[IFWP] THE LIST: 8/25/99 (fwd
Not too irrelevant, I trust === Date sent: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 21:54:45 -0500 (CDT) From: John Aravosis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:THE LIST: 8/25/99 [...] GODHATESFAGS GOES HOME Unless you live under a rock, you're probably aware that over the last week, the Reverend Fred Phelps lost his domain name, www.godhatesfags.com, when some unknown individual surreptitiously transferred it to an individual owning the site www.godlovesfags.com. According to the latest news, the person who received the gift is now returning it to the good Reverend, after some pressure from his employer. Now, I must admit to a chortle or two on hearing of the news, but I have to also admit a bit of concern. Some Internet reporters I spoke with didn't think it was a big deal that Phelps lost his Web address, because he had been reportedly sloppy in the security he used to protect that name - i.e., it was his fault. But yet again I'll beat my drum and say that if companies are going to lure ma and pa onto the Net, claiming its safe and fun for the whole family, then they need to ensure that people won't up and lose their Web sites simply because they aren't computer rocket scientists. What if a large gay organization had lost its site in the middle of the Shepard murder, or during the Senate debate on hate crimes legislation? That would be a loss we could ill-afford.
[IFWP] Re: Cluing Congress in
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/21411.html Cluing Congress into Net ABCs by Chris Oakes [page 2::] Congress fundamentally has to feel that it is not on the sidelines of the Internet revolution, panel members said. The industry has to find creative ways to make government feel involved -- while simultaneously minimizing its role. "It's a Catch-22," Berman acknowledged. Former House Republican Robert Walker offered advice on the basic motivation of the average member of Congress. "People go to Congress to be in control -- it's why they go raise money, go through tough campaigns," Walker said. "They go to be at the center of [the] universe and be involved in public policymaking When something gets high on their radar screen they are going to seek ways to take control of it -- and that's what is happening now [with the Internet]." Another former representative, attorney Rick White, took the opportunity to quote digital deep thinker George Gilder: "Moore's Law governs Silicon Valley, but moron's law governs Washington, DC." White co-founded the Commerce Committee's Internet Caucus. That ignorance is why expectations for Congress achieving even a modicum of detailed understanding of Internet issues should be set very low, he cautioned. "Their job is to understand the big picture, and they will never, ever understand the Internet," he said. While educating them is important, industry must try to solve as many of its problems itself. "If you can't solve the problems, Congress will solve them. But they'll be rough solutions," White said. But if industry is going to try affecting congressional action by rallying employees and local communities into grassroots action, Dittus said, it has a long way to go. Most technology companies don't want to be bothered with the foreign world of politics, she said. "Members of Congress are saying ... 'I need to know that it matters to the employees back home, I need to know that it matters to the people back home.' But the industry is failing on that front By and large, we are failing to get that message out."
[IFWP] Today's Quote...
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny excercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences. -- C.S. Lewis, "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment," quoted in _A Mind Awake_, edited by C S Kilby (1968)
[IFWP] Re: First Nation iasues (was: New Internet Draft Gives Authority to Governments
Eric has been active in First Nation issues; maybe this is the first step towards genuinely independent domains for them. (And you thought 250 was a reasonable number off xxTLDs!) sorry I don't understand what "first nation" issues are? See for instance http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00079.html kerry
[IFWP] On being a California Non-profit
http://www.lawlewis.com/nonpfaqs.htm [...] Q. How can I best approach a potential donor with a request for funding? A. There is no single "best" way to approach a potential donor, as donors vary so much, but if we limit the scope of this response to private and corporate donors the following may be useful. Draft a business plan, to show the potential donor how you will use donations to your nonprofit. Show that you have identified the specific need you wish to alleviate, how you will provide the services required, why you and not some other group is best placed to meet that need, the costs you expect to incur in meeting the need, and from where you expect to receive the funds to do so. [*]A major part of your presentation to a prospective donor, especially a corporate donor is to clearly define how the donor will benefit from making a donation.[*] Assume that donated money must provide a comparable return, whether it be in "goodwill", increased corporate identity recognition or in directly increasing sales. Private donors also have expectations associated with donating to nonprofits, and failing to identify, and then [failing to] meet those expectations will make your fundraising efforts less effective. Major donors plan their giving program a year in advance, so plan your fund raising activities with this in mind. Q. The Board of Directors of my nonprofit seem to have lost faith with the purpose for which it was set up, as they do not participate as much as they could, what can be done to reinvigorate the Board to make it more effective? A. Boards of Directors are responsible for setting policy and acting as the nonprofits ambassadors to the community at large. As the nonprofit enters the various phases of its development, the demands on the skills of the individual Directors changes. Initially, the founding Board needs to be small, compact and involved in the details of setting up operations, but as the nonprofit becomes established as a force benefiting the community and begins to grow in both needs met, and funds received, the Board has different challenges to meet. No longer is it necessary for Directors to volunteer to provide services directly meeting the purpose of the nonprofit, rather, their role becomes one of community outreach, fundraising, promoting the benefits of the nonprofit to the community at large. As the role changes, so too must the individuals comprising the Board. Leadership and diplomacy is required to redirect the energies of directors who no longer have the skills the nonprofit requires to continue growing. New Directors are needed to carry out the changing role, but do not be too quick to discard those who have served a long time. An Advisory Board can play a very constructive role in guiding the Board, and in assisting with special projects. Q. I have heard that members can make running a nonprofit very complicated, but how can one exist without a grassroots support network? A. The California Business and Professions Code provides for both Membership and Non-Membership nonprofit Corporations. If a nonprofit decides to have "statutory" members, such members have rights and duties similar in nature to those of a shareholder in a for-profit corporation. For example, "statutory" members [*]elect Directors[*], make certain decisions, and may make certain demands on the nonprofit corporation. It is recommended that nonprofit corporations avoid designating anyone "statutory members" and avoid a level of bureaucracy such would otherwise impose. Instead, Make it crystal clear in the bylaws that even if a group of individuals wishes to belong to the nonprofit, and contribute to its purposes, and even be called "members" there is no intention to grant such a group the rights and duties of "statutory membership." Running the nonprofit will be a lot simpler, and yet the benefits of sharing the purposes of the nonprofit with a group of individuals remains. ===
[IFWP] Re: Comment on ICANN resolution for extension of Interim Board of Directors
Nick Lordi wrote, A new new resolution should be drafted, posted, given a reasonable comment period, and clearly address why it is necessary. Such a new resolution could be drafted along the lines of what Michael Froomkin suggested in his previously posted comments [...] ICANN needs to establish trust, and such an act would go a long way in establishing trust. Indeed, it should be seen as a vote of no-confidence, and as such provides an ideal opportunity for the Interim Board to dip their toes in open, Internet-style communication. An emergency *virtual* meeting of the board could be convened, wherein comments can not only be addressed to, but answered by, them. At the end of the day, those who succeed in achieving the quality and quantity of responses expected by the Interrnet community could be considered as having gained a mandate for an additional year. kerry
[IFWP] Court OKs some domains with trademarked 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 Internet addresses that include trademarked names do not necessarily constitute a violation, according to a ruling by a federal appeals court. The decision, handed down yesterday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, means that Mailbank, a small email provider that allows customers to easily customize their email addresses, may hold onto the names "avery.net" and "dennison.net." Office supply company Avery Dennison had sought to take possession of the addresses, arguing that they "diluted" its registered trademarks. A three-judge appeals panel unanimously ruled that Avery had no right to take control of the domain names because the company's trademarks did not meet the requirements of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, under which the suit was brought. The 1995 statute protects "famous" or "strong" marks--for example, Disney or Toyota--from being diluted though unauthorized use. The statute has been invoked repeatedly in disputes over domain names, especially against so-called cybersquatters, who register well-known trademarks as domain names and then sell them back to the holder at an inflated price. [...] ===
[IFWP] Re: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
Diane, there was no registration. But everyone who spoke from the floor identified themselves? What percentage might that have been? Time constraints are as much a function of how much total time a person has to invest as they are a function of the final deadline. I agree that e-mail is a great tool and in many cases will be the best tool. But IMHO it's far from perfect and a physical meeting still gets the job done much better. But is *a* person, or hyr time, the critical determinant? Isnt it rather, finding that elusive 'broad consensus of a representative community'? *Defining the job to be done by what can be done by the time/space/energy filters of a physical meeting is no solution at all. But lets grant there may be some 'job' that can be better achieved by the presence of 400 people instead of 4000 virtual voices -- even then their input has to be restricted 'so that everyone [sic!] can be heard'! Add in the open question whether the 400 souls who show up are in any way 'representative' (and whether they even feel particularly representative of even 10 others), and the sense that live meetings of this sort simply cannot help but be rubber-stamp sessions becomes very strong. That said, there may well be very sound countervailing reasons to forbid physical meetings, just as there are sound reasons to offer distance learning courses; but I don't think they encourage efficiency. Until one knows what end one is to reach, one cant tell if the means to get there are effective. And until one has a process that *works, there's precious little use worrying about efficiency - but the Interim Board is getting so tied up in making its putative process efficient, it doesnt seem to remember the goals it was supposed to achieve. kerry
[IFWP] Re: Director's terms
ART III. Section 3. NOTICE AND COMMENT PROVISIONS (ii) in advance of each Board meeting, a notice of the fact and time that such meeting will be held and, to the extent known, an agenda for the meeting. If reasonably practicable the Board shall post notices of special meetings of the Board at least fourteen (14) days prior to the meetings. I appreciate that this does *not say that the agenda for a board meeting should be posted 14 days prior. Nevertheless, I recommend to the Board that it amend the Bylaws to make such a condition pertain to items (such as the present Resolution) for which comments are solicited. It would be nice to have more than 4 days notice, even of foregone conclusions. For the present, I look forward to reading in the minutes a statement explaining precisely why the process referred to in Article V, Section 4(iv) has not yet been implemented. I believe the intention of the DoC White Paper is clear, that seating of an elected At Large Directorate was to have high priority on the Interim Board's agenda. By failing to do this, ICANN is duplicating the shortcomings of the gTLD-MoU. kerry miller
[IFWP] Re: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
Diane, The question of determining consensus based on random physical and virtual participation is, IMHO, one of the most compelling issues facing the Internet. I entirely agree with you, and one of the severest criticisms of ICANN is that it has resolutely ignored this issue, both in the context of legitimating its own Board procedures and in defining how the 'membership' is to participate. Again, you have taken my comments about Working Committees and applied them to the Interim Board. I specifically referred to what I believed worked best for the development of complex proposals. In many cases the committee knows very little about what the end result should be...that's the purpose of the working group (to gather information, evaluate it and perhaps make recommendations). I think the purpose of the Board meetings, on the other hand, *should* be to hear complaints and suggestions from the community as well as to attempt to assess consensus on all issues. I appreciate your first hand experience in working with both email and f2f groups on similar issues. The origin of the thread however was Ben's rationalization of the limits placed on remote participation at an open Board meeting, so I supposed you considered the MAC situation relevant. Nevertheless, the distinction you are now making is entirely germane: there is a difference between an exploratory, info-gathering process and a decision-making one -- and this distinction (some call it 'horizontal' vs 'vertical' communication) should be clearly understood in any administrative structure. What we seem to have here is an appointed board which is exploring, and committees which are making decisions. Then, every 3 months, the board comes together to make its decisions with a veneer of open participation -- by a public which thinks there are still issues to be explored. (Thus my rubber-stamp allusion; did you think I was suggesting that input from the floor was likely to be adopted then and there?) On the other hand, the subject of all the toing and froing is the Internet, which as Richard pointed out, has been managing/ managed very largely by email. Is it that the EEs didnt understand the difference between exploring and decisionmaking when a new device or revised protocol might be available the next day? Is everything really so cut-and-dried now that its 'technical' governors can aspire to 'vertical' communicative patterns alone, and leave the horizontal messiness to the SOs and interest groups whose voices arent very loud anyhow? Is the announcement imminent that IPv6 (or 8!) has been adopted by *this board? === The e-mail versus eyeball-to-eyball thread has been very helpful in getting some of the pros and cons spelled out, even granting the clear bias (of familiarity?) towards the latter. Isnt it a pity there isnt a venue (working group?) in which their implications for Net governance could be elaborated -- and from which some sort of position statement could emerge? But obviously, we shouldnt expect to do it entirely by email! What say we meet in Havana? kerry
[IFWP] Re: Access to icann Santiago realvideo feed
We have seen the abuses that can arise from anonymity on these very lists. On the contrary, havent we seen that abuse arises from *responding to anonymity per se rather than to the substance of any anonymous remark? Dirt-space jurisdictions legitimately recognize scarce resources (space, time, energy) and allocate them accordingly. A person petitioning the city council identifies hyrself as a bonafide resident *in order to create reciprocity*; that is, the exercise of the council's responsibilities to its constituency.Since ICANN has yet to define its 'membership,' there are efffectively no such bonafides, and therefore no reason to discriminate identified from anonymous inputs -- or, for that matter, to prefer multiple speakers over one longwinded microphone hog. Relying on an innate sense of fair play is all very fine, but it cuts both ways. By concocting rules of participation without committing to any substantive grounds for them, ICANN (and Berkman by association) is doing the entire process no favours at all. kerry
[IFWP] Re: Opposition to extension of terms of interim ICANN board
Ellen,
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
Where's the proposed resolution itself? How is it supposed to fit
the mission of the 'Initial Board' ("to pave the way for a smooth and
stable transition from the present technical management
system..." according to the factsheet)?
kerry
[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. Have you tried to run the parallel construction on another axis: that there are 'network' issues, and 'network of network' issues which are,as you say, distinctly different, *but have had to use the same terminology*? kerry
[IFWP] Re: Theories on media bias
Gordon, whew. kerry, I generally think you remarks are pretty reasonable but isn't jay damned if he does and damned if he doesn't by your remarks about we hear that the story is so complex that most editors won't touch it, yet when jay pares it down to its essentials you come back and say you might not run it because he oversimplifies things? The question in the mind on anyone who works with what we can call *balance is whether a submission makes the job easier or more difficult. If its a complicated issue, then the overall trend of coverage has to continually work towards bringing the complexities out -- or else they never get balanced, and the vehicle develops a 'bias.' The tendency to oversimply is perfectly natural and understandable, but excess in one direction is no easier to balance than excess in the other -- and in fact its often more difficult to bring in complexity once people get a simple picture in their head. So I agree that Jay is doing pretty well by his responsibilities, of acknowledging that he not only sees what is going on but has an understanding of it which deserves to be expressed for others to share. (That's more than some others are doing, despite their apparently endless time for sniping and jibing and quibbling.) My caution was only to the effect that throwing in 'red' flags gratuitously and rather obviously, I thought, as an afterthought, probably does his case for publication more harm than good. Sure, if there are political ramifications to a story, dont deny they are there; leave pointers to them on which to hang another story, or another chapter, or whatever -- dont just plaster a label on them and pretend that you've dealt with them. === Jay wrote, When you look at all of the coverage provided to ICANN over the last couple of weeks, you will find that virtually all of the stories have been framed as a fight between ICANN's mission to bring competition to the name space, and NSI's desire to hold on to their monopoly (see below). When Esther launched the public exposure in response to Jamie Love's letter (was it in May?), she intentionally pitched it just that way. That would have been the best time for a serious media counter-exposure, if the budding journalists among us had been ready for it. (As it was, I think we were all flabbergasted!) Now that that stage has been set, you may see that my comment about oversimplification is as germane there as to your own piece -- and that generally speaking, your hypothesised 'media bias' or blackout is nothing more than the logical consequence of this kind of PR: the *easy was to combat simplicity is with still greater simplicity: its a race to the bottom. Public journalism aims at the mind of a 15 year old, and I dare say the target is set lower every year. The job you're buying into is one of the toughest on earth: to wake people up to their own capabilities, their own power to interpret facts and draw conclusions. If you can do that in a simple way, more power to you -- but I would not be very optimistic. So whats a journalist to do? One way to balance excess simplicity is to spread the complexity very thin (have you seen Ken Auletta's coverage of the MS antitrust case?): a series, for instance, instead of one-shot articles. The really important issues are those that transcend the Network Solutions monopoly -- those that will remain after the NSI monopoly is devolved. Quite so -- forget this momentary hassle, and start *framing* the debate that is going to issue after Santiago, after 10 Sep, after etc. It's only just been 4 years, after all, since NSI started charging registration fees (*that anyone noticed* - who cared about cost-plus government contract payments?) -- the concrete is a long way from set up, and I dont see anybody pulling the forms off just yet. If these media outlets were sincere, however, they would simply publish "the other perspectives." But alas, when all is said and done, their coverage has not changed. Your pessimism is showing ;-) Have you considered that what writers, editors, publishers want is a *story*? War reports are meaningless until one knows what one is (supposed to be) fighting for. === As it happens, Jamie has just written, It is becoming clear that ICANN is an entirely new system of governance for the Internet. ... When we talk about "self governance," we need to begin to talk about who is the "self" and what is the "governance." We are inventing a new world government for cyberspace, but we are not creating a new world democracy in cyberspace, and this is the problem. Now, is 'reinventing government' a story? Is the array of approaches -- including utter Usenet-type chaos -- that have emerged to this perplexity a story? Does the "new system of reportage"under the Net influence tell us anything about the new system of governance? (Its the 4th Estate,
[IFWP] Re: Theories of media bias
"HOW THE MEDIA FRAMES POLITICAL ISSUES." http://www.west.net/~insight/london/frames.htm Here are some excerpts: ... First . . . objectivity in journalism is biased in favor of the status quo; it is inherently conservative to the extent that it encourages reporters to rely on what sociologist Alvin Gouldner so appropriately describes as the `managers of the status quo' - the prominent and the elite. [...] Since that is actually London quoting Ted Glasser, you might get some more positive insights from http://eagle.ca/caj/mediamag99/media99_10.html Glasser, ed. _The Idea of Public Journalism_ (Guilford Publications) excerpt: "There are ways to grant the public greater authority in journalism -- there are ways, in a sense, to democratize the practice of journalism itself. For instance, the movement of minorities and women to promote diversity in the newsroom is a form of democratization and a serious way to empower disempowered elements of the public by representing them in person among journalists. This does not offer any direct accountability, however, of the news institution to the public. Other forms do: The ombudsperson owes loyalty as much to the public as to the news institution. Media critics and media reporters take on their own institutions -- at least, they are supposed to -- with professional dispassion. Local or national news councils, never very popular among journalists, afford legitimacy to community press critics. Publicly owned news institutions such as the Public Broadcasting Service and its affiliated stations are responsible to boards representing the public and are sensitive to public criticism in ways that corporately owned news institutions can never be. "...Communication scholar Daniel Hallin put it this way: 'Journalists need to move from conceiving their role in terms of mediating between political authorities and the mass public, to thinking of it also as a task of opening up political discussion in civil society...it might be time for journalists themselves to rejoin civil society, and to start talking to their readers and viewers as one citizen to another, rather than as experts claiming to be above politics' " kerry
[IFWP] Ramos: Gambling is not commerce
TRICKY ISSUE IN GAMBLING CASE** Issue: E-Commerce Justice Charles Edward Ramos of the New York State Supreme Court ruled that operators of an Internet gambling casino based in Antigua violated New York State and federal anti-gambling laws. Regardless of where the computer server is located, an online gambling site creates a virtual casino within a local user's computer terminal which can be penalized by local and national laws which prohibit the promotion of gambling. This ruling could also impact other forms of electronic commerce. Jack Goldsmith, a law professor at the University of Chicago says it raises the question of how far a Web site should go to protect itself. "What kind of precautions do content providers need to take to avoid liability [in a state and from unauthorized users or buyers] and make business flourish?" If a Web site, for example, makes a good faith effort to screen out unauthorized users, then local law should not apply to its actions, says Goldsmith. It will be up to the courts now to follow-up with Ramos' ruling, however, and decide. === Is Goldsmith's the only question? Is protecting the Web site or the innocent customer the more important issue? If ICANN wants to require uniform dispute resolution, why not also require a uniform symbol of *what a visitors chances are* of getting something for their money? A registrar somewhere in the name-server business could keep the records of complaints of non-fulfillment vs total hits (or better, total numbers of SSC serves) on a site, and provide the odds on request. A browser who does not *transact could care less whether a site is a casino or a Ford Camino dealer. Otoh, any e-commerce worth the electrons it recycles should want to know how much risk its customers are prepared to run. kerry - **The Benton Foundation's Communications Policy and Practice (CPP) (www.benton.org/cpphome.html) Communications-related Headline Service is posted Monday through Friday. The Headlines are highlights of news articles summarized by staff at the Benton Foundation; in this case, from the New York Times (CyberTimes), AUTHOR: Calr S. Kaplan] (http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/08/cyber/cyberlaw/13law.ht ml)
[IFWP] Re: Theories on media bias
Complexity, confusion, etc. can't possibly explain the media blackout on ICANN! Maybe not, but if I were an editor, simplistic political concepts, such as identifying concern for anything but neoliberal economics as Socialism, would rather put me off publishing your piece. Good judgement is a fine line between complication and reductionism, but its always there if you look. kerry
[IFWP] Re: Other Countries
even if ICANN does try to extend its quasi authority to other countries in a 'co-operate or stop interconnecting with us' fashion, what's to stop other countries using their own address space and name serving convention internally (maybe even with other countries), and going through some giant IP/DNS translator on the way to/from the US? In the absence of clear information from the public-relations arm of ICANN; that is, the Interim Board, one may suppose that this is exactly what the GAC agenda addresses. Which way the power flows is debatable, but the suspicion persists that the outcome will be entirely unaccountable to any political process (except perhaps, in the fulness of time, the removal of some hapless 'ambassador to ICANN' from his or her position). That is, while you or I might think that having, say, a dozen different internal address-space and name-serving conventions is not only practicable but the obvious way to defeat monopolistic tendencies, the assembled Twomeys and threemeys may just decide that monopoly is not so bad, the only question is *whose monopoly. kerry
[IFWP] Re: open and closed
Tony wrote, The GAC is an autonomous intergovernmental body and can do whatever it wishes. The ICANN Board is obliged to confer with the GAC prior to taking any significant decisions, and the conversely the GAC can otherwise compel the Board to consider any matter the GAC cares to raise. and Craig responded, The GAC folks (the majority of whom I agree probably don't have a clue) are just looking out for the public interest, which is, I'd venture to claim, relevant here. Of Tony's three independent assertions, I agree with #1 and #2. The point of interest is #3, as Article VII states only that "Committees are of two kinds: those having legal authority to act for the Corporation, known as Committees of the Board, and those that do not have that authority, known as Advisory Committees. Secion 3(a) states, "The Governmental Advisory Committee should consider and provide advice on the activities of the Corporation as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between the Corporation's policies and various laws, and international agreements. The Board will notify the chairman of the Governmental Advisory Committee of any proposal for which it seeks comments under Article III, Section 3(b) and will consider any response to that notification prior to taking action." That is, the GAC is an _advisory committee, created to consider the 'concerns of governments' and their 'interaction' with ICANN policy, and as such, I agree that someone to look after such matters is entirely appropriate. But I fail to see that the agenda items I cited are the concerns of government, and even if they were, that they would interact with an organization which is on record as *not adopting the distinction of open versus closed TLDs. Did the Board "notify the chairman of the Governmental Advisory Committee of any proposal [on domains containing restrictions or conditions on registration that serve to ensure certainty with respect to the application and enforcement of laws] under Article III, Section 3(b)" or did it not? What is that proposal? Does it further pertain to "principles for the delegation of management for ccTLDs" -- that is, in one possible view, to the compelling of one or another ccTLD to adopt certain policies; for instance, a UDR? ICANN is required to make its board meetings public; I dont believe the committees are under the same obligation. If the GAC is doing ICANNs business, thats one thing; if it is doing Governments' business, thats something else, and I think we would be wise to know about it -- before 24 Aug. (Do any of the other Meetings run from 9 to 6:30??) Sour cynicism is well and good, but you may realize later that you have only yourself to blame for not keeping ICANNs feet to its own fire, regardless whose heels are the roundest. kerry
[IFWP] Re: yesterday's phone call (was: open and closed
Esther wrote, The GAC sets its own agenda, and we are not responsible for what it considersor advises. I really hope the Board invests in a dictionary. Ad-vise is in ad- dition to a vis-ion. An ad-vis-or is given something to look at, and _adds its views_. It does not set its own agenda, and the ICANN board had damn well better prove to be responsible for what the GAC considers or it will lose its license. Frankly, I was going to suggest you re-view (even re-vise) the minutes of the 8/12 meeting before they were posted, but it sounds as if its too late for that. In any case, from your selective response, I infer that the answers to the antecedent questions Why then has the issue been put on the Governmental Advisory Committee agenda? Does the GAC originate "advice" for the BoD? Is there a record of the BoD asking the GAC for this advice, against the recommendations of "staff"? are "I am not aware of any reason," "Yes" and "No." Are those correct? Will it then be correct to infer that the Board will have no reason -- unless the GAC gives it one, extemporaneously -- to consider a GAC report on the cited points at the meetings of 8/25- 26? If, on the other hand, the Board does consider it, will that report be posted according to Art III, Sec 3(b), "With respect to any policies that are being considered for adoption that substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third parties..., the Board will... provide public notice on the Web Site explaining what policies are being considered for adoption *and why*..."? kerry
[IFWP] Re: ICANN/NSI latest round
The two seats formerly held by NSI will now be represented by David R. Johnson and Phil L. Sbarbaro An NSI seat has been taken from NSI and given instead to its attorney? Is ICANN that dumb or is this a major con job? They certainly didnt improve their credibility by submitting identical 'votes' on the Proposed UDR for gTLD Registrars (http://www.dnso.org/votes/vote01/Archives/ ) -- and that was two weeks ago. kerry
[IFWP] Open and closed
Per the posted minutes of the Berlin meeting (5/27/99),
http://www.icann.org/minutes/berlinminutes.html :
"Finally, on a related matter, staff reported that ICANN had
solicited public comments on the question of whether "initial DNSO
Constituencies currently identified as 'ccTLD registries' and 'gTLD
registries' be re-categorized as 'open registries' and 'closed
registries,' identified according to whether the registry is open to
any registrant, worldwide ('open'), or is instead limited to certain
registrants based on geography, intended use, or other criteria
('closed')," and that the response had been largely negative;
therefore, the staff did not recommend taking any action on the
matter at this time."
Why then has the issue been put on the Governmental Advisory
Committee agenda? Does the GAC originate "advice" for the BoD?
Is there a record of the BoD asking the GAC for this advice, against
the recommendations of "staff"? Although there is no evidence that
the issue was revisited 6/23, was it on the agenda for the 8/12
telephone meeting?
On a related note, I suggest that ICANN and its associated groups
and committees make an effort to put the dates of origin and last-
modification on their web pages? In particular reference to
amendments to the Bylaws, where the 'paper trail' itself might be of
interest, could this annotation be expanded to preserve rather than
over-write the earlier version(s)?
Appreciating that following this up with any consistency is likely to
have only low priority for staff resources, I volunteer my hard drive
as a repository, and will provide the 5 Jun version of the ICANN
Bylaws, on request. (The relevant sections (2) and (3) are
appended below.) I hope someone with more resources can
archive the "extensive public comment," including the
documentation when "this matter was first discussed at ICANN's
May meetings in Berlin." (I note at the URL given above, that
Resolution 99.35 says only that" the Board requests that the
Constituency for gTLD registries agree... to select only one
individual (rather than three) to represent that Constituency on the
provisional Names Council, and the Board states that if such
Constituency does not agree to make only one such selection, the
Board will amend the Bylaws to effectuate such goal." The minutes
make no note of extensive public comment at that meeting, or that
the resolution embodied a consensus of attendees altho I agree
that some of the other resolutions (also appended) suggest there
was some concern at least on the part of the Interim Board.
While there is certainly a "need of the DNSO Names Council for
prompt clarification of its membership structure," I confess I am
surprised that this reversal of policy was not considered a
"significant Internet policy issue" to be discussed at a quarterly
meeting rather than on a special meeting teleconference. Has the
DNSO in fact "amended its proposal"? (icann.org/dnso/ does not
apparently refer to any proposal, nor have the "organizers of the
provisional Names Council" done so at http://www.dnso.org/
kerry miller
References:
http://www.noie.gov.au/docs/gac1.htm
Agenda for ICANN GAC (Meeting III, 9:00am to 6:30pm [!],
8/24/99 ) Santiago, Chile
4.Discussion on domains containing restrictions or conditions on
registration that serve to ensure certainty with respect to the
application and enforcement of laws ("restricted domains"), as
opposed to domains containing no such restrictions or conditions
on registrations ("open domains").
5.Discussion on principles for the delegation of management for
ccTLDs.
As posted 5 June, VI (2) a reads in its entirety:
" The NC shall consist of three representatives from each
Constituency recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set
forth in Section 3 of this Article."
VI (3)c reads in part:
" Nominations within each Constituency may be made by any
member of the Constituency, but no such member may make more
than one nomination in any single Constituency; provided that this
limitation shall not apply to any Constituency with less than
three members."
As amended 12 August:
"The NC shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance
with Section 3(c) of this Article, from each Constituency
recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section
3 of this Article."
"Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Constituency may have more
representatives on the NC than there are members of the
Constituency."
=
Further minutes of the Berlin meeting (my emphasis):
FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.32), that the President of
the Corporation is directed to work with the Constituencies to
amend their proposals to address deficiencies noted by the Board,
wh
[IFWP] Benton: NYT -Amazon.com deal
Isnt it amazing what a little dickering can do, when both parties actually have something to dicker with? TIMES CO. AND AMAZON SETTLE A LEGAL DISPUTE Issue: Legal Issues Amazon and the New York Times have settled a dispute over the use NYTimes best seller list by the online bookseller. Amazon agreed to list the best-selling books in alphabetical order, post the lists after publication in the newspaper and include disclaimers that the NYTimes was not affiliated with Amazon. In turn, Amazon has agreed to continue providing weekly sales data to the newspaper. "They didn't threaten to withhold their data, but it was very clear to us that their data is of benefit to us," said Nancy Nielsen, a spokeswoman for the Times Company. "So when we made the settlement, it was written going forward that this was a quid pro quo." "The bottom line is that this is an agreement that benefits the book-reading public," said Bill Curry, a spokesman for Amazon. "You have a widely recognized list of best sellers on line so that people can readily know that these books are available at Amazon.com. And from The Times's perspective, the integrity of the best-seller list" will be maintained "because it will include sales data from the biggest seller of online books." [SOURCE: New York Times (C7), AUTHOR: Doreen Carvajal] (http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/08/biztech/articles/10times .html) === The Benton Foundation's Communications Policy and Practice (CPP) (www.benton.org/cpphome.html) Communications-related Headline Service is posted Monday through Friday. The Headlines are highlights of news articles summarized by staff at the Benton Foundation.
[IFWP] 'Yugo-Nostalgics' Start Cyber Republic (fwd
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- /** ips.english: 452.0 **/ ** Topic: RIGHTS-YUGOSLAVIA: 'Yugo-Nostalgics' Start Cyber Republic ** ** Written 9:06 PM Aug 9, 1999 by newsdesk in cdp:ips.english ** Copyright 1999 InterPress Service, all rights reserved. Worldwide distribution via the APC networks. *** 09-Aug-99 *** Title: RIGHTS-YUGOSLAVIA: 'Yugo-Nostalgics' Start Cyber Republic By Vesna Peric-Zimonjic BELGRADE, Aug 9 (IPS) - A ''Cyber Yugoslavia (CY)'' without armed forces, police, supreme leaders, ideologies nor ethnic hatred is now giving virtual citizenship to people who feel deprived, or nostalgic, of their homeland. The virtual state grants its citizens many rights often denied in real life by the ethnic states created after the disintegration of Yugoslavia in 1991. ''We lost our country in 1991 and became citizens of Atlantis,'' says the web site at http://www.juga.com. ''Juga'' was a popular nickname of the former Yugoslavia, the multinational country constituted by Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. ''We don't have a physical land, but we do have nationality and we are providing CY citizenship and CY passports,'' the organisers say. They are also planning to apply for United Nations membership when the registered citizens reach five million. The site welcomes anyone who ''feels Yugoslav, regardless of current nationality, to apply for CY citizenship''. ''We are allowing double and triple citizenship. If you feel Yugoslav, you are welcome to apply ... and you will be accepted'' the site says. The invitation is a fine irony that thousands of former Yugoslavs understand too well: many faced enormous problems when Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina broke away from the federation. Slovenia and Croatia were swift in denying citizenship or raising bureaucratic hurdles to people who could not prove ethnic ''purity,'' in spite of the former federation's discouragement of nationalistic attitudes. Ethnically mixed Slovenians and Croats - born from mixed marriages - still face problems when they want to claim or sell property, obtain working permits or just stay in their country of birth. Hurrying to do away with anything that would remind people of the country they once shared, all newly created states also denied dual citizenship rights. The same was done to thousands of non-Serbs in what since 1992 became the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), integrated by Serbia and Montenegro. Once Cyber Yugoslavia reaches a citizenship of five million, it will apply for UN membership and ''we will ask for 20 square metres of land anywhere on Earth to be our country. On that land, we will keep our server,'' the site says. The founding father of CY is Zoran B., a computer programmer who emigrated to western Europe along with more than 300,000 young and qualified people who have left Serbia since 1991. Zoran B is a seclusive person, who has given only one interview so far - via electronic mail - to the Croatian independent weekly Feral Tribune. As being Yugo-nostalgic is one of the least desirable characteristics in Croatia, the weekly asked Zoran B whether he plans to reestablish Yugoslavia in any manner. ''No,'' he says, ''CY does not represent the reestablishment of any Yugoslavia...It is not even a movement...It is a thing of its own, living only in cyberspace.'' Most of those who have applied for CY citizenship come from the former Yugoslav republics, Holland, Portugal, Germany, Spain, Great Britain and the United States. But in a way that once used to be good manners in the former homeland, in Cyber Yugoslavia ethnic origin is not an issue. Like any other country, CY has ministers, constitution and symbols. Unlike any other country, however, every citizen can head a ministry of his/her choice. Every applicant names his or her portfolio, which so far range from fishing, knitting, , cocktail making to disarmament, nice talking, dancing, sunset watching or wining and dining. A list of citizens and ministries is available at the site. Mocking the rigid and sometimes pompous constitutions of the former Yugoslav republics, CY's constitution is ''variable''. ''Every citizen has the right to suggest a change in the Constitution. This suggestion has to be accepted or rejected by the entire CY population through the method of public vote,'' the chart states. A two-thirds majority vote is required to implement changes. ''No person can become President, King or Prime Minister of CY, nor to impose his/her personal will on the citizens of CY,'' the republic's founding chart warns, wary of bitter experiences in the region, where leaders tend to identify themselves with the nations and states they rule. CY's symbols - anthem, flag and coat of arms - are also ''variable.'' Citizens may vote for or against them. Again, this is an irony referring to the new states' hostility to any symbols that
[IFWP] Re: vacation
I'm going camping for a week leaving today. Brian Reid knows the password to this list, if there are any problems anybody who knows majordomo can talk to Brian and get it fixed. Yes, what's become of the Aug 99 archives (not to mention the traffic!)?
[IFWP] Let the public in on WTO talks (fwd
Who wrote this play, anyhow? --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 00:39:51 -0500 (CDT) From: "Margrete Strand-Rangnes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:(wto) Seattle: "A plan to let public in on WTO talks" A plan to let public in on WTO talks Clinton wants officials to hear from array of groups Friday, August 6, 1999 By MICHAEL PAULSON SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration wants to set aside the day before this fall's World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle to allow consumer, environmental and labor groups to air their concerns directly to the world's trade ministers. The move to provide a formal opportunity for public interest groups to address members of the often closed and secretive international organization comes as companies, countries, and a variety of organizations are stepping up their efforts to influence the Seattle gathering, which will be the largest trade meeting ever held in the United States. Industries from chocolate manufacturers to liquor distillers want Congress to put their needs on the U.S. agenda, while members of Congress want to use the WTO to do everything from stemming the flow of filmmaking jobs to Canada to protecting U.S. steel and sugar industries. And an army of public interest groups, concerned that trade liberalization is coming at the expense of the environment, food safety, consumers and workers, is planning a mix of protest and participation in their efforts to call attention to their critique of global trade liberalization. Although many countries do not share the United States' concern about labor and environmental issues, Deputy United States Trade Representative Susan Esserman testified at a congressional hearing yesterday that her agency hopes to offer consumer groups, business associations, environmental groups and labor organizations a chance to publicly voice their views. Her boss, Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, will be chairwoman of the Seattle meeting. "We do think it's very important for members of civil society to have direct access to the ministers," Esserman said. Then, citing a "very successful and very positive" gathering in Geneva in March in which environmental groups were allowed to speak to WTO trade ministers, Esserman said, "we are also contemplating doing the very same thing on a range of issues the day before the ministerial (meeting) begins in Seattle." Esserman said the gathering for business, consumer, environmental and labor groups might be a tough sell to some countries. "Many governments around the world do not share our interest in labor, so there is a great deal of work that needs to be done . . . to talk to other governments about the importance of including the labor perspective." Pressed by Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., on whether the interest groups would really have an opportunity to speak directly to foreign trade ministers, Esserman said "we are seeking to include mechanisms for direct participation, by labor, by environmental groups, so that they have a chance to directly provide their views to the ministers in the WTO. This is something that we have been urging on the other countries in the WTO who don't necessarily share our interest in doing this. But we have very, very strongly advocated doing it." Critics of the fast pace at which the WTO is affecting world trade greeted Esserman's proposal with skepticism. Although President Clinton hopes the Seattle session will launch a new round of global trade negotiations, the critics say the WTO would be better off pausing to reflect on the successes and failures of past trade liberalization efforts. "If we have this kind of forum the day before the ministers meet, not only is it going to be too little, but it will be too late," said David Downes, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, who said the United States government has not been aggressive enough in pushing environmental concerns. "By the time the ministers sit down in Seattle, the deal will have been done, so this will have as much show value as anything else." Environmentalists are concerned that in the rush to remove trade barriers between nations, it is becoming too easy to override environmental standards of various countries. That complaint is echoed by advocates of strict food safety and labor standards, who argue that the most progressive countries are being forced to give up some of their consumer and worker protections in the interests of uniform global regulations. "Our ultimate objective is that there should no longer be a downward harmonization of health and food and environmental standards," said Mike Dolan, the deputy director of the Global Trade Watch program of Public Citizen, a consumer group founded by Ralph Nader. "There has been a
[IFWP] Re: Internet stability
For example, I know very little about how my local water or electricity is served to me. Should I know more about it? Perhaps. But that would take quite a bit of time, and leave me with much less time to study these issues. Even if I were to devote my life to studying policy issues, would I have enough time to study all of them sufficiently so that if it came time for me to decide what 'governance' I wanted, I would make the 'right' choices? Sheerly by coincidence, I dare say, you state the rationale for collective organization. By yourself, *studying everything you need or want to know does indeed take all your time -- and then some. But get together with a bunch, all of whom are interested in the topic, who readily share their experiences, and who talk about and act on the issues (be they water or electricity supply or governance and representation) in their normal conduct, and soon you have a what is called an informed populace (sometimes even "public") without one minute having to be spent "studying" any of it. Call it open-source society if you like, but many hands make light work -- and I recommend this business model to the .car folks who want to compete with AOL. kerry
[IFWP] Larry Irving to Leave NTIA (fwd
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:08:53 -0500 (CDT) From: Kevin Taglang [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Larry Irving to Leave NTIA Wednesday, August 4, 1999 Contact: Morrie Goodman (202) 482-4883 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS LARRY IRVING TO LEAVE COMMERCE WASHINGTON-- Larry Irving, assistant secretary of Commerce for Telecommunications and Information, will leave the Commerce Department post at the end of the summer, Commerce Secretary William M. Daley announced today. Irving will be succeeded by Gregory L. Rohde, Senior Legislative Assistant to Democratic Senator Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota. Irving, the first African American to head the Commerce Department agency, was appointed by President Clinton in 1993. He played a major role in the Administration's efforts to bring about the most sweeping reform of U.S. telecommunications law in 60 years, the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He was also a key proponent within the Clinton-Gore Administration of policies designed to promote diversity in the commercial broadcast arena and to increase opportunities for minorities and women in the emerging digital economy. Secretary Daley, in accepting Irving's resignation, said: "Larry has been a tremendous asset to the Department of Commerce. He has been a master at crafting the Administration's telecommunications policy in a way that the resulting vast economic benefits will be accessible to Americans from all walks of life. I wish him well in his future endeavors." During his six-year tenure at the Commerce Department, Irving earned a reputation as an international leader in telecommunications and information policy. He worked to open foreign markets to the U.S. telecommunications industry, secure better protection for consumers and open up advanced telecommunications services to rural and other underserved areas of the country. A member of the Clinton-Gore Administration's technology team, Irving played a major role in the Administration's initiatives to promote Electronic Commerce and the Information Superhighway. Most recently, Irving initiated a landmark Federal Government survey, "The Digital Divide: Falling Through the Net," which showed more Americans than ever have become connected to computers, telephones and the Internet, while the gap between information "haves" and "have nots" has widened significantly. The report recommended that pro-competition policies and initiatives aimed at increasing Internet access be pursued to close the digital divide. Irving's successor, Gregory Rohde has served as Senator Dorgan's chief policy advisor on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which includes technology and telecommunications issues. He has contributed to significant legislation including, the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Before joining Senator Dorgan's staff, he served as a Team Coordinator for the Health Care Financing Administration on the Transition team for the Clinton-Gore Administration. === August 4, 1999 PRESIDENT CLINTON NAMES GREGORY L. ROHDE AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release August 4, 1999 PRESIDENT CLINTON NAMES GREGORY L. ROHDE AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The President today announced the nomination of Gregory L. Rohde as Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the Department of Commerce. Mr. Gregory Rohde, of North Dakota, has served as Senior Legislative Assistant for United States Senator Byron L. Dorgan since 1993. He also serves as chief policy advisor for all areas of jurisdiction under the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which includes telecommunications, transportation, science, space, and technology issues. Mr. Rohde has contributed to significant legislation including the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provided for comprehensive reform of all aspects of the telecommunications and media industries, and the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which provides a moratorium on state and local taxation of electronic commerce. In 1992, Mr. Rohde directed the Nicholas Spaeth for Governor campaign in the state of North Dakota. From 1988 to 1992, he served as Legislative Assistant to then Representative Byron L. Dorgan. Mr. Rohde received a Bachelor of Science in Education from North Dakota State University and a Bachelor of Sacred Theology from Catholic University of America in 1988. The Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information serves as the Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The Assistant Secretary is responsible for formulating policies supporting the development and growth of telecommunications, information and related industries; furthering
[IFWP] Public space
From Europe-online, 26 Aug 1998 http://www.isys.hu/online-europe/current/0440.html ASPEN, Colorado (Wired) - "Why should public values not have a role?," asks Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig about the building of the Internet. A keynote speaker at the "Aspen Summit 98," sponsored by Newt Gingrich's Progress and Freedom Foundation, Lessig acknowledged that "it would be a disaster for [members of] the government to become code writers But the Constitution should have some effect on [the architecture of the Internet]." Lessig says the Internet rises above purely private enterprise to "world- building." He wants values to be protected and suggests not to do so will help erode confidence in government. Dissenting is John Perry Barlow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation: "Larry wants to make cyberspace safe for law. I want to keep law out of cyberspace." Declan's reaction on the POLITECH list: At 09.50 am 8/25/98 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: I'm often skeptical of calls for "public values," since those who talk about them may have different values than I do. But that aside, Lessig's proposal (as I understand it) would seem to work in two ways: individuals who construct the Net's architecture changing their minds of their own free will. Or the government would force Internet architectural changes supposedly "to comply with the Constitution" through law and regulation -- so long IETF -- a move that would likely in itself violate the Constitution. So if a technology becomes popular enough, clue-impaired Congressfolks and corporate lobbyists get to dictate standards? No thanks. Besides, last I checked, even the Constitution is just a local ordinance online. -Declan You *can't* keep law out of cyberspace, and most people don't want to. The issue is *whose* law -- ideally, that of those governed by it, on a mostly local basis. It is not possible to be value-free, nor is it posssible to be law-free when there is more than one player. (I think Lessig is trying to say that as long as you have architecture, you have values. And as long as you have code, you have architecture. So let's see what values the architectures are implementing, explicilty, and deal with them.) The goal is for the laws to be agreed upon by the maximum proportion of players. That's why local laws are often best, because people who like one or the other style of law can cluster there. And people who don't like one cluster can create their own. But let's not kid ourselves that there aren't some universal public values. Last I heard, freedom is one such public value; another is truth; and a third is choice - a.k.a. competition, among companies *and* among systems of governance/laws. And, yes, let's recognize that even freedom is not absolute when one person's freedom clashes with another's. Face it, folks, no rules can avoid all conflict and no-rules creates conflicts where the bad guys often win. Esther Dyson
[IFWP] Report from Geneva, 25 July 1998 (was: Internet stability
Isnt it interesting how little actually changes in real time? Could it be that, regardless of our ideological differences, we're shudder _ineffective_? http://www.nettime.org/nettime.w3archive/199808/msg00026.html Report from the Front Meeting in Geneva Rushes to Privatize the Internet DNS and Root Server Systems by Ronda Hauben There is a battle being waged today, one that is of great importance to the future of society, but most people have no idea it is taking place. I just returned from Geneva, Switzerland where a meeting was held Friday July 25 and Saturday July 26 to create the organization that Ira Magaziner, advisor to the U.S. President, has called for. It is an organization to privatize key aspects of the Internet, the Domain Name System (DNS) and the control of the root server of the Internet. The meeting was the second in a series that are part of the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) (1). The U.S. government, without discussion by the U.S. Congress, the press or the public, and contrary to the direction of the U.S. court (in the case ACLU vrs. Reno) is throwing a bone to the private sector and offering them the possibility of making their millions off of the Internet. And while in Geneva, I saw folks from several different countries grabbing at the bone, in hopes of getting themselves some of the same kind of exorbitant profits from selling gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains) that the National Science Foundation (NSF) bestowed on Network Services Inc (NSI) several years ago by giving them the contract enabling them to charge for domain name registration. There is money to be made, or so these folks seem to think, and so any concern for the well being of the Internet or its continued development as "a new medium of international communication" (ACLU vrs Reno) has been thrown to the wind by Mr. Magaziner, IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) under the direction of Mr. Postel, which has the U.S. government contract to administer the Internet Addresses and Names and to administer the root server, and the others who, without any ethical considerations or social obligations are rushing through this process and squelching discussion and dissent. It is called "consensus" we are told. I went to the session setting up the Names Registry Council provisions for the bylaws of what we are told is to be the new private organization controlling these key aspects of the Internet. At the beginning of the meeting, I made the mistake of objecting when all were asked to register their consensus with the provision for a Names Council. I wanted to hear some discussion so I would know what I was voting on. I was scolded by one participant for asking for a discussion. He claimed that they were *not* here for people who had not read the bylaws proposal that appeared online only a few days before. I had read the bylaws proposal but was naive enough to think that one would hear discussion and clarification before being asked to declare one's adherence. In that way I thought one would know what one was agreeing to. Instead, however, I soon learned that that was *not* how business (or really religion) was being developed in the session I attended. After harassing me for asking for clarification and discussion, the meeting continued. The Chairman asked people to brainstorm and list the functions for the council. When I asked that the activities of the council be reported online and that there be online discussion with anyone interested being allowed to comment on all issues concerning the council, the scribe miswrote what I had proposed. When I asked it be corrected, I was told by the Chair that there was no "wordsmithing" allowed, i.e. that it would not be corrected. After a number of people had listed functions for the council, it was announced that the meeting would vote on the functions to determine if there was "consensus". Then a vote was rammed through on the items. However, instead of counting the numbers for or against each function, there was a declaration of "consensus" if, we were told, it seemed as if there were 60% of those voting who had voted for the listed function. For the first few functions those opposed were allowed to voice their objection. The meeting was being tape recorded, we were told, and there would be a record kept of it. But that soon ended as someone in the room objected to hearing any objections. The Chair said that this was how this was done at the telecom meetings he knew of, as there the players were large corporations with large bank accounts that could afford big law suits. Here, however, it seemed those in control of the meeting judged this was not the case. A short break was called. After the break it was announced that those with objections could no longer voice them on the record during the meeting but were told to come up after the meeting was
[IFWP] Santiago Agenda
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/ "Agenda Summary. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will hold its third public meeting series on August 24 through 26 in Santiago, Chile. The meeting series will include meetings of the DNSO Constituency Groups and the DNSO General Assembly (August 24); a Public Forum held by the Governmental Advisory Committee (August 24); a Public Meeting (August 25); and a meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors (August 26). "Where To Go For More Information. ICANN has prepared an _agenda_, and local organizers have graciously prepared a helpful page of logistical details including information about meeting locations and nearby hotels and restaurants." Sadly, the _agenda_ link http://www.icann.org/santiago/santiago-details.htm lists only venues and tentative schedules. One would hope that 3 weeks before an internationally open board meeting, some glimpse of an actual agenda might be made visible. Shall we look at amending the bylaws, or presenting the Board with a dictionary? kerry
[IFWP] Re: Internet stability
Richard Sexton wrote, Show me where is says the internet was created as a public resource. Or, if it was created as a private resource, show me where this was made into a public resource. Even Canadian civics classes fall short, I guess. Public 'resources' -- what used to be called the public domain until it got to be too confusing -- do not need an enactment in order to exist. On the contrary, AFAIK, everywhere it has been the concept of private property which had to be legislatively created against the common ground. Perhaps quoting Bill L will help: De facto becomes de jure, and that is how the common law comes about. No end of statutes refer to "accepted business practices" or "community standards" or the like as the standard against which some specific conduct is measured, so people who write RFCs or set up protocols or distribute roots in whatever way are in fact writing the "law" on which future decisions will be made, whether they know it or not. I think it's safe to say that when private interests get together to *accept some 'acceptable' business practice or to uphold some standard of community conduct, they are (re-)creating/ defining public space whether they know it or not. I might add, its a bit discouraging to see so many imaginative types react unthinkingly to a mere word, instead of adopting it as part of their arsenal - I mean, repertoire. kerry
[IFWP] The Internet Solution
Occasionally Tom Friedman gets the picture: http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/friedman/073099frie.html July 30, 1999 FOREIGN AFFAIRS / By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN The New Human Rights In this post-totalitarian world, the human rights debate needs an update. While Americans are focusing on issues of free speech, elections and the right to write an op-ed piece, people in the developing world are increasingly focused on workers' rights, jobs, the right to organize and the right to have decent working conditions. Quite simply, for many workers around the world the oppression of the unchecked commissars has been replaced by the oppression of the unregulated capitalists, who move their manufacturing from country to country, constantly in search of those who will work for the lowest wages and lowest standards. To some, the Nike swoosh is now as scary as the hammer and sickle. These workers need practical help from the West, not the usual moral grandstanding. To address their needs, the human rights community needs to retool in this post-cold-war world, every bit as much as the old arms makers have had to learn how to make subway cars and toasters instead of tanks. "In the cold war," says Michael Posner, head of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, "the main issue was how do you hold governments accountable when they violate laws and norms. Today the emerging issue is how do you hold private companies accountable for the treatment of their workers at a time when government control is ebbing all over the world, or governments themselves are going into business and can't be expected to play the watchdog or protection role." The impulse is to call for some global governing body to fix the problem. But there is none and there will be none. The only answer is for activists to learn how to use globalization to their advantage -- to super-empower themselves -- so there can be global governance, even without global government. They have to learn how to compel companies to behave better by mobilizing consumers and the Internet. I'm talking about a network solution for human rights, and it's the future of social advocacy. [...]
[IFWP] Re: kmm063 II
Sorry, the para lost a line: Now I accept, getting there might well involve a coordinating board. (In view of numerous modern political shenanigans, I would however stipulate as a condition of holding office that *all ones [communications be online; and that] rather than going into immediate debt to the tune of $K/ day, why don't we float an independent currency (e-ducats) on the basis of our real stock in trade, the traffic in knowledge? kerry
[IFWP] kmm063 II (was: Vixie to RBL NSI?
II, Michael S! The potential consequential damages are pretty dramatic... This is precisely the sort of danger that the entire Internet will be running if ICANN (read "CORE and ISOC") controls the root. The best thing that can happen is that they implement their threat to black hole NSI. That will force the U.S. Government to see that the root must be maintained as a government service, beyond the reach of discriminatory special interests. This is precisely the sort of proof that the entire Net has to be conceived as self-governing. Certainly the best thing that can happen is that NSI is RBLd, to make it clear that daddy (or mommy ;-)) will not maintain the root _for us_ without making it even more frustrating to deal with special interests. We wanted free enterprise; we got free enterprise. Now if we want an accountable government to make seriously wise decisions, we have to do it ourselves and cut the sandbox chat. Now I accept, getting there might well involve a coordinating board. (In view of numerous modern political shenanigans, I would however stipulate as a condition of holding office that *all ones rather than going into immediate debt to the tune of $K/ day, why don't we float an independent currency (e-ducats) on the basis of our real stock in trade, the traffic in knowledge? That is, the Net is the middlemanager, and rather than selling it out to USG or anybody else it only needs to claim the niche that has grown around it. The old concept of communication was that everybody did it for themselves: A 'talked to' B and that was all there was to it. What this continuing furore over pornography and censorship and spam and civil liberties and so on reveals is that A and B both much prefer to talk *through* C, to protect their sensibilities - or, conversely, to disguise their intentions. This is a service the Net, in all its manifestions and degrees of reliability and consistency, is exquisitely positioned to provide. Our client states out there who want their 'information' pure can pay for the privilege; it does take a rather special breed of character to be able to cope with the continual bombardment of unsolicited sensory stimulation, and to take this responsibility on their behalf. Naturally, there will be a sliding scale of services: the ordinary Jo_6pak will hardly be able to afford the 100% insulation which some governments and corporations (who can afford the lawyers to comprehend the kind of contract that would be involved) would likely demand. No, for say $10/mo of access/protection, most folks will settle for a very simple contract, that even I could implement: no hardcore, no blatant comeons, no INSTANT$$$ on one side, and on the other, all the gen on guppies and their discontents that's out there. Heck, I could probably manage a caseload of 20 or 30 clients even if I did it all longhand (which of course is hardly necessary, but the image is one worth inculcating, like slaving over a hot console). And ol Jo_6p, who might come through with about 10 cents a day, figuring to cope with the flood of mis/information on hys own? Hy's our secret weapon, dont you see? Because, due to this app- renticeship, this voluntary surfeit of info-exposure, *hy's going to become just the kind of netizen who can take this same responsibility on others' behalf. Hy'll *know what its worth to have this kind of judgement beng exercised by somebody else instead of DIY. All the II (Independent Internet) has to do is make it worth Jo_6p's while to stick it out and win hys discriminating spurs (aspirations/ apsaras/ aspersions, depending on context) rather than diving under the umbrella of some dirt-spaced/ two-faced employer or empire as soon as hy can afford it. I may be wrong, but something tells me II is (am?) about ready to go (that is *be) public. Oh, you want to know what tells me such things? I'm happy to oblige -- and that'll be an e-ducat for you, too, same as anybody. But (for free!) isnt it clear that 'Each one teach one' is now a paying proposition? II, kerry
[IFWP] Re: Suggestions Requested: Real-Time Chat Software or Sites
Richard wrote, tho Im really responding to Ben and the Berkmanites: I've been trying to emulate the f2f group/association meting in cyberspace for about 15 years. What I notice is, the physical presence is vitally important. When people are disconnected from that they say awful things and behave in a manner they probably would not if a room full of people were watching them. When Esther asks permission to quote you in defence of closed Board meetings, what's your response? This has been written about for years with respect to email, and what find is that, nominally, each service of the net has it's own culture and ethos. If I was in the habit of repeating myself, I would say, again, that the business of Internet governance is very like running a list, and while the topic here is IRC (which as you say rather goes the other way from civility), I think the issue should not be hastily dismissed. ASCII (among other character sets) has been developed over a couple thousand years as a nice compromise between the positive value -- data-density, in space and time, aka 'emotional depth' -- of f2f, and the negative value -- the limited capacity of many receivers to handle that density, aka 'emotionally challenged users,' some of whose pure binary black/ white reactions would astound even a dyed-in-the-wool techie. Taking that spectrum as the frame of reference (and acknowledging that 'receiver' here is better understood as transceiver), one can pick a spot anywhere along it, of course. You want more immediacy? - go towards IRC and MMX. More deliberation? -- go towards peer-reviewed proceedings of the Internet Cogitation Association (of... no, not now!) But as long as there is still an installed capacity of literacy, and the pedagogical infrastructure to support it, it seems foolish to rush headlong towards someehting else without at least *some consideration. For instance, you wrote, IRC is a very very hostile place and I think it brings out the absolute worst in poeple. What can be an argument on a mailing list is much more intense and instant on IRC and usually escalates to higher plateus fairly quickly. and I absolutely agree. But -- given the pressure to open ICANN board meetings -- wouldnt it be just like them to propose conducting them IRC? Nobody would think for a minute it could possibly be useful, and we would suddenly discover 'consensus' for hermetically sealed meetings. In short, what is *vitally important is not 'physical presence' per se -- isnt it rather the feeling of having time enough to be understood? F2F does indeed offer a nice time/ understanding ratio, but so can any other medium. The error lies in imagining that 'instantaneous communication' means instant understanding when it actually needs *more time -- and your IRC is evidence (as if anyone on a mailing list actually needed more evidence!) of folks' not understanding that. Pick your poison, sure -- but I'd say, lets get ICANN to conducting its affairs in print first, before we go haring off into the wild blue spectrum looking for 'realism.' kerry
[IFWP] Bliley re DotcomDir
http://com-
notes.house.gov/cchear/hearings106.nsf/eeae8466ba03a215852567
7f004b4d11/bcf8be32bd730c4f852567bd00735a56?OpenDocument
Dear Mr. Rutt:
I am writing to learn more about actions by Network Solutions
Incorporated ("NSI") to introduce a new Internet directory. This new
directory -- called the "dot com directory" -- apparently utilizes data
that NSI has collected pursuant to its Cooperative Agreement with
the U.S. government. NSI possessed exclusive authority to collect
this data until June 1999, when competitive registrars began
offering domain name registration services.
As you may know, officials from your company have briefed
Committee staff several times about NSI's proprietary claims to the
underlying data that NSI apparently has decided to use in the dot
com directory. During these meetings, Committee staff indicated
that the Committee likely would request written responses related
to the subjects discussed during the briefings.
In light of NSI's introduction of this new directory, and the emerging
competition for domain name registration services, the Committee
wants to learn more about the effect your company's actions may
have on an open and competitive domain name marketplace and
the potential consumer confusion that could result from such
actions. Accordingly, in order to assist the Committee in its review
of this matter, please provide the following information to the
Committee by August 10, 1999:
1. During your testimony last week before the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, you indicated that NSI is claiming a
proprietary right to the data in the WHOIS database, which
apparently is the same data that will be used in the dot com
directory. Regarding NSI's proprietary claims to this data:
a. Please identify all individual and aggregate data elements to
which NSI is claiming a proprietary right;
b. For each data element identified in response to request 1.a.,
provide a detailed explanation of the legal analysis under which NSI
is claiming a proprietary right to the data element in question. All
legal analyses should identify the nature of the proprietary right
being claimed, such as trade secret or copyright, and whether the
proprietary right being claimed is exclusive or non-exclusive
...
3. Please answer the following questions:
a. Did the subject of proprietary rights in the WHOIS database
arise during negotiations between the Department of Commerce
and NSI regarding Amendment 11 to the Cooperative Agreement?
i. If the subject did arise, please describe what action, if any, the
Department of Commerce took at the time the subject came up.
ii. Please provide all records of communications between the
Department of Commerce and NSI relating to the action described
in response to request 3.a.i.
b. When did NSI first inform the Department of Commerce that it
was contemplating asserting proprietary rights to the data in the
WHOIS database?
i. Please describe what action, if any, the Department of
Commerce took at the time it received this information from NSI.
ii. Please provide all records of communications between the
Department of Commerce and NSI related to the action described
in response to request 3.b.i.
c. When did NSI first inform the Department of Commerce that it
was contemplating the use of the data in the WHOIS database to
create the dot com directory?
i. Please describe what action, if any, the Department of
Commerce took at the time it received this information from NSI.
ii. Please provide all records of communications between the
Department of Commerce and NSI related to the action described
in response to request 3.c.i.
...
[IFWP] Re: 3m names
not sure of the point that kerry is making with this post. But am sure that computerized vote counting is fool hardy. Another way to look at it is that the 'illegal' names would never have been found w/o the ability to electronically collate the village rolls that revealed multiple registrations and so on. But hey, its only 3 out of almost 50 million W Bengali citizens; would the course of democracy really be derailed if they hadnt been detected? And what of the BigBrother effect? - knowing that somebody thinks its Terribly Important may be all it takes to start devious minds thinking about tweaking the EVM... and the beginning of the BeanCounters regime. kerry
[IFWP] Re: vix
you have scared him off with your idiot postings. You two have destroyed the credibility of the IFWP. Is there a pattern here? Two people destroy the credibility of IDNO and thus of indiv representation in a more or less formal means of administering the net; two people destroy the credibility of a (very informal) channel for the net's administering itself... If its the net that is producing these crack teams, what's the next target? The phone company?
[IFWP] 3m names struck off rolls
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:33:34 -0700 (PDT) From: News Bureau - CJPsa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [CJPsa] BANGLA: 3.16 m illegal claimants names struck off http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/290799/detSTA08.htm 3.16 m illegal claimants names struck off Subhamoy Chatterjee (Calcutta, July 28) MORE THAN 3.16 million claimants for inclusion in voters lists, suspected to have recorded their names through dubious means, have been struck off in the final electoral rolls published by the States election department today. Announcing the publication of the revised voterss lists today, Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) Jawhar Sircar said that a thorough scrutiny of the claims had been vigorously carried out over a period of a month by 1500-odd officers of the election department as the draft rolls showed an abnormally high seven per cent increase in the lists since the last Lok Sabha election in 1998. The rise was mainly recorded in the districts bordering Bangladesh. Mr Sircar said that 1.4 million voters, representing an increase of 1.85 per cent which was normal, had been added to the previous rolls of 46.8 million eligible voters in the State. The revised electoral rolls had been accepted by all the political parties which attended the meeting called by Mr Sircar. The CEO said that for the first time in the country electoral rolls were published in West Bengal from a computerised database. The names of all the voters in each Lok Sabha constituency could be had from the two CD-ROMs which would be ready within a week. The CD-ROMs will remain a permanent reference for all time to come and can be revised as and when necessary, he said. The CEO, who along with his team of officers demonstrated the working of the electronic voting machines (EVM) before the representatives of political parties, said that there had been no complaints from the parties with regard to the use of the EVMs in the polling of three Lok Sabha constituencies in Calcutta. Incidentally, the machines will be used for the first time in the State in recording voting in north-east Calcutta, north-west Calcutta and south Calcutta Lok Sabha constituencies, the last one being the traditional seat of Ms Mamata Banerjee. The CEO said that the EVMs would be used in 3500 polling booths of the three Lok Sabha constituencies and a reserve of 10 to 20 per cent would also be kept in the sector offices for emergencies. He said that the use of the machines would cut down the time on polling as well as for counting of votes. Since only single ballot paper would be required for every booth for voting through the machine, the need to print huge number of ballot papers would also be eliminated, he said. ===
[IFWP] Benton: Network = stock exchange?
Is this a business model for an independent Net? = NETWORK = STOCK EXCHANGE? Issue: Ecommerce Chicago-based Archipelago announced yesterday that it will apply with the US Securities and Exchange Commission by August 1 to convert its electronic trading network into a self-regulated stock exchange. Electronic communications networks (ECNs) like Archipelago electronically match stock sellers and buyers and tout their ability to make trades more quickly and cheaply than traditional stock exchanges by cutting out a middleman, Zajac writes. 20% of trades on the Nasdaq stock market, for example, are executed by ECNs. But systems like Archipelago have not been able to get their prices published in national quote systems shared by stock exchanges: "It seems to us that the only way to break through this barrier is to become an exchange," said Archipelago CEO Gerald Putnam. [SOURCE: Chicago Tribune (Sec 3, p.1), AUTHOR: Andrew Zajac] (http://chicagotribune.com/business/printedition/article/0,2669,SAV- 9907280135,FF.html)
[IFWP] What Happened to Political Power?
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:58:09 -0500 (CDT) From: "Emilie Nichols" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:What Happened to Political Power? It's Gone Somewhere Else. "All the power has gone somewhere else," he said. "Its gone to NATO, to Brussels, its gone to the World Trade Organization, its gone to Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch, to people who never got elected, and so we're in a situation where we're far from Parliament or Congress being there to protect people from the external powers, i.e., to control the economy in the interest of the people. Parliament is now there to control the people in the interests of the economy." --Tony Benn, MP, as quoted in the July 24, 1999, New York Times
[IFWP] Re: Block the Crock
And if one continues to forward those posts to a list, wouldn't you agree that they are in fact aiding those with this unfortunate habit? Maybe I did not make myself clear. ... I wanted also to point out that Richard's efforts in getting everybody's messages a chance to be read are appreciated. Indeed, if we all write in such a way that our messages are *worth posting to other lists, sans context, it would be a different Internet altogether, wouldnt it?
[IFWP] PPI: Jump-starting the Digital Economy
http://www.dlcppi.org/texts/tech/jumpstart.htm Jump-Starting the Digital Economy (with Department of Motor Vehicles-Issued Digital Certificates) Marc Strassman and Robert D. Atkinson The emerging digital economy promises high-productivity, low- unemployment, and increased standards of living. However, citizens, companies, or governments will be unable to fully realize these benefits until individuals can easily and securely authenticate themselves over the Internet. Currently, few Americans can do this; that is, they are unable to fully represent themselves over the Internet in a way that securely tells other people and companies that they are who they claim to be and allows them to be taken seriously when they state their intentions. As a result, few companies or governments have developed applications that could use online authentication; and likewise, since few online applications require authentication, consumers have little reason to obtain the means to sign documents digitally. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) proposes that state governments should help jump start this process by providing digital certificates to all citizens who want them through state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices. [...] Digital signature technology can be used to transfer into cyberspace the same, or a higher, level of assurance for legal and commercial purposes than has existed in common law, statutory law, and Uniform Commercial Codes for non-cyberspace transactions. By unambiguously and definitively establishing that a certain document has been "signed" by someone -- or that someone has stated, indicated, and memorialized his or her intent to enter into an agreement of some type -- digital signature technology makes it possible for binding transactions that cannot be repudiated to take place at a distance electronically. In short, digital signature technology enables today's e- commerce (online retailing) to flower into e-business and e-government (online transactions of a wide range). [...]
[IFWP] Re: USG to Netsol : Open Whois Database
There has been a lot of handwaving about whether there is or is not control. But if NTIA can order NSI to open the database to the public or to transfer it to another party, that's a pretty strong indication of "control". I can order NSI to open the database, but that hardly indicates 'control.' And before we move on to the next nit, when NSI *opens the database without protest, that is not going to prove control either - just that even Jim Rutt can tell a box from a hole in the ground, and when USG offers him a way out, he's able to take it with thanks. It's a charade, in short, about on the order of the Senate retroactively approving surcharges... You want rule of law? Good ol USG will give you rule of law, and defy you to prove otherwise. And for the Privacy Act, I would assert that one of the biggest elements of control is whether the Government has the ability to keep the data private or not. And an order to publish or transfer is certainly pretty strong evidence of belief by NTIA that NTIA has that kind of control. Q: Was privacy a concern of anyone who voluntarily registered for a domain name 15 years ago? 10 years ago? 5 years ago? A: No, your honour. Q: Is there any information in the DNS which has not been publicly accessible heretofore? A: No, your honour. === Now, having said that, is USG going to order NSI to *continue to update Whois? kerry
[IFWP] Re: Essay on ICANN
Michael, I am not a trust expert, but I'm instinctively dubious that this would work. You'd need to find someone who knew. My guess, though, is that the trustees would have great discretion, and only a court could review it -- and that it wouldn't want to... It occurs to me that there may also be a model in the health-care field. 1st party Joe needs the services of 2nd party Dr; 3rd party payer HMO agrees to pay for Joe's use of Drs service *if they get to decide what the service is worth (based on best practice, etc), and the class of risk Joe represents. OK: 1st party Mabel needs the services of 2nd party Registry; 3rd party payer Registrant agrees to pay for Mabels domain name if they get to decide what the service is worth (based on *possible trademark infringement, etc), and the class of risk Mabel represents. But this is not at all the way it operates at present; somehow the registrar is 2nd, takes the money but leaves 1st with all the liability. What is missing, it appears is the 'best practice' aspect of the Registry; essentially, the lab/ field reports that provide the basis of actuarial analysis that 'names of this sort are susceptible to that extent,' by which the liability could be estimated. No, at the moment what we have is an eminence gris that insists that it holds the keys to the inter-nation and to which all ye who enter the name-domain must pay tribute. Sure, there are TM databases, but there is no International Nomenclature Association to provide even the vaguest authority for saying that Foobarf.com has yea-many liability-vectors (Ph-, Fu-, -bar1, etc etc), much less for tracking an epidemic of popularity for Feu-, Fou-, or Phew- names. Let's see this professional analytic service come together, and then we may be able to make some legal/ fiscal sense of it all. kerry
[IFWP] Re: Hilights...
and if everyone in the world talks to everyone else in this grand new internet then there is no need for the allocation chore. My rough calculation says that there are 1.3*10^17 such addresses in IPv6 space, and if I want one that's not taken I register it. Is that a viable way of doing it? Absolutely, issue every child an address (or rather a block of em, so s/her can keep track of books, toys, pets, vaccinations, bank accts, etc) at birth. The question is, will it scale? kerry
[IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing
We should expect a long hard fought legal battle...coming soon. I do not understand how the folks at NTIA could have made this error (if, indeed, they did) since the DOC did not have the constitutional authority to transfer a database held in "public trust" over to a private corporation. 5 years ago, hardly anybody had heard of 'intellectual property' ... But if the DoC overstepped its authority, does the public have standing to sue for its IP rights? This issue is going to be a very big deal, IMHO. Esp since, first thing, Burr admitted that the whole shebang is revocable if ICANN doesnt shape up as NewCo, just as NSI has been saying. kerry
[IFWP] Re: Essay on ICANN
Michael, A third-party beneficiary agreement is a deal by which two parties agree to provide a benefit for someone else. If either party reneges, the third party can sue even though he didn't sign the contract or put up any money for the benefit. Would an honorary trust do as well? "...A trust for a noncharitable purpose which is valid despite the absence of an ascertainable (i.e., human) beneficiary. These include trusts for the care of an animal and trusts for other noncharitable purposes such as the maintenance of a cemetery lot" -- or a domain name. kerry A philosophical problem has the form: I don't know my way about. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1953
[IFWP] Re: Computergram on Commerce hearing
Burr said that Commerce had seen the proposed registrar accreditation agreement that included the fee and also noted that there were not many comments about it during ICANN's comment period - apart from long and vociferous comments from NSI. What was posted for comment is at http://www.icann.org/draftguidelines.html (8 Feb 1999) "...Under the proposal, accredited registrars would pay the variable component monthly to ICANN based on the number of initial and renewal SLD registrations they enter into the registry beginning in July 1999 (the first month of ICANN's first full fiscal year). The amount due per registration-year would be established in ICANN's annual budgeting process, in which fees and charges are established with "the goal of fully recovering the reasonable costs of the operation of [ICANN] and establishing reasonable reserves." (See ICANN Bylaws, Article XI, Section 4(b).) To provide greater certainty to prospective registrars considering entering the business, this proposal would stipulate that the variable component would not exceed US$1.00 per registration-year. Q35. Are there any practical problems presented by collection of per-registration fees at the registrar level? Q36. Is it appropriate to have both fixed and variable components of the accreditation fee? Q37. At what level should the fixed component be set? Should the level vary based on the country in which the registrar is located? Q38. Is there some measure other than registration-years on which the variable component should be based? Q39. Is it beneficial to state a cap on the rate at which the variable component is computed, to allow registrars to better assess their prospects in the business? [...]" -- Out of curiosity, I looked through the 100 comments received in the dedicated comments-guidelines list which was essentially dead by 4 March (Singapore) -- the redoubtable Jim Williams suggested differential rates for indivs and commercial entities, and Amadeu wrote Q35. Are there any practical problems presented by collection of per-registration fees at the registrar level? The only practical question is : why is this per-registration fee collected at the register and not the registry level?. More than practical, the problem is one of principles:**does this amount to an Internet tax?** Why should registrars pay by registration, instead of contributing to ICANN's expenses based on ICANN's needs as set in the budget? ... Q37. At what level should the fixed component be set? Should the level vary based on the country in which the registrar is located? At the level of the need for contribution that ICANN's activities might require form registrars. Differentiated fees (positive discrimination) has a strong appeal in this context., And a strong drawback: the extreme facility that net activities provide for "offshore flagging". NSI's comments were 'too long' so one must go offsite to read them at all (http:// www.netsol.com/policy/icann299/ ) there doesnt seem to be any evidence that other posters ever did that. Nevertheless, they are worth looking over in the wake of the Com Cmte hearings, as the accreditation contract is at the heart of the dispute. On question 35-39 relating to the 'variable' registration fee, the detailed response is: A fixed application fee from each company applying for accreditation seems a reasonable way to cover the costs of processing each application. A variable fee based on registration years payable by each registrar would be inefficient and unjustified by any fair allocation of fees [*]in relation to the sources of costs incurred by ICANN[*]. It would be more appropriate for each registry (including the IP registries) to bear a proportionate share of ICANN's operating costs. Q40. Are the stated grounds of termination appropriate? Can they be made more specific while still preserving their utility? ICANN has no legitimate interest in establishing direct contractual relations with registrars. Its limited role in developing accreditation criteria does not require it to enter into bilateral agreements with registrars, especially where the terms of the proposed agreement extend well beyond matters concerning the registrar's minimum credentials. ICANN can perform its proper accreditation function simply by publishing accreditation standards and enforcing them through flow- down clauses in contracts with registries. The draft agreement proposed by ICANN attempts to leverage whatever limited authority it may have as a registrar accreditation body into much broader powers over the registrar industry. ICANN thus apparently hopes to acquire such powers by withholding a registrar's accreditation if the registrar does not capitulate to the expansive terms of the "accreditation agreement." Such tactics raise concerns about the
[IFWP] Re: Hilights from todays hearing
Existing and future registrars, registries, ISPs, etc., could well collaborate in hiring some service company that DOES WHAT IT IS TOLD AND DOES NOT MAKE UP ITS OWN RULES TO FATTEN ITS BOTTOM LINE to handle root servers, domain name lookup, etc. ... How far along are they, by now? -- Rob contributed, someone was posing the case in which an attorney wanted "something.law," but the folks owning .law charge too much, are incompetent, etc. This problem vanishes if we demand an administrative infrastructure that explicitly supports registrars providing customer service to registrants, irrespective of TLD. In other words, I want to register in *.foo? I go to ANY registrar, or the one with which I have a strong previous relationship, or have heard good things about, etc. This is what competition is all about. At first I didnt see how 'demand' fit into Bills hypothetical situation -- but the change of perpective helps find an answer for my question to him. Its obviously not enough to see the rational solution to a problem (especially a problem of standardization!); one has to think of what those registrars, ISPs etc would want out of a 'standards organization' -- and the obvious answer is that a good many of them (think they) want exclusive control over a corner of the names market. As long as this perspective prevails, so that 'multiple registries' equates to 'exclusive access to certain sub-registries' I dont see the hypothetical becoming acceptable to the powers that be. (Sure, one can 're-register' in .per or .firm - and as far as the DoC etc are concerned, thats fine, it can stay that way, and the enduser can gnash his teeth.) To get the problem to 'vanish,' then, *from the end-users p.o.v*, the 'demand' will have to have some teeth in it -- some incentive to overcome the 'natural' monopolistic tendency -- but Im as in the dark as anyone as to what those teeth would be. At present we cant even say, 'Im not gonna register with you unless you resolve Joes TLD' much less, 'unless you *all get together and resolve each others TLDs.' Arguably, a grassroots renunciation or boycott of domain names would be effective -- who needs em if we can use IP numbers? -- but mobilizing that would be fairly incredible But wait, what about a screensaver, that uses spare CPU cycles to *look up* IP#s for all DNs it finds on your system, and presents you with a handy popup 'numbdressbook' -- or better, rewrites the location slot when you enter the name in your browser? That is, its your very own name resolver *for the names you use* (who gives a fig about names you dont use?), and as net congestion grows, the economy of going 'by the numbers' will start to be noticeable (and could be noticed, any time one wishes to do it with names, so its a risk-free offer). The registrars that want to keep their business afloat will suddenly find it in their self-interest to collaborate a little bit, I predict... So how far along are they? Lets say it takes 3 months to get the local resolver together (Jeff, hows your VC fund?) - I'd say we could look forward to a International Consortium of Agreeable Nicks and Notations by New Years, dont you? *And they'll distribute the resolver as a freebie to DN registrants! = J Weinberg succinctly states the *entire* rationale for names: "IP addresses... are opaque and hard to remember. It would not be practical for a user to have to remember, and type in, a different IP address for every Web site he sought to visit or electronic mail message he wished to send. ... The domain name system (DNS) makes it easier for ordinary people to use the Internet." All this squabbling over a way to save a body having to *remember, and type in*! kerry.ker
[IFWP] Re: AOL and AIM
AOL, one of ICANN's daunted "Test Bed" Registrars screws up again Jeff, the word is 'vaunted,' but why do you say screws up? Seems to me the question of who controls the instant messaging registry is just as live an issue as the DNS -- or are you saying youve sold your screwed up NSI stock? All, FYI: http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/20914.html Looks as though this bunch can't seem to get much right lately. Wonder how they are going to handle their Registrar business??? I know I don't want to find out! Maybe they will require that you use AIM for sending in registration templates or change requests? Ya think? ROFLMAO!
[IFWP] Re: NCDNHC Constituency annuncement from ISOC
Don Heath again is talking out of both sides of his mouth, as the Link reference and this post will show when put up against the minuets of the Berlin meeting regarding Don's comments of the very formation of the NCDNHC. Resolution 99.39 -- "with the recognition that the interests represented by a non-commercial domain name holders Constituency should be involved as early as possible in the DNSO organization process, the Board urges that the organizers of this Constituency should submit a consensus application for provisional recognition as soon as possible, so that the issue of recognition can be reconsidered by the Board no later than an anticipated meeting during the week of June 21..." -- suggests that ISOC is merely claiming victory by default, even if a perhaps unanticipated meeting is taking place in WDC this week. kerry
[IFWP] Re: Media Bias
The Reuters story is about ICANN = dropping the $1 fee and opening up its board meetings. Ironically, this statement in itself illustrates how easy it is to trim off details in order to get something into print, even if one is not overtly grinding an axe (or working for a penny a word). First, ICANN is deferring the fee, not dropping it (sure, Commerce 'asked it to, but I imagine the Board was quite happy to force the funding issue to the forefront); second, it is opening up the August/ Santiago board meeting, and then will let the 'elected board' decide in November whether to continue with open b.m.s. In a broad sense, the malaise that afflicts not only ICANN and the 'opening up' of cyberspace, but modern culture generally can be summed up in one word: time. The same impulse that underlies sleazy reporting has led commercial interests to go hogwild over domain names as a cheap new means of advertising -- and then crying foul when the absence of applicable law turned around and bites them -- and leads B Burr to say today that 'it was just too important' to get commercial interests online without first dealing with issues of popular representation. Too many people have been in a hurry for so long they hardly remember what 'taking time' means. Slow down, folks, and think about what youre saying - and then the media artists will be able to quote you instead of making up their own versions. If you see a story that covers the hearings and suggests that in fact ICANNs 'business-like' haste has been exactly why NSI has been cautious about accepting a MoU in lieu of a contract, I'd like the URL, please. kerry
[IFWP] Love: Cmte on Commerce statement (fwd
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 19:39:37 -0300 Send reply to: Universal Access Canada / Canadain Coalition for Public Information [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Michael Gurstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[UA-CPI] cr Consumer Project on Technology's ICANN testimony (fwd) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:44:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Cyber Rights [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: cr Consumer Project on Technology's ICANN testimony Statement of James Love Director Consumer Project on Technology Before the Committee on Commerce U.S. House of Representatives on ICANN and Internet Governance July 22, 1999 My name is James Love. I am the Director of the Consumer Project on Technology (CPT), an organization created by Ralph Nader in 1995. I am involved in a number of issues related to electronic commerce, intellectual property rights, software, computers, telecommunications, and the Internet. The CPT web page is http://www.cptech.org. CPT is a non-profit organization. We have no financial relations with any company or non-profit entities that are involved in domain registration. I am here today to discuss proposals for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as well as our concerns about the role of Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) in the management of internet domains. On June 11, 1999, Ralph Nader and I wrote to Esther Dyson, the Chair of ICANN, asking a series of questions about its mission, the degree to which ICANN could or would use its control over IP addresses or domain names to set policy on trademarks or other (unrelated) issues, the source and scope of authority to levy fees on the use of internet domains, what those funds can be used for, and the role of the interim board in making substantive policy decisions. Ms Dyson wrote back on June 15, 1999, in a letter that began with a rather lengthy "scene-setting" discussion about the efforts of NSI to protect its monopoly, and then offered often incomplete answers to the questions we raised. We have subsequently engaged in a number of discussions with persons representing ICANN, NSI and other persons who are interested in issues relating to the management of domain name registrations and other Internet governance issues. There is a sense among some that the controversy over ICANN is about NSI and NSI's attempts to retain its monopoly over the .com, .org, .net and .edu domains. For certain interests, this is indeed the key issue. However, our concerns over ICANN are much broader, and go to more basic questions of how key internet resources are managed and controlled. Before discussing ICANN, however, I would like to make a few comments about NSI, to make it clear that our concerns about ICANN should not be misread as a defense of the NSI monopoly. In our view, NSI is a government contractor performing a service for owners of particular domains. We do not believe that it is appropriate for NSI to assert ownership or control over the .com, .net, .org or .edu top level domains. Nor do we think it appropriate for any top level domains to be "owned" by a private firm. The prices for domain registration are excessive. We are alarmed that NSI is making claims that it "owns" certain databases that are essential for the operation of the network. We are concerned that NSI is using the profits from its current monopoly to lobby the government to extend its monopoly. We are concerned about these and many other issues, and we want the NSI contract for .com, .net, .org and .edu to be subject to periodic competitive bids. That said, we remain very interested in the fundamental issues about ICANN itself. What is ICANN? Who will control the board of directors? What will be the legally binding limits of ICANN's power? What recourse do people have if they are unhappy with ICANN's actions or policies? As I have said elsewhere, we don't view ICANN as a substitute for NSI, but rather as a potential substitute for the Department of Commerce, or more generally, as a substitute for governments. ICANN is poised to control key internet resources, and to impose private forms of taxation and regulation on the Internet. However, it will not be accountable in the same ways that governments are. Some persons perceive this as a positive feature, while others view the lack of accountability as a serious problem. The July 1, 1999 Presidential Directive on Electronic Commerce directed the Secretary of Commerce: to support efforts to make the governance of the domain name system private and competitive
[IFWP] Amendment process
The draft minutes of the Berlin Meeting, May 25-27 include resolutions of the form, "FURTHER RESOLVED, (Resolution 99.36) that the phrase 'except with the consent of the Board' shall be inserted after the twenty-first word of Section 3(c) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws." Studying those minutes, and those for the June 23 meeting, I see no evidence that the proposed amendment has been moved or seconded, altho it too is framed as being RESOLVED, that Section 3(c) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws of the Corporation is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following: "Each Constituency shall select up to three individuals to represent that Constituency on the NC, no two of which may be, except with the consent of the Board, residents of the same Geographic Region, as defined in Article V, Section 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Constituency may have more representatives on the NC than there are members of the Constituency. Nominations within each Constituency may be made by any member of the Constituency, but no such member may make more than one nomination in any single Constituency." Be that as it may, if the Board can amend the bylaws as noted (and also re VII.3.a) in May without public comment, why is it appropriate to call for comment on July 16? In this connection, the 'resolution' in introduced (http://www.icann.org/dnso/dnso-nc-amendments.htm ) "The following proposed Amendments to the ICANN Bylaws are intended to implement an evident consensus among participants in the ICANN process ... At its Berlin public meeting, the clear sentiment of the attendees and online participants was that the ICANN Bylaws should be amended... How is 'consensus' determined in the ICANN process? How many people attended the Berlin meeting, approximately? How many of them participated in the ICANN process? Was it made clear to either RL or VR participants that a constituent could select 'representatives' for the Names Council who were not necessarily affiliated with that constituent's organization? --- Article VII, Section 3(c) states, " Until such time as the process for the election of At Large directors shall have been approved as contemplated by Section 9(c) of Article V, there shall be an Advisory Committee on Membership." Is there a 'MAC' at present? Will there be a MAC before the next board meeting? Will the report of the prior MAC be acted on at or before the next board meeting? In nine months, the Board has amended its organizing documents at least twice, so it is clear that that part of the process works. It is equally clear that if there had been some fundamental operational flaw in the documents, it would have been caught in the scrutiny leading to those April and May amendments. How is the present proposal justified as more than an attempt to cover the Board's own failure to recognize that there are, and have been for several years prior to ICANN's coming into existence, TLD registrars whose domains, however, are not resolved by the so-called 'authoritative' root server network? Would not a simple apology suffice to permit three or more registrars to be represented in the DNSO? Conversely, if the primary obstacle to progress is NSI's 'monopoly,' not merely as registrar but as manager (and putative owner) of the domain names *registry, how does a continuing policy of refusal to recognize alternative TLDs -- and with them, their respective registries -- facilitate the 'ICANN process'? kerry miller Wilmot, NS
[IFWP] Consensus
Karl wrote, I question how this "evident consensus" was ascertained. There has been no "consensus count" or clearly stated question on this matter. I do suspect that if such a consensus count were to be made, the answer would be conform to the asserted consensus. However, I must object to a bald assertion of "consensus" without there being a clearly stated, and focused question placed before the e-mail community. Recalling Jon Z's image of ICANN being 'whipsawed' between its public and private roles, it occurs to me that it may be the Internet community which is being sawn more effectively by this consensus thing. As long as there is no 'membership' in the sense of an actual definable and countable number of voices, no 'consensus,' strictly speaking, can possibly exist -- but that is only to say, until there *is a countable membership, ICANN can *claim consensus wherever it feels the need, and no one can gainsay it. We are left in the position of the farmer who is trying to get the fox out of his henhouse, but can't decide whether to use the over-and-under or the double-barrel. It may be cynically concluded that it is in ICANNs interim interest, therefore, to fee-fiddle and foo-fuddle about the problems of setting up a membership. But by the same token, it just might be in the Internet *community's interest to get together on who or what body *does represent it -- be it minds, bodies, machines or corporations, verifiable or not, 'elected' or not, pro tem or not -- just so there is a point of reference for this phrase, which is so critical to governance and trust. It might, at the very least, be quite enlightening to go through the exercise of instituting such an entity with any credibility at all. May I suggest that, rather than supposing this to be a call for another round of Im-more-representative-than-you-are, one entertain the idea of an 'interactive voting machine' which is designated as The place to go when ICANN (or anyone else) wants to measure the I.Q. (Internet Qonsensus ;-)) ? This would *not* be a poll, or a place to vote in any of the conventional senses of the word. Rather, one contributes to a network of *questions to be decided* -- with the obviuous implication that a good many questions will sprout off in the course of *trying to decide earlier questions -- but since we are not aspiring to reach 'The Decision' itself by this process, but only a certifiable image of the real at-large process, it would seem to fill the need for I.Q. admirably. An initial exploration of this notion is available at http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/kerryo/g9/pie1.htm Contributions are more than welcome; theyre essential. kerry
[IFWP] Re: Voter authentication
"fraud" ... could occur with fraudulent registrations -- me registering Benjamin A. Edelman, Benjamin B. Edelman, and so on. It could occur with non-fraudulent but still "not representative" messages -- like if I signed up as members of ICANN everyone I knew (or all the employees of my corporation) and had them all vote for me. And it could occur if I simply hacked into the voting tabulation system, added a lot of seemingly-legitimate members who voted the way I wanted them to vote, and covered my tracks. We seem to be clear enough that registering E-mail accounts is not an assurance of individual humans attached to them (your first 'fraud'), but why is it so hard to grasp that individuality is not an assurance that an independent mind is attached (your 2nd)? Well, you say, *verifying independence of mind is just so darned expensive, we have to *assume the equation of one mind per person. It might be nice if ICANN had a budget to verify the personhood of every member -- but failing that, arent accounts the most economical basis for legitimation (and, if one looks at the concept of net-voting overall, also the most logical)? There is a great deal of absolutely free data supplied with every message just for the purpose of 'verification' of its origins. Various agencies, I understand, already find it useful for their purposes; and in any case, it might work as a 'dry run' just to see what fraudulence shows up. (It would have to be represented as the real thing, of course, or no one would bother.) But, instead of worrying about *technically hacking the system, why not find a way to correlate e-mail directly with mind, and thus route around the person-problem (aka personality) altogether? But (sigh) TINSTAAFPS: too many people would spoof their mail, just to make it *look like it had some independent thought in it. kerry
[IFWP] Re: Why fail on purpose
Why not hold it on the *INTERNET*!!! Because CORE can't control the Internet. Besides, it would prove embarrasing to those whose identities cannt be verified.
[IFWP] Re: IFWP_LIST V1 #449
The WTO negotiation process shows just how difficult *serious* international negotiations can be, but also how successful they can be. Internet governance has yet to reach the level of "seriousness" on the international stage which it will. Even I'll admit that's a good thing ;-). The WTO style of closeted negotiations which are then presented to the 'membership' (in the form of fast-track a trade 'treaty' which cannot be amended by legislation) as a take-it-or- leave-it deal, represents exactly what ICANN has to avoid. The level of seriousness is fine; its too bad the light of day makes it so difficult to achieve. kerry
[IFWP] Re: techynerdism
In response to a thread which began a couple days ago, I suggested that If anyone is interested in getting over such arrogance, one worthwhile way to do it is to consider how 'they' might *get a notion of what a root server system is. Bill Lovell now declares that this imbroglio has run its course: you demand what you want of your customers, others can do their thing their way, and we'll see how it all comes out, huh? which demonstrates not only how little like conversation email is, but how to actively prevent it from even being useful. Did I 'demand' that anyone stop what he's doing? No, in fact I was saying that what he or she *already does can be seen to have an 'educational' (is propedeutic a better word?) aspect. This may make some people uncomfortable (tho Im surprised to see it in a lawyer), but it does seem to be the unexamined alternative way to understand the kind of question Richard asked: How do you deal with a clueless membership? which apparently 'demands' to be answered with a universal rule of Dealing WIth Cluelessness, without regard for the changing nature of the issues, or the membership, or the Internet as these elements work on one another. In my unwashed way, I thought a trial lawyer not only stated the facts of a case, but organized them so that a jury of his peers can see how they fit together, and thus bring themselves from a state of disinterest to one of conviction. If I demeaned the profession by facetiously referring to this process as 'education,' God knows I'm sorry! - but I throw myself on the mercy of the list to be shown how it differs, so I wont make the same mistake again -- for instance, by suggesting that in fact the real business of the lawyer is to educate the *judge as to where his (or her) responsibility lies in applying the law. (Actually, even I can see the ice is thin in that direction; I'll stick by Mark Twain who said the lawyers first responsibility is to get the client to stop doing the damn fool things he (or she) has been doing. I dare say what he means is that the lawyer *demands the client stop - and theres no way that could be considered part of an educative concept.) Democracy, I think Ive said before, is not simply a means of getting the latest edicts distributed to everybody; it is in fact a means of 'dealing with' cluelessness. It is what used to be worth calling a process, before everything came to be called processes, as distinct from *states. Saying that one is in a state of cluelessness is meaningless *until the state of others has been clarified*. (It could be we are all clueless here, in which case we might as well vote on Richards proposal!) Now, as soon as one other is found in a state of cluedom, then the *statist says, Right, let him (or her) have priority, maybe even a knighthood. Otoh, the processist says, Im sure the clueful wasnt born that way, so let's have him (or her) show the clueless how to *change state* . Sad to say, this essential connection between democratic governance and education seems to be on its way out, as statist language is really *so much easier* for the rank-and-file to grasp. Of course, democratic 'self'-governance is messy; there is the possibility that a proposition to make anybody with a nameserver pay $1 everytime sombody used it for a lookup could be introduced, could be voted on, could be enacted. But what of that, since the *process of introducing, voting, and enacting is still intact? Sure, there's always the alternative -- that Somebody Rules what propositions are acceptable, not merely by broad category, but 'at their pleasure.' Consider, for instance, not RJS's obviously made up absurdity, but something serious, like making somebody pay $1 any time their manner was not sufficiently respectful of professionalism. kerry, on the way to the imbroglio (Btw, Bill, the WTO (heir of GATT and sister to WIPO) may well be reproached this fall in Seattle; the EC whose members all resigned (even tho some of them are beyond reproach) is to the EU as ICANN is to the internet.)
[IFWP] Re: techynerdism
If anyone is interested in getting over such arrogance, one worthwhile way to do it is to consider how 'they' might *get a notion of what a root server system is. Unless, of course, they have their own lives to live, their own professions to follow, etc., and simply don't want to be bothered. Oh, I understand, *professionals are just too all-fired busy to listen to 'little people.' My goodness, yes! That is why civilization started out with a division of labor, having these people make the arrow heads, clubs and baskets, and those other people would do the hunting and gathering. Do the latter have to know (or care) how the arrow or basket is made? One of my favorite moments is when some gender-conscious individual protests against male-chauvinist society and the hegemony of paternalism. *Who raised all those little boys?* I ask... But I digress. For those unwashed who in fact want to learn some nuts and bolts, that would indeed be a useful step, and one not often carried out simply because the tech "haves" not only don't know how to talk to the tech "nothaves," but they are dumbfounded by the suggestion that there are actually people walking on this earth who don't know what a root server system is. Exaggeration is not needed; one doesnt have to be unwashed to be recognized as having something to learn - indeed, its usually sufficient to cross the line between the hunters' and the weavers' camps. If by "ignoramus" you mean the internet adept who don't realize that not everyone was born that way, yes it is. ... ALL engineering is "service providing," but many engineers never come to realize that If I didnt know better, Id think you were agreeing with me! I might mention that my comments don't come from any fears on my part: I know what a root server, a DNS and an OS are, but since I do my job I expect others to do theirs, and part of the job as an internet guru is making sure that people -- anticipated customers in particular - --understand what you are doing. And my suggestion extends that concept only a little way: the customer/ non-customer distinction may mean something in dirtspace, but in terms of having an interest in the net *anybody is 'people.' If part of ones 'job' is to be concerned about 'capture,' then I would say it's in partial fulfillment of that concern that one might make oneself available (on a mailing list, for instance) to those who *suspect they 'ought to be' interested so they can educate themselves to the risks. So yet another way in which registrars, etc. can compete beyond the mere dollars will lie in the ability and willingness to make things as easy as possible for the customer, rather than continue with the current prevalent attitude that all you have to do is run the servers (more or less) and collect the fees. But as long as 'being available' is a synonym for whoring, and 'teaching' a euphemism for 'one who can't actually cut the mustard,' and push 'education' off into the corner (with other childish games like TV and drug addiction) as something for *professionals to take care of, and 'make it easier' for society at large, I assure you, we're never going to get out of the (literal, literally!) mess the Internet is making of everything. If you want to leave the process of being educated to Netical issues to somebody else, thats fine; as I said, I understand you perfectly. Sure, the registrars will make it easy for their customers, as the customers have been making it easy for the registrar. But *self- education* (despite the name) is a two way street; R will *learn from C if C a) learns from R and b) knows s/he's being listened to. These are usually considered inseparable parts of the process; only this age of professional segregation distinguishes 'deliverables' apart from 'evaluation,' and teaching apart from learning. So please, dont hand the communications ball to some cadre of 'professional teachers' unless you really want to see some really professional capturing, so slick your eyes'll pop out. (Do you need to learn how to do that? Here, let me show you... kerry
[IFWP] Re: Membership and supermajorities
Jon Zittrain wrote, My high school didn't even offer a civics class! I've found that this failure is often the real cause of contention in arguments about membership and voting... Take #1 on the membership solution: make it an open membership; people join; that's the electorate; they elect; end of story. I'm still not comfortable: Is there a membership *problem? *Who makes 'it' open? are the questions I start with, and I am not as far advanced as you to be thinking about membership solutions yet, so I'll put my primitive observations in brackets so they wont be confused with 'responses' and 'replies' and 'rebuttals' and suchlike. #1.A. "Who is meant to be heard through the at-large membership?": (Who means to hear them?) #1.A.i The decisions ICANN might make bear on a large number of people and institutions. (Ah, I Catch A Neologistic Notion! I thought we were talking about the relation of language to (democratic) governance, but we're really talking about ICANN. Obviously, I missed the premise, 'ICANN embodies concepts of democracy,' but I can reconstruct it from the fact that it *follows that talk about its membership as a thing to be 'solved' uses language like, "interests that *ought to be represented," some (at least) of which are not "'specific' enough to be accounted for in [more focussed] elections.") #!1.A.ii Despite p1, ICANN's subject matter is abstruse. People who might be affected by ICANN policies may have no interest in joining, or even a sense why they should join. (What are the issues which require, excuse me, policing? Doesnt 'open membership' mean 'those having an interest' ? Are they then to be responsible for those having no interest?) From this, at least two possible conclusions: c1a/ No problem. So long as people had a chance to join and chose not to, they deserve whatever results from the process they ignore. c1b/ Problem: those with a very direct and structured interest (and probably well represented within the SO structures) will simply populate the at-large electorate as well. They'll elect people responsive to them, and the goal of having broad representation from Internet users at-large will be a practical fiction bracketed only by the point that "they could have joined." It's the second conclusion that makes one worry about comparing an "actual" electorate to a reference of the population intended to be represented by it. (True, people who arent interested in the issues *probably arent interested in discussing the issues in any format. Whether they *deserve the results is more problematic; it sounds faintly like blaming the victim. (So between AL and SO, we have 'vague interest' and 'specific interest'? Do the former therefore elect vague representatives to sit vaguely on the board? If one is in the latter group - e.g. by being connected to some specific commercial or non-commercial 'structure' - how can they claim to be as vague as everyone else? (Isnt your 'practical fiction' what in other contexts is called 'education'? "'They' could join in order to *develop (make specific) their interest.") In my note to Eric I used international representation since it's the easiest to measure demographically: suppose three months after the at-large electorate was made available to join, 90% of its members all hail from the U.S., and 90% of those from Washington, DC. To me that's a materialization of the risk in c1b above; to you--is it just the breaks? That's the electorate, so let's go with it? (If there's a risk, what's the liability? What consequences might some hypothetical issue have if it was voted on without a sufficiently vague membership? May I suggest that the greatest disaster would be a *learning experience*? That SOs that specifically *dont think an informed at-large membership is in their best interest had better tread carefully so as not to disturb the Vagaries?) I [Michael] put this and several other simmering issues publicly on the table. In true Rashom[o]n style events had two divergent interpretations. All staff members had joined our organization as a show of support, and as a management company of an Internet non-profit considered themselves "Internet professionals." When the ballot came around everyone asked "Who should we vote for?" Answers were supplied and the voting block formed. An innocent misunderstanding or cynical vote-rigging? I supported misunderstanding, and the issue faded away. It took much longer to straighten out board/staff relations, but that has been largely achieved as well. So AIP had a vote on whether to accept the results of a previous vote -- Does this incident have implications for ICANN? I believe so. * * * Take #2 (suggested by Jim Fishkin): Do an internet "deliberative poll." Select a body of Internet users (if that's the defined group that at-large membership is supposed to represent) at
[IFWP] techynerdism (was: multiple roots...
. They have no notion what a root server system is, let alone what to do with one if someone told them that they were hooked up to one. They wouldn't even know what being "hooked up to a root server system" means, let alone an OS or a DNS. In short, let's have a little less techynerd arrogance here, if you please. If anyone is interested in getting over such arrogance, one worthwhile way to do it is to consider how 'they' might *get a notion of what a root server system is. Wont it be just the same way everyone who does did, by talking with and working with some techynerd who talked and worked in ways they could understand? Which is a convoluted way to say, when youre talking and working 'technical' stuff, do it in ways that someone who doesnt already understand *can understand. We dont need more ways to say 'one who knows what they are doing' -- but if 'techynerd' means 'one who thinks they know but cant be bothered to explain it or teach it in a sensible way in order to find out,' isnt that covered by 'ignoramus'? kerry, trying to understand
[IFWP] Re: Membership supermajorities
What worries me most is getting the electorate to be
representative in the first place. ... No matter what scheme you
use to weigh and tally votes among them, it'd be hard to generate a
satisfactory election, since the electorate itself wouldn't
approximate what we think of as "fair." To me, a fair electorate
is one that's a good cross-section of the population affected by
the acts of whoever's elected. To others, a fair electorate is
seen as one for which any member of the affected population had an
opportunity to join--regardless of how many actually do join or
exercise their rights to vote. ... The danger is, if one allows
membership to happen organically--without serious outreach--the
composition of the membership may or may not be representative of
the Internet at-large.
Im more worried by the fact that a Harvard man talks in terms of
'getting' the electorate to be anything, and the 'danger' of 'organic
(meaning, I suppose unconditioned or unmanipulated)
membership.' This is not the language I learned my civics in; while
there may be a need to 'reinvent governement' how does that
become a need to reinvent the language of governance?
Shall we try to make an IFWP Glossary? We could have entries for
electorate
representative
scheme
generate
solution
approximate
whoever's elected
rights
outreach
at-large
for a start; I recognize the first two, but I wouldnt swear you're
using them the same way I would, either. Overall, your entire
paragraph begins to sound circular; shall we start on this
definitional task with the Internet 'at-large' as a known entity, or
with the nature of an organization which aims to 'represent'
something by first sifting out a 'membership' which 'elects'
'representatives,' even though the organization is already extant
with a sitting board making amendments and judging whether
some 'self-organizing' 'constituencies' are better than others to
mediate the process?
You see, what I learned in school was that when a bunch of people
saw a need, not just for cooperation among, but *organized,
structured cooperation among themselves, they first of all agreed to
organize as a 'committee of the whole' in order to construct rules of
organization they could all accept (lets suppose they call it
'democracy'). Then, following the rules ('bylaws' or 'constitution'),
they took up certain roles ('offices,' such as president and
secretary and representative), in which they would act on behalf of
everyone to apply the rules to whatever the original need was.
How does this primitive model relate to the present case? If some
higher cause has been invoked that supercedes it, what is that? If,
further, that cause justifies taking over the primitive vocabulary, isnt
there a need to (re)define the terms? And if there is such a need,
who has organized around it to ensure that they apply equally to
all? Oops, thats the old model again -- who has *dictated the terms
without making their (re)definition clear, leaving those to whom they
are *supposed* to apply to figure out for themselves whether they
are members, whether so-and-so represents them, and whether
'who[m]ever's elected' does in fact act on their behalf and not just
from his or her personal prejudice? As Bill says, the time has
come to quit trying to have it both ways: either we *know who is
the electorate, or we havent got a democracy. Any outfit that tries
to use the language of democracy to tell us yes, that what we
have, but no, our knowing it is dangerous, ought to be ashamed of
itself -- and if it isnt, the Internet at large can (and, I begin to
suspect, will) shame it.
Some on this list don't fret about the internet user in the street
having a voice in ICANN--they believe that ICANN's members should
comprise the elite who actually know enough about what's going
on (and care) to be able to know one acronym from another. Others
want extra power in the hands of rank-and-file users, precisely
because they can't be reasonably expected to participate on the
playing fields that the elite are using, even though they're
affected by the decisions. I've found that this disagreement is
often the real point of contention in arguments about membership
and voting.
If they think that 'elite' and 'rank-and-file' are part of the vocabulary
of democracy, it's no wonder there is confusion.
There's also the "stakeholder" problem: one can define stakes so
many different ways. What if current big stakeholders don't
support a proposal precisely because it will disadvantage them? A
reasonable enough position to take.
If, after all, Im just out of date, and talk about 'big stakeholders'
and the 'reasonableness' of their seeking their own advantage is the
language of democracy, why not just let Esther run the show for a
year, raise some money, hand down some edicts -- and after her,
her appointed successors? If she's not a supermajority, well then,
we can
[IFWP] Re: NSI WHOIS limits
When a data base comes about as a byproduct of providing another service such as domain name registration, however, that data base is simply a necessary result of the service already being performed ... (I might add that this whole data base issue has much further and far-reaching echoes: many in the scientific research field have decried the possiblity of being cut off from scientific data they need for their research, and for which copyright protection has also been proposed.) ... if one cannot be held legally responsible for any content in a data base, how can one claim a copyright in it? You would claim the whole pile while absolving yourself for liability for its bits and pieces? Isnt this the heart of the IP paradox? A service is performed; there are no new IP rights. A database 'comes about' as the result of service performed, and there are no new IP rights. *Somebody else* wants to use that db, and IP rights burst forth. Specifically, a registry is necessary for DN service, and a registrar builds the db. *Only when registration is opened to competition, are there IP rights to the first registrar. It seems therefore that either every monopoly is a 'natural' one -- or the IP concept exactly expresses the 'both ways' idea: 'upstream' liability (to the registrant, where the data came from) is nil, but to anybody 'downstream' there's a magical wall of copyright. Logically, its bullshit. Unfortunately, the obvious rectification -- that rights stay forever with the source -- has embarrasing consequences (like giving America back to the First Nations). One concludes that registrants *voluntarily surrender (some) rights to a registrar in order that the db can be maintained *for their convenience. A further implication is that those rights are (some) payment to a registrar to perform this service. But where does that conclusion give a registrar 'downstream' IP rights against another registrar? Where does it give one registrar any priority over another at all - for instance, when a registrant wishes to move hys data from one to the other? On the contrary, it opens registration to negotiation, which has two obvious implications. First, if you think your data are worth more than someone else's (e.g. a 'famous name' or a 'killer phrase'), then wouldnt you want to sweeten the pot with some further consideration to keep them from being parlayed elsewhere? Second, isnt this negotiability exactly why there might be more than one registrar? (Why do you think so many folks want to get into the registrar act? Why do you think ICANN is in place, if not to *limit the number and prevent the market from collapsing?) With all the smoke that is being blown about in our name, isnt it high time existing or potential domain name holders asserted our *fundamental right to decide? The question is, do we really want 'competition' among registrars -- that is, to leave ourselves forever open to extortion? Or do we prefer to hold absolutely all names on a par, with the same fixed rate for everyone, on condition that 'whois' type information is not to be parlayed as IP *ever*? Noting that USBank recently sold its entire customer database (including account balances and date of last activity) for $4m, I dont believe we can have it both ways much longer. kerry
[IFWP] Re: rule of law vs consensus
The vehicle of law vs. who shouts loudest seems to me a tough question. If ICANN made simple rules and hewed to them in a vacuum it'd be criticized for "ignoring community consensus" and acting unaccountably--you've been one of the strongest proponents of ICANN (or anything serving its function) deriving legitimacy through how well it represents that consensus. If ICANN purports to represent consensus--and change a policy as a result--it can be criticized for "caving in to whomever shouts loudest" and changing course from its prior rules. I never saw a consensus yet that fit within (arbitrarily) pre- determined timelines. If amendments or budgets or draft proposals are 'posted' for public comment from which a sense of consensus is to be drawn, ICANNs present methodology, explicitly imposing deadlines to 'encourage' production (see FAQ #5 if its still on the icann.org site), is squarely opposed to legitimate outcomes, regardless of the issue. All this said, I'm curious: how do we measure that elusive thing called consensus? Thats been the standing question since 9/98, when 9 people decided to form a corporation that would have public 'members.' That ICANN now appear to be slouching towards 2000 before any membership whatsoever is acknowledged may reflect how easily 'simple rules' betray good intentions, but doesnt it also risk its status as a 501-c-3 'public' corporation? Ken Freed may be correct to say, Creating consensus is a relatively new phenom for humanity, *as a formal process* -- but so is time-keeping. If the two are not commensurate, isnt it appropriate to return to the age-old phenomenon of consensus *as a real-life human process for getting along*? and to recite what everyone knows, The central problem with consensus-building ... is that there's no defining moment of cusp, no finite final measure... In an ideally functioning democratic system, there's a prolonged period of discussion and debate toward building a consensus, but critical maters must be put to a vote, settled definitively, so the talk can abate and the work can begin. But this is the Internet, remember? Talk *never abates, and the work goes on forever. There is no 'critical' need for finality; on the contrary, there is a need for remaining continuously open to change. To argue that its governance must be formalised for the sake of formalism (and the most simplistic kind of formalism at that) merely attests to the power of a 6th-grade civics class to stifle the imagination. I have said it before, but it never hurts (on this list!) to say it again: a truly *interactive voting machine operating 24/7 should not be beyond the capabilities of the 153 souls assembled here -- once we get past the atavisms of centralization and indirect representation that have been imposed on forms of government by time and space. There is nothing that ICANN can or will do that cannot be done better, in terms of customer satisfaction, by software (something like the CETI screensaver, I would guess, would be sufficient). And there is nothing at all it can do if the customers arent satisfied. (As far as the 'registrars' constituency is concerned, dont we already have 50+ (board-picked) registrars? IOW, isnt the issue moot? Whyever is Roberts talking about amending the bylaws at this point?) kerry
[IFWP] Free agency
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,0-38955,00.html ICANN defensive in letter to Commerce** By Courtney Macavinta [...] Countering NSI's complaints that ICANN is trying to regulate its business as well as those of the new registrars through operating agreements, the nonprofit insisted today that it is a grassroots organization, not a policy-setting body. "If they come into existence, these contracts will be the product of voluntary agreements; since ICANN has no governmental power, and indeed no existence outside the context of community consensus, it cannot coerce cooperation," ICANN told the Commerce Committee. Still, legal experts and other observers have said that ICANN has to ability to "make law" on the Net through its agreements. That's because to enter NSI's business, new registrars have to promise to comply with numerous terms and conditions, such adopting an impending domain name dispute procedure that could give offline trademark holders special rights to Net names even if they already are in use by someone else. [...] "NSI must fulfill its obligation to recognize ICANN," Commerce stated. "The transition of DNS management to the private sector can succeed only if all participants in the domain name system--including NSI--subject themselves to rules emerging from the consensus-based, bottom-up process spelled out in the White Paper." === ** ICANN's (40 page) reply to the House Cmte on Commerce is at http://www.icann.org/correspondence/bliley-response-08july99.htm
[IFWP] Re: ICANN PRESS RELEASE (7-9-99) ...
Joe,
... how will ICANN's Interim [sic, thank you] board will be replaced by an
[Initial] elected board?
...
ICANN currently hopes (and expects) that all of the nine Directors
elected by the Supporting Organizations will be in place before the
first annual meeting of ICANN on November 2-4, 1999, in Los
Angeles. If this in fact takes place, half of ICANN's Board at that
time will consist of Directors elected by constituent bodies of
ICANN. The other half of the elected Board, which represents the
At Large Directors, is currently expected to be in place no later
than (and hopefully before) the second annual meeting of ICANN,
which will take place in the fall of 2000. Pursuant to the White
Paper and the MOU, the transition process is scheduled to be
completed no later than October 1, 2000, and the Initial Directors
must all have ended their service by that time.
Art. V. Section 1 of the Bylaws states: "The initial Board of
Directors of the Corporation ("Initial Board") shall consist of nine At
Large members, the President (when appointed) and those
Directors that have been selected in accordance with these bylaws
by any Supporting Organization(s) that exists under Section 3(a) of
Article VI during the term of any of such At Large members. The
At Large members of the Initial Board shall serve until [*]September
30, 1999[*], unless by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all the members of
the Board that term is extended for some or all of the At Large
members of the Initial Board for an additional period, to expire no
later than September 30, 2000."
Has this Section been amended, or is there reason to believe that
the Interim Board will in fact not have a mechanism in place by
Sepetember 99 by which the at-large membership can select new
representatives? Can you state that reason? If the Interim Board
could operate with only the present at-large appointees and without
members from the SOs for 6 months, is there reason why it could
not operate at that time with only the 9 SO members and not the
present at-large members?
kerry
[IFWP] Re: Free agency
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/bliley-response-08july99.htm ...ICANN "decisions" are nothing more than the recognition of community consensus, and require voluntary compliance by a large number of independent actors to have any effect at all... Even with the relatively limited amount of competition that has begun for name registrations, no accredited registrar has yet to offer services at a rate higher than the $35 charged by NSI, and thus both NSI's $9 registry fee and the $1 cost recovery fee due to ICANN are being absorbed by the registrars, not paid by users, and presumably being reflected in lower operating margins than might otherwise exist. ... even just a $2 reduction in the average cost of an annual name registration would save consumers approximately than $20 million annually, Note 6: ...it seems reasonable to expect that the fee that NSI will eventually be [*]permitted[*] to charge for accessing the registries that it operates will be significantly lower than the $9 temporary charge that is now permitted. From these quotes (and the fact that NSIs $35 annual fee for registering is mentioned 7 times), one is obviously to conclude that NSI grossly overcharges; that with a bit of competition the price to the registrant will drop, and that a $1 surcharge to support ICANN (thus $10m /yr) is hardly anything to be concerned about. Nevertheless, it is also evident that ICANN can hardly afford for NSI to remain outside its registrar's agreement/ contract, and thus the legitimacy of calling that contract 'voluntary' is seriously undermined. In short, ICANN's argument is that *if* everyone agreed to support ICANN, the overhead would not be a problem; therefore they *should* agree, voluntarily. The fact remains that the total ground for expecting NSI to understand this point rests (note 3) "in fact, in Amendment 11, [where] NSI agreed to support the transition of USG DNS responsibilities to 'NewCo,' (now ICANN), agreed to 'recognize NewCo pursuant to a contract between NSI and NewCo,['] and agreed that ICANN would have 'the authority . . . to carry out [ICANN's] responsibilities.' " Admittedly, its lawyerly writing in the finest tradition, but ICANN collectively, and its members individually, might have been wise to practice a bit of lawyerly *reading before sticking their heads in the DNS mess. Indeed Amendment 11 states, a couple paragraphs earlier, "Commencing upon the Phase 1 deployment of the Shared Registration System, and for the term of this agreement, NSI's prices for registry services through the Shared Registration System in the gTLDs for which NSI now acts as the registry, will be no more than a dollar amount per registration/year to be specified in a further amendment [not yet written] reflecting NSI's costs and a reasonable return on its investment. This price cap will be adjusted via an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement to reflect demonstrated changed costs of NSI arising from newly enacted legislation, [*]NewCo fees[*], inflation, regulations, standards, costs of new litigation (including settlements and judgments) in excess of NSI's operating plan or changes in the operation of the registry, or to fund specific additional activities in the event such activities are reflected in an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement." In short, NSI is to be reimbursed all its expenses. If it did come to the point of paying ICANN anything at all, I'd bet NSI immediately bills ICANN to get it back again, plus costs. ICANN may, willy- nilly, find itself in the business of running a competing *registry* -- and shouldnt every devout free-enterpriser be ready to cough up a dollar to help them make the play? kerry
[IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection Act
Why not one-domain-per-customer?
Why ?
A proposed solution to the "cybersquatting" problem Mr. Crispin
raised (one person registering tons of generic words and jacking up
the price for the "real" users). This is the solution that some
ccTLDs have used. dc
Ah, but how does one enforce it?
Arent you just moving the goal posts to 'personhood' from
'registered markholder'? And when that fails (through spoofing and
forged documents and underground retina scanners), what? Only
individuals who are progeny of 'real' authorized individuals can have
a domain name?
Infinite regression is a logical concept, but there is only one reason
why any human activity finds itself going down that path: simply,
because the humans have surrendered/ forsaken/ forgotten/ {never
understood in the first place{ their humanity to *denatured* ersatz
roles, variously called rules, regulations, laws, conventions, etc etc.
One of these days, we'll realize that the way out of the ambiguity of
domain names (for all the armwaving, thats all the 'cybersquatting'
argument is about) is for *real people* to participate -- if one is not
enough, get a few; if a few is not enough get a bunch -- isnt that
what the internet can do for any cause on earth (maybe even a few
on the outer planets as well)? Participate in what? In *observing
whether the ambiguity exists: can they tell the difference between
attt.com and the real thing? In *deciding what to do about it,
through the gamut of recourse from tar and feathers to shunning to
the supreme act of justice, pulling the plug.
kerry
[IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection Act
While TMs are the big money thing here, there are other rights to names, as well. For example, I have a right to use the name "Crispin", in certain contexts. There are many others with a similar right to the name. It is not possible to prioritize among us, so first come first serve is a reasonable allocation strategy. But someone who goes out and registers 10,000 common surnames for the sole purpose of reselling them has less of a right to the name than I do. You have put your digit smack dab on the public vs commercial crux: where there is no _market_, FCFS is indeed 'reasonable' as the word is ordinarily used. The existence of a market *creates its own reason*; that is, someone can then have a marketing reason -- in contemporary lingo, a right --to expect to resell the item. Whether this derivative reason is less or more of a right than your fundamental power of reasoning depends on how you feel about the commercialization of practically everything. Market devotees declare it is our manifest destiny, and therefore it is more; other stodgy, slowminded folks see nothing inevitable about any human affairs ever, and point out that markets are just another artifact which need not be given any special treatment whatsoever. They might go so far as to suggest that naming in particular is an *inalienable fundamental human activity, and that perhaps its time that commerce was brought under the first clause of the first amendment -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" -- in recognition of the fact that the 'laws' of the market are in fact only dogma, and trademarks only a priestly transmogrification of perfectly ordinary breads and wines. kerry, in corpore sancti
[IFWP] Re: Lou Gerstner, etc
It sucks, but the com/net/org domains have become what the public thinks of as the Internet. It's stupid, and there is absolutely no technical, legal or logical reason for it, but it's a fact. Its a fact only because the marketing honchos who burst onto the 'open' Internet circa 1993 made it seem that way, without thinking one moment of technical, legal or logical aspects. Having muscled in, now they want to have their 'competitive' shortsightedness validated -- and hand off all the legal aspects to WIPO et al. If there was a shred of logic remaining in the system, it would be clear that all the 'perceived' TM/DN conflicts are their own making, and they should have to carry the bag themselves. Since whether a 'technical' structure can swing that seems to be a very dubious proposition, the central argument for ICANNs existence is thus demolished: shouldnt the whole 'experiment' therefore be handed back to the folks who set it up? One condition might however be added: that they bone up on the basic function of governance; to wit, to keep different sectors of society from wrangling each other to death. kerry
[IFWP] kmm059 re: Thoughts on ICANN
Indeed, it does seem like ICANN -- or anything in its position -- is whipsawed between its hybrid public/private role. I'd like to think that 100% of the internet -- rather than 99% -- could be decentralized, but there are lots of reasons to see centralization occurring with or without those due process controls, or a public-minded organization coordinating things like an authoritative root. It'd be interesting to see what would happen in a world of multiple roots -- I don't see how anyone can authoritatively predict what would happen to the internet of today with such things... As Michael Froomkin writes, sooner or later there's the issue of who chooses the deciders. Is it who runs the root server? Or who decides who runs the root server? Or who decides that there is only one root server to be run? The elegance of the democratic *concept is that the same 'algorithm' applies up and down the scale: the deciders decide the deciders because the deciders are us'ns. Now, I dont say its always elegant in practice; somehow there are always those who would truncate the levels with various ad hoc or 'obvious' arguments; e.g. only those who are 'qualified' to decide should decide, they say -- forgetting or not recognizing that the process of qualification too is decidable. This is particularly the case when the synonymous phrase 'educated to the issues' is used: how often is the direct implication acted on that the process of deciding is *educable? No, its usually then that all sorts of rationalizations crop up: it takes too much time; established conventions are already in place; we're not certified to teach; who will evaluate the outcomes? But all these are effectively *denials of the democratic process, even when mouthed by those who swear they dont have an undemocratic bone in their body. Expedience -- to name this anti-democratic stance -- is a fine and necessary thing sometimes, but in this age of expedience its worth looking at when, exactly, that is the case. It is appropriate if and only if one knows a) where one is starting, b) where one is going, and most importantly, c) how one will know when one gets there; then, and only then, can one afford to play with the fourth parameter, how one gets there. When, indeed does one know that these conditions are met? Fundamentally, when one recognizes that one has done it before (that is, gotten from known location 'here' to known location 'there'); or (derivatively) when one is so constrained as to have no alternative: if one is here, then the only thing to do is be there. (This, in case my language is too abstruse altogether, is the definition of engineering, and 'control' generally.) I have nothing against doing what one has done before -- its a very satisfying experience -- but its not the whole of life, and certainly not of civilization. The dominant cultural pattern, however, holds this precept above all others, first by truncating the paths by which one can live (law) and learn (school), then by voiding or distorting the words one might use to communicate 'alternative' 'approaches' to living and learning; we no long speak of being here or there, but of 'ways you do things' and 'where you're coming from' (note the pronoun as well: to whom is one going to communicate, if one uses the same term for oneself as for those one addresses?) -- precisely as if there is only one 'way to go' from one state of being to the 'next.' Under this perverted epistemology, 'democracy' means voting on prepared issues; 'representation' means letting someone else speak for you; 'freedom' means not getting caught; 'government' means the loss of freedom -- and 'education' means swallowing this crap. How we got here, I trust, needs no further clarification: wasnt it entirely by expedients -- shortcuts, and shortcuts on shortcuts -- applied inappropriately to conditions which had not been experienced before? Social engineers and technological advisors and scientifically trained methodologists all acted *as if* they knew where they were going, and were confident they would recognize where they got to -- because that is where being educated (by other x-engineers and y-scientists) will get you, if you dont watch out. Which brings me to the present topic. (Do I ever stray?) If being "whipsawed" between public and private roles is undesirable, what is the way out? If there is (third party) *enforcement, then of course there's no whipsaw; there are only public ignorance and private shenanigans which need never meet. But for most of us, including most non-profit organizations, the prophylaxis is to *integrate the roles so that the public view is not different from the private knowledge, and this implies wide participation. If that implies education, then do that too -- not as a 'strategy' or an approach and certainly not as a cure, but as an intrinsic ongoing part of ones existence. 'Anything
[IFWP] Re: proprietary rights
...You agree that upon posting information on the Service, you grant eGroups... a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty free, perpetual, non-revocable license under your copyrights or other intellectual property rights Um, I think there is confusion here. Claiming a copyright license and defending against libel are two different things. I used toi think so to, back in the days when container/ medium and contents/ IP were simple and distinct notions. But if Demon is liable because Joe Doe libeled Prof Whozis, then I cant say Yahoo isnt entitled to feel a little jumpy. Whether the ISP or whoever is licensed to use the content has nothing whatever to do with that ISPs liability, if any, from posting the content, nor with its freedom to yank it. I agree it's probably that word 'use' which put everyones backs up. But "distribute, display, reproduce, and create derivative works from such material" is easily construed as "email, post to a webpage, store on a HD, and create advertisements" -- and you know who would be liable if *those works as distributed, displayed, reproduced were found libelous. So while Yahoo was perhaps too- amply covering its butt by the license, I dont think its all that great a stretch to imagine that it could see itself being liable even before distributing, etc.; that is, even tho the original 'information' is conceived as being covered by copyright which remains with the creator, its 'hosting' such material is implicitly covered by the terms of the license. If one takes the license as a *definition of web hosting, does it look so onerous? Is there a better one somewhere? Could it, btw, help clarify the matter of DN ownership? kerry, ianal
[IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Who enforces or guarantees this contract? I posited an interested buyer and a willing seller. Now, what kind of interest would it be that wouldnt cover taking delivery? If you cant carry the heat, stay out of the chamber, one might say -- but this basic nobody-trusts-nobody commercial transation prevails across a good bit of the occupied portion of the earths surface, so lets call this the baseline, or the fundamental civilizing tendency. But (as youre just on the verge of pointing out Im sure), its a wearisome life, not to say nasty, brutish and short. So over the eons, a variation on the theme has emerged, called 'organization.' The sellers may organize to keep the shysters out, or the buyers to garner economies of scale, or (lo!) the middlemen, to keep the traffic flowing smoothly. Now this last organization is called 'government' when its approved of, mafia when its not, but their edge is 'controlling' the money supply (meaning they take a percentage whether it goes one way or the other) -- and their reciprocal responsibility is to enforce contracts *on behalf of* both the buyers and sellers. Let's call this the *derivative level of social intercourse. So the answer to your question depends on what stage of 'civilization' youre dealing with; my point re goodwill is that neither it nor any other quirk of the system we are used to can be taken for granted even in dirt-space, let alone on the net. Certainly, it would be wonderful if easy credit was available by email, just as it is down on 3rd St, or if trademarks were respected just because trademarks *ought to be respected -- but if it doesnt happen, we cant just stamp our little feet and insist that there oughta be a law; we have to go back and see where the system came from: derivative structures simply arent worth much if the fundamentals crap out. Seriously, if you dont care for the prospect of enforcing your own contracts among strangers, I recommend you pull together a group of trusted individuals, buyers and sellers, and build up a *practice of mutual defense/ recognition/ security/ communication/ enforcement/ commerce. You could even call it a 'network' -- no, that would be confusing what with all the untrusty, paranoid, squinteyed characters hanging around the networks we've already got. I guess you could call it a 'society' tho; that term has been standing vacant since we all figured out we didnt need it any more. kerry
[IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
build up a *practice of mutual defense/ recognition/ security/ communication/ enforcement/ commerce. Exactly right. And this is what we have now with what are commonly called Laws. But, there are those amongst the ICANNites that feel these laws are not adequate and need "Special" assistance. That assistance known now as ADR's, although extralegal and beyond the financial reach of most small Internet business folks. But no matter, they are useful for the large business concerns in helping to maintain their monopolist tendencies. Not quite. What we have now is a structure which has been 'organizationalized' for so long and so effectively that where Law comes from -- how its made -- has been forgotten, as if the reasoning is that if there are no fundamentals, then it doesnt matter who makes Law. If our nominal buyers and sellers are happy to work under an invisible frame of enforcement, should the enforcers (be they DoC functionaries, non-profit board members or the all- seeing EyeBM) rock their boat? What, help *them realize that they themselves are being daily bought and sold? That their 'transactions' are to Commerce as IFWP discussions are to Governance? No way, Josef -- look at the flap when Yahoo went and made legally clear what 'privacy' meant! kerry
[IFWP] Re: proprietary rights
YOUR PROPRIETARY RIGHTS You agree that upon posting information on the Service, you grant eGroups, and its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty free, perpetual, non-revocable license under your copyrights or other intellectual property rights, if any, in such material, to use, distribute, display, reproduce, and create derivative works from such material in any and all media, in any manner, in whole or part, without any duty to account to you. You also grant eGroups the right to authorize the downloading and printing of such material, or any portion thereof, by endusers for their personal use. Lawyers dont fuck up, they defend a position. The position of e- commerce at this point is that there are folks who would sue a service provider (and whatever else egroups and freemail and geocities and tripod and all are doing, they provide a service) on the grounds that if some message *content is arguably improper, then it is improper to service it. Its not exactly a coincidence that Demon just lost a libel case in UK on this reasoning (some Yankee posted something slanderous to Usenet); what would you do if you were Yahoo -- appeal to the Queen, amicus curia? From the SP pov, the above says: anything we think will cost us money is going to be yanked forthwith, and there is SFA you can do about it. The fact that from some picayune 'human rights' pov, it says that although you may have thought you were getting something for nothing, in fact you get nothing -- well, it's unfortunate that so many people are naive, but thats always been the case -- and equally the case that if you dont instinctively keep your head down, the way you learn is by getting clobbered. Now, what is there to be learned? That is, what are the possible next steps? Will we see Consumers' Union or the IWW organize an IWWebster's International? Probably not, tho it could be fun to try. Will legislation be passed or a Cyberspacial Framework Convention be enunciated to protect not just freedom of speech but freedom of dissemination? I doubt it; those are some ways away yet. Will many individuals look for different SP with different policies? That's assured, but will it make any *cultural difference? Not at all. Will more than half a dozen see that the somewhat bigger bone of contention -- domain names versus trademarks ($70 = free on that scale) -- is part of the same carcass? You send me your list, and I'll send you mine, and maybe we can make something of it. kerry
[IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
What is it about domain names that make them unique and make speculation unlawful? Obviously, its nothing inherent in itheir domainicity; it has to do with the way human culture develops. As Rob Raisch points out, there are no absolute hooks on which we can hang anything; everything is a trade (-off) -- and the way Homo sap does that is to 'reify' one notion or another *as if* it is absolute. For instance, a certain code says one shall not take another's life -- but it doesnt really mean all life, ever or we wouldnt be here to appreciate its ethical elegance. (Another culture, which held eating anything alive to be unethical, would be aghast at your drinking unpasteurized milk.) So its not that DN speculation is *absolutely unlawful, but only that it trashes the lines which have been (laboriously) set up to distinguish 'things' from 'names of things.' In particular, a trademark is a mark of *trade, a name of a thing; and trademark law is grounded in the manner and scope of that trade. Nor is the issue restricted to domain names; in fact the Digitization of Practically Everything is bringing down these 'conventional' walls everywhere, and lawmakers and educators and service providers and medicos and software engineers are all scrambling for the highest ground they can find -- it hardly matters whether they are trying to salvage some vestige of order or meaning from the Old Ways, or to anticipate what will be needed in the New Ways, or to capitalize of the ambiguities of the transition as people who never thought they would see a real live revolution come to realize they are in the midst of one. It doesnt matter, because the only tools they have to do anything are old tools (case law, professional standards, intergovernmental treaties, IETF standards, etc) -- like somebody trying to use a nail hammer when the power is off, they're clicking and clicking on the trigger because 'that's how it works' - but it doesnt. Lawyers, of course, think they're sitting pretty -- chaos is their stock in trade -- and TM lawyers in particular think they can hold the thing/name (object/pointer, pipe/content, news/entertainment, etc etc) line better than anyone else because names are their game -- in reverse. "Ford Motors" *is* Ford Motors, as long as Ford has anything to say about it, and theyre not going to quit saying it just because a bunch of upstarts have found a way to say things like Forrd or ForkMotors or whatever, on the grounds thart they're 'just names' or 'strings' or 'pointers to IP numbers.' The interesting thing is that this legal fiction, this putative *identity* of name and thing, is grounded in what was (once, at least) a real aspect of trade called 'goodwill.' I myself am waiting for the court case that decides that in e-commerce, there is no goodwill, and therefore no infringement. When in doubt, go back to the basics (de Tocqueville didnt say that, but he should have ;-) ; if highly-evolved walls dont hold, the old-time *real-time* ones do. Make every contract purely de facto, between two specific parties, an interested buyer and a willing seller. Deal first with _quid pro quo_ and let the devil take whatever goodwill he can find in it. Now, it may take a year or two to get the hang of it again, but in due course, the *meaning of goodwill will be reinvented when its value is appreciated by *people -- not just their legal representatives. (The same goes for that other bit of business terminology: the sooner we get shut of the 'consumer' label and go back to being 'customers,' the happier we'll be. I guarantee it.) === "How do we decide how we decide" the future of the domain name system? The global, shared nature of the Internet -- as well as its track-record for self-regulation -- present new and open questions concerning the structure and legitimacy of institutions and processes for governing... (http://www.cdt.org/ ) The writer is certainly raising the right question -- but I suggests its only new to those who have forgotten it, because its been around for ages. To date, the Internet has been sharing highly cultivated ignorance; isnt it high time it accepted the *fundamental nature of information, and started sharing a little globally common sense? kerry
[IFWP] Re: Computer science or the market, government or ICANN
William,
As a consumer you are a part of a market, you make certain choices.
These choices include which TLD to register under, which internet
provider to use, etc.
None of what has been discussed on this thread had any relation to
privacy policies with regard to unsolicited advertisements.
I think Mark is trying to say that the Net is not *only a
market(enhancing) device in the same way as he is not *only a
consumer. It may be that the choices he has available to make are
provided by (and curtailed by) markets, in the same way that his
terminology and references have been conditioned by marketing-
enhancers -- and all of this not only 'has any relation' but is
absolutely central to privacy policy, and net administration.
Isnt it ironic that your own use of the language (for instance,
lumping Ronda's arguments for a common good in with 'failed
socialism') is clearly *not the result of your deliberate exercise of
'market choice' in languages, but merely echoes a widespread
*collective pattern of capitalistic speech? But I accept that you are
convinced you have 'adopted' it -- that is the word, isnt it? -- and
thus fail to see that your rhetorical dogma, in castigating Mark's
individualism as somehow contrary to free-market principles,
contradicts itself.
If you could grasp that fact, you might then notice first, that your
vaunted markets are dominated by corporations which are not
individualistic at all, but just as centrally-directed as the 'socialism'
which 'failed' (will we say 'WXW failed' when you die at 80?); and
second, that they survive only because they are embedded in a
social matrix of ideas -- can you say 'common sense'? -- which
defends individual competence (what 'your' language calls
competition). But I rest easily, assured that you wont notice any
such thing (because you have been adopted by that famous
couple, Divide and Conquer (no, not in the Garden, but the Field of
Levelplaying if my free translation of Kurukshetra isnt too far off ;-)),
and only speak their language of Absolutism. Thus there's no need
to go on to explain the _dialectic of materialism_ and how
'collectivism' and 'individualism' are two conceptual poles between
which *all human systems have ever organized themselves.
No, there's no point in so abusing this list (where most people have
already got over that *relativistic point), until you demonstrate that
you can think for yourself. The persuasive evidence of that (insofar
as there is any market for evidence at all) will be when you give up
the pontifical role ("The people who use the internet are a "market"
) and speak for yourself.
Try it - you'll like it!
kerry
P.S. I apologize for my lack of profundity. I really wish I could say
things like 'The Law is not your mommy or daddy" every time I post.
[IFWP] kmm059 governance and common sense (was: Computer science or the market...
Jeff, Following my own standards of polite discourse, I would have written you privately to point out the obvious: not just that your telling me what I already know is unnecessary, but that I made it as clear as I possibly could that I knew it and thus your belabouring the point does not further anything except your own agenda of belittling William Walsh I would have done so, in order to enlist your help. It is possible to use this medium called language to communicate to more than just the person one is apparently replying to. Indeed, isnt it a fundamental principle of mailing list netiquette that one *avoids one- to-one exchanges? Sure, William was a convenient 'target' -- but so have many others been in their turn, and I havent seen you riding my coattails at those times. But one-to-many communication (if I can borrow the phrase back again from the technologists who seem to think that any exchange - - hell, any *sending of a message, never mind its receipt or response -- can be called communication) requires -- obviously, I should have thought, but obviousness is the topic here and now -- *more than two people to participate. So never mind WXW; how do we involve *other people*? Why, we strike up a decent, respectable conversation between ourselves, and show that *who is participating is not as significant as what (and how) they are able to contribute. I was going to invite you to 'collaborate'; to respond to the *content of my posts, just as if it didnt matter a damn to whom it was addressed. After all, under the guise of irony, I happen to have thrown out some *ideas. For instance, take my first para (tho you're free of course to pick another message), I think Mark is trying to say that the Net is not *only a market(enhancing) device in the same way as he is not *only a consumer. It may be that the choices he has available to make are provided by (and curtailed by) markets, in the same way that his terminology and references have been conditioned by marketing- enhancers -- and all of this not only 'has any relation' but is absolutely central to privacy policy, and net administration. I mentioned Mark only to maintain continuity; it doesnt matter, at least for this proposed strategy, whether *he was trying to say something or not; but it was obvious that he and William were not *communicating -- using a common language. I'm sure Mark can follow up his own line of thought in due course, but lets go on with my example: What do you think of the parallel I constructed between marketing 'choice' and marketing language? Do you agree with the proposition that how one thinks about something is influenced by the 'color' of the language; that is, the terms one thinks about it in? Do you think that there is any communication possible between one person who speaks of 'verifiable identity' and another who speaks of 'privacy' *even though they are really taking about the same thing to quite a large extent*? Does this idea strike you as relevant to ICANN, its putatively business-management style, and the fact that what it is setting out to 'govern' (however you would like to define that term) is a very lively global conversation (isnt that how the Supreme Court put it?), compared to which -- if one uses engineering measures such as megabytes and hops instead of dollars -- the 'free-marketing' component hardly registers at all? I suspect you do agree -- but that is altogether beside my point. I dont care if you disagree; in fact contention and disputation is a darn good way of getting a look at all the angles. (I admit, the hardest thing to grasp about this internet conversation is that *no one person needs to express *all the angles.) But what I want to know is why in hell you dont join the conversation instead of derailing it in snide and *redundant* sarcasm and bringing IFWP down to the level of private conversation? (Its not exactly the first time either, btw.) How is the membership -- the general assembly -- of the list ever going to learn its democratic ABCs if it doesnt have an example to follow? (Everybody seems to be able only to follow the leader -- even if they deny with every breath thats what they want, and say 'answers' instead -- and even if one thing that is for sure clear is that there isnt any leader, nor -- doesnt it seem probable? answers either. ) God knows, Im no expert navigator, but I dont trudge off into the trackless swamp just because everybody else does; and if we can get enough people to start looking around to see which way they *might go, somebody just might find something they can do which will be useful for getting everybody out of this godalmighty endless bickering and posturing. (When in doubt, *explore*; that's the meaning of democracy according to de Tocqueville, who saw it a couple hundred years ago. - What wondrously technological progress we have made, eh?) That's the message I
[IFWP] Re: regular exprssion of the general assembly of the dnso
Richard, in my experience the hardest part of this whole process has been to keep people in one place on one list. Originally there was one mailing list about new domain names, now there are about two dozen. This fractialization is counter producive and impedes forward movement. Moreso, the name of the list is less important than the community the list is and represents. Ah, but isnt this the domain name versus site usage issue all over again? You're talking to namesters, and are asking them to judge by substance? Forget it So, it seems to me a better idea that declaring the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list as the regular expression of the general assembly of the DNSO would be to use the IFWP list for that purpose; it may take months or perhaps even a year to get the dnso list to the size the ifwp list. Separate lists is not in and of itself a Bad Thing; the risk is in not having a place to find out which separate lists are doing what. Imo, IFWP can serve the larger community better by staying tuned to the ICANN process as a whole. This may be why 156 folks are still here, of course, but it can also help 6 million other folks figure out where they fit into what is going on -- and I dont mean just which SO/ affinity group!. This is not to say that a mailing list cant have more than one thing going on. It does mean that individual members' exercising their own talents for *moderation is still a good value to uphold (ideal tho it may be!) -- which, in the very slightly longer run is a better course for net governance than splitting every little thing off into its own digital compartment and expecting some Board to simply tot up the results. kerry
[IFWP] Re: kmm052 Next Meetings
Jeff,
I trust the contrast to conventional rant is clear. One does not start
with the grounds and somehow try to 'convince' by browbeating or
bullshit or specious argument that 'therefore' someone else 'must'
agree.
Agreed, one must look at the relevant facts in evidence past and
present and than make a determination. Once that determination is
made on an individual basis, than one should have the opportunity
to VOTE. This in the US constitution is the meaning of "We hold these
truths to be self evident"...
The Constitution however did not posit *all truths to be self-evident -
or, more generally, that all the 'relevant facts' were going to be
visible to any one person. Insofar as democracy is a means of
making rules, the function of dialogue (in contrast to 'rant') is
precisely to bring as many of the partial and incomplete personal
glimpses into a common field of view, to which a *rule, not a whim,
can be applied. Individuals will still have individual perspectives on
that field which will affect their vote, of course, but the more
confident each can be that at least everyone is looking at the same
thing, the more sensible the outcome will be.
I believe that you misinterpreted my previous post on this
thread...
I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking you; I took off from your
comments to amplify the notion that voting on answers ('outcomes')
is not half as important as defining the questions -- at any scale of
organization, starting with two people 'gathered together.' It may be
the hubris of this technological age that its no longer important or
useful to be able to relate to one another as human beings, but if
virtual reality has anything at all to offer meatspace, surely it's the
resurrection and revalidation of this hoary old pastime, isnt it?
Thus, while I may well have taken your remarks differently than you
intended, I dont believe that qualifies as _misinterpretation --
merely constructive conversation.
Cheers,
kerry
[IFWP] Re: Next Meetings
Joop, If someone breaks the rules, he is dealt with according to other rules, not the whim of an autocratic listowner. It's called: the rule of Law. We are here at a stage where we have very few rules to start with. You may wish for the happy day when we have lots and lots of rules to start with ;-), but IMHO its more satisfying (and historically accurate) to assume that there will *never be enough*; that therefore, one should make do with the rules one has, whether one sees them as 'many' or 'few'; and, most importantly, that if 'getting along' has any value at all as a mode of governance (rather than a unrealizable ideal), then it *has to pertain to rule-making. For this reason, its disingenuous to suppose that the success of a society depends on what it 'starts with' -- tho I agree, that hasnt stopped all kinds of social organizations from *claiming that it does. Various religious sects come readily to mind, for instance, but as soon as you think of *negotiating the rules, you're into 'humanism' -- or democracy. Consensus is formed by people flocking together around an individual who proposes rules that they like. That individual suddenly is saddled with a responsibility towards that group and that includes protection of the fragile consensus that they have just achieved. It sometimes seems that way, doesnt it? But as a matter of rational fact, your statements are fallacious. First, consensus is formed by people flocking together around an *idea, and the most important idea is that *no idea belongs to any individual*. As soon as one feels 'saddled with responsibility' (that is, more so than any other), one has backslid into what I called autarchy (tho others might call it fascism). The 'fragility' of consensus is thus an illusion: all you have in that case is a bunch of people who have flocked to the idea that *someone else will 'protect' them (tell them where to go and what to do)* -- not quite what you have in mind for IDNO, I think. Indeed, its not just an illusion, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, because sooner or later, any Protector in this world will *fail to protect the group -- and from what, most likely? Why, from the idea that *they share the responsibility. The dilemma for democracy is that it has to start out as it means to go on, as the saying goes, but the 'human resources' one has to start with are thoroughly conditioned by undemocratic notions. (If they were already democratic, we wouldnt be starting out, would we?) In this particular, your distinction between war and peace is a good one. But its no use saying dem'cy is fine for when we are all democrats -- fascism would be equally fine if we were all fascists, too. No, there is only one moment worth fighting for, and that is *birth: when dem'cy comes into being *against the prevailing climate, the envelope of "taken for granted, sedimented, unquestioned, unexplicated assumptions" (Raymond Murphy). In fact, we can extend the metaphor and call it the amniotic fluid, suggesting the cognate _amnesia_. Democracy does not have to be layered on top of whatever doctrine already exists (for that simply adds another layer of doctrine), but is already there, intrinsic but smothered. It is *oppression that leads one to think that ones native talent for getting along is irrelevant to 'today's world';; that the 'fitness' required for 'survival' is a function of 'outcompeting' others -- as if Homo sap has not survived for millenia with no economic or political theory whatsoever! -- that, in short, one has to *learn to adapt rather than simply remembering ones organic adaptability. In place of 'childlike' simplicity and honesty and acceptance, we learn intricacy and deviousness and obstinacy. In place of open question-and-answer dialogue, we learn to substitute demagoguery and polemic. Instead of maximising our potential outcomes, we learn to throttle them to fit the 'bounds of decency' and acceptabilty -- so that, for instance, even those who disagree with a centralized DNS pay the premiums just the same, and those who object to the concept of constituencies join one nevertheless. (What else can we do? they ask...) There is no co-operation from ICANN, no funding , no incentive pointing the way to a lucrative business model, no rewards of any kind. I agree, individual responsibility is a terrible thing: there is no Protection, no subsidy, no respect for integrity and self- determination -- and no obligatory fealty in return of any kind. But there are people that are determined not to let even that happen. Why? Because they know the strenght of a principle and fear it. Ad astra per aspera: perhaps they know that the principle will be stronger *in action* if it isnt mollycoddled, guy-wired, sheltered from the storm. The principle of an uncorrupted representation structure is the only thing that keeps an IDNO going. It is not much in the way of
[IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
Greg, People seem to be willing to go along with whatever the government does, as long as they aren't taxed too much, they make reasonable wages, etc. I offer as evidence the general apathy towards the Monica Lewinsky scandal: many people were uninterested; others gave Clinton a high approval rating even though he had obviously lied under oath. When they think they have set up an apparatus to do a certain job, people tend to leave it to do get on with it, whether its a government or a washing machine. What appears to have happened is that the machinery gradually realized the people werent actually judging by whether their clothes were clean or not, but by the machine's idiot lights *telling them when they were clean. As long as we dont have to wash our clothes by hand, not many people care how much of the machinery is dedicated to making the interface "user-friendly" -- so now we have sound-byte circuits that tell us our clothes are whiter than white (and certainly whiter than our neighbours, even tho we would really like them to buy the exact same brand of machine!) and take up 3/4 of the operating current to do it, while the motor goes putt-putt over in the corner just in case somebody puts their hand on the frame to feel the comforting vibration of Democracy in Action. As for 'clinching' your case with Loose-Lips Monica, that's as strong an argument the other way: despite the flashing lights and spinning commentator dials that insisted that Democracy was coming apart at the seams, the goldurned public simply never expected its washer to be a sewing machine too, and told it to tend to its knitting. And lies? Of course he lied -- everybody knows Ol' Blue Lies(tm) is the only (nookular?) detergent in town. What's to disapprove? But I see my metaphor is unravelling - has anybody got some duct tape? kerry (known for having sewn up a pair of ruptured jeans with a shoestring)
[IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
ICANN is by no means the only forum where (liberal) governments have taken this position ... (I appreciate it is not clear what legal basis Mr Twomey has for conceding sovereignty on behalf of the governments for which he speaks... What other forums is this being done in? And ICANN is *not* a forum, but a power play of the grossest nature. The interesting thing is that these governments must grapple with the theoretical advantages of free trade in ideas and goods, to some degree implying loss of executive control and with further implications for cultural dilution vs economic gain. It is surely indicative that Australia, one of the few autarkic nations with no real land borders or historical cultural relationship with its neighbours should take the lead in this area. Calls for the disappearance of government from the process are misplaced. What kind of "free trade in ideas or goods" when the central point of control of vital functions of the Internet are being put in hands that have no oversight and no responsibility to anything but their own self enrichment? Indeed, the other 'forum' that comes to mind is the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, by which 'free' trade interests would have declared themselves unaccountable under national (and local) governmental structure. By that simple 'technical' rationalization, they would, in fact, have the staus of government themselves. A hundred years ago, it was called piracy; now its called enhancement of assets. If ICANN is the puppet of the Free Traders, I can imagine the puppeteers chortling as they sign off on Twomey: "Ha - so they want Government, eh? We'll give them Government!" Even if it is not, it is certainly a stalking-horse for the Brave New Fiefdom. The MAI, by the way, once it came to public awareness, was abandoned in the OECD and is being resurrected in other venues: APEC for one and WIPO's sister organization, WTO, for another. (Remember the competitive advantage of having parallel entities)? If you want to know the future of ICANN, watch what happens in Seattle in November. While we squabble about the actions of 9 individuals, an entire unaccountable empire is shrink-wrapping the globe and all the socalled intellectual property in it. And if you thought NSI had a monopoly, wait till Monsanto buys them out. Claims to free speech (and I dont mean just domain names) will be right alongside the claims of unenlightened farmers claiming 'heritage' of the seeds they grow, with a little marker: R.I.P. = Milton Mueller wrote (re: Roberts' reply to Post): Just as the FCC's control of radio spectrum allocation was used to license and regulate conduct and content, so ICANN's mandate has been to utilize the control of domain name registration to license and accredit registrars, impose a specific business model on the industry, and to police and enforce intellectual property rights. When ICANN can be put through the same oversight and *public hearings as FCC, the problem will indeed be settled. The problem is, ICANN was deliberately *not set up as a federally mandated entity, and the question is, Why? Ronda pointed out the difficulty the FCC met when it created a corporation to administer the E-Rate mandate (which 'experiment' has since been rolled into NECA). Perhaps ICANN should likewise be subsumed under the FCC. kerry
[IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
Greg, When ICANN can be put through the same oversight and *public hearings as FCC, the problem will indeed be settled. I doubt it. The FCC has a rather poor track record of regulating shared public resources in the public interest as of late. Are you willing to go further, and say the public has a poor track record of using its power of oversight to ensure that the agencies that manage resources in its name do what they are supposed to? The problem is, ICANN was deliberately *not set up as a federally mandated entity, and the question is, Why? ICANN is an experiment in Internet self-governance. If it fails, then there will most likely be some federally mandated entities created to do what ICANN is doing. Thats not the 'problem,' its experimental status is the result of the problem. Whether ICANN 'succeeds' or 'fails,' the question of self- governance properly should be directed to the Am public: are we asleep, or what, to have let the functionaries of our Dept of Commerce wander off into making up concepts of *governance* by themselves? If there is something wrong with applying the concepts we have, then let's have a proper constitutional convention and rework them. The Internet would be an ideal 'forum' by which to do just that -- but one begins to get the impression that ICANN has been 'mandated' to prevent that at all costs. Hmm, I vaguely recall the history books mentioning another Burr -- but who reads that stuff nowadays? kerry
[IFWP] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?
Ronda, I found the GAO opinion in the FCC Schools and Libraries Corporation issue and it seems to shed quite a bit of light on how in fact ICANN is a U.S. government created corporation and is in violation of laws forbidding the U.S. Executive to create such corporations as the U.S. Dept of Commerce has created ICANN. The GAO opinion is B-278820. I see two implications in the docs I found: 1) E-Rate is alive and well and USG is not going to dismantle it (or, therefore ICANN) on some picayune legal grounds; 2) Sen Stevens might be worth bringing up to date on the DNS mess. kerry === http://www.house.gov/jct/x-59-98.htm SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT of the HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAY AND MEANS JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION July 31, 1998 JCX-59-98 BACKGROUND AND PRESENT LAW On May 7, 1997, the FCC adopted an order to implement the principles of section 254 of the Telecommunications Act. This order subsequently was modified on June 12, 1998. Under the order, charges are imposed on all telecommunications carriers that provide service between States, including long distance carriers, local service providers, cellular telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone companies. [...] The Telecommunications Act is structured to require the provision of these discount services and to provide for reimbursement to the telecommunications carriers of the costs of providing the discount services. The source of the funds for reimbursements is the "equitable and nondiscriminatory contributions" by telecommunications carriers provided for as a "principle" in the Act. The FCC created a fund, capped at $2.25 billion per year, to support universal service discounts for schools and libraries. On June 12, 1998, this maximum funding amount was reduced to $1.925 billion over an 18-month period (January 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999). Required "contributions" were allocated among covered telecommunications carriers based on the carriers' receipts during prescribed prior periods. In its initial order, the FCC provided that the expanded universal service program would be administered by two non-profit corporations: the Schools and Libraries Corporation and the Rural Health Care Corporation. In its June 12, 1998, revised order, the FCC proposed to merge these corporations into the Universal Service Administrative Company, which administers other portions of the universal service program.(10) In January 1998, the Congressional Budget Office issued a determination that the "contributions" required to support the universal service program are Federal revenues.(11) Telecommunications carriers have challenged the "contributions" required under the FCC orders, taking the position that the charges are in substance taxes, and that if they are authorized, the authorization represents an unconstitutional delegation of the taxing power by Congress.(12) | 10. In a February 10, 1998, letter, the General Accounting Office | (the "GAO") concluded that the FCC had exceeded its authority | when it directed that the Schools and Libraries Corporation and | the Rural Health Care Corporation be created. See, U.S. General | Accounting Office, Letter to Senator Ted Stevens, February 10, | 1998 (B-278820). [http://www.neca.org/usac.htm USAC was created in 1997 as a not-for-profit subsidiary of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., and is governed by a Board of Directors that includes a broad representation of both industry and non-industry interests, including representatives of service providers, schools and libraries, health care providers, consumers, and state regulatory commissions... See also http://www.universalservice.org ] 11. See, Congressional Budget Office, Federal Subsidies of Advanced Telecommunications for Schools, Libraries, and Health Care Providers, January 1998. 12. See, Texas Office of Pub. Utility Counsel v. FCC, Civ. No. 97- 60421, currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. http://www.arentfox.com/telemed/reports/gao_stevens.html Office of the General Counsel B-278820 February 10, 1998 The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Dear Senator Stevens: [...] The Government Corporation Control Act specifies that [a]n agency may establish or acquire a corporation to act as an agency only by or under a law of the United States specifically authorizing the action. 31 U.S.C. § 9102. These entities act as the agents of the Commission and, therefore, could only be created pursuant to specific statutory authority. Because the Commission has not been provided such authority, creation of the two corporations violated the Government Corporation Control Act. Because the Commission has argued that it did not establish or acquire the corporations, we provide some background about the establishment of the corporations. More detail is contained in the attached Appendix.
[IFWP] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?
Ronda, The Committee on Science subcommittee on BASIC Research hearing on March 31 [1998] had some statement to the effect that the U.S. Govt officials couldn't set up a corporation like the FCC-Schools and Libraries Corporation. That this was in violation of the Government Corporation Control Act. Were the Green and White paper issued to try to go around that law? You have to go by 'the letter of the law.' It doesnt say USG cant simply give assets to a private corp, only that it cant *create* the corp to give them to. Conflict? What conflict? Its interesting reading, nevertheless: === http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy090140.000/hs y090140_0.htm [Mr MAGAZINER: W]e proposed the adding of five names, and then a second question came, which was, in the CORE proposal, for example, there is one group, essentially one organization that would manage the databases for all registry top-level generic names, and it would be a nonprofit organization, I think in the public trust, is the way it's described? There are good arguments to go in that direction, but the concerns were that if you have just one organization managing all the registration databases, that you wouldn't have the benefits of competition and the kind of innovation that competition can bring, and the efficiencies that competition should bring. So, what we proposed, based on those arguments, was that you would allow five new organizations to come into existence, each of which was managing a name, a generic top-level name, and you would have NSI continuing to manage the database for .com, although it would have to allow anybody to register into it. And then you would have at least six competitors, and that would exist only during an interim period. After the interim period, once the new organization gets up and going, it will review all these policies so that what we were doing was just for a transition period, to get competition moving. And in that sense, I guess what's being said is that it sets up monopolies because you'd have only one organization managing the database for a name, a specific name. That's true. On the other hand, the CORE proposal would have only one organization managing all names, nonprofit. [...] Chairman PICKERING. Thank you. There are two objectives that have been raised in the panel discussion. One that we need to make this transition as quickly as possible, and we need to remove the government involvement, and get a new structure in place, a new protocol, new dispute mechanisms in place as quickly as possible. As many of you know, the NSF/NSI cooperative agreement expires today. I believe, at least my understanding is, that it will automatically extend 6 months. Mr. Magaziner, do you think that we can have a new system in place by September 30? Can we have the consensus? Mr. MAGAZINER. Well I though our goal is to get as close to that as possible, and what we've done as a safeguard in our proposal is to say that the contract would not be renewed as of September 30, and that there would be some oversight of the Commerce Department, which would continue for a limited period of time, until the new organization and the new system were fully up and going. It would be our desire for that to be as limited a time as possible, but if we're concerned about stability, we've got to make sure that we just don't pull the plug on this system before the new system is in place. That would be, in our view, irresponsible. Chairman PICKERING. To that end, is there any legislative authority that you may need, for example, if there's a new nonprofit entity that will help in the organization or setting up the new structure? There is a ruling within the FCC that when they tried to set up a similar program to administer the links to schools and libraries, that theyit was a rule that they did not have the authority to do so. From your interpretation, do you have the authority, currently, to establish a nonprofit entity to do this, or do we need to take some legislative action in this regard? Mr. MAGAZINER. Let me ask the Commerce Department about this. Ms. BURR. Thank you. I think there are two questions of authority here, but the Green Paper does not call for a government- chartered corporation or for the government to establish a corporation. Rather, it calls for a private-sector developed not-for- profit corporation based on membership associations. And under that plan, government authority would not be needed to create that corporation. Chairman PICKERING. How would this be different from the FCC- created nonprofit corporation for schools, referred to as the Schools and Libraries Corporation? GAO recently issued a legal opinion stating that the nonprofit corporation was created without statutory authority and in violation of the Government Corporation Control Act. Ms. BURR. The FCC actually established
[IFWP] Re: I represent the little guy -- Esther Dyson as hypocrite
-profit will take over, the problem is that there are a lot of people who want to establish that right now, and that's part of the basic problem. There's no way of getting together and saying, ''Yes, that's a good idea, let's get together and decide how to do it.'' [This point is reinforced by an unidentified Mr Ehlers:] Also, the comment that was made about the people who really need to be involved and should be involved, often don't have either the time or the inclination to send e-mail or to engage in these battles is very true. I've been involved in the peacemaker's role oftenand so far I haven't been shot, cursed, perhaps, but not shotbut that's a role that often we can play very effectively, and getting together the right people. And that's the key, identifying the people who should be around the table, getting them around the table and serving as mediators. I'm sure that Mr. Magaziner can play that same role, as well. But that, I think, is a good informal function of government and I've seen it work many times, and work very, very effectively. So I hope that in this case, also, it will be successful. [Q. 6-8. Do you agree that "getting people around the table" is a good idea? Can you explain why the Board has not adopted the proposals you have doubtless made to it repeatedly, to use the facilities of the Internet to involve the "most important people"? Do you think that, if established government is not to have even an oversight capacity, more can be done to "represent" this good informal function of government?] As one of the little guys, weighing your continuing representation of my interests, I look forward to your considered replies. kerry miller
[IFWP] kmm051 Protocol (was: Esther Dyson Sells Out Internet Community
Tony makes a good point, but perhaps not one he had thought of
making:
His having written,
John's assertion is not very defensible. However,
the more interesting question is why a "35 year old computer
technical analyst residing in Chicago, Illinois, USA" with a
US domain and a passion for counting down to the year 2000 on
his web site, should care, much less make such pronouncements.
At a certain level, it's interesting to put ourselves in the
place of our psychologist friend in Sunnyvale and ask what
motivates people.
and then following up,
P.S. Tony: the fact that I am an ordinary Internet user and not a hired
gun does not disqualify me from commenting on matters of Internet policy.
You missed my point. I'm speaking favorably
about your participation in discussions -
just wondering why you (and for that matter
other people who passionately argue a particular
point or attempt to speak authoritatively) care.
In my own case, I've been analyzing and writing
about similar public policy, legal developments
for the past 25 years. None of what is now
occurring domestically and internationally is
particularly new. What you find typically with
these developments, is that there are multiple
different potential outcomes that evolve with
time, and no intrinsically right or authoritative
answer - just directions.
illustrate how easily good intentions can be derailed by hasty
language. I'm sure he did not mean that ordinary citizens cannot
participate, or that they have no interest in participating, or that his
25 years make him more "authoritative" than a relative newcomer --
but the way he expresses his support for such participation is
problematic. If one's point is to speak favorably of another, it's a bit
of a puzzle why then one says the other missed the point, instead
of trying to express oneself better.
1. Internet discourse is something like jail discourse: one doesnt
usually strike up acquaintance by asking what somebody is in for.
In the time Ive been on this list, I have seen few other cases of
someone being asked what their interest is - why John, then,
whose passion at least has been more relevant than that of a few I
could name?
2. Indeed, I see very few instances of someone actually *asking*
an open question -- rather, comments are phrased as
"authoritatively" as possible: "the more interesting question *is*...";
"I'm just wondering..."; "What *you* find typically..." and so forth
(instead of "Is there interest in..."; "Why..."; "Do others agree
that..."). Most of the time, of course, we let this kind of 'trivia' go,
so one might well ask, what's my point?
3. In fact, I do agree that "potential outcomes" evolve with time,
and that there are few intrinsically right or authoritative answers -
just directions. Why then do so many well-intentioned folks fail to
recognize or incorporate the implications for their style of
discourse? Specifically, doesnt "authority" rest on having right
answers? If one describes another's "passionate argu[ing]" as an
"speak[ing] authoritatively," isnt one *implicitly* denying that the
argument could help identify the *direction? Further, doesnt the
additional phrase, "*attempt to* speak authoritatively" imply that
one has knowledge of -- that is, is an authority on -- what
authoritative speaking *is*? Isnt this kind of pecking-order one-
upmanship utterly typical of net discourse, and might it not be why
so many good threads never even find direction, much less an
outcome? Isnt it more than a little terrifying to realize that after 25
years, we -- the net community -- still dont distinguish "free"
speech from _thoughtless_ speech? - and that (as a direct
consequence, imo) we continually slide (as in the most recent
example) from a) the issues requiring clarification ("representation"
in ICANN jargon) to b) *how to clarify to c) *who will clarify to d)
*why them? When every issue gets swept into _ad hominem_
drivel, is it any wonder that most ordinary users (not to mention
members of the Interim Board!) stay well out of the discussion?
4. I too am just an ordinary user. As for my reasons for
participating, I think the more interesting question is why they
should be anybody's damn business, if you see my point?
Cheers,
kerry
"In a critical sense, we are not democrats anymore.
Cyberspace has shown us this, and it should push
us to figure out why." -- L. Lessig, "Governance"
http://cyber.harvard.edu/works/lessig/Ny_q_d1.pdf
[IFWP] Re: Esther Dyson Sells Out Internet Community vrs Netizens
Ronda, Thus it is flies in the face of the history and development of the Internet and of the history and development of science and government as they have evolved since the earliest days in the U.S. Your colleague Eben Moglen wrote a nice piece last year on the Information Railroad, at http://old.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/ The image of the trappers and traders getting the Amerindians sozzled on firewater while taking over their lands also comes to mind. Interesting in this connection is a recent post by Eric Brunner at http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/icann- current/msg00079.html kerry
[IFWP] Re: Esther Dyson Sells Out Internet Community vrs Netizens
Eben Moglen wrote a nice piece last year on the Information Railroad, at http://old.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/ Sorry, the resource is ~/barbecue.html , altho one may also find ~/yu-encrypt.html relevant to the question of 'net hegemony.' kerry
[IFWP] Re: Magaziner, Lessig Spar
Dave, Only through considerable pressure have people like Rutkowski and Fenello finally acknowledged their affiliation to NSI -- while simultaneously ly claiming that taking money from NSI doesn't affect their opinion. It's a bit like the question whether you've stopped beating your wife, isnt it? It's easy to forget that a generation ago it was unthinkable that money influenced ones judgement -- now its taken for granted, but anyone asserting that they still hold to the old values of independent judgement are damned if they assert that 'simultaneous claim,' and damned if they dont. If one really wanted an independent domain-name-holders association, the rule need only be that the applicant is not corrupt -- because that is what we're talking about, isnt it? If, then, some member is shown to be corrupt, that some decision is *not hys, but due to hyr corporate allegiance, then that member is expelled. What could be simpler? - certainly not any kind of _a priori_ judgement, of the sort the Walshes of this world are determined to apply to each and every issue that is raised. Needless to say, I'm quite sure such a NonCorruptDomainNameConstituency will never be recognized, but the sooner the spade is identified as a spade, the more *profitable any further discussion will be. kerry
[IFWP] Benton: Phone home?
Nothin to do with DNS games, of course... but who'll give me odds on being able to punch in names instead of numbers for a voice connection, say by this time next year (or go for a double: ...on a Dvorak telephone)? kerry === FIRM MAKES HOME PAGES FREE FOR ALL WITH PHONES Issue: Internet Idealab, the company that launched the hot Internet businesses eToys, CitySearch and Free-PC, is offering anyone in the U.S. and Canada a free home page tied to their phone number through a new venture called HomePage.com. Other sites offer long and complicated home page addresses, says Bill Gross, the founder of Idealab, who believe HomePage.com is a sure winner because it allows people to immediately get a page simply by calling a number. If your phone number is (888) 888-888, for example, you would go to: www.888-888-.home-page.com and, using an automatic call-back feature, the page would confirm you were the owner of the page. You'd then be able to build a page using the tools provided and change the name of the page if you'd like [??]. Idealab has built more than a billion home-page placeholders and it, like the portals Yahoo and Lycos, finds this to be a lucrative market. Consumers should note that home-page companies could demand a cut of the sales generated from the sites and that portals use the number of home-page owners on their sites to attract advertisers. [SOURCE: USA Today (1B), AUTHOR: Janet Kornblum] (www.usatoday.com)
[IFWP] Benton Headlines 6/1/99
Nothing to do with ICANN politics, of course... [Capital Dispatch column] 1) Unclear future for trans-Atlantic e-commerce. The Clinton Administration's trade representative, David Aaron, and the European Union's director general for financial services, John Mogg, were unable to resolve key data privacy issues this weekend; it is doubtful they will reach an agrement before President Clinton's June 21 summit with the European officials. [...] [SOURCE: CyberTimes, AUTHOR: Jeri Clausing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])] (http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/mo/cyber/articles/01capital .html )
[IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Due to your inspiration, I went to see what I could find, even tho the search interface at icann.org is broken, and the bylaws at ~/about/bylaws- Nevertheless, I persevered: the draft minutes of the board meeting of 31 March (at http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes- 31mar99.htm ) mention the amendment of Article VI, and refer to http://www.icann.org/minutes/3_31exhibitB.htm The relevant text of "Exhibit B" is: ARTICLE VI-A: THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION [Reserved.] In my abysmal ignorance, I beg your indulgence once again: where is the *intended function of the ASO specified? What are the pressing questions an ASO will be expected to take up? kerry BTW, is there a documentary record of why the IANA draft bylaws which read "Except as otherwise provided in the Articles of Incorporation, the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Corporation may be altered, amended, or repealed and new Bylaws adopted only upon action by two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all members of the Board, except that these Bylaws shall not be amended until the earlier of (i) June 1, 1999, or (ii) such date as all three Supporting Organizations described in Section 3(A) of Article VI have been formed, and Directors nominated by them have been seated..." were put in final form as "Except as otherwise provided in the Articles of Incorporation, the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Corporation may be altered, amended, or repealed and new Bylaws adopted only upon action by two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all members of the Board." ? = Kent wrote: It expects to formally recognize a third group, the Address Supporting Organization in Santiago. Can someone help me with the antecedents for this SO? Is there mention in the Bylaws of anything besides DNSO, PSO, and the at- large membership? Yes.
[IFWP] Old and New (was: Two Icann Supporting Organizations Created; Operational Resolutions Passed
P Brewster, presumably, wrote, The Initial Board noted that a uniform dispute settlement mechanism was a necessary element of a competitive registrar system. The Initial Board noted that the scope of this policy should be wider than the cases of abusive registration with which the WIPO report deals, and ultimately covers all commercial dispute issues linked to Domain Name registrations. To this end, ICANN-accredited registrars are being encouraged to develop and voluntarily adopt a model dispute resolution policy... I'm almost embarassed to make a suggestion here, but sometimes its necessary to spell out even the most obvious things in utmost detail. Historically (that is, since 1995 when commerce in DNs began), 'disputes' have arisen when some DN fails to accurately reflect the expectations of the 'end user' or to manifest the intentions of the nameholder, to such an extent that some complaint is made -- sometimes to the nameholder, sometimes to the name registrar, sometimes (we can expect) to ICANN and or WIPO. The unfortunate fact is, there has been, to date, no uniform settlement mechanism, and thus many such complaints have been poorly resolved, while others continue to be unresolved, and altogether the effect of this omission has been almost more confusing to the net- using public than any particular 'conflict' might have been. As a first step towards such a unform model of dispute resolution, therefore, I would like to suggest a technique borrowed from 'natural' languages, where disputes after all, have been resolved for many thousands of years. In the newly-invented language of domain names, this technique can perhaps be most appropriately be designated as code#063;/code altho "Character 63," or Chr$(063) would do as well. That is, regardless of what other local or idiosyncratic resolution processes may pertain at present or in future (and the prospect of multiple registries increases the likelihood of such processes being adopted),, a simple, almost automatic, modification of the domain name is all that is required. This modification consists entirely of the addition of a single character -- number 63 in the ASCII symbolic code; *no other change to the name need be considered*. The "resolution" process can then take up the merits of whether to again remove the addition. As it happens, this character has been used widely -- one might say universally -- in pre-Internet vernaculars for the precise purpose of identifying a degree of uncertainty in human expression. It is this congruence with conventional speech patterns which lets me suggest that the root cause of disputes has been that names do not in themselves comprise a language, that we stand at a crucial moment of definition of *domain-language syntax*, and that such a uniform procedure can be known as *interrogation*. Present policy has relied on suspension or 'take-down' of a disputed name -- losing one's site name has effectively been the same as losing the site if it is involved in social intercourse. Indeed, this equivalence of the name and the thing is at the root of magic and other 'primitive' practices; if one can (not) talk about 'it,' 'it' must (not) exist. But, some thousands of years further along the curve of civilization, humanity invented *questioning as the way to talk about (or point at) that which does not exist. The simple addition of a question mark to the domain 'corpus' is sufficient to bring the Internet up to modern standards, and its relief of what heretofore has necessarily been an *assertion* will, I believe, be an adequate basis of uniform dispute resolution. That this is a *linguistic solution to the confusing effects of *policy may be a coincidence or not, but by those who know the technical details of administration and governance much better than I do (dont they?), I hope it will be taken seriously. === Among other news: The Initial Board also passed ... a resolution through which the Initial Board accepted the principles set forth by its Advisory Committee on Independent Review. The Advisory Committee recommended that ICANN set up an Independent Review Board empowered to consider complaints that decisions by the ICANN Board violate of ICANN's bylaws. I'll be damned if they dont! doesnt it just make you really proud that the committee which was set up to advise not only advised, but its advice has been accepted? Yes indeed, there should be a safeguard against the abuse of power. Now why cant all you fractious SO - beginners behave as nicely? If you have questions, please contact: Pamela Brewster and Josh McCloskey Alexander Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide (+1-415) 923 1660 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, just one *question: who gave you permission to describe the Interim Board as *Initial*? Does this not create considerable confusion in the public mind, by obscuring the fact that *this
[IFWP] Re: Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting
I think this statement should be printed up and posted whenever ICANN meets -- verbatim. The real problem which you eluded to with these ICANN meetings is poor planning in as much as not enough time allotted for each meeting.
[IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
It expects to formally recognize a third group, the Address Supporting Organization in Santiago. Can someone help me with the antecedents for this SO? Is there mention in the Bylaws of anything besides DNSO, PSO, and the at- large membership? kerry
