Re: [IFWP] ICANN's orientation
Tony, Of course if would be appropriate to correct the wording on the ICANN web site. But you know this has nothing to do with ICANN's orientation. Or maybe from now on you will also complain whenever you see a US phone number written without the US country prefix, saying that this is an affront to all other countries, and accusing the author of having an entirely US-centric agenda? Regards, Werner "A.M. Rutkowski" wrote: > > ICANN's web site prominently advertises: > > To register a domain name, please > contact one of the ICANN Accredited > Registrars listed here. > > Of course, those registrars for the > most part, only register in 3 of > the 250 Top Level Domain zones in > the legacy root of interest to ICANN. > > Questions: > > 1. Isn't is rather skewed to be promoting > only these three domains? > > 2. Isn't this an affront to all the country > domain registrars and country oriented domain > communities worldwide? > > 3. Doesn't this represent a restraint of trade? > Shouldn't ICANN be promoting all Internet names > of any kind and in any root equally - instead > of only those sold by their own "accredited > registrars?" > > --tony -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken, It is still not correct. Jon Postel's action could not disrupt any traffic. Regards, Werner Ken Freed wrote: > > Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy? > > "Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at > IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" the path used for > copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially > disrupting global Internet traffic. Performed in conjunctionwith root > server operators, this act of civil disobedience could not be ignored. The > combination of international protest and Postel's action effectively killed > the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." > > Now, can we get on with discussing the real issue of ICANN legitimacy and > whether we allow privatization to go forward without a public vote? > -- ken > > >Ken, > > > >> Below is the rewritten paragraph from > >> http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > >> > >> "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > >> Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > >> "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. > >> By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > >> statement could not be ignored. The combination of > >> international protests and Postel's action effectively > >> killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." > > > >You still don't have the facts correct. Jon Postel's action did not > >disrupt any Internet traffic at all. It did not and it could not. > >Nor was it an action by Jon Postel alone. It was an action between > >most of the root server operators and only concerned the path > >in which the root zone file is copied to the various root servers. > > > >Regards, > > > >Werner > > > > > >-- > >Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch > >Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken, > Below is the rewritten paragraph from > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. > By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > statement could not be ignored. The combination of > international protests and Postel's action effectively > killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." You still don't have the facts correct. Jon Postel's action did not disrupt any Internet traffic at all. It did not and it could not. Nor was it an action by Jon Postel alone. It was an action between most of the root server operators and only concerned the path in which the root zone file is copied to the various root servers. Regards, Werner -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken, You said, more precisely, that Jon Postel temporarily "disrupted Internet traffic" by "redirecting" the root servers. Could you explain whose traffic was disrupted, and how? Regards, Werner Ken Freed wrote: > > Werner -- > > What sort of comment would you like? > He was in a position to impact things, > He could. He did. What else can I say? > > For the historic record on it, > check out Tony Rutkowki's > website or Ellen Rony's site. > Links are posted at -- > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-informed.htm > > Thanks for your interes. > -- ken > > >Ken, > > > >Could you comment on the following excerpt from > >http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > > > "Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by > > redirecting the root servers, temporarily disrupting world > > Internet traffic." > > > > > >Regards, > > > >Werner > > > >-- > >Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch > >Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken, Could you comment on the following excerpt from http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm "Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by redirecting the root servers, temporarily disrupting world Internet traffic." Regards, Werner -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] The rough consensus in Berlin and ICANN's bylaws
Tony, > What's been bothersome is how the NDA - which > was meant to protect all testbed participants ^^^ > against snipping public remarks - has been used against > NSI, (...) When NSI uses confidentiality agreements and performance bonds to slow down the access of new registrars and to prevent the public from finding out about its anti-competitive practises, then it is to "protect" us. I suppose that this "protection" is worth 8 out of the 9 dollars NSIregistry charges per name to registrars each year. Regards, Werner -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
Tony, >>So you say that the EC has protectionist motivations in investigating NSI, >>and at the same time you acknowledge that there is no-one to protect. > > These are two entirely different topics. The term > "protectionist" is synonymous with strategic industrial > policy and preservation of domestic markets. Different topics yes, but this does nothing to explain your logic. But I can help you a little bit: the dominant role NSI plays in terms of the database to which it claims ownership is a major strategic industrial policy issue. Maybe you care to finish the the thought you have started. I am afraid it will lead you to the conclusion that the _potential_ power acquired by SAIC/NSI in electronic commerce is a concern for _any_ antitrust regulator. I assume this also explains why you are so busy writing messages suggesting that .com/.net/.org market share in Europe is negligeable. Although (at your advice, maybe?) NSI seems to have stopped disclosing the percentage of international registrations, your client's SEC filings contradict you in that respect: http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1030341/950133-99-001925.txt "... our revenues from sources outside the U.S. have increased significantly..." (This is a boiler plate statement, but it would hardly be there if international business were negligeable). > There have been books written on the CEC and > predecessor strategic industrial policy activities > that go back about 125 years in this field. That's > why y'all have different electrical connectors, > different telephone connectors, different TV (snip) We can agree on that, although it has not causal relationhip with the above. The US is no stranger to strategic industrial policy either, but never had phone plug problem because it is one single regulatory environment. And during last 10 years, the EC has been the primary force to remove intra-European protectionism. Some of your statements against European monopolies are essentially correct - but they do not seem to be sincere since you act as a paid advocate for a monopoly. Regards, Werner -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
Tony, > >But could you clarify *whom* the EC tries to protect by investigating > >NSI, in your opinion? > You're asking the same question that I am! So you say that the EC has protectionist motivations in investigating NSI, and at the same time you acknowledge that there is no-one to protect. Werner -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
Tony, > The market share of ESTENA - the Ministry of Education > Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg is nearly 100% in Luxembourg. Please tell us how you calculate this. I suspect you are simply dividing the total number of .lu registrations by the total number of .lu registrations gTLD market share is at least 30% in those European countries where prices are comparable to those of NSI. Regards, Werner -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
Tony, > > The European Commission looks, of course, at the global European figures. > > Obviously, if the European ccNICs had the dominant position you show as > > hypothesis, the things would be different. After all, DG IV should be > > silly to bother for 0.01%, don't you agree? > > Not necessarily - if the intent is protectionism. (...) Let me see: the fact that 18 monts ago the US Government (at your personal request, as you have claimed) accepted to protect your client against competition was not protectionism. But if the EU looks into SAIC's tactics of delaying competition (each year of delay being worth USD 1 billion in sales of NSI stock by SAIC), then of course the motive is "protectionism". But could you clarify *whom* the EC tries to protect by investigating NSI, in your opinion? Regards, Werner -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
