were established for the transition of NSFNET traffic to competing service providers that included Sprint, ANS, internetMCI, and others.

By 1995 the CIX was essentially superseded by events both commercial and technical, though the CIX router continued to operate until 2001 when the UUNET peering session was turned down.

The hardware, a Cisco 7500 router, that had been the workhorse for most of the CIX’s operational life (though not at its inception), together with papers and notes from the founding meetings (donated by Bill Schrader of PSINET) were acquired by the National Museum of American History in November 2005.

The CIX as a trade association

As the role of CIX as an interexchange point diminished, it took on the role of an ISP trade association. CIX frequently lobbied the U.S. government and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). CIX’s executive director was Barbara Dooley.[9][10] CIX’s lobbying efforts reflected the positions of its largest financial supporter, AT&T, regularly opposing the positions of the incumbent local bell operating companies. CIX also appeared in other forums such as before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). AT&T also supported a CIX spin off effort, the US ISP Association (USISPA) which was led by Sue Ashdown. Unlike other trade associations, CIX did not host a trade show, but instead appeared and solicited support at conferences like ISPCON.

AT&T, the long distance company, came under financial strain during the dot-com bust prior to being acquired by SBC, and its support for CIX diminished. In 2002, CIX was reorganized and took on the name of its spin off organization, the USISPA.  AT&T is now owned by SBC. While AT&T continues to support USIPSA, USISPA no longer takes policy stances at the FCC in opposition to SBC or other bell operating companies.

Cloudfolders – The History of Domain Names

HP purchases CloudFolders.com

February 29, 2012

HP buys domain for cloud offering and a look at 18 other end user domain purchases this past week.

HP is the biggest name on this week’s end user domain sales report. The company purchased CloudFolders.com for what amounts to pennies (or a fraction of a penny) to the company: $3,790 at Sedo. Interestingly, the company did not also acquire CloudFolder.com (singular).

Co – The History of Domain Names

.co created

Date: 03/01/2010

.co is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) assigned to Colombia. It is administered by .CO Internet S.A.S. As of July 10, 2010, there are no registration restrictions on second-level .co domains; any individual or entity in the world can register a .co domain.

.co has become increasingly popular among tech startups. The .co domain is also used by many established brands for social and mobile media, such as Twitter (t.co), Google Inc. (g.co), Amazon.com (a.co), American Express (amex.co) and Starbucks (sbux.co).

.co domain names are available for registration globally through accredited registrars.

.CO Internet S.A.S from Bogotá, Colombia, was appointed as the manager for the .co TLD through a public procurement process that took place in early 2009. .CO Internet received the re-delegation approval as the manager of the .co TLD by ICANN on December 9, 2009, and received formal confirmation of the request by the United States Department of Commerce on December 23, 2009.

When they took over administration of the .CO domain, .CO Internet S.A.S. implemented new domain policies that were more flexible than the historic ones that had been administered by the University of the Andes. The new policies were adjusted to international best practices and defined in consultation with local and international communities. With the new policies, Colombia would be able to sell second-level domain names to the world, such as widgets.co, where previously only third-level domain names were available, such as widgets.com.co.

To celebrate the launch of second-level domains, the registry auctioned the first single letter .CO domain name “e.CO” during Internet Week on June 10, 2010. A video of the auction can be seen here: For a purchase price of $81,000, the winner of the auction was internet entrepreneur Lonnie Borck of B52 Media. Proceeds were donated to a charitable cause of the winner’s choice.

As of June 2011, more than 1 million .CO domains had been registered by people in over 200 countries and territories worldwide. As of January 2014, that number has grown to over 1.6 million .CO domains registered.

With respect to search engine optimization, Google confirmed that “it will rank .co domains appropriately if the content is globally targeted”.

Google has also confirmed that it will treat .co as a gccTLD for purposes of indexing and seo.

More information about .CO and SEO can be found on the Registry’s consumer facing website, including videos from Google’s SEO expert Matt Cutts confirming Google’s positive treatment of .CO for SEO purposes.

History

IANA delegates ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes as country code top-level domains, and on December 24, 1991, the .co top-level domain was assigned to Colombia and delegated to the Universidad de los Andes.

In 2001, the university began to consider the possibility of marketing the domain as an alternative to the generic top-level domains. The government of Colombia objected on the basis that the university, a private entity, did not have regulatory oversight of the TLD and the Minister of Communications, Angela Montoya Holguín, wrote to them requesting that they not continue. In turn the university wrote to ICANN, rejecting the government’s objections and stating their intention to appoint a subcontractor to handle the commercialisation of the domain.

At a meeting on December 11, 2001, Holguín asked the Consultative Chamber and Civil Service of the Council of State to consider three issues:

  • whether the .co domain is a public resource
  • if the domain is public resource, whether it is intrinsically linked with telecommunications
  • if the domain is linked with telecommunications, who should profit from its commercialisation
  • In relation to these three issues, the meeting concluded that:

the .co domain, having been assigned to Colombia, is of public interest

the administration of the domain is intrinsically related to telecommunications, and hence falls under the purview of the Ministry of Communications, with the exception of those functions assigned to the ICFES by the Ministry of National Education

unless the Congress of Colombia adopts an act allowing tax to be collected in relation to the registration of domain names, no amount can be charged for such a service

In response to the Council of State meeting, the university wrote to ICANN on 12 February 2002 stating that it had abandoned plans to commercialise the domain, and that as it could “no longer bear the administrative and operational responsibilities” it wished to discontinue its responsibility for operating the domain.

Finally, with the enactment of Law 1065 of 2006, the Ministry of Communications of Colombia initiated a public consultation process involving local and international participants, including members of the ICANN community, with the objective of defining the future of the .CO TLD. As a result of that process, through Resolution 001652 of 2008, the Ministry approved new policies that would govern the administration of the .CO TLD. A public procurement process began which resulted in the award of the administration contract to .CO Internet SAS. Finally, on February 7, 2010, the administration of the TLD was transitioned from the University of Andes to .CO Internet SAS, under the regulatory and policy supervision of the Ministry of Communications of Colombia.

On July 20, 2010, second level .co domains became available to the rest of the world on a first-come, first-served basis.

In a historic moment for Colombia and the .CO domain extension, ICANN celebrated its 39th International public meeting in Cartagena de Indias from December 5, 2010 through December 10, 2010. The meeting’s host was .CO Internet S.A.S., the registry operator of the .CO domain.

In addition to more than 1000 guests from 100 countries, the meeting was introduced by Colombia’s President Juan Manuel Santos, Communications Minister Diego Molano, ICANN Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush, and ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom. During his opening remarks, .CO Internet CEO Juan Diego Calle hailed the meeting as one of historic proportion, marking Colombia’s entry into the world stage as a new and significant player in the development of the Internet.

In 2014, .CO Internet S.A.S was acquired by Neustar for US$109 Million, and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Neustar. It is responsible for the promotion, administration, and technical operation of the .co TLD.

Codered Nimda – The History of Domain Names

Code Red I, Code Red II, and Nimda worms

Date: 01/01/2001

Code Red (computer worm)

Code Red was a computer worm observed on the Internet on July 15, 2001. It attacked computers running Microsoft’s IIS web server.

The Code Red worm was first discovered and researched by eEye Digital Security employees Marc Maiffret and Ryan Permeh, the Code Red worm exploited a vulnerability discovered by Riley Hassell. They named it “Code Red” because Code Red Mountain Dew was what they were drinking at the time.

Although the worm had been released on July 13, the largest group of infected computers was seen on July 19, 2001. On this day, the number of infected hosts reached 359,000.

Concept

Exploited vulnerability

The worm showed a vulnerability in the growing software distributed with IIS, described in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS01-033, for which a patch had been available a month earlier.

The worm spread itself using a common type of vulnerability known as a buffer overflow. It did this by using a long string of the repeated letter ‘N’ to overflow a buffer, allowing the worm to execute arbitrary code and infect the machine with the worm. Kenneth D. Eichman was the first to discover how to block it, and was invited to the White House for his discovery.

Code Red II

Code Red II is a computer worm similar to the Code Red worm. Released two weeks after Code Red on August 4, 2001, although similar in behavior to the original, analysis showed it to be a new worm instead of a variant. Different from the first the second has no attacking function, but a backdoor to allow attacks. The worm was designed to exploit a security hole in the indexing software included as part of Microsoft’s Internet Information Server (IIS) web server software.

A typical signature of the Code Red II worm would appear in a web server log as:

GET /default.ida?XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

%u9090%u6858%ucbd3%u7801%u9090%u6858%ucbd3%u7801

%u9090%u6858%ucbd3%u7801%u9090%u9090%u8190%u00c3

%u0003%u8b00%u531b%u53ff%u0078%u0000%u00=a HTTP/1.0

When the original worm tried to infect other computers at random, Code Red II tried to infect machines on the same subnet as the infected machine.

Microsoft had already released a security patch for IIS that fixed the security hole on June 18, 2001, however not everyone had patched their servers, including Microsoft themselves.

Nimda

Nimda is a file infecting computer worm. It quickly spread, surpassing the economic damage caused by previous outbreaks such as Code Red. Nimda utilized several types of propagation techniques and this caused it to become the Internet’s most widespread virus/worm within 22 minutes.

The worm was released on September 18, 2001. Due to the release date, exactly one week after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, some media quickly began speculating a link between the virus and Al Qaeda, though this theory ended up proving unfounded.

Nimda affected both user workstations (clients) running Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000 or XP and servers running Windows NT and 2000.

The worm’s name origin comes from the reversed spelling of “admin”.

F-Secure found the text “Concept Virus(CV) V.5, Copyright(C)2001 R.P.China” in the Nimda code, suggesting its country of origin.

Methods of infection

Nimda was so effective partially because it—unlike other infamous malware like the Morris worm or Code Red—uses five different infection vectors:

Email

Open network shares

Browsing of compromised web sites

exploitation of various Microsoft IIS 4.0 / 5.0 directory traversal vulnerabilities. (Both Code Red and Nimda were hugely successful exploiting well known and long solved vulnerabilities in the Microsoft IIS server.)

Back doors left behind by the “Code Red II” and “sadmind/IIS” worms.

Cognac – The History of Domain Names

Cognac.com sells for $140,000

October 24, 2012

Dallas company Weblabcenter has sold Cognac.com for $140,000, Domain Name Wire has learned.

Weblabcenter bought the domain name in a Sedo GreatDomains auction in 2008 for $88,000. That’s nearly a 60% return in about four years.

Nhatvi Nguyen of Weblabcenter told me that the company started a blog on the domain name after buying it, but it never amounted to much.

The buyer of the domain name is anonymous for now. The whois record is now protected by Moniker’s privacy service.

The domain was originally registered in 1997. This sale will be good news to owners of other liquor related domain names.