[IFWP] Re: IFWP_LIST V1 #951

[blair]

Well, that certainly seems to have woken everyone up.

I had speculated that the notice was updated after an outcry, but I made the mistake 
of giving ICANN the benefit of the doubt.  The more fool me.

As to the icann.org/www.icann.org thing, it's trivial to default DNS lookups, and 
obnoxious not to do so.  Aliasing the domain to the webserver--its only useful default 
outside of nslookup etc.--does not unnecessarily foment the web.

For an organization whose aim is (or should be) acceptance of its goals, dissuading 
seekers of their propaganda just because they shortcut the URL is a strategic error.  
Or, in this case, a humorous oversight.

--Blair
It's won't be as regular as The Tick, but it'll be just as creepy/funny.

[IFWP] Re: IFWP_LIST V1 #950

[blair]

A short trip to ICANN's website clears it up.

http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/

Under Sponsorship Opportunities, they ememphasize/em the words commercial 
materials in their request for a $5k fee.  Political materials would certainly be 
permissible.

Fact is better than rumor when propagandizing, kids.

Ob. swipe:  If you enter icann.org in your browser, you get an error.  You have to 
enter www.icann.org.  Geniuses.  Bloody, ironic, geniuses.

--Blair

[IFWP] Re: Spreading the Vision

[Blair P. Houghton]

 --

 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:49:12 -0400
 From: Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [IFWP] Re: Spreading the Vision

Since when has this been the Marxist wing-nut list?

--Blair
ICANN SUX!
-ob. ifwp

[IFWP] Reuters discovers jargon. Film at 11.11.11.11

[blair]

An article at
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010604/wr/tech_internet_domain_dc_1.html
complains about the apparent turbidity of this passage from an ICANN meeting:

   ``The NC recommends that ICANN encourages ccTLD and gTLD
   Registries to delay a deployment of resolution of IDNS until such a time
   as the IETF has met in August,'' was just one of the messages at
   Monday's board meeting.

I understood it fine, even with mixed tenses, and I'm not directly involved
in any of it.  And then the article made this genius deduction:

   Unless people are aware of the meaning of DNSO, UDRP, GAA, SO,
   ISPCP or GAC they may have well spared themselves the trouble of
   logging on, or venturing off to Stockholm where ICANN chose to meet
   this time.

Well, duh.

Why is this important here?  Because this sort of naivety is irony.
It's a tail-attatched homunculus for the failure of ICANN to understand
the community it jumped up to rule.  If Reuters can understand
schizophrenic jargon anxiety, maybe it can understand schizophrenic
leadership anxiety, and communicate its import to the internet's users.

I expect to see ICANN making a lot of well duh discoveries of its own,
and I hope it's not too late to stop them from making irreversible mistakes
beforehand.

--Blair
Did it work?