[IFWP] CyberCast Archives of MIT and Harvard Events
The Candidates Forum and the Analysts Panel are both available as cybercasts. Go to: http://www.civsoc.org
[IFWP] Re: [Nc-tlds] RE: ICANN received 44 applications for new TLDs
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:13:25AM -0700, Anupam Chander wrote: [...] > Mr. Sondow's future postings will go unanswered by me. Generally, that is the best policy. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
[IFWP] TLD Application Irregularities
Hello Esther, Mike, et al. Could someone please explain the following lapse in your TLD application process? On October 2nd, ICANN posted the following: >http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-applications-lodged-02oct00.htm > >As of 5:00 pm California time on Monday, 2 October 2000, application materials >seeking to operate or sponsor the new TLDs listed below were submitted to ICANN. >These applications have not yet been verified to be complete or to be in proper form. >(There may be missing parts of the application, omitted attachments, no or an >inadequate application fee, a transmittal not in the specified form, a lack of >required signatures, etc.) Requests for confidential treatment of material submitted >have not yet been evaluated according to the procedure outlined in Section I of the >Statement of Requested Confidential Treatment of Materials Submitted. Nor has ICANN >yet made any determinations, where multiple TLD strings are included in a single >application, whether to require the applicant to elect which of the strings to pursue >in the application. [Note: While ICANN admitted that the applications had not been reviewed, and they might not be complete, it did *not* indicate that there might be some other applications hidden in its system!!!] Then, on October 3rd, ICANN posted: >http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-applications-lodged-02oct00.htm > >Note: On 3 October 2000, we revised this list to add two mistakenly omitted >applications and to make minor corrections to some TLD and applicant data. Could someone please document why: JVTeam, LLC 1120 Vermont Avenue., NW Washington, DC 20005 USA Ken Hansen +1 202 533-2600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and NeuStar, Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue., NW Washington, DC 20005 USA Ken Hansen +1 202 533-2600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] had applications recognized the day *after* the application deadline? Thanks in advance, Jay. +++ Jay Fenello, New Media Strategies http://www.fenello.com 678-585-9765 Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World "The refusal of the ICANN junta to relinquish to others the institutions they claim to have built is itself the most damning condemnation of their work." -- Ted Byfield
[IFWP] Re: [Nc-tlds] RE: ICANN received 44 applications for new TLDs
Anupam Chander writes: > > While I appreciate Mr. Sondow's concern, this seems to me a premature > assessment. It seems to premature to Mr. Chander because you he has only recently become aware of ICANN's activities. If he had been following its development for the past two years, as I have, he would admit that the assessment is accurate. At least, he would admit it if he were truthful. > I am grateful that Mr. Sondow and others will work to make sure > that this view of a greedy ICANN will not come to pass. This is absurd. It has come to pass, despite the efforts of myself and others (not including, however, Mr. Chander). Where has Mr. Chander been all this time, and how does he pretend to come into the fray now, out of nowhere, to give his pedantic and mistaken opinions on ICANN? > As an aside, Mr. Sondow quoted one sentence from a long email and > cross-posted that sentence to numerous other lists, out of context from both > my original email and the long discussion that preceded it on the list to > which it was posted (namely, ncdnhc). I am not a subscriber to the ncdnhc list; I received that post because Mr. Chander himself cross-posted it to other lists to which I do subscribe. It was therefore very far from being a personal or restricted message, and I have certainly not broken any rules of netiquet in replying to it and posting my response to other lists concerned with these matters. As to its being out of context, that is simply untrue. There was no context, other than what was contained in the sentence quoted. > I think this practice should be > discouraged. The practice that needs to be discouraged is that of outsiders like Chander injecting themselves into an ongoing history and attempting to convince list members that their opinion - that ICANN is a legitimate organization - is valid. Michael Sondow = INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS http://www.iciiu.org(ICIIU)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel(718)846-7482Fax(603)754-8927 =
[IFWP] How to Vote Against ICANN in This Week's Election, Even If YouWeren't Able to Register
FYI -- FOR THOSE WHO STILL BELIEVE IN TRUE NETWORK DEMOCRACY -- KEN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Curtis Sahakian writes: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - For those of you who followed the exchange of letters between Esther Dyson, myself and several others. You may have seen columnist Brian Livingston's name bandied about as a credible outside observer who had researched and supported ICANN's actions. 1. Brian Livingston. I don't know what Brian has had to say about ICANN in the past, but he has written the best article to date on ICANN's dysfunctional behavior. With great clarity and economy of words, he delivers a hard hitting inventory of pretty much all of ICANN's outrageous behavior. He explains it in a way that you don't have to be an Internet wonk to get it. I could find only two things he missed. (a) The first is that their voting process is tricked up to dilute the vote of minority interest groups (something that would be invalidated as unconstitutional if it were used to dilute the vote of a minority in a US election). (b) The second is that the fives seats up for election by the pretend ICANN members can be terminated by the other 10 board members (who are selected by the real ICANN members). I encourage you to visit the link to this article and read it. We need to give Brian some positive feedback on his journalism. You can do that simply by visiting his site. All he (and his employer) want is for you to read it. Please let other people now about this and give this article your patronage. See 2 below for the link to the article. 2. How to Vote Against ICANN in This Week's Election, Even If You Weren't Able to Register. I don't know about you, but I was eventually able to register to vote... but I have not yet been notified how to participate in this weeks election, or even that it was occurring. Here is how to vote against ICANN. You can vote against ICANN just by visiting the URL containing Brian's article. This will be your vote against ICANN and its behavior. Let's give this InfoWorld page our traffic. Each visit will represent a vote against ICANN. This email is going out to a relatively small list of people. But many of you have your own contact and mailing lists. Please redistribute this with a request that your friends and supporters go to Brian's article and read it. Let's see if we can get more visits to this article than ICANN can get votes. http://infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/10/02/001002oplivingston.xml If we do, perhaps Brian will publish that in another article. Vote with your browser and get your friends to do the same. Please... take the time to engage in some participatory political behavior. If we don't do it now, we will get the kind of internet government we deserve... and that Brian so articulately describes in this article: http://infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/10/02/001002oplivingston.xml Take some action... please. Internet democracy is in your hands. Here is what I'm asking you to do. If you are reading this, you are at your keyboard. Go visit the link, (a) email your friends with a message telling them it's a good article (you can copy this email to them), (b) tell them by visiting this link, they can protest the ICANN vote, (c) ask them to visit the link, (d) then ask them to follow the same process with their friends. http://infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/10/02/001002oplivingston.xml 3. You may also want to send Brian a note of thanks. You can send it here [EMAIL PROTECTED] (but please put "thank you" in the title to make it easy to direct them into a single directory) We need to let Brian know that he does have a constituency on this subject, that we are listening to him and that he has our support. With enough interest he will hopefully continue to expose ICANN in future columns. 4. Here is a collection of resources for anyone who wants to learn more about ICANN vs. Internet Democracy. http://infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/10/02/001002oplivingston.xml (by [EMAIL PROTECTED]) - In my opinion, the best article to date on ICANN's dysfunctional behavior... http://www.media-visions.com/icann.htm (Analyzing ICANN - a page with a very good set of links to pages containing well researched and reasoned critical analysis of ICANN) http://www.ADOR-DOC.ORG/wipoletter.html (you can't understand how outrageous has been ICANN's behavior with respect to favoring large corporations in domain disputes... unless you read this) http://www.news.com/Perspectives/Column/0,176,459,00.html (article by by Brian Livingston of cnet about ICANN bias in domain name arbitration) http://www.Icannwatch.org (regularly updated website monitoring ICANN activities) http://dailynews.yahoo.com/full_coverage/tech/domain_names_and_registration/ (10 0s of articles written by reporters who've been covering these issues) http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/overview.html (an overview of the domain names controversy - starting pre-ICANN with an ex
