Jay,
Please explain what glitch there was in the SRS. I don't believe your
assessment in this regard is correct.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Fenello [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 2:10 AM
> To: Becky Burr; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Esther Dyson;
> Mike Roberts; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [IFWP] Re: Very Different Stories
>
>
>
> FYI:
>
>
> At 11:54 PM 7/13/00, [someone] wrote:
> >Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,16642,00.html?nl=dnh
> > >http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/00/151796.html
> >
> >Neither of these articles goes into detail on the pros or cons of
> >ICANN's DNS management or plans. Do you have any URLS to something
> >more substantive?
>
>
> Yes, please see Mikki Barry's Congressional
> testimony below.
>
>
> >Most of us domain owners see ICANN as a breath of fresh air after 5 years
> >of monopolistic management, price gouging, anti-consumer privacy
> policies,
> >insecure data management, and direct email advertising (spam) by
> >NSI/NetSol.
>
>
> Well, others wonder why you would feel that way.
>
> Ironically and if anything, your domain name is
> much less secure today than it was before ICANN
> started messing with it.
>
> For example, we have just endured a wave of domain
> name hijackings (i.e. Internet.com), and lost names
> due to transfer glitches in the SRS (i.e. races.com).
>
> We have a registrar community that has discovered
> "partnerships" with domain name brokers and auction
> houses, and the last time I checked, every single
> registrar had a clause that allowed them to
> confiscate your domain name without recourse.
>
> Truth of the matter is, ICANN has made egregious
> decisions in support of its agenda, resulting in
> an organization heavily biased against small
> businesses and individuals.
>
> Just look at the terms of the UDRP. It heavily
> favours the plaintiff, to the point of allowing
> them to choose their jury, and only giving the
> defendants a very short time to retain counsel
> and respond.
>
> Or look at the bias in the DNSO, where famous
> mark owners have pushed through a "Sunrise
> Provision," whereby they get to preclude up to
> 50 derivations of their mark in any new gTLD!
>
> What we are really seeing is an attempt to
> control words on a world-wide basis, just as
> we are seeing attempts to own genetic code,
> business processes, etc. But these are very
> complicated times, as highlighted by the ever
> present questions that surround Napster.
>
> While I don't have any answers, I do have many
> questions -- and a belief that we must have open
> and frank discussions about these issues if we
> are to find any kind of lasting solution.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Jay.
>
>
> >Until someone presents a reason to question their management, other
> >than the fact that we're all waiting for more top level domains, I say
> >thank goodness for ICANN.
> >
> >[sig file]
>
>
> From the Congressional Record:
>
> http://com-notes.house.gov/cchear/hearings106.nsf/0ecf8a0be39f34228525671b
> 0073d116/42eb7dbc7f008088852568a90072b057?OpenDocument
>
>
> TESTIMONY OF MICHAELA M. BARRY
>
> Ms. Barry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
> I have to admit here that I am an attorney. Please make no
> mistake about ICANN's role. It goes far beyond that of
> technical management and enters into the realm of the
> regulatory body. It is not just about plumbing, but it is also
> about the codes and the licensing for that plumbing.
> ICANN's policy will affect commerce, freedom of expression,
> and likely stifle the very medium it seeks to regulate. We
> spent years fighting communism and its vision of planned
> economies. Let us not let that vision happen to the Internet.
> Competition is paramount, but not at the cost of free
> expression, sacrificing small business, and individual
> interests, and without accountability.
> ICANN is now trying to execute a policy agenda before it
> has created the participatory structures that would allow its
> decisions to be accepted and trusted by a broad spectrum of
> stakeholders. ICANN does not now, nor has it ever had
> legitimacy by consensus of the Internet community. ICANN is the
> classic top-down organizational structure without
> accountability. Most of the ordinary participant's in ICANN's
> activities thought that they were participating in an
> institution-building process. They thought that ICANN was a
> level playing field where all competing groups could come
> together to work out a consensus approach.
> They thought that they would have an opportunity to create
> membership structures, representational mechanisms, and policy
> development procedures first, and that actual policymaking
> would happen second. These include imposition of dispute
> policies from the World Intellectual Property Organization,
> WIPO, which even the U.S. Small Business Administration says
> are discriminatory.
>
> <BIG SNIP> Please read the rest!!
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Fenello,
> New Media Strategies
> ------------------------------------
> http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480
> Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
> ------------------------------------------------
> "If we want to change the world, we have to
> begin by changing ourselves" -- Deepak Chopra
>
>
