RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder
Doesn't name.space have some colliders,the same TLD delegated to more than one administrator in the inclusive TLD universe? [Aside: .SHEESH still is a collider because Adam Todd REFUSES to make the simple redelegation change I have been requesting for 1.5 years. One excuse after another.] The root Zone is minuscule these days relative to the size, for instance of Windoze. Or IE or OutLook, etc, ad nauseum... How many bytes is it Richard? 368738 bytes It got pretty big when we added the Name Space tlds. -- Clique \Clique\, n. [F., fr. OF. cliquer to click. See Click, v. i.] A narrow circle of persons associated by common interests or for the accomplishment of a common purpose; -- generally used in a bad sense. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SHEESH (RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder)
Yes, you are correct, and I don't know why any of the root zone operators would point to his AURSC or IRSC knowing this. Seems like there should be encouragement to route around anyone who doesn't handle the responsibily ethically and professionally, but then comes the question abo9ut who decides this and how. On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, at 08:04 [=GMT-0800], Ellen Rony wrote: [Aside: .SHEESH still is a collider because Adam Todd REFUSES to make the simple redelegation change I have been requesting for 1.5 years. One excuse after another.] Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this just a matter of a root zone operator refusing to change nameservers? Meaning SHEESH is not a collider, but Todd a bad root zone operator. (I am friendly today.) -- Marc Schneiders
Re: [IFWP] Is Jeri no longer at the NYT?
Er, Richard, she went from NYT to Interactive Week, which closed last November. Due to the demise of the @home network, her new email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The original message was received at Fri, 1 Mar 2002 21:59:45 -0500 (EST) from mail2.nytimes.com [170.149.207.84] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *= / http://www.domainsleuth.info The Domain Name Handbook \ )[EMAIL PROTECTED] // \\ On the Internet, no one knows you're a nail polish. Carpe TM.
Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked
The development of TCP/IP and Mosaic were breathrough applications. Mosaic allowed people to navigate the web with greater ease and Nascape, easier yet, opened the doors to rapid expansion of the Internet. The parallel universe of TLDs needs either a breathrough application (a mere click on the browser that allows people to select their choice of root server operator) or breakthrough content that makes people want to reconfigure computers to access that information. Right on Patrick;-)... And a strategy of first making an egg is not likely to work out. First we need the chicken, and it will give us some eggs. If we also have a rooster;-)...\Stef At 19:19 -0700 10/09/01, Patrick Greenwell wrote: On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Ellen Rony wrote: If there were killer content that is only available in the other-than-IANA-root, then people would quietly (or not) begin reconfiguring their computers to view it. It's a chicken and egg problem...
Re: [IFWP] Introduction
The obvious needs to be pointed out: if every time someone new joins the list, several hundred people must (re)introduce themselves, this list will consist of nothing but endless introductions. And everybody sensible will unsubscribe. New people should introduce themselves. Silence from the old folks, please. I figured that since this list is restarting after an absence of about, oh, 6-8 months, introductions might not be a bad idea the first or second time someone participates. That means, of course, that we will never be introducedf to the many lurkers.
Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked
of hours ago and asked him to explain the TCP function as a tust mechanism for IP. laws shmaws.. the bloody hell with laws.. yes in grade school they taught us that laws were goodbut any gd laws in any gd legilature are gonna be the laws the control freaks o the icann ip police want so don't talk laws.,.. you are wasting all our time.. the only way end to end can work is if the ends can trust each other. if someone has enough money to sue department of commerce over icann let them do so! If no one steps up to the plate then turn to trust issues and start DEALING with rewality by the way if you throw out the ICANN roots from your dns and use the following ip addresses for your name server 204.80.125.130 204.57.55.100 199.166.24.1 richard sextons non standard dns works fine ARGH i have used these for about 2 years 7 by 24 -- The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 9 years of the COOK Report at http://cookreport.com From now through Sept 15th half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL back issues. Site license $575 and all back issues $300. http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml ^ Ellen Rony )/_http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Domain Name Handbook /) ) +1 415.435.5010 ---/' The more people I meet, the more I like my cockatiel.
Re: [IFWP] Introduction
Hi, Joanna-- Many of us have been on this IFWP list since it was launched in about June of 1998. It went through a period of non-use and then disappeared for a while into the ether, but for most of us here, this is an ongoing dialogue, with new people joining in (and perhaps leaving) from one month to the next. That nothwistanding, here is my intro: I am co-author of The Domain Name Handbook: High Stakes and Strategies in Cyberspace, a 645-page tome published in 1998. I have been monitoring domain issues daily since January 1996. Currently, I am offering domain name litigation support and expert witness services for the good guys and grousing about ICANN along with many others. I live and work in beautiful Tiburon, California, 8 miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge that connects my county with San Francisco. My website at http://www.domainhandbook.com provides thousands of links to domain name news, policies, disputes, Congressional testimony, ICANN's activities, DNS humor and more, but right now it's about a month behind. Regards, Ellen Hello Einar, The funny thing about this medium is that while I have no idea who you are, you feel entitled to ask me all kinds of questions without introducing yourself. If this were the phone, I doubt I'd take your call...;-) Regards, Joanna ^ Ellen Rony )/_http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Domain Name Handbook /) ) +1 415.435.5010 ---/' The more people I meet, the more I like my cockatiel.
Re: [IFWP] Reviving this list
Using [EMAIL PROTECTED] for wider discussion would be valuable. Who supports Ellen's call for a new IFWP acronym meaning? First draft: Internet Forum on World Pxcsomethingorother? -ken Independent Forum on Web Protocols? Icky Food on White Plates? ^ Ellen Rony )/_http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Domain Name Handbook /) ) +1 415.435.5010 ---/' The more people I meet, the more I like my cockatiel.
Re: [IFWP] Reviving this list
Ok, here's a trivia question for the DNS community. Who remembers the meaning of the acronym GIAW?* Notes about it are still online at http://www.domainhandbook.com/giaw.html Other links to IFWP related documents are at http://www.domainhandbook.com/ifwp.html although I confess I haven't checked these in several years. I have archived many of the documents off line but don't feel compelled to find and post them I think the IFWP acronym needs a new updated name since we are three years beyond the International Forum on the White Paper. Ideas? *Global Incorporation Alliance Workshop, with thanks to Tony Rutkowski --Ellen Rony P.S. Subscriber info for the list, please. I want to change my email address. Thanks. Hi Marc, Good job snagging IFWP.org. It needs to be preserved as part of the historical record. Is there any way to get the old web pages back on line? Either that, or a new summary of the IFWP would be great -- something that newcomers could read and immediately understand how the IFWP was hijacked to form ICANN. FWIW, I got a verbal summary online at: http://www.iperdome.com/images/iperdome1.ra Jay. At 9/7/01 05:10 PM, Marc Schneiders wrote: There are plans, now the domain IFWP.ORG is working again, to revive the ifwp.org mailing list. More to follow soon. The idea is to let it be a replacement for the [EMAIL PROTECTED] (earlier @internic.net) list, that, eh, mmm, let's say, died. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] +++ Jay Fenello, Internet Coaching http://www.Fenello.com ... 678-585-9765 http://www.YourWebPartner.com ... Web Support http://www.AligningWithPurpose.com ... for a Better World --- A new civilization is emerging in our lives, and blind men every-where are trying to suppress it. -- Alvin Toffler ^ Ellen Rony )/_http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Domain Name Handbook /) ) +1 415.435.5010 ---/' The more people I meet, the more I like my cockatiel.
[IFWP] @Large Voting Statistics
Stats: Looks like winner needed 50% plus one vote http://www.election.com/us/icann/icannresult.html NORTH AMERICA 10,632 activated 3449 voting Karl Auerbach: 1728 votes (six passes) AFRICA 315 activated 130 voting Winner Nii Quaynor 67 votes (single pass) ASIA/AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC 38246 activated 17745 voting Winner: Masanobu Katoh 13913 votes (single pass) EUROPE 23442 activated 11309 voting Andy Mueller-Maguhn 5948 votes (single pass) LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN 3548 activated 1402 voting Ivan Moura Campos: 946 votes (single pass) It would be interesting to see how the total number voting correlates to the total number submitting endorsements. It may be that the member-nomination process does a better job of acquainting people with the candidates than the Nominating Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ellen Rony@..@Co-author The Domain Name Handbook () http://www.domainhandbook.com ( ) = ISBN 0879305150 .__. +1 415.435.5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ^^^ ^^^Tiburon, CA Princess, having had sufficient experience with princes, seeks frog.
[IFWP] Voting issues with ICANN @Large election
Brian Reid has made a web site with full documentation of his ICANN election problem. Its URL is http://reid.org/brian/icann/ He encourages wide distribution of this URL so that as many people as possible know this information before they vote. ICANN voting runs through October 10. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" / [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog. If you want a friend, get a dog. -- Harry S. Truman
[IFWP] Update :ICANN At Large voting errors
I just got off the phone with Linda London from ELECTION.COM They are aware of the problem and have six people working on it. She could not give me any insights as to the cause of the error message, but we know that it is not browser specific. Interestingly, she did not inquire as to the specifics I offered from my own failed attempt to vote: e.g., browser, version, OS, computer chip, which I thought might be useful in isolating the cause of the problem. I have done some testing of the template, although I still cannot vote. The voting protocol will not accept null (0) votes. Nor will it accept duplicate numbers for different candidates (i.e., I tried adding a clutch of 7's for people I don't want to vote for.) I suggested that since ELECTION.COM inherited some oddities from ICANN, it might post the following information on the first voting page. 1. ICANN's member and password IDs must be retyped directly from the keyboard rather than copied from another document and pasted in. 2. Capitalization counts. 3. The PIN number includes the characters "PIN-" and the entire phrase "PIN-nn", where nn is the number, must be entered as the PIN. This, of course, is an absolutely non-intuitive approach so kudos are in order for ICANN in setting up this important number in such a fashion. 4. Those who did not or were unable to activate their ICANN memberships by the deadline cannot vote in this election. Ms. London will call me back when she has an update on this abyssmal situation. I'll post whatever I learn immediately. Stay tuned and don't worry. I'm certain they will fix this within the eight day voting period remaining! S;-] -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" / [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog. If you want a friend, get a dog. -- Harry S. Truman
[IFWP] Don't shoot the messenger (was Where Does Lessig Stand?)
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Jay Fenello wrote: He therefore informed me that there was no further reason to negotiate, as there was no continuing organizational support from IFWP for the final meeting. At this stage, though NSI was strongly pushing for a final meeting as well, NSI decided it was more prudent simply to enter a negotiation with IANA. IFWP fell into apparent disarray, as the support from them for the final meeting had been compromised. On Tues, 19 Sep 200, Jim Dixon wrote: This is where Berkman could have provided assistance, but instead, took the easy way out. While it may seem like we are flogging a dead horse to spend any more time to discussing the fateful wrap-up IFWP meeting, it is clearly an issue that continues to ignite controversy among those who had such high hopes for the IFWP process. As years pass, memory is often transmuted Kurosawa-like by the filter of one's subsequent knowledge, experiences and aspirations. That said, I believe both Jim Dixon and Jay Fenello have posted accurate accounts as known to them through their participation on the IFWP Steering Committees. Where we diverge is in our assessment of Berkman's role or obligations at that crossroads. I was scribe for the final two meetings of the Steering Committee. My role was to capture as fully and accurately as possible what transpired in a global teleconference simultaneously taking place at 3 p.m. in Germany, 6 a.m. from my California perch and 9 p.m. the previous evening in Asia. After taking those notes, I offered every teleconference participant the opportunity to review them for errors. The minutes are posted on my website because, despite numerous requests for instructions about where to send or post them, no guidance was forthcoming. The Steering Committee apparently felt its work was done and there was little interest in this residual piece of the historical IFWP record. I do not agree with those who have pilloried the Berkman Center by asserting that it caused the demise of the wrap-up meeting. This is akin to shooting the messenger. Nor do I believe it was Berkman's place to push for a meeting absent the two major players. As Jonathan Zittrain made clear to members of the Steering Committee, "We are disposable parties here." Berkman offered a venue for an editorial meeting that was to precede a ratification meeting, and thus Berkman was closely involved in its logistical coordination. Yes, the SC was surprised by the information Jonathan Zittrain presented at the September 5, 1998 teleconference. However, it is not right to place the domino effect of IANA's and NSI's machinations and negotiations at the time upon Berkman's shoulders. Someone was tasked with providing updates to the SC. That task fell to Berkman. The SC, as the coordinating body of the IFWP process, had a an opportunity to tell IANA and NSI that it was serving a larger community and the meetings would proceed with or without them.It chose not to do so. The proposed bylaws had been through four iterations by then (including a proposal from NSI). Another proposal drafted absent input from either IANA or NSI would never pass muster with the Department of Commerce. Those who fault Berkman for the demise of the wrap-up need to look elsewhere. And one must ask, would a wrap-up meeting have changed the outcome we have today? IMHO, not likely. Would it have changed how the interim ICANN board was chosen. IMHO, not likely. Humans have a fondness for closure, but that's not likely to be forthcoming any time soon on matters relevant to the curious and debatable birth of ICANN. [snip] You have stated, falsely and recklessly, that Berkman (and because I was the negotiator, that means I) stopped the final meeting. That claim is reckless, because even a simple review of the evidence would show you the contrary. (See, for example, the minutes of the IFWP teleconferences, which are contrary to your claims. http://www.domainhandbook.com/scmin.html#090598) -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" / [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog. If you want a friend, get a dog. -- Harry S. Truman
Re: [IFWP] Re: Don't shoot the messenger (was Where Does LessigStand?)
Jay, I don't dispute your account. My point is that Berkman does not deserve the lion's share of blame for the demise of the wrap-up. A confluence of self-serving interests and inner-sanctum communications not involving coupled with lack of resolve by the IFWP Steering Committee Berkman torpedoed the wrap-up meeting. I think the stealth appointments of the interim board were the pivotal point of departure. How different these past two years might have been if the nine interim board members had not be installed by autocratic and secretive fiat. And now, four of them get to stay on for Year Three. The justification for that truly escapes me and perhaps deserves more attention than a discussion about matters we can no longer change. Jay Fenello wrote: While we all appreciate your note-taking for two among the many Steering Committee meetings, your minutes do not reflect the many other communications that revolved around the destruction of the wrap-up meeting. Given all that was known to me at the time (much of which occurred after the record you have provided), I stand by the statements that I have articulated in this exchange. And while it might seem like we're flogging a dead horse, I believe that the failure of the wrap-up meeting was the pivotal point in the failure of the ICANN process -- it lead to the acceptance of the IANA by-laws, and the stealth appointment of the "interim" board. IMHO FWIW, every other problem with ICANN is a direct result of this failure! Jay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ellen Rony@..@Co-author The Domain Name Handbook () http://www.domainhandbook.com ( ) = ISBN 0879305150 .__. +1 415.435.5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ^^^ ^^^Tiburon, CA Princess, having had sufficient experience with princes, seeks frog.
Re: [IFWP] Re: Don't shoot the messenger (was Where Does Lessig Stand?)
Apologies for the garbled sentence which should read: A confluence of self-serving interests and inner-sanctum communications not involving Berkman, coupled with lack of resolve by the IFWP Steering Committee, torpedoed the wrap-up meeting. I think the stealth appointments of the interim board were the pivotal point of departure. How different these past two years might have been if the nine interim board members had not be installed by autocratic and secretive fiat. And now, four of them get to stay on for Year Three. The justification for that truly escapes me and perhaps deserves more attention than a discussion about matters we can no longer change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ellen Rony@..@Co-author The Domain Name Handbook () http://www.domainhandbook.com ( ) = ISBN 0879305150 .__. +1 415.435.5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ^^^ ^^^Tiburon, CA Princess, having had sufficient experience with princes, seeks frog.
Re: [DOMAIN-POLICY] [IFWP] Re: Where Does Lessig Stand?
FWIW: the minutes of the final two meetings of the IFWP Steering Committee (September 3 and 5, 1998) are still posted at http://www.domainhandbook.com/scmin.html One has to wonder why so few people (particularly Sims, Frankel, Roberts, Magaziner) were able to wield so much power over what was touted to be a worldwide bottom-up development. The initial name for this process was Global Incorporation Alliance Workshop: "Toward an Internet Assigned Numbers Entity" Jim Dixon wrote: You are quite right. It doesn't change anything. However (a) Sandow and Lessig were disagreeing, and Lessig was claiming, essentially, superior knowledge as a participant. I wrote to support Sandow's version of events. And (b) we have a future. People need to be reminded of what really happened, so that history doesn't repeat itself. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" / [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog. If you want a friend, get a dog. -- Harry S. Truman
[IFWP] A successor chair for ICANN
A New Leader for ICANN, by Aaron Pressman (The Standard - July 24) http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,17052,00.html The domain name authority is looking for a successor for chairwoman Esther Dyson. The leading candidate: Internet pioneer Vint Cerf. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog. If you want a friend, get a dog. -- Harry S. Truman
Re: [IFWP] FWD: Extraterrestrials.com up for Auction
Richard J. Sexton writes: Me either. I've also signed an NDA with extraterrestrials. At 03:10 PM 6/26/00 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote: Ken, as you know, I cannot commment. Sounds like the War of the Worlds. Who will win? The martians? The earthlings? The evil galaxy? Interestingly, at the time of public comments on the green paper or NOI, a number of people suggested a new TLD for .luna and I believe even Vint Cerf acknowledged a tip of his philosophical hat to the concept of host servers in space and on MARS, thus .MARS. Now what would the famous candy manufacturer, the Mars Family, say about that? -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
Re: [IFWP] What a candidate for ICANN director needs to know...
Send these questions immediately to Louis Touton, counsel for ICANN, with copies to every member of the ICANN board. Ask for a reply by July 10. Karl Auerbach wrote: As a possible candidate for the ICANN at-large board election, I've been looking at the liability exposure of a Director and the protections offered by California law. The legal liability is potentially extremely large. And the protections are potentially of more form than substance. The California statutes that purport to protect Directors from liability in a non-profit are a Swiss cheese of conditions and exceptions. And these exceptions are triggered by the existance or non-existance of many things. It turns out that a potential candidate can not make an evaluation of the potential risk because ICANN has not revealed certain critical facts. For a person to make an informed decision about running for Director, several questions need to be answered. Among those questions are the following: - Is ICANN presently an IRS 501(c) corporation? If so, then under which subsection of 501(c)? [Certain procedural protections of Director liability hinge on whether the non-profit is a 501(c) and which subsection of 501(c). It is interesting in that the most likely category for ICANN, 501(c)(3), causes some procedural protection to vanish.] [By-the-way, if ICANN is an IRS 501(c) then where is ICANN's IRS 1023 posted? It is a public document that the corporation is required to make available subject to a $20/day accruing penalty.] - Does ICANN have a million dollars or more in General Liability insurance? [Certain statutory liabilty protections are contingent on the corporation holding at least that much general liability insurance.] - Does ICANN have a "reasonable" degree of liability protection against the reasonably foreseeable risks? [Certain statutory liability protections are contingent on the corporation holding insurance that is adequate to protect the public, the exact amounts or means to measure adequacy are not specified by the statutes.] - Does ICANN have an operative Directors Liability insurance policy? If so, then it is important for the potential directors to obtain it as the exact language is critical - general statements that "we have a policy" are essentially useless given the wide variation in coverage afforded by such policies. - What is ICANN's policy regarding payments to Directors? [The statutes often strip all liability protections if there is any form of compensation beyond strict reimbursement for expenses.] --karl-- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
Re: [IFWP] That register.com commercial
The Registrar Accreditation Agreement implies a prohibition against warehousing of domain names: http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-12may99.htm 9. Registrar shall abide by any ICANN-adopted policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or\ speculation in domain names by registrars. I'm curious about something. Many of you have probably seen the register.com commericals, where they have people touting the domains they've registered (e.g., sisterearth.com, hydrowatts.com, thefabers.com). Checking the whois database, of course, reveals all these domains are actually owned by register.com. Particularly in the case of thefabers.com, what recourse would a family with the last name of Faber have against this blatant squatting? These domains that register.com are using are not tied to or representative of any 'product or service', except that they are domain names, and register.com sells domain names. Would someone have a case to take these domains away from register.com under the UDRP? What are the implications should the arbiters decide that register.com deserves to keep these names? Mikki Barry wrote: Of course not. Register.com is a large company. Therefore, they will win under the UDRP. Don't you yet understand how this works? -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
Re: [IFWP] That register.com commercial
At 10:33 AM 6/19/00 -0700, you wrote: The Registrar Accreditation Agreement implies a prohibition against warehousing of domain names: http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-12may99.htm 9. Registrar shall abide by any ICANN-adopted policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or\ speculation in domain names by registrars. That's a stretch. These are domains used for advertising. warehouse \Ware"house`\, v. t. [imp. p. p. Warehoused; p. pr. vb. n. Warehousing.] 1. To deposit or secure in a warehouse. 2. To place in the warehouse of the government or customhouse stores, to be kept until duties are paid. Warehousing is simply the storing of merchandise, but connotes a large quantity. Register.com has obfuscated its WHOIS service so that there is no way to tell how many or which domain names the registrar has acquired. Perhaps in the interest of openness and fairness, ICANN should ask all the registrars to submit an annual list of its own domain name registrations, else how can it determine whether warehousing is taking place. The point of the prohibition is to prevent the registrars from using their accreditation pricing advantage to compete with their customers. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
Re: [IFWP] dot.god on internet news
http://www.internetnews.com/wd-news/article/0,2171,10_364761,00.html Regards Joe Baptista Well, .GOD is not exactly new. Although not operational, it was recommended in the 1997 RONY Plan for New Generic Top Level Domains (gRony TLDs) along with .BUBBA, .EGO, .DUH, .NETORGCOM and others. See http://www.domainhandbook.com/ronytld.html S:-] -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
Re: [IFWP] S.D.Dellheim Companies?
Richard, I think this is an inappropriate request. You can post that the company wanted to be deleted, but those archives are part of Internet history, NOT revisionist, years-down-the-line, second-thoughts history. Please don't cave under such requests and restore the name in the messages. It's important to maintain the integrity of those records. Polite or not, I'm putting the request in my box of nominations for the annual Cyberserk Award. Richard Sexton wrote: I got a few phone calls and emails from this fellow asking me to remove all references to his name from the PAB archives that I maintain a mirror of on newdom.com. I really didn't like the idea of doing this, to my mind archived are either complete or they're not, but he was veryu polite, firm and insitant and I was basically too tired to argue. So, anywhere you see [Deleted] in the PAB arrhives on newdom.com pretend the words S.D.Dellheim Companies was there. Is anybody else getting mail from S.D.Dellheim Companies about this? -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
Re: [IFWP] RE: S.D.Dellheim Companies?
Doesn't seem that important. It's not like poeple can't figure out [deleted] means S.D.Dellheim Companies Not to belabor the point, but Richard, if you do it for one, you may have to do it for othersand NO, there's no way for people new to this discussion to have a clue who [deleted] means. I agree with Roeland. Your changes invalidate the archive. Please restore the name. At 04:30 PM 5/17/00 -0700, Roeland Meyer (E-mail) wrote: Boy, it's a good thing that I pulled down my own copy g. Not meaning to be too argumentative Richard, but wy did you give in and why did you feel the need to be "too tired to argue"? Personally, the archives are public words. No newspaper would have done it either. It sort of invalidates the archives, you know? It's the first step towards revisionism, the next step is re-insertion. -Original Message- From: Owner-Domain-Policy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Richard J. Sexton Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 4:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: S.D.Dellheim Companies? I got a few phone calls and emails from this fellow asking me to remove all references to his name from the PAB archives that I maintain a mirror of on newdom.com. I really didn't like the idea of doing this, to my mind archived are either complete or they're not, but he was veryu polite, firm and insitant and I was basically too tired to argue. So, anywhere you see [Deleted] in the PAB arrhives on newdom.com pretend the words S.D.Dellheim Companies was there. Is anybody else getting mail from S.D.Dellheim Companies about this? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ph-1.613.473.1719 It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ph-1.613.473.1719 It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
[IFWP] Re: Were you consulted?
In order to test this intuition, I would be very interested in hearing from anyone who was actually consulted by ICANN prior to this announcement, whatever their affiliation. Not consulted. Disappointed, but not surprised. Was anyone on the original Membership Advisory Committee consulted? I bet not. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
Re: [IFWP] RFC 1174
http://info.internet.isi.edu:80/in-notes/rfc/files/rfc1174.txt This URL works for all the RFCs by replacing 1174 with another number. And thanks for the mention. Anybody have a copy of RFC 1174, or preferably a link to an online posting thereof? It is referenced in the NSF/NSI Cooperative Agreement, but I couldn't find it in the new and exciting NSI pages nor indeed in Ellen Rony's fine source. If you've of such mind, reply privately, and thanks. Bill Lovell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
[IFWP] Response to Working Group B Final Report
emark owners that register 20 variations will be the greatest source of such confusion. The meta question here is what justifies giving owners of trademarks or even "famous" marks" a preemptive right to register any domain names or any variations. Why should trademark owners receive preferential treatment in a publicly accessible, global communications medium? One of the tenets of the Department of Commerce Statement of Policy, a.k.a. the White Paper, is, "the new corporation should operate as a private entity for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole." A sunrise proposal for trademarks or famous marks provides an unsupportable pre-emptory bias to the commercial sector of the Internet over all other legitimate uses of the same or similar character strings. Indeed, this proposal condones corporate hoarding of a significant percentage of domain names before a single non-commercial user is allowed to select an online moniker. Registering 20 variations of a mark will not make the task of policing marks disappear. But it will lead to stuffing the registry database with redundant domain name registrations and a multi-million set-aside of names which have scant association to the registered marks. While people have sympathy for companies and individuals who face true infringement and misappropriation of their marks, these are not new problems to the intellectual property community, and strong legal sanctions already exist in the U.S, and elsewhere to address such concerns. Instead of providing pre-emptory registration rights for one segment of the Internet community, encourage ICANN to establish a new, chartered top level domain, .TMK. Bid adieu to the sunrise proposal, to exclusion, preemptive variations and take downs. Bid adieu, too, to those who want to exploit the goodwill developed in those marks. Let .TMK be an exclusive sandbox only for those who possess a trademark registration certificate. In summary: 1) There are sufficient existing protections for trademarks, including federal law and statutes, the UDRP and monitoring mechanisms. Preemptive exclusions or a sunrise proposal are unnecessary. 2) A famous marks list used for exclusionary registrations creates new preemptive rights that do not exist in law. 3) A sunrise period is not likely to reduce the number of cybersquatters nor diminish the trademark owners concerns over policing the use of their marks 4) Introduction of a top level domain solely for registered owners of trademarks is the most efficient way to assure that users find the sites associated with those marks and limit the value of cybersquatting. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
Re: [IFWP] Re: [Nc-tlds] Re: DNSO Names Council decides it candiscount and ignore its working groups
, Paul Garrin Name.Space I think James it's time for you to setup .union and have it listed with the independent root servers. Get it working - get union people using it and viola - you might get icanns attention. regards joe baptista On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Michael Sondow wrote: Remember what I was telling you, Jamie, about the pointlessness of playing cards with people who use their own deck? Maybe the INTA, WIPO, and other IPC lawyers who run the DNSO will let you use .UNION if you agree that they can have all the SLDs they want off the top? From: "Mark C. Langston" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [wg-c] 1447PDT 4/18, DNSO NC made all our work irrelevant Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the teleconference just now, they decided: 1) That WGs are not the voice of the community, and that reports that go to the ICANN BoD should reflect their constituencies wishes instead (several almost sotto voce comments were heard regarding the fact that "just anyone" can participate in the working groups, and the results should be discounted), 2) That new gTLDs should be introduced (Yes: 14, No: 3 Abs: 0), but 3) That it shouldn't be 6-10 (Yes: 5, No: 9, Abs: 2) They're probably going to act on WG-B's report next, and wholeheartedly support the Sunrise proposal, because all the "dissenters" were those unrepresented rabble who you find in open processes, and the voices being heard couldn't possibly reflect the community. Pat yourselves on the back, folks. We've just wasted a year of our lives to have a group of lawyers decide that _THEY_ should be making these decisions, and to hell with our work if they don't agree with it. And just so you know, one of the staunchest and most vocal of those speaking up regarding just tossing our results was the ever-present Mr. Sheppard, of the Sheppard/Kleinman document, and co-NC liason to WG-B. They've just aptly demonstrated that the working groups are meaningless. We could have had just as much influence if the NC itself came up with the report, and then opened it to public comment. Of course, this particular NC teleconference isn't archived anywhere and wasn't webcast, due to "budgetary considerations". Must be the US$75k they're having to spend for a Secretariat, huh? One of these days, there's going to be a _real_ threat to the stability of the Net, and there's not much the mighty IP Constituency and their deep pockets can do about it. Keep throwing your muscle around like this, and you may find that the people who know how to operate the border routers, the switches, the servers hosting mission-critical services have had their fill of your antics, organize, and go on strike. And unlike a factory floor, your chances of finding scabs and strikebreakers to come in and run the machinery for you are significantly smaller. - -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Network Admin San Jose, CA Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org Tel. (718)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927 ___ Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds ___ Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds - Get Free Private Encrypted Email https://mail.lokmail.net Switch to Name.Space: http://namespace.org/switch ___ Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds ___ Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds = James Love, Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367| http://www.cptech.org Washington, DC 20036 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice 202/387-8030| Fax 202/234-5176 ===== -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ )
Re: [IFWP] A rant to far: from an ex-interniccer
Just to keep the record straight, it was Amendment 4 (September 13, 1995), not Amendment 11, that changed the Cooperative Agreement from cost + fixed fee to a structure that allowed the collection of fees from registrants. Amendment 11 (October 7, 1998) extended the Cooperative Agreement through September 30, 2000. It has always been surprising to me that General Atomics and ATT, who were part of the initial InterNIC, received no flack for notholding up their portion of the Cooperative Agreement. Maybe ATT did some work but their Annual Report of, I believe 1996 didn't even mention that role. For the historians: Do people realize that it wasn't even in the budget to have the 14 of us handling in-addrs, ip allocation/assignment, SWIP, all of the domain name issues and answer the phones in early 1995? The whole registration process/budget was not designed for vanity-tagging the Internet. NSF did not intend to fund that purpose. NSF and NSI had a legally enforceable agreement. Before amendment #11 (the one that created the fee-for-registration structure) that agreement, obligated NSF to cover NSI's costs and pay an additional fee (i.e. a guaranteed profit.) One can't offer much sympathy if NSI's management didn't demand that NSF live up to its legal obligations and instead simply loaded more work on its employees. And today, as a result of NSF's largess and grant of a protected monopoly to NSI isn't the current market value in the hands of NSI's shareholders now several billion dollars? One can't say that, from the point of view of NSI's stockholders, that NSI was undercompensated for work done. --karl-- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
Re: [IFWP] A rant to far: from an ex-interniccer
I meant industry flak; flak like we all have given NSI. I understood that GA didn't uphold it's end of the Agreement went quietly into the good night rarely to be spoken of again. At least NSI stayed the course. It has always been surprising to me that General Atomics and ATT, who were part of the initial InterNIC, received no flack for notholding up their portion of the Cooperative Agreement. Maybe ATT did some work but their Annual Report of, I believe 1996 didn't even mention that role. Gordon Cook wrote: Ellen ...general atomics was terminated they were cancelled a year earlyfirst time DNCRI office of NSF ever did that to an awardee I certainly consider early termination of an award flak ATT's performance was considered acceptable. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
[IFWP] Not taken for granite
http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,13205,00.html March 27, 2000 Throwing Rocks at ICANN, by Keith Perine Esther Dyson and the board of ICANN can't seem to manage the business of administering Net domain names without creating controversy at every turn. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
Re: [IFWP] Not taken for granite
I've attended several of these Postel memorial events, and Russ and Mort were to names I recall, not Tom. Richard J. Sexton wrote: I don't get this article. Who is Mort Postel? Could it be Jon's ghost (i.e. "la Mort" Postel)? Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org Tel. (718)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
Re: [IFWP] Domain Names go to the Dogs!
You know, we registered rony.com but didn't have the vision to get irony, too. Richard Sexton wrote: File this one under "irony". Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Domain Names go to the Dogs! Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:52:13 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Hello! I thought you might be able to take advantage of our affiliate program. Domain names are now available for as low as $19.50 per year! ($17.55 per year after your affiliate commission) There will be 140 million domain names registered in the next 3 years! Take advantage of our site! Our affiliate program offers 10% commissions on all domain names sold through your site. It's easy, It's fast, It's free! Not only will you and your clients enjoy one of the lowest prices on domain names, but managing them is a snap with our web-based interface! No more annoying e-mails to internic to make changes in your domain information. Browse to http://www.InternetRegistration.com/e.php?e4 'The Spotcom people' and click on affiliates to learn more. Thank you for your time. Marlo Newman Managing Director InternetRegistration.com E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.hungersite.org/cgi-bin/donate.pl Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | RS79 on eBay and InterNIC http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net Snail mail: "Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, K0K 1Y0" -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
[IFWP] Re: registerfree.com
In the world of PR, giveaways are a well established tradition. Throughout the past 100 years, events have been held to exploit a situation or expand public consciousness. From a page in PR history, John D. Rockefeller, although a generous philanthropist, had earned a reputation a scrooge because of his strike-breaking activities at the beginning of the 20th century. In one publicity stunt that is now a textbook classic, Rockefeller was persuaded to hand out shiny silver dimes to everyone he met in the streets to dramatize his generosity. The registerfreedomaindomain offer was a good one in concept, but if fell flat in implementation. People are more likely to remember yesterday's error messages than the name of the underlying business providing wholesale domain registrations. Indeed, seeing the cgi-script fetch instructions from Tucows gave me pause. Who was really in charge of this domain name offer? It proved that most of us want to get something for free, but time is money, too, and after 25 minutes of reloading the IP address and receiving error messages of one sort or another, I decided it was time to move on to something more productive like sweeping dog hair out of the entryway. Name Engine now has an opportunity to resurrect its image. It could make good its offer to those who send in five cached files as proof of repeated but aborted attempts to get through during the alloted free period. I dump my cache files daily so my evidence of participation yesterday is gone, but at least my entryway is clean. I got through after about 30 minutes of trying. I finally got all the steps to get a domain registered. It said the registration was successful. I then tried to register anther one and it said only one per person. I then checked the NSI site and it said it was available. I then checked another registrar and it said it was available. Since RegisterFree didn't let me enter nameservers I expected there would be a fee to reconfigure. So I registered the domain at another registrar first. Russ Smith Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] Re: ICANN Board to Nominate At-large Directors!!!
I currently serve as chair the Nominating Committee for the Environmental Forum of Marin, a 27 year-old organization. In our situation, the Nominating Committee wields enormous power because it screens potential candidates and presents a proposed slate to the Board of Directors which is then approved to be voted on by the members at the annual meeting. While additional nominees can come from the floor at that time, the vote is always pro forma. The Nominating Committee nominates its successors. Where are the checks and balances in the ICANN @Large nominating plan? An ICANN board can appoint a Nominating Committee that has a particular agenda or perspective and may screen out candidates who do not fit the desired mold. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following are highlights from the ICANN Board's 10 March 2000 meeting in Cairo: At-Large Membership: The Board instructed the staff to prepare Bylaws amendments and other resolutions, for public comment and subsequent Board action, to accomplish the following: * Establish a Nominating Committee to be appointed by the Board to accept recommendations from the Internet community for At-Large ICANN Directors, and to nominate five or more candidates for consideration for selection to the ICANN Board. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
[IFWP] Objection to Working Group C Report to ICANN
Posted at the request of the author of the following, Bob Broxton, of Richmond, Virginia. === OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT AS "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKING GROUP C OF THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS" As a member of Working Group C, I object to the release of this report "Report (Part One) of Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting Organization, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" (hereafter referred to as "Report of Working Group C") for the following reasons: 1.  The members of Working Group C have never given approval of this Report. As such, this is not a "Report of Working Group C". 2.  The members of Working Group C have not given approval to allow the co-chairman of Working Group C to use his absolute discretion in determining what goes in this particular report and then releasing this report as a "Report of Working Group C". As such, this is not a "Report of Working Group C". 3. The co-chairman of Working Group C has decided to release this report as the "Report of Working Group C" over the known objections of some members of Working Group C to releasing the report as the "Report of Working Group C'. 4.  Some members of Working Group C probably do not know this "Report of Working Group C" exists. An extremely short period of time (approximately 7 days) was allowed to review and provide any suggestions regarding this document. 5.  The co-chairman has refused to change the name of the report to "The Co-Chairman's Report on the Progress of Working Group C". This would permit the material in the report to be released but allow the members of Working Group C to approve and release a report from Working Group C entitled "Report of Working Group C". 6.  The issuance of this report, without the members of Working Group C approving, either the language in the report or granting this authority to the co-chairman, sets a bad precedent for future reports. Why have members? 7.  Public Comments have never been requested on this "Report of Working Group C". Prior public comments were received on an Interim Report. The "Report of Working Group C" being released now has new materials for which public comments have never been received. 8.  The release of any "Report of Working Group C" without first obtaining public comments on a draft of the report is contrary to ICANN's stated policy of " the development of consensus based policies (such as policies concerning new names) in an open, transparent and bottom-up manner in which interested individuals have an opportunity to participate and comment" (see ICANN FAQ on new generic top level domains - posted September 13,1999). 9. This report was hurriedly prepared and little time allowed for review because "Members of the Names Council" requested "WG-C file a report before the NC's meeting in Cairo next week."  Either Working Group C should be allowed sufficient time to study the issues, explore all the options and timely complete a report or the Names Council should disband the Working Group. To require a Working Group to hastily prepare a report for the sake of an upcoming meeting, with insufficient time for members to study, provide comments and approve the report, does not establish a lot of faith in the ICANN process.  Bob Broxton Member of Working Group C Richmond, VA -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
[IFWP] UDRP Statistics - March 2 update
Here are some basic UDRP statistics to date: Total names subject to UDRP proceedings, by month: December: 1 January: 52 February: 251 March: 14 Total to date: 318 Names transferred: 14 Complaint withdrawn:2 Dismissed on joint motion: 1 Retained: -- Remainder pending An alphabetical of all the domain names subject to UDRP proceedings to date is posted at: http://www.domainhandbook.com/udrp.html -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ellen Rony// http://www.domainhandbook.com Co-author *=" /[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 // \\ "Carpe canine" The more people I meet, the more I like my dog. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Re: [IFWP] Key quotes and ideas from ICANN membership roundtable
On February 9, 2000, Tony Rutkowski wrote: Thanks for the great notes - which from my sampling via the webcast - appeared to capture the moment. The general hostility to business and users was rather disconcerting. They seemed to duck the fundamental question of why some casual user with no stake whatsoever would bother to participate in any of this, and whether you want a scheme where non-stakeholders control half the board. This seemed typified in your summary, above. Ultimately, the only legitimate function of the organization is to facilitate cooperation and coordination among those parties directly dealing with domain names and IP addresses. I agree. I believe one of the reasons we are in Year 2 of ICANN without an At Large membership is because that membership was defined too broadly. That presents the seemingly impossible task of authentication. Apparently, others participating in today's roundtable share this concern. The definition of membership should have stuck closely with ICANN's original mandate: technical coordination of domain names and IP addresses. By pulling into its sphere potential stakeholders of all stripes, then, defacto, ICANN's charter gets expanded into other areas. ... Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 415.435.5010 (oo) -^-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W DOT COM is the PigLatin.com of the InformationAge.com. 1999 Cyberserk Awards: http://www.domainhandbook.com/awards99.html ...
Re: [IFWP] Key quotes and ideas from ICANN membership roundtable
Richard Sexton wrote: You mean you don't think I should be able to walk across the street to the Bannockburn general store and tell old Harry that he's a voting member of internet government? Well, the image I usually offer is that of my teenage son being made a voting member. His view is that the Internet's raison d'etre is http://www.gamesages.com, a gateway to electronic game codes and cheats. OTOH, ICANN doesn't seem to feel that the academic community deserves constituency representation in the DNSO. These must be the same people who set out to design a horse but ended up with a camel. Limit it it to nameserver owners. That's who it's supposed to be coordinating isn't it? (Like they ever asked to be coordinated). ... Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 415.435.5010 (oo) -^-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W DOT COM is the PigLatin.com of the InformationAge.com. 1999 Cyberserk Awards: http://www.domainhandbook.com/awards99.html ...
[IFWP] ICANN UDRP Proceedings Update
UDRP PROCEEDINGS - UPDATE 04-Feb-00 THELIMITED.NET: Pending 04-Feb-00 DIOR.ORG: Pending 04-Feb-00 DIORFASHIONS.COM, DIORCOSMETICS.COM, CHRISTIANDIORFASHIONS.COM, CHRISTIANDIORCOSMETICS.COM: Pendng 04-Feb-00 INGERSOLL-RAND.NET, INGERSOLL-RAND.ORG, INGERSOLLRAND.ORG: Pending 04-Feb-00 SAINT-GOBAIN.NET:Pending 04-Feb-00 THETIMESOFINDIA.COM:Pending 04-Feb-00 THEECONOMICTIMES.COM:Pending 04-Feb-00 SIZESUNLIMITED.COM: Pending 03-Feb-00 STEINLAGER.COM:Pending 03-Feb-00 BIGDOG.COM:Pending 03-Feb-00 FIELDCREST.COM:Pending 03-Feb-00 JERRYORBACH.COM: Pending 03-Feb-00 SIXFLAG.COM: Pending 03-Feb-00 IPHONE.COM Pending 03-Feb-00 BENIHAHAOFTOKYO.COM: Pending 03-Feb-00 FOLLICARE.COM: Pending 03-Feb-00 THEARTOFSHAVING.COM: Pending 01-Feb-00 BEVERAGESANDMORE.COM: Pending 01-Feb-00 IPHONES.COM Pending 31-Jan-00 WESTERNHAY.COM,WESTERNHAY.NET Change in status: 27-JAN-00 NARCOTICSANONYMOUS.ORG Case settled; name transferred ... Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 415.435.5010 (oo) -^-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W DOT COM is the PigLatin.com of the InformationAge.com. 1999 Cyberserk Awards: http://www.domainhandbook.com/awards99.html ...
[IFWP] Latest UDRP Filings
14 new proceedings, 21 names Reverse Chronological 28-Jan-00 STELLADORO.COM: Pending 28-Jan-00 RONSON.COM: Pending 28-Jan-00 HOMEINTERIORS.NET, HOMEINTERIORSANDGIFTS.COM: Pending 27-Jan-00 FISHTECH.COM: Pending 27-Jan-00 PHONESPELL.COM, PHONESPELL.NET, PHONESSPELL.COM, PHONESPEL.COM, PHONESPEL.ORG: Pending 27-Jan-00 BOTOX.NET: Pending 27-Jan-00 PLANETRXX.,COM: Pending 27-Jan-00 PAYTRUST.NET: Pending 27-Jan-00 PHILIPSINDIA.COM: Pending 27-Jan-00 NARCOTICSANONYMOUS.ORG: Pending 26-Jan-00 TALK-CITY.COM: Pending 26-Jan-00 TVAZTECA.COM, TVAZTECA.NET, TVAZTECA.ORG: Pending 26-Jan-00 CRAFTWORK.COM: Pending 26-Jan-00 GOLFERSWAREHOUSE.COM: Pending http://www.icann.org/udrp/proceedings-list.htm Details will be updated at: http://www.domainhandbook.com/udrp.html and udrpdata.html Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 415.435.5010 (oo) -^-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W DOT COM is the Pig Latin.com of the Information Age.com. 1999 Cyberserk Awards: http://www.domainhandbook.com/awards99.html
[IFWP] New UDRP Proceedings
New UDRP proceedings posted at: http://www.icann.org/udrp/proceedings-list.htm worldwrestlingfederation.com9 Dec. 1999 WIPO D99-0001 musicweb.com10 Jan. 2000WIPO D00-0001 AmericanVintage.com 10 Jan. 2000WIPO D00-0004 buyerschoice.com11 Jan. 2000NAF FA0092015 icqsms.com 11 Jan. 2000NAF FA0092016 telstra.org 12 Jan. 2000WIPO D00-0003 NAF=National Arbitration Forum Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age 1999 Cyberserk Awards: http://www.domainhandbook.com/awards99.html
[IFWP] 1999 Cyberserk Awards
A Plethora of Candidates for 1999 Cyberserk Award By Ellen Rony, co-author of The Domain Name Handbook FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tiburon, CA (January 6) - The authors of The Domain Name Handbook http://.domainhandbook.com are pleased to announce their selection for the 1999 Cyberserk Award. This award is bestowed annually upon a company, organization, institution or individual deemed unclear on the concept of the domain name system. The winner is picked by a two-person jury--siblings Ellen Rony of Tiburon, California and Peter Rony of Blacksburg, Virginia--who approach the task with special seriousness. It is their belief that highlighting the activities of cyberserkers will provide an educational reality check. The prior award winners were the Prema Toy Company (1998) and Procter and Gamble (1997) http://www.domainhandbook.com/awards.html. In 1999, the jurors found no dearth of candidates qualifying for the dubious distinction. With Internet traffic doubling every 100 days, domain names took on greater ubiquity in 1999. Dot COM addresses were plastered brazenly across billboards, store fronts, bus panels, t-shirts and even individual fruit. They were featured in television commercials, magazine ads, packaging labels and an increasing number of syndicated cartoons. Domain names became valuable corporate assets and the shorthand to an unprecedented repository of information. The surging demand for .COM names, coupled with the uniqueness requirement, raised the price bar on stellar dot COMs. A few near-million dollar milestones were reported during the year: $1.035 million for WALLSTREET.COM at auction in April, $0.5 million-plus for COMPUTER.COM in May, and $0.823456 million for DRUGS.COM auctioned in August. But these daunting sums paled next to the new record price paid late in November for BUSINESS.COM. eCompanies, a venture led by EarthLink Network founder Sky Dayton and former Disney Internet executive Jake Winebaum, bought the domain name for a staggering $7.5 million, up from $150,000 in June of 1997, when the BUSINESS.COM domain last changed hands. The high-priced resales did not go unnoticed by cyberspeculators and fed a domain name profiteering frenzy. Registrations were running about 10,000 per day by year's end. A bowl of sour cherries to all those who collect domain names solely for the stunning return on investment. Concern that domain names would become a battle cry for customer and employee complaints, corporations preemptively added ridiculing registrations to their own holdings. Procter Gamble, our original Cyberserk Award winner, began marketing a new product, Febreze, that neutralizes pet odor. The corporation was so worried that it would become the target of animal rights activists who believe the product is dangerous to pets, that it registered: FEBREZEKILLSPETS.COM, FEBREZEKILLSDOGS.COM, FEBREZEKILLSBIRDS.COM, FEBREZESUCKS.COM, and IHATEPROCTERANDGAMBLE.COM. While we weren't ready to declare PG a two-time winner, the corporation earned a scent-free pewter pelt for sniffing out potential criticism in this manner. Registration paranoia also struck the campaign of Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush. Unhappy with the satirical and potentially damaging profile posted at GWBUSH.COM, his campaign advisor registered 260 Bush-related domains, including some decidedly denigrating ones--BUSHSUCKS.NET, BUSHSUX.ORG, and BUSHBLOWS.COM--suggesting that he thought his job was to silence both satire and criticism. A Texas-sized copy of the U.S. Constitution goes to those on the Bush team who rallied for "limits to freedom" because of the website brouhaha. "Domania" grabbed headlines throughout the year. A market enthralled by the Internet racked up huge gains for IPOs with .COM appended to their business name. MARKETWATCH.COM increased 509% in value from the issue price and the first day's close while THESTREET.COM, a financial news Internet site, soared from $19 to $60 on its first day of trading. At least 100 Internet-related companies announced name changes in 1999, and more than half of these included the addition of .COM to the corporate moniker. After the on-line technical book retailer Computer Literacy switched to the off-beat name, FATBRAIN.COM, its stock jumped 36 percent in one day, adding more than $100 million to the company's market cap. A set of rose colored glasses to all the optimistic investors who redefined market fundamentals in 1999.. A GPS chip goes to Network Solutions, Inc. for acts which reveal more hubris than cyberserkery. On the eve of the introduction of competition into the domain name registrar business, NSI folded the InterNIC website into its own "to help customers more easily find the information, services and tools they need." In this streamlining process, the world's largest registry rendered thousands of links stranded in cybe
[IFWP] OOPS!
APOLOGIES for sending work in progress (Cyberserk Award). I could blame it on distraction because I am watching Ally McBeal, but I hit the wrong key. What a way to begin a new year. Darn. Darn. Please let me finish the piece and resend. Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] 1999 Cyberserk Award
t;distinctive and famous" when it was
registered; or
--If the domain name holder "had reasonable grounds to believe" that
the use of the domain name was lawful.
If a court finds that a domain name has been registered improperly, the
domain name may be canceled or forfeited to its rightful owner. In
addition, at the plaintiff's election, the court may award either actual
damages or statutory damages of up to $100,000 per domain name.
One controversial provision of the statute permits the owner of a
trademark to file an action against a domain name registrant in the
jurisdiction where the domain name registrar is located. Thus,
out-of-state and foreign registrants may find themselves subject to suit
in jurisdictions such as Virginia, the "location" of Network Solutions,
even if they have no other contact with the jurisdiction. In contrast,
our earlier Internet Alert on September 8 discussed the split between
federal and state courts in Virginia over whether customers of America
OnLine ("AOL"), which is based in Virginia, can be sued in Virginia
merely because they post content through AOL's main server. See
http://www.haleanddorr.com/internet_law/e_alert8.html.
The Act specifically protects domain name registrars, who will not be
liable for monetary damages for the registration or maintenance of a
domain name absent a showing of bad faith intent to profit from such
registration.
The effect of the Act on the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
recently enacted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) is unclear. The ICANN policy, which is expected to be
adopted by most domain name registrars, requires the registrant to
submit to mandatory arbitration (at the election of the mark holder or
other complainant) of cybersquatting and other domain
registration-related claims. The first claim under the new ICANN policy
was filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on
December 3 and concerned a domain name registered with Melbourne IT, an
Australian domain name registrar. For more information about that
claim, see
http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/internet/docs/1149623l.htm
The new law contains ambiguities and seems certain to be challenged.
One thing is clear, however -- the new anti-cybersquatting law will not
end the friction among trademark owners, domain name holders, and the
domain name registrars.
f we can band together against predatory
practices and drive eToys' stock down, then we
have a considerable tool. I feel very strongly
that there is a culture in cyberspace despite the
boom that we've experienced, and after people
have been online for awhile they realize there is
more at a stake than being able to shop from
your home."
In the last 12 months, an estimated 19 newly
public companies have netted stock price
increases of more than 1,000 percent. The top
gainer, Internet Capital Group, has seen share
prices rise almost 3,000 percent since going
public in August.
Shares of business-to-business auction site
FreeMarkets.com hadn't even started trading
Friday when market analyst Scott Eherens
began forecasting a dot-com jackpot.
dging by this week's IPO performances, it
seems almost common sense to predict
stratospheric gains for any new company that's
been generating buzz among investors. In the
last five days, Net companies like Agency.com,
Andover.Net, and FreeMarkets have more than
tripled in first-day trading. And let's not forget
VA Linux, which set an all-time record Thursday
for a first-day IPO increase of more than 700
percent.
Eight of the 11 companies that announced changes in early May of 1999 also
became .COMs.
fter a year of big gambles, the biggest of all may be the
wager that
our exalted Internet, held together with baling wire and
chewing gum
in every conceivable way -- legally, structurally,
economically -- is
going to be able to withstand the coming heavy weather of a
truly global,
unregulated economy.
expandng global economy
become valuable corporate assets.
Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook
Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com
+1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150
Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] From the ICANN front - November 3 update
Notes from the afternoon session of ICANN's public forum are now posted at: http://www.domainhandbook.com/icann110399.html which includes the morning session, too. The afternoon session had fewer attendees but much more agitation that evidenced in the morning. Concerns focused on inoperative registry-level WHOIS, on NSI veto power over ICANN's implementation of fees, on the four month window ICANN has not to invoke a prepayment requirement inconsistent with impositions on other accredited registrars, and the absence of a Service Level Agreements (performance and functional standards for NSI). The Chair of the registrar constituency presented to ICANN a list of seven points of concern that all the registrars in the room, save NSI, agreed with (but NSI had not seen the seven points until the meeting and had no opportunity to review the points). The points were not prioritized, but there was palpable concern from the audience of registrars about having ICANN acknowledge their issues. Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] REMINDER: ICANN-LA Now In Progress
The DNSO General Assembly is now meeting in Los Angeles California. Meetings will continue this afternoon with open sessions held by the Names Council and GAC. Webcasts of these meetings as well as tomorrow's ICANN Public Meeting and Thursday's Open Board Meeting will be accessible from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la. In addition, unofficial notes that I have been typing on site are posted at:\ http://www.domainhandbook.com/icann110299.html Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] From the ICANN front
Very rough notes on public forum about Government Advisory Committee Public Forum are now posted at http://www.domainhandbook.com/icann110299c.html A full room, about 200 people. Toomey alone at the podium answering about a dozen questions from the public. Not proofread, but I love this ethernet capability. Thanks to Berman. Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] Accredited registrars
An updated list of accredited registrars by country, with links to their websites, is posted at http://www.domainhandbook.com/registrars.html I count 87 accredited registrars to date plus NSI. I asked earlier--what happens when mergermania hits the registrar business. Can ICANN control the business acquisition arrangements of these registrars? Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] NSI registrations
The following newsbit was published on 10/28 by Tipworld: Web domain registrations soar Network Solutions (NSOL) said it added 1.3 million new Internet domain names in the third quarter of the year. The company said that's a gain of 160 percent from a year ago. At the end of September, Network Solutions said its cumulative total of Net registrations was over 6.5 million. Research from NPD Online recently reported almost half of Net users are expected to have personal Web sites by spring. Hobbies were the most frequently mentioned reason for having a Web page. One fourth of those surveyed already do, 30 percent plan to get one. The NPD survey was conducted in September and included 2,061 members of its online survey panel. Note: ". . . almost half of Net users are expected to have personal Web sites by spring". What voice will they have in ICANN except to elect an At Large Council that selects members to the board? Given the current membership structure, what is the incentive for these individuals to join ICANN? ........ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP]Berkman Workshop in LA
Diane Cabell is travelling and asked me to forward this message to the IFWP list regarding the Berkman Center Workshop on October 31: I'm on the road and can't send this to the IFWP list directly. I don't believe we've received confirmations on the consensus panel yet. Transparency includes Simon Lorne, former general counsel of the SEC and Ann Schwing from Sacramento who has just published a book on transparency in government. Diane Cabell Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] FYI: DNSO elections
The deadline for nominations, statements of support for a nomination, and statements of acceptance is tomorrow, October 8th, (18:00 CET) (see http://www.dnso.org/timeworld.html for local time in other places). The list of nominees to date, suppporters, and the template to submit support are all posted at: http://www.dnso.org/dnso-icann-nominees.html The following individuals have accepted the nomination as of today: 1999/09/19 Karl Auerbach 1999/09/20 Nii Quaynor 1999/09/23 Dan Steinberg 1999/09/23 Alejandro Pisanty 1999/09/25 Edmundo Valenti 1999/09/28 Jason N Hendeles 1999/10/06 Peter Dengate-Thrush 1999/10/06 Stefano Trumpy 1999/10/06 Dany Vandromme 1999/10/07 Jonathan Cohen 1999/10/07 David W. Maher 1999/10/07 Donald N. Telage Several others have qualified for nomination (received 10 support comments) but have not yet accepted the nomination. For those of you who aren't following the convolutions of ICANN, the Names Council will chose three new members of the ICANN board from the list of nominees who have accepted.The three must be from different geographic regions. Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Berkman Workshop in LA
Who are the specialists in the fields of consensus and transparency, Diane? There you go being astute again. Are you going to Los Angeles for the ICANN circus? Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] Re: IP: ICANN and IBM
ok at http://www.wia.org/icann/after_icann-gac.htm to see the complicated structure that "ICANN lite" has become Mr. Patrick claims that if ICANN were to fail, the likely result would be governmental agencies "subject, as always, to political influences -taking over the management of the Internet". He suggests that the stability of the Internet depends upon ICANN's success and encourages us to move forward with the transition rapidly rather than arguing about the process. Esther Dyson, ICANN's chair, shares this Machiavellian approach. During a public meeting of the ICANN board on August 25, she said, "we are less interested in complaints about process" and more interested in "doing real work and moving forward." http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/08/biztech/articles/30ican.html. In the eyes of John Patrick and Esther Dyson, the end justifies the means, and those means, be absolutely sure, are politically and commercially self-motivated. This does not bode well for the people around the world relying on the Internet for "education, disease management, entertainment, real-time communications and collaboration, and even government services, to name just a few uses." If the devil is in the details, read carefully the registrar Accreditation Guidelines http://www.icann.org/ra-agreement-051299.html and the new Draft Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy that will be posted in the next day or two. The Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy, adopted by ICANN on March 4, 1999, invokes this provision upon the domain name registrants: J.7.i. The SLD holder shall agree that its registration of the SLD name shall be subject to suspension, cancellation, or transfer by any ICANN procedure, or by any registrar or registry administrator procedure approved by ICANN, (1) to correct mistakes by the registrar or the registry administrator in registering the name or (2) for the resolution of disputes concerning the SLD name. And combine that with the more onerous provisions in the proposed Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy" 3.d.We may also cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to a domain name registration in accordance with the terms of your Registration Agreement or other legal requirements. In other words, ICANN's accreditation includes carte-blance control over the domain name registration of all .COM, .NET and .ORG names. The devil that we don't know, ICANN, is far worse than the one we did (IANA, under NSF oversight), which focused on the zone delegation to assure a workable scheme for domain name resolution. I don't believe the claim that the Internet will break if ICANN doesn't succeed and assert control over trademark disputes and registrar accreditations. Underneath the Patrick PR pro-ICANN/GIP puffery send-up is the revelation from ICANN: "WE MAY ALSO CANCEL, TRANSFER OR OTHERWISE MAKE CHANGES TO A DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION. . . " Now there''s a sodden thought, certain to inspire confidence in ICANN's "technical administration" of the Internet. .... Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] date of new york times quote on esthers inter est indoing real work? and to hell with process??
Does anyone have the date and contest for this outstanding comment? Internet Body Feels Democracy's Tug, by Jeri Clausing (NYTimes) http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/08/biztech/articles/30ican.html 30-Aug-99 In a recent New York Times article, Esther Dyson was quoted as saying "With all due respect, we are less interested in complaints about process" and more interested in "doing real work and moving forward." The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone fax) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NEW - Incompetence or Duplicity? ICANN and it Allies' Stealth Agenda http://cookreport.com/isoccontrol.shtml .... Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] Informal Notes: Names Council Teleconference 9/23/99
tion. Don Telage: The focus is not from an individual point of view. We are representing in most cases large classes of participants, so the focus should be on what impact these changes would have on the constituency itself, rather than on a particular individual. Theresa Swinehart: On universities, when committees need to vote on issues and say the parent of one of the students is on that committee, the parent will step aside during that voting period. Is it only the individual who been nominated who abstains from voting or the whole constituency who cannot vote? Andrew McLaughlin: An individual who has a stake in the outcome should not vote. I can understand the constituencies setting up a requirement that in the event the NC representative is nominated for the ICANN board, the administrative committee can appoint a temporary representative to the names Council consistent with the geographic diversity requirements. Jonathan Cohen: To suggest that by having anyone on the NC who chooses to accept the nomination cannot vote changes nothing. Theresa or Caroline: You are arguing about an unfair advantage. There is also an unfair advantage for the constituencies that are all developed who represent certain interests not to be able to vote for the ICANN board. There are strong competing unfair advantages. Amadeu: Need to have all constituencies represented in full force for this decision. Not enough time to find replacements for this election. Perhaps should not apply it for this election. I don't feel that these changes are coming in a bottom up fashion. This is a top down decision from the board and I have seen very little support for this from the general membership. Ken Stubbs: The board should say who is making that decision. We need to understand the logic behind this. It would be very difficult for constituencies to change their bylaws to allow for a substitution in such a short time. Also concerned with disenfranchisement of constituencies. Andrew McLaughlin: Idea is not to disenfranchise any constituency, just individuals who are in a conflict of interest situation. Stubbs: You are asking us to conduct a Chinese fire deal. Not giving us enough time to deal legitimately with this change. Andrew McLaughlin: Public is afraid that the fix is in and that the DNSO will choose three of its own and will do some internal horse trading. Where you have a personal stake in the outcome of the vote, you should not be allowed to participate in the vote. Theresa: If this concern is being raised outside the NC, and the concern is about a capture of the NC, we need to take a look at that. Whoever is on the board is representing the DNSO in its entirety, so whoever is on the board, they have an obligation toward the entire DNSO as part of their responsibility to the ICANN board. Schneider: Who are making these suggestions? I think the board is being lobbied by a few individuals. No objection in principle to the intent but I think changing the rules in the middle of the process is unwise because people might have made different decisions if they had known. Want to clarify if Administrative Committee can appoint a temporary NC member purely for the purposes of the election. Andrew McLaughlin: That is what we would hope but this isn't yet a done deal and we have to wait for the comments. Even with the pressing nature of the elections, we have to wait and read the comments of the SOs and NC. Amadeu: We need agreement that this does not affect voting rights of constituencies but only of the individuals. Andrew McLaughlin: This is not the way we like to go about making significant policy changes like this. In the best case, we would have thought of this six months ago. Item # - Election Process. End of Real Audio. ........ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] ICANN Accredits Twelve New Domain Name Registrars
ICANN ACCREDITS TWELVE NEW DOMAIN NAME REGISTRARS (September 21, 1999) The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced today that twelve additional applicant companies have met the criteria to be accredited as registrars in the .com, .net, and .org domains. A list of all ICANN's accredited registrars is posted at : http://www.domainhandbook.com/registrars.html The list is alphabetical by country and includes links to individual registrars. Shouldn't this information be posted on NSIREGISTRY.COM? Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] URDP
If one has the time, willingness and patience to poke around on ICANN's website, there is an abundance of interesting information. For example, on the current, contentious discussion of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, I found this astute and sensible observation from Don Telage, Sr. VP of NSI in the voting records of the provisional DNSO*: http://www.dnso.org/votes/vote01/Archives/msg4.html We dissent and therefore disagree that any administrative dispute resolution (ADR) process should be mandated directly from ICANN upon any or all registrars, but should flow from the contractual obligations between registry and registrar. No process should be mandated by any entity, ICANN or registry, until those registrars who contractually bind their registrants to the process are legally satisfied with the procedures involved, and have given adequate notice to their registrants. ICANN will not incur any liability if these procedures are unfair, improperly implemented or inadequately staffed (Recommendation #1). Further, such ADR procedures, while uniform in most aspects, should allow for variance in fees, payment, panel providers, and involvement of the registrars, to the extend such registrar is willing to accept the possibility in the process. ICANN should not be called upon to establish a process for panel providers but leave it to the private sector (Recommendations #2 and #3). As clearly enumerated in Recommendation #4, substantial procedural problems remain to be addressed by the industry of registrars who will operate with these procedures. To proceed too quickly is to risk the failure of the procedures, and to destabilize domain name registration. Registrars should be given the time to draft and implement a practical ADR process based on real world experience with registration. Donald N. Telage *note: establishing Working Groups with an incomplete constituency structure was a violation of the bylaws. Thus, the vote to move recommendations of invalidly constituted working groups is likewise invalid. Now ICANN claims this vote as justification for moving forward quickly on this controversial issue. Smoke and mirrors at work. Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Dave Farber wrote: If ICANN fails it will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We must make it work. Mr, Farber. There is room here for a different cause/effect analysis. I posit that if ICANN fails, it will be an indicator that the ICANN *model* was not workable, NOT that the Net cannot manage itself. The model that is the source of so much controversy is one that began with several insiders hand-picking a group of supposed DNS newbies who were, in turn, secretive, clueless and easily swayed. What litmus test would you apply to determine whether ICANN has failed? IMHO, ICANN is a failure, has been a failure since Day One, and will always be regarded as a failure and denied the respect it so desperately seeks because of its hubris, arrogance or ineptness, take your pick. ICANN failed as soon as it: - announced its "initial" board selected through a secret process that did not allow community input - promulgated its first bylaws which did not use the IFWP consensus points as a touchstone; - held its first closed board meeting; - focused on policymaking instead of establishing a membership and voting process; - established accreditation requirements for registrars that have policy implications for domain name registrants; - established a gerrymandered structure of constituencies; - denied individuals (arguably the largest constituency in the Internet community) any representation on the policy recommending body; - violated its own bylaws in the conduct of its activities; - used its unelected interim position to extend the terms of its members; and - allowed itself to be captured by a coalition of ISOC and IP interests. ICANN arrived on the DNS scene as a stillborn puppy. This is why your assertion that "we must make it work" falls on deaf ears. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. ........ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Another country heard from. The point in Postel's redirection wasn't the potential disruption of traffic but his assertion of [temporary] power over the root zone. Interestingly, his redirection never brought federal agents to his door. And the Green Paper (proposed rule) wasn't killed. It was replaced by the White Paper (statement of policymaking) as a natural step in the government's rainbow hierarchy. Ken Freed wrote: Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy? "Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" the path used for copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially disrupting global Internet traffic. Performed in conjunctionwith root server operators, this act of civil disobedience could not be ignored. The combination of international protest and Postel's action effectively killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." Now, can we get on with discussing the real issue of ICANN legitimacy and whether we allow privatization to go forward without a public vote? -- ken .... Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] RE: anonymity on this list?
Ben Edelman wrote: All that said, I'd be open to comments from the list. If the list consensus really is contrary to my instincts -- if people want an "opt out" policy for the archive -- I'd certainly consider as much, and the operators of other archives might then consider doing the same. I concur that we are better served on this list by a comprehensive and accurate archive of comments than ex-post alterations. I feel that the "opt out" choice is simply not to post at all to this particular list. It frankly gets too complicated if people don't know what messages will become part of the public archive and which ones are private one-time-only use. Once someone writes on this list, that message may be appended to a thread for quite a while. People who have problems with this should probably seek a private list, or write privately to selected individuals on this one. I don't favor cross-posting, but that occurs, too, and it is impossible for the list manager to monitor. Ex-post alterations would become list management from hell, IMHO. .... Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] My nose
Adam Peake wrote: I asked if you had tried. Join the list, submit an application, and if your application is challenged (probably will be) argue your case. It appears that the only way to complain about a skewed structure (i.e., the gerrymandering of the DNSO constituencies) is to try to get entry into the very structure with which one finds problematic. The ICANN board has refused at the last two board meetings to consider the application of the IDNO, despite claiming to be a consensus-based structure. Meanwhile, it imposes vague complaints upon IDNO of not being representative of its constutency while not applying the same litmus test to the other, approved constituencies. ICANN is icamel, a horse designed by an i[nterim] unelected committee. If unhappy with the result, take it to the board. Example, see the NC list archive http://lyris.isoc.org/cgi-bin/ncdnhc/lyris.pl?visit=ncdnhc-discuss search on "Semich" and open mail "COMMENT To ICANN: Membership Criteria for NCDNH Constituency". Individuals with commercial use domain names who want a voice in the DNSO might try joining the commercial constituency (has anyone applied and been rejected? If I'm just showing ignorance of events, my apologies.) Perhaps these constituencies will come up with good reasons for excluding individuals, perhaps not. Or try to form the IDNO, but that would seem to mean accepting no voice for a while. Adam. .... Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com ___^..^ )6 _ +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] My nose
Karl Auerbach wrote: There is no reason why a group of people who have a direct interest in domain name should be refused a constituency when six constituencies were automatically granted for six types of business entities. The constituency structure is gerrymandering by another name. For example, there is no justification for the ICANN board to have excluded a place on the DNSO for educational interests. The pat response is that educational interests come under the moniker of the NCDHC (non-commercial constituency), as if the educational commnunity has common concerns with museums and non-for profit organizations. The unrepresented education component of the Internet may ultimately be the most important one. Changing technical standards and protocols will certainly be of broad interest to the education community. Students receive Internet accounts from universities, and K-12th grade schools across the land are being wired while their students learn to design personal websites, and use the Internet as a research tool. Furthermore, school districts are establishing Internet policies, many of which rely unrealistically on the ability of proxy servers and safe surfing software to deny access to offensive Internet material. Last year, a 12-year-old boy was briefly suspended from school because, at noon recess, he accessed a porn site by accident when he was guessing at the name of a popular Nintendo 64 game character. If the ICANN board feels trademark owners' issues are so distinct and separate from those of business owners to merit a separate constituency and 3 voting members on the Names Council, then the education interests should likewise get special representation. It's clear, however, that universities, schools, and organizations like the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) and CUE aren't on ICANN's radar screen. Ell en Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com ___^..^ )6 _ +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Letter from Santiago
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That said, I am curious. I have no idea how/why/where/when you managed to get the impression from Joop's comments that there was any conspiracy or in fact any intended slur. It may have been the only inference you were able to draw, but it is probably the only inference I am unable to draw. FWIW, the connection for me from beautiful Tiburon, California to Santiago, Chile was clear and smooth on August 25. The following day, however, I spent more than three hours trying to connect and finally quit the fruitless attempts. I wrote privately to Ben Edelman in desperation, assuming that since nothing had changed at my end from the day before, the problem must be in ICANN land. To his credit, Ben tried to offer assistance by suggesting some alternatives, even while he surely had his hands flul managing the connections onsite at the board meeting. The problem was neither with the Berkman Center set-up nor with my computer. That evening, my ISP sent out the following message to its clients: Today August 26 we have experienced some problems that are related to router problems at the main west coast INTERNET Relay hub known as MAE-WEST. System failures there (San Jose) caused us to experience some outbound INTERNET access slow or no response. We have re-routed some of our INTERNET traffic temporarily to alleviate the problem. In other words, the road paved by technical expertise and best intentions can still encounter pitfalls. Kudos to Berkman for giving us remote viewers the opportunity to witness last week's activities in far off Santiago. Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] NYTimes article today
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/08/biztech/articles/30ican.html Internet Body Feels Democracy's Tug By JERI CLAUSING [snip] During a public session that the board held on Wednesday, Esther Dyson, an American who is the board's interim chairwoman, responded to Icann's critics. "With all due respect," she told the audience, "we are less interested in complaints about process" and more interested in "doing real work and moving forward." My comment: With all due respect, Esther, this is a very Machiavellian approach for ICANN to take. Your position that the end justifies the means goes right into the bit bucket along with your early advice to the Internet community to "trust us". Among the other notable quotes in this NYT article are: "This is a very difficult world for new players to break into," said one in attendance, Alan Davidson, policy analyst of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an online civil libertarian group based in Washington. "If this is the constitutional convention for cyberspace," he [Andrew L. Shapiro, a senior advisor to the Markle Foundation, a New York-based organization that underwrites projects it deems to be in the public interest] said, "it's as if they started the talks in Philadelphia without half the colonies." ^^^^^^^^ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Will you ever have a vote?
Hi, Eric-- I left your full posting in this message, because it certainly bears repeating. What you have missed, to make matters worse, is that the At Large membership won't even be able to hold direct elections. Instead, it will be voting for 18 members of an At Large Council who will SELECT the nine At Large Directors. Of the members of the At-Large Council, at least one and not more than two per region shall be elected directly by the residents of ICANN's 5 defined geographic regions, with each regional Council member elected by the residents of his or her region. The remaining Council members (no more than eight) shall be elected globally by all ICANN At-Large members. A candidate for a regional At Large seat must be a citizen of a country located in that region. No two members of the At Large Council elected from the same region shall be citizens of the same country. The purpose of this is apparently to create a non-statutory membership (insert legal mumbo, jumbo here), which means that ICANN will be immune from being subject to a derivative action by its members. So, to summarize, the individual representation must be 5,000-strong and geographically diverse to be able to vote, and when that threshhold is achieved, it chooses not its board members but its intermediated representation, which is regionally diverse, and they, in tern, select (not elect) representatives to the board who have not been able to participate in the process of recommending policies to be submitted to the board through the DNSO. The suggestion of an imtermediated At Large Council was presented by board member George Crew on August 25. Although the staff report on At Large membership floated the idea of an At Large Council http://www.icann.org/santiago/membership-staff-report.htm, that was to be a Baord-appointed committee to new committee to "assist in ongoing AL membership issues such as outreach, recruitment, authentication, and election procedures." Thus, this substantive change in the At large membership structure was NEVER posted in advance for public comment and feedback, in violation of ICANN's own bylaws. Great piece of work there, ICANN. Can't you possibly make things more convoluted? ++ Eric Weisberg wrote: Andrew McLaughlin wrote: The ICANN Board of Directors held its third quarterly meeting in Santiago, Chile, today. The Board passed a number of resolutions, including the following: ... - Implementation of At Large Membership "Implementation" is an interesting descriptor for what was apparently done. Some might call it "newspeak." I understand that voting will only occur when 5,000 people sign up for membership. A small fraction of that number have participated in the IFWP/ICANN process, to date. And, there is nothing for individual members of ICANN to do but vote for part of the board. If only 4,999 sign up, they won't get to do that. The resolution provides: 1. The At-Large membership shall be geographically diverse, broadly representative of the Internet user community, and shall consist of at least 5,000 individuals. And, to make the objective even more difficult to achieve, the board FURTHER RESOLVED [99.__] that, ...the Board reiterates its determination that the At Large membership will ultimately be expected to fund its operations (including the election process)... Considering the history of participation, the limited role contemplated for members, the likelihood of membership fees (or poll tax) and the subject matter of the organization, I now feel like the black law professor from Harvard who, after passing the English literacy test for voting in Mississippi in the '50s, was tested in Chinese. He astounded the registrar by accurately reading the passage upon which he was tested: "This black man is not going to vote in the state of Mississippi." Does anyone read the board resolution differently? What have I missed? ^^^^ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] From the Santiago front
on through trade associations, e.g., EFF. Dyson: Those concerns would be met by NCDNH Siegfried: If you look at numbers, at large membership is for individuals, will have 9 people on the board. Can't understand that someone says individuals aren't represented. Fear we will having as many constituencies as persons. Dyson: Kind of like having millions (?) of TLDs. Eileen Kent, individual DNHO. I support Joop;s proposiiton. At large is not a consituency. Board members not chosen by peers but by another body. There is a momentum here to consider IDNH. ? Dyson: It seems that the sense of the board is to defer this proposalat least until Los Angeles. Breaks for Lunch. 1:07 p.m. ^^^^ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] Re: [bwg-n-friends] Can we really afford ICANN ?
Shouldn't this financial information be posted on the ICANN website, not the Berkman Center site? http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/archive/financial-projections-throug h-8-31-99.html Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Projected Cash Flow Analysis - July 1 to August 31, 1999 Projected Cash on Hand - 7/1/99 $62,000 RECEIPTS Contributions $100,000 Accreditation Fees $100,000 Loans $825,000 Total Available Cash $1,087,000 DISBURSEMENTS Prior Year Invoices Paid $800,000 July/August Invoices Paid $250,000 Total Disbursements $1,050,000 Projected Cash on Hand - 8/31/99 $37,000 July/August Invoices Unbilled/Unpaid Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Re: [bwg-n-friends] Can we really afford ICANN ?
Diane Cabell wrote: We have the personnel and link to put it up immediately, Ellen. It will be moved over later. Later when, Diane? After the meeting is over? It's another example of ICANN not having the time to do what it is mandated to do, but managing to find time to deal with other matters that should be deferred for an elected board. I think the financials are important in soliciting feedback about the proposal to continue the terms of the interim board. Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Re: [bwg-n-friends] Can we really afford ICANN ?
Diane Cabell wrote: Perhaps I misunderstand you Ellen. It's up on the Berkman site because we do not have access to the ICANN web site to put it there. Someone at ICANN will have to take the copy and move it over, or post one from other sources. I'm sorry that the location of this document doesn't meet with your approval, but it's the best we can do immediately. Yes, Diane, you misunderstood me. This is NOT a criticism of Berkman. If Berkman had not risen to the task, we wouldn't even get to see the financials. It is absolutely up to ICANN to post these and ridiculous that it has not done so. My other point is that ICANN says it has limited staff, limited funds and limited time. All three of those things would be *less* limited if ICANN would *focus* on the right stuff. Financials, membership structure, processes a la WGD--not the other substantive and controversial matters that require a fully constituted Names Council, DNSO and an elected ICANN board. \ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Avery v. Sumpton (was Court OKs some domains withtrademarked names
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,0-40897,00.html Court OKs some domains with trademarked names By Dan Goodin Staff Writer, CNET News.com August 24, 1999, 5:40 p.m. PT The complete Opinion is posted at: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/f606ac175e010d64882566eb0065811 8/04a35134bff267ca882567d60065ee63?OpenDocument The salient text, IMHO although IANAL, is: All relevant evidence on the record tends to establish that both "Avery " and "Dennison" are commonly used as trademarks, both on and off of the Internet, by parties other than Avery Dennison. This evidence is relevant because, when "a mark is in widespread use, it may not be famous for the goods or services of one business. and: The record includes copies of five trademark registrations for "Avery" and "Averys," a computer printout of a list of several businesses with "Avery" in their names who market products on the Internet, and a list of business names including "Avery," which, according to a declaration submitted by NSI, is a representative sample of over 800 such businesses. The record also contains a computer printout of a list of several businesses with "Dennison" in their names which market products on the Internet and a list of business names including "Dennison," a representative sample of over 200 such businesses. Such widespread use of "Avery" and "Dennison" makes it unlikely that either can be considered a famous mark eligible for the dilution cause of action. Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
Ben Edelman wrote: * While remote comments may indeed be excerpted for oral presentation the assembled group, realize that there's more to the presentation of remote comments than the oral component. In particular, there are two big screens in the front of the room on which comments will be displayed. Ben, you describe two filters in your message. First is the person choosing which remarks get addressed by the ICANN board. The second is the way the remarks are summarized. Both of these filters are worrisome. In meatspace, people line up behind a microphone and take their turn one after the next. There is no filter. Some speakers are cogent and get right to the poinht; some rant; some hesitate. Some (but usually few) repeat comments made earlier, in order to emphasize support for a particular view. Appropriate first tier filters would be: a) deferring off-topic comments b) acknowledgikng one comment per individual per topic c) curtailing long responses beyond 250 words. These "filters" map to the physical world. A chair may tell a commenter that his/her words are off topic; may only allow one time at the mike per person, and may use the timer to abruptly terminate the comments of a long-winded speaker. If people know these criteria, posted on the place where they can make their submission, remote participants are more likely to think before they write. We have ample evidence on this list that a few people are too glib and waste bandwidth on inanities. You haven't explained how online comments will be interspersed with the physical ones, but I believe some time each ten minutes should be reserved to bring the remote comments into the discussion. That will inject them into the current flow of the forum. I thought the mix of remote participation and physical participation at the Names Council meeting on June 25 worked fairly well, with a large screen at the front of the room. The pNC checked the screen occasionally, but haphazardly. Fairness dictates building those checks into the physical agenda every ten or fifteen minutes. I wonder whether ICANN has explored tasking different board members with bringing the remote discussion into the room. By this I mean, each hour, a different board member is assigned the job of reciting a few online comments every few minutes. The advantage of asking board members to do this is that it assures they will each be engaged, if briefly, by the remote participation. And reciting puts the comment into the Real Audio record. ^^^^^^^^ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
Ben Edelman wrote: But the question in my mind remains: What do you do when there are too many acceptable, on-topic, concise remote comments? How to choose? Given the options (FIFO, random, gateway filter), I'd opt for random. We may not get the best articulated comments, but it would then be up to the Internet community to complain to the poster if he or she squandered that precious opportunity on an adhominem attack or one of those he-said, no-he-said inane banters. If you have a gatekeeper, anyone short of God, someone online will likely complain about hidden bias in the selection of the comments. Why would JZ or anyone want to be in the line of fire? Is this a one-way forum (like the ICANN mailing list), where one speaker after another comments and the ICANN board listens without engaging in dialogue? If the BOD responds to individual commenters, then perhaps if the remote participation is brisk, time can be set aside at the end and devoted to discussing all the unread comments in a summary review. We're looking here for the least imperfect mechanisms, recognizing that each has its failings. Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
Michael Froomkin wrote: I hope very much that the practice in Berlin of "editing" and "summarizing" comments will be kept to a minimum, at least in the case of comments of less than a page. I submitted a short comment, only to have it reduced to two sentences, losing one of my two points. And that was the only e-mailed comment read out that entire day Prof. Froomkin makes a valid point. If there's a need for brevity in the remote comments, how about setting a word limit, e.g., 250 words, which then places the editing and summarizing decisions in the hands of the submitter, not the recipient. Those who feel a compelling need to say more have the choice of submitting additional comments or finding their words edited by someone in Santiago. ^^^^ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
RE: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
Ben Edelman wrote:
We do think it will be helpful to group similar comments together. Should
you and David Post happen to submit comments that seem (to us!)
substantially the same or overlapping in part, it seems a good use of the
meeting's time for your agreement, along with any notable differences, to be
reported. ("Michael Froomkin and David Post both submitted comments noting
that... while Froomkin also went on to note ...")
I think it's a grave mistake to do this. A summary loses the flavor of the
comment and may infuse bias. Imagine if all those who attended the
Santiago meeting were told, "We don't have time to hear your comments.
Just tell us your concern and we will summarize it in a sentence or two
for the ICANN board and group it together with those of similar mind."
The remote contributions should be as valid as the physical participation,
since many of the interested parties have neither deep pockets nor
scheduling freedom to follow ICANN around the world. After hearing several
public onsite comments, the board should then refer to several online
comments, back and forth, through the open forum. Or some neutral party
should be assigned to read a few online comments interspersed with the ones
presented onsite.
But establishing someone in Santiago as a filter to distill the online
comments, to decide what is or is not important in a submission, is just
plain wrong.
^^^^
Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook
Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com
== ^..^ )6 =
ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010
[EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA
DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
I was (too subtly?) hinting that they should write their messages out and be subject to the same word and interest-in-the-eye-of-the-filtering-authority limit. Only fair? PS. Is the time limit based on the equivalent of 250 words? Or is the 250 words based on the time limit? Or neither? Independent of Ben Edelman's message proposing a 250-word limit, I suggested the same thing. That's about ten sentences, and it is probably as much text as can be absorbed in such a setting. It probably translates into 1+ minutes. I am told tht at the Berlin meeting, the time limit for physical presentations was so short that Milton Mueller didn't have the opportunity to read the names of the 85 people who signed a petition urging ICANN to defer any action on the WIPO proposal until the DNSO was fully constituted. That petition still applies, as the Working Groups were formed before the DNSO. Petitions are a timesaver, because they allow people who share a point of view to add their names, rather than repeating the message over and over and over and over. As such, each one of those signatories deserved the 2 seconds it would have taken to read the name into the public record in front of the ICANN board. Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Re: Re[2]: [IDNO-DISCUSS] icann.edleman.19990819 /Access to ICANN S
Jeff Mason wrote: As I expected there are no gurantees. The issue is not weither the Berkman Center is composed of angels - or fruits aging in fine wine, it is privacy, a right granted to democratic societies. Remote online participation should approximate physical participation in Santiago as much as possible. Customarily, when one is speaking before a board, the individual states his or her name and address or town and, (optional) organization and/or occupation. This is not a privacy issue but a matter of keeping an accurate public record. It is appropriate to request similar information of those who participate remotely. Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Re: Re[2]: [IDNO-DISCUSS] icann.edleman.19990819 /Access to ICANN S
Jeff Mason wrote: I dont dispute what you have said. That is not the issue. It is the right to be anonymous and participate as a viewer. You can can be an anonymous listener with Real Audio. It's cross-platform, works for both Windows and Macs, and the software is free, available for download online. There are some hardware limitations, however, but Berkman cannot be expected to accommodate all possible arrangements. Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] Re: Opposition to extension of terms of interim ICANN board
Since the link to the archive of comments on the "Proposed Resolution Concerning Term of Initial At Large Directors" at http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-initial-director-term/maillist.html does not currently work, I am re-posting the comment I submitted to ICANN on this list, as well: ___ What is the justification for extending the terms of this interim, unelected and unaccountable board? The participation of the majority of the board members on public comment lists is abyssmal to non-existent. Without intervention of the Department of Commerce, this board would continue to hold its meetings in private. Of greater concern, this board is developing policy directives that will affect millions of Internet users before it has even completed building its own foundation. Neither the at-large membership nor the DNSO constituencies, are complete. To date, only commercial and infrastructure representation has been annointed by the ICANN board, but the issues are being moved forward on a fast track. Its bylaws keep changing, and in one case, new rules have been applied retroactively. And this board's idea of a bottom-up self-organizing process is to tell the DNS community who may have a voice in the policy recommendations. IMHO, this unelected and unaccountable board should not make a single decision that is unrelated to the development of the structure of the organization. It should focus *solely* on setting up its foundation and the mechanisms that will allow us to vote in replacement members of the board. Many of us do not trust this board. And given the broad and vocal complaints about how the board members came to hold their positions, about ICANN's unsupportable claims of community consensus, its failure to hold open meetings, its blatant conflicts of interest, and its general hubris in promulgating policy that touches individual domain name registrants (not just registries and registrars), I believe continuing the terms of the interim directors will not be in the best interest of this privatization process and simply prolong the DNS community's collective pain. ^^^^^^^^ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] IDNO letter
Esther, Your comments below lead me to ask, what is your definition of a bottom-up self-organizing process? Is it one where nine unelected and unaccountable people define how the Internet community is to be represented in the technical coordination of domain names and IP addresses? Is it one that gives 18 seats on the Names Council to commercial and infrastructure interests and only three to the substantial population that doesn't fit that description? Is it one that creates an artificial boundary between business and trademark interests, establishing constituencies for each, but identifies no representation for the universities, colleges, trade schools and millions of kindergarten through college students who use the Internet as a research and communication tool? Inexpensive, appliance-like devices designed solely for Internet access will soon be as commonplace and ubiquitous as televisions. Online commerce will fuel the global economy, but individuals will fund it. NSI anticipates a potential for 130 million domain name registrations, of which the registry suggests 50 million will be early adapting individuals.[1] IMHO, the majority of new registrants will be students, families, and individuals who choose to participate on the Internet on a personal basis, not through their employment affiliation. In ten fast but contentious months, this interim board has managed to disenfranchise the largest segment of the Internet community, as evidenced, yet again, by ICANN's failure to even consider this IDNO petition. It appears there is never time to do things right, but always time downstream to accommodate errors in process and procedure. You asked for our trust, but ICANN's cart-before-horse actions and lack of big picture vision have, instead, merited our brickbats. [1] Doug Wolford, Sr. VP of Marketing, Hambrecht and Quist Technology Conference, April 28, 1999. Esther Dyson wrote: Dear Joop and colleagues - I'm writing to respond personally to your proposal for an Individual Domain Name Holders' Constituency. As you know, the Initial Board decided not to consider it in Berlin because it was not among the seven constituencies we hoped to see form to constitute the full DNSO. At this point, we are still hoping to approve conditionally the last of the seven original constituencies, and allow the process of enlarging the board to move forward. That means that the Initial Board won't be considering your petition this time either, since we're still working on the first seven. Let me say personally that I am not totally comfortable with this decision. Given that the At-Large Membership is not yet constituted, I think it important that individuals' concerns have some representation within the DNSO. However, there are two other points worth noting. First is that the representativeness of the IDNO is still questionable; it faces many of the same challenges of outreach and breadth that the ICANN Initial Board faces in trying constitute its At-Large membership. Creating the IDNO now may be a way of avoiding rather than solving this problem. Second, I am more concerned that the voices and interests of individuals be *represented* in the work of the DNSO, than with precisely how that happens. Although the process is certainly messy, the concerns of individuals and individuals' rights are now being heard within the DNSO working groups - although perhaps not as effectively as they should be. Making sure that that process works is where I think we should be focusing our attention right now. Esther Dyson personally, as a *member* of the Initial Board but not for it -- This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny] Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] IDNO letter
Jay Fenello wrote: Simply appalling! Not only has Esther again declared herself to be a member of the "Initial" board, not only has she snubbed one of the best organized constituencies (which already boasts on-line, electronic voting), but she even had the gall to send out this rebuff with a *low* priority status. Recall, too, that a petition circulated prior to the Berlin meeting, to urge ICANN to defer any consideration of the WIPO recommendations until the DNSO was fully constituted, was described by Esther as "non substantive". That petition, focusing on PROCESS, attracted 85 signatures from 14 countries. This is the board that wants to reassert its interim, unelected authority for yet another year. Fah! ^^^^ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Re: Opposition to extension of terms of interim ICANNboard
Where's the proposed resolution itself? - proposed resolutions concerning the terms of the Initial Directors http://www.icann.org/santiago/initial-director-term-resolution.htm Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Ruckus
Throughout this debate over Internet Governance, there has consistently been two very different and distinct perspectives. One looked at the transition of authority from IANA to ICANN as a purely technical matter, one that should remain under the control of a technocracy. ... The other side looked at this transition as the establishment of world-wide self governance, one that should be firmly based on representative and democratic structures. Here, process was more important than decisions, representative structures were more important than political appointments. Why must people so often cast things in binary terms, as this OR that? I disagree with the assertion stated above, since I can list at least FIVE perspectives in this debate: 1) the transition of authority should remain under the control of a technocracy; 2) the transition of control should be based on a bottom-up self-organizing structure; 3) lip service should be given to a representive, self-organizing structure, but in reality the transition of authority will based on behind-the scenes insider arrangements; 4) there should be NO transition of authority; the Internet is a public resource and should not be in the hands of a private corporation. 5) regardless of what occurs, those with technical expertise will simply route around the damage. Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] Bliley correspondence
The U.S. Committee on Commerce has posted a clutch of letters written by Rep. Tom Bliley. Chair of the committee, in response to the recent hearings. The letters are addressed to several individuals, including Chas. Ruff, counsel to the President, and Janet Reno: "I must say that these communications appear to be highly inappropriate. Not only does the conversation involve a senior Department official and a private party with a clear interest in an open DOJ enforcement action, but the discussion clearly involved potential legal and non-legal options available to the Department with respect to that open investigation. These communications are even more surprising in light of the fact that the Department routinely rejects requests by Congressional committees, including my own, for briefings on open law enforcement matters, citing Department policy and practice. Indeed, the Department has in the past refused to discuss even closed enforcement matters with Congressional committees. "I also am troubled by the close nexus between these communications, which occurred on March 31, 1999, and the Department's April 1999 decision to jump-start its dormant investigation of NSI -- which, whether warranted or not, certainly gives the impression of collusion between ICANN and your Department on this sensitive enforcement and Internet policy matter." Links to these Bliley letters have been set on: http://www.domainhandbook.com/congress.html#ltrs ^^^^ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age ^^^^ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Re: Theories on media bias
Jay and others: Please forgive me if you have already posted and/or read this article, but I think it presents an unbiased and intelligent summary of ICANN's current state of affairs http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2294893-2,00.html The trouble with ICANN, by Todd Spangler (Inter@ctive Week - July 19, 1999) Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Is the gTLD Workgroup outcome already decided by theCORE faction? And a criticism of the media.
Esther, I am curious why you and the rest of the ICANN board are not at all disturbed by such pronouncements as the one cited below. Rather than dismissing the legitimate concerns expressed here by listmembers, shouldn't you and ICANN be insisting that the misinformation posted on Connelly's website be removed. What are your priorities in this situation--to quell commotion and treat listmembers like juveniles or to investigate a valid complaint against someone who deceptively promotes the gTLD agenda of a self-interested faction that dominates these "self-organizing" activities? Esther Dyson wrote: Please rest assured that this item below is not based on fact - "may" =/= "will" and CORE can anticipate what it wants without making it so. ICANN has made no decisions in this regardand cannot at this point, as most of you know. ICANN depends on the DNSO to make recommendations in this area - recommendations which will be posted/debated publicly before leaving the DNSO to us, and will then be debated openly again. There is no way we could make such a decision now, and no way that it could survive even if we tried to... Please calm down! At 10:47 PM 11/08/99 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote: From : http://web-domains.net/ The website of "Robert F. Connelly" [EMAIL PROTECTED] who is a "participant" on the Workgroup-C list on new gTLDs. NEWS: 1 August 1999: The The first Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) may be delegated in October or November of 1999. CORE anticipates .nom will the first delgated to CORE by ICANN (successor to IANA). It should be followed by .firm, .shop, .info, .rec, and .arts. Delegation of .web will be delayed until conflicts can be resolved. ^^^^^^^^ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Is the gTLD Workgroup outcome already decided by theCORE faction?
Kent Crispin wrote: Just exactly how would ICANN proceed in "insisting" that some stuff on *anybodies* web site be removed? Fair question. An effective PR firm should be at the ready to provide both damage control and issues management, not just corporate promotion. I think ICANN should be very concerned that someone involved in the Working Group discussions who also has represented ISOC in public presentations is spreading misinformation on a major website and passing it off as "News". To answer your question, since ICANN hired a PR firm as one of its first actions, Ogilvey should issue a worldwide press release in *non weasel terms* from the ICANN board that the misinformation being spread on the Internet that new gTLDs .firm, .shop, .info, .rec, and .arts will be delegated to CORE is completely untrue. How hard can that approach be? By doing nothing outside this list to counter the disinformation, fud, lies, call it what you will, ICANN abets such activity. Bob Connelly can put whatever he pleases on his web site, and there isn't a thing ICANN can do about it. Sure, Connelly and others can post whatever claims they want and push their own agenda. And ICANN has a choice of turning a blind eye to such disinformation, passed off to the public as "News", or refuting it loud and clear, not just admonishing those on this list to "calm down".. What I would expect ICANN or any corporation involved in an important, complex and contentious process to do is to address the spread of blatant lies, not merely to admonish the messengers who communicate their concerns. And since you brought up Richard Sexton out of the blue, I think he has done a superb job of maintaining this list. He has his opinions about these issues, of course, but he also has the integrity to separate his personal involvement from his role as the IFWP listmanager. He has been absolutely unpartisan and fair in managing this list, and I believe your pathetic attempt to discredit his pro bono effort here will backfire. ^^^^ Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 10:28 PM 7/28/99 , Ellen Rony wrote: FWIW, I don't concur with Jay's theories about a biased press. We have not bias but confusion. This evolution of the DNS is complicated, convoluted, and contentious, so it isn't easy to report on the activities of ICANN and the Department of Commerce in terms that the general readership can understand. Jay Fenello wrote: Frankly, I don't why this story has not been covered. All that I know for certain is that 1) it *hasn't* been covered, and 2) "confusion" is an explanation that simply doesn't work for me (especially when I have personally described, in no uncertain terms, my perspectives to many of the reporters writing these biased pieces). I applaud your efforts, several years strong, to educate the journalists and interested parties. My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP. Contributing to the confusion is the "divide and conquer" factor. It's hard to get a profile of the situation because so many issues are being debated simultaneously in a rush to the endgame. Into the middle of what we are told is a bottom-up consensus based decision making process, we have DOJ investigating NSI, Congress investigating ICANN, and the EU entering the melee. This is headspinning activity, even for the most devout followers of the process. It reminds me of the towns that, seeing opportunity for raising their property tax revenue base, develop their hillsides in a mad sweep of construction while the old timers lament the destruction of views and clogging of traffic arteries. Years later, when the building subsides and the policymakers take a breath, they may regret their haste but by then there's a new paridigm in place and a new generation of residents who don't remember what the town looked like when its now densely populated hillsides were open space. I lament that it took eight months of dischord and, finally, involvement of the DOC to get ICANN to hold open meetings; that this is supposed to be a bottom-up consensus-based structure but that there is no representation in current decisionmaking of the non-commercial Internet users (a substantial body); that working groups are proceeding to final recommendations although they are not constituted in accord with the ICANN bylaws; that recommendations will be forwarded to an unelected, unaccountable, incomplete and interim body. So, Jay, we pick our battles. But claiming a biased press on these complicated issues simmply isn't one of those I wish to pursue. ^^^^ Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
Pete Farmer wrote: For the record, of the 10 feedback comments to Mr. Cooper's op/ed piece, 6 are "on Jay's side," 2 are pro-Dyson, and 2 offer no opinion. Of the 6 "on Jay's side," 4 are formatted normally. Reality check, Jay. Possibly you and Ellen pasted your replies, instead of typing them directly? Possibly the paste routines automatically inserted linefeeds after a certain number of characters? http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2298770,00.html I don't ascribe any conspiracy theory here with the formatting of Jay's and my reply. I tried three times to type in my response to the ZDNet piece using the online form for doing so. Each attempt failed, so in frustration I finally sent my comments directly to Cooper and asked him to get them posted. I was, frankly, disappointed that my comments are so hard to read. I rarely contribute feedback comments because there's simply not enough time to do so while reading articles and emails, listening to Congressional hearings, monitoring ICANN's activities, maintaining my website, making a living and being a mom--but Cooper's article was so completely off track that I just had to respond. FWIW, I don't concur with Jay's theories about a biased press. We have not bias but confusion. This evolution of the DNS is complicated, convoluted, and contentious, so it isn't easy to report on the activities of ICANN and the Department of Commerce in terms that the general readership can understand. IMHO, only about a dozen reporters have a good grasp on the issues because they track this process full time and have been on the beat for several years. The business community has been very quiet through all this sturm und drang, and frankly, I question whether most people care. I've seen little evidence that the preponderance of the Internet community is interested in how such decisions are made or who makes them so long as their individual needs for specific domain names are met. So when ICANN speaks of global consensus, it is to laugh. Most people from whom such highly touted consensus is supposedly derived don't even know the issues, the conundrums, the players and antagonists, the organizations, the structure, or the nuances in the meaning of the word "consensus". Among those of us who care, perhaps 2,500 people by my rough estimate, there certainly has been no consensus but rather divisiveness at every turn. I wish I could believe this process is now in a stage of course correction, but IMHO, it's not just Cooper's article but also ICANN that is completely off track. People have asked why I am not participating on a working group. I ask how can such work proceed when the membership structure is not yet in place. Without building a solid foundation, the walls won't stand. ^^^^^^^^ Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] Congressional Hearings - Soundbyte
My nomination for the best soundbyte of today's Congressional Hearing on "Domain Name System Privatization: Is ICANN Out of Control?" "Consensus is a lot like pornography. You know it when you see it." (Sorry, I don't have attribution). Is there consensus on this view? ^^^^ Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
RE: [IFWP] Media Bias - Reuters
absolutely Jay. how do you think the slime from alex ogilvie earn their hoped for future fees from ICANN except by saying to esther appear to drop your fee and open a board meeting and you will get news stories where you look truly reformed Tangentially related: David Ogilvy, founder of Ogilvy Mather, passed away yesterday. He was 88, so its unlikely he had any involvement with ICANN. Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re[2]: [IFWP] ICANN's Internet Community - Fact and Fancy
Monday, July 19, 1999, 7:25:21 PM, Patrick Greenwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Bill Lovell wrote: Wow! Sounds like [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there consensus here? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! All kidding aside, Tony raises an extremely valid point: Where is all this "consensus" that ICANN claims? I find it disturbing that these ten globally dispersed board members have voted UNANIMOUSLY on every issue save one. Most people cannot even agree on what to have for lunch, so how can they come to agreement as if of one mind? Also disturbing is this comment from Esther Dyson's letter to Becky Burr: This Board personifies effective consensus decision-making, and many of its members feel that losing the ability to discuss matters in decisional meetings in private will adversely affect the candor of those discussions, and potentially the ability to come to working consensus quickly, especially on some of the very complicated issues that remain for this Board to deal with. In other words, ICANN can easily discern the "consensus" of the Internet community of some 150 million people (or even the circa 2,500 that have been engaged in these discussions), but it will not be able to identify consensus of only ten board members if its deliberations are made in public. Methinks the board members are simply unwilling to let us know how little they understand these complex matters. ^^^^ Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose?
Diane Cabell wrote: There is no refusal to hold elections, Jay. Mr. Sims was responding to Eric Weisberg's suggestion that ICANN hire outside professionals to run the election. Mr. Sims points out that there are no ICANN funds to pay a professional organization to do this. As your own figures indicate, ICANN is in serious debt. Then one has to look at the reason ICANN is in debt. Could it be that paying ICANN's president more than the U.S. President receives annually contributed to that debt? Prudence would have dictated a smaller salary for an interim president and would have placed priority on membership/voting issues over public relations consultancy, IMHO. An unfunded non-profit corporation can outline any sort of pie-in-the-sky-budget, but new corportations don't begin from the gitgo spending as though they have established solid fiscal footing. It may be that membership dues will have to be charged after all (whether the election is electronic or postal) and, if so, I expect that some accomodation will be made for those economies that cannot easily afford such a luxury Economies don't vote. Individuals do. MAC presented ICANN with an unworkable solution--a membership too grand and vague to be authenticated without great cost. ICANN is tasked to administer names and addresses. Its stakeholders are those who have names and addresses or provide infrastructure and services related to same. In order to have an IP address or register a domain name, one must have access to computer hardware and connectivity. Those who can afford such access most likely can afford a nominal membership fee. Those who cannot, probably likewise do not care about these complex, convoluted technical issues. Membership dues, however minimal, provide a form of accountability for voting purposes. That's a reasonable quid pro quo for participating in the vote. I understand that one problem with collecting a membership fee is that it will cost more to administer this than will be collected if the fee is low. OTOH, no membership fee means higher costs of authentication for voting. By collecting a membership fee, some authentication is built into the processing of the registration. I suggest that MAC reconvene, go back to the virtual drawing boards, focus on who are the stakeholders of this corporation, not on some great humanitarian outreach for all mankind, and develop a proposal that ties voter authentication through membership fees, even if they are nominal or on a sliding scale. Otherwise, the current membership recommendations are as pie-in-the-sky as ICANN's $5.9 million budget. Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Speaking of verification (and saving money)
Eric Weisberg wrote: Here is an exchange I just had off list regarding ICANN's proposed means of verifying something (though, despite trying for the purpose of this note I can not define what) for voting purposes. Autodesk (leading mfg of CAD software) provides an online proxy voting option for its stockholders which I suggested could be a model for ICANN. I've been told this model is expensive. When does "expensive" become "inexpensive". Are there any pricing treshholds that are acceptable? What voting models are being explored? ^^^^ Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA Dot com is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Speaking of verification (and saving money)
Diane Cabell wrote: I'll put it at the top of my research list, but when I looked at the site, I didn't see any online voting, merely online announcements and copies of shareholder mailings. I believe it was handled through proxyvote.com. Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA Dot com is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] FYI
Someone wrote: SO HOW COULD SOMEONE REGISTER TITS.COM AT REGISTER.COM WHEN THEY BLOCK REGISTRATION *REQUESTS* FOR SUCH DOMAINS!?? Just to be sure that the TITS.COM and similar are still blocked, I tried registering various profane domains at both NSI webpage and via NSI registration template and couldn't. So my question is how could someone register TITS.COM?? The answer is simple. NSI, the registrar, has a different policy as regards "offensive" words (although I'm not certain this word fits that description) than does register.com. NSI officials confirmed to me late in April that this might occur in the Shared Registry System. I presume that words protected by federal statute (e.g., NASA, Olympic, Citius, Red Cross, etc.) will remain unavailable through any testbed or accredited registrars. Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150 (oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED]W W Tiburon, CA Dot com is the Pig Latin of the Information Age.
Re: [IFWP] feedback on NYT article
Jeri Clausing of the New York Times wrote: perhaps this is another argument for open meetings? : ) I applaud you, Jeri, for supporting the call for open meetings. As one who tried to participate remotely in the pre-meeting forum, I was distressed that messages regarding WIPO that focused on process (e.g., referring the recommendations to a fully formed DNSO) were shunted away in deference to those which were considered "substantive, i.e.,commented on specifics such as dispute resolution, famous marks. To paraphrase the tagline of the 1992 Democratic presidential campaign, It IS the process! If comments as to process were considered unsubstantive, it appears that the board had *pre-determined* that it was going to endorse some of the WIPO recommendations. I call for the interim, unelected ICANN board of directors to put *OPEN BOARD MEETINGS* as the FIRST agenda item of the Santiago meeting. Heretofore, we have seen NO public discussion among the nine board members about this issue, only the remarks of Esther and Mike Roberts. If the remaining seven good people of the ICANN BOD have any justification for keeping their decisionmaking discussions secret, they should at least have the courage and integrity to put those views forth. They have enormous control over the administration of a communications medium which is used by millions, and it is completely preposterous that they do not engage publicly in this important debate. Where are these people? Who are these people? Why should we acquiesce to their desire to remain in the shadows? If they are unwilling to participate in an open dialogue, then I call for their resignation so that those who remain can focus publicly on the primary responsibility of ICANN's interim board, which is to create a representative structure, not to dispense policy from on high. Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150 (oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED]W W Tiburon, CA Dot com is the Pig Latin of the Information Age.
[IFWP] ICANN Resolution on the WIPO Report
ICANN's Resolution regarding the report of the World Intellectual Property Organization in Berlin is certain to draw a broad variety of resposes. While I am pleased that ICANN has appropriately deferred recommendations in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 to the Domain Name Supporting Organization, some concerns remain. The ICANN board uses as justification for adoption of the recommendations of Chapter 2 that they parallel ICANN's Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy which was promulgated without public comment. This is post hoc ergo propter hoc policymaking. Next, the July 31 deadline for the DNSO to submit Chapter 3 recommendations to ICANN is too ambitious for a new organization. The DNSO is still in its infancy and the mechanics of its organization are not yet set up. Additionally, all six of the recognized constituencies are commercial: registries, registrars, business, trademark owners, and ISPs. No representation for a voice in domain name administration has been provided to non-commercial groups, community organizations, schools, churches, individuals, and indigenous groups. Thus, commercial interests have been given control of the DNSO decision-making process. The administration of domain names and addresses affects all Internet expression, not just the commercial interests. There is no reason to rush through the WIPO recommendations. Matters of such significance should not be decided by this interim, unelected, closed ICANN board. Instead of making interested parties scuttle their summer plans and scramble to meet ICANN's accelerated and arbitrary deadlines, and enabling such decisions to be made without input from individuals and the non-commercial constituents, the ICANN board should concentrate on establishing its membership structure and the mechanism to vote in a replacement board of directors. Disenfranchised, Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150 (oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED]W W Tiburon, CA Dot com is the Pig Latin of the Information Age.
Re: [IFWP] The Eight New Companies
FYI, the complete list of ICANN-accredited registrars, with links to their sites, is posted at: www.domainhandbook.com/registrars.html http://www.latimes.com/HOME/BUSINESS/t47542.html Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150 (oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED]W W Tiburon, CA Dot com is the Pig Latin of the Information Age.
Re: [IFWP] Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting (Wedesday)
Hi, again. I'm in the process of linking from my ICANN page (www.domainhandbook.com/icann.html) to various pages in the Berkman Center Berlin archive. There's a broken link at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/archive/junmurai-pres/ Root Server Advisory Committee presentation by Jun Murai Error 404. Not Found. Just more work you get to do when your finals are over. Thanks for providing the very important archive of these historic meetings. Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150 (oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED]W W Tiburon, CA Dot com is the Pig Latin of the Information Age.
