Slashdot Mirror

To quote the ICANN report, which is in turn quoting the COPA commission:

"Privacy and First Amendment concerns may be raised by the clear identification of a 'red light district' and the stigma involved in being found there, and the concern about a 'slippery slope' toward mandatory location in the gTLD."

The evaluation team concluded that at this early "proof of concept" stage with a limited number of new TLDs contemplated, other proposed TLDs without the controversy of an adult TLD would better serve the goals of this initial introduction of new TLDs. If an adult TLD is to be introduced, moreover, it would be beneficial to have a diversity of proposals, with a diversity of possible approaches to the various problems, from which to choose.

Incidentally, wouldn't this discussion have been a lot more useful if Timothy had taken the two minutes necessary to find and include a link to the ICANN report, or maybe even the ten minutes necessary to read the relevant section and add a couple of comments?

I DO NOT understand their logic at all. This is surely not the brightest thing for them to do, they must be trying to keep their corporate sponsors (donations, fees, etc.) happy for now.

I'm no big fan of ICANN, but there is a fairly good explanation here.

Well, I certainly am biased, since I live a few kilometers away from Dubai Internet City (Dubai, UAE).

I do think, however, that they propose a good idea with the ".go" TLD. It has a nice ring to it, is two letters long, and they have the resources to make it a success.

Just in case you are interested, Dubai Internet City is the brain child fo Dubai's government. It is a free-zone metroplitan built just for internet and media companies.

I am not related to the city in any way, other than living in Dubai.. but I think it would be great if this TLD was awarded to Dubai Internet City, as they are trying to be an e-commerce physical and cyber hub for the region between Malaysia and Africa (~1.2 Billion pop).

Here is their proposal and here is the ensuing ICANN discussion.

Well, I certainly am biased, since I live a few kilometers away from Dubai Internet City (Dubai, UAE).

I do think, however, that they propose a good idea with the ".go" TLD. It has a nice ring to it, is two letters long, and they have the resources to make it a success.

Just in case you are interested, Dubai Internet City is the brain child fo Dubai's government. It is a free-zone metroplitan built just for internet and media companies.

I am not related to the city in any way, other than living in Dubai.. but I think it would be great if this TLD was awarded to Dubai Internet City, as they are trying to be an e-commerce physical and cyber hub for the region between Malaysia and Africa (~1.2 Billion pop).

Here is their proposal and here is the ensuing ICANN discussion.

Hmm, having a bit of a poke around those links, I came across the applications for new general-purpose TLDs. There are applications from 14 groups, 7 of whom "merit further review" by ICANN, mostly suggesting a few new TLDs each.

But one of the unsuccessful groups is a mob called Name.Space, who proposed 117 new TLDs! Including such gems as ".nyc" (New York is a country now?), ".jazz" and ".music" (jazz isn't music?) and ".ads" (hmm there's one to avoid).

So I had a look at them - they're a firm that sell domain names in 546 new top level domains! All of the above plus such gems as .cow, .page and .2000 that they presumably thought were too daft to try to slip by ICANN. Anyway, you can register any of these for only $30 a domain! The fact that nobody is ever going to be able to access you via that domain name unless they set up to use Name.Space's rival DNS is tucked away in the middle of their FAQ where they tell you to spread the word, and get your friends and associates to connect to their DNS..

What a bunch of maroons..

Looks like Rob could finally get his .dot TLD.

On ICANN's TLD correspondence page, there are two cases in particular that I find tragically hillarious. The first involves the folks that brib... er, bought the marketing rights to Belize's ccTLD, ".bz", which they have decided to market as "dot-biz." The second involves the company marketing (Western) Samoa's ccTLD, ".ws", which they are marketing as "dot-website" (though I swear I recall they were selling it as "dot-worldsite" -- whatever).

Anyway, ICANN's response to both is that the ccTLDs are established to serve the geographical community they represent, and should never be taken to mean anything other than what their ISO definitions imply: in this case, Belize and (Western) Samoa.

But what I found really interesting was that ccTLDs are assigned by IANA to be held in trustee by the particular country, and that discussions of "rights" are specifically "inappropriate" in regards to ccTLDs. In other words, the countries don't own their ccTLDs -- they are merely trustees acting on behalf of IANA -- and therefore they have no legal authority to transfer "rights" to said ccTLDs.

And what is more, ICANN's repsonses point to several authoritative sources, including USPTO guidelines prohibiting assignment of trademark status to TLDs alone (i.e., ".com" cannot be a trademark, but "biz.com" can). They also link to a particularly interesting court decision that holds TLDs indicate the type of services (like "fast food") rather than the source of services (like "McDonald's"), and therefore cannot qualify for protection.

At any rate, the correspondence links provide an insightful read.

On ICANN's TLD correspondence page, there are two cases in particular that I find tragically hillarious. The first involves the folks that brib... er, bought the marketing rights to Belize's ccTLD, ".bz", which they have decided to market as "dot-biz." The second involves the company marketing (Western) Samoa's ccTLD, ".ws", which they are marketing as "dot-website" (though I swear I recall they were selling it as "dot-worldsite" -- whatever).

Anyway, ICANN's response to both is that the ccTLDs are established to serve the geographical community they represent, and should never be taken to mean anything other than what their ISO definitions imply: in this case, Belize and (Western) Samoa.

But what I found really interesting was that ccTLDs are assigned by IANA to be held in trustee by the particular country, and that discussions of "rights" are specifically "inappropriate" in regards to ccTLDs. In other words, the countries don't own their ccTLDs -- they are merely trustees acting on behalf of IANA -- and therefore they have no legal authority to transfer "rights" to said ccTLDs.

And what is more, ICANN's repsonses point to several authoritative sources, including USPTO guidelines prohibiting assignment of trademark status to TLDs alone (i.e., ".com" cannot be a trademark, but "biz.com" can). They also link to a particularly interesting court decision that holds TLDs indicate the type of services (like "fast food") rather than the source of services (like "McDonald's"), and therefore cannot qualify for protection.

At any rate, the correspondence links provide an insightful read.

I don't think they should let .web into the pool of domains. For one thing all of the people that have "pre-reged" l33t domain names should not get them. Also there are at least 3 registrars that have been taking "pre-regs" for .web. I say let the people that spent the money to pay for something that isn't even out yet get screwed for trying to make a quick buck and get beat everyone to .web.. But if they must put .web's into the pool.. please toss out all "pre-regs". I think this might be the plan if you read the PR from ICANN that I will link to:

The registration of names in new TLDs will be done on a fair basis, and the practice of pre-registration should not be encouraged

Aren't .com .net .org enough?

They most certainly are indicators of a thriving, healthy economy. When the titans do battle, it means that they're faced with real competition from each other, which, in turn, makes it possible for mere mortals to find niches, do business, and possibly become, themselves, titans.

When it turns sour is when there are no titans slugging it out, but just one titan, making all of the rules. Past examples include United States Steel Corporation, J.P. Morgan's railroad empire, and AT&T's monopoly over the telephone system. These are all examples of the monopolies Woodrow Wilson railed against.

Some people seem to be missing the point of FOCI, and for that, I must take responsibility, as the primary author of the letter, the petition, and most of the content of the site.

The point is competition. The point is that, of the proposals on the table at ICANN, over half are related to either Afilias or Melbourne IT. The point is not whether .web is or isn't a good idea, or whether TLDs or the DNS are or are not good ideas. The point is that, given a world that is this way (which is currently is), can we keep competition alive long enough to make real change?

If Afilias and Melbourne IT are allowed to dominate the DNS any more than they already do, all the Karl Auerbachs in the world won't do us any good.

I'm not saying that Image Online Design are heroes. I'm saying that they represent competition to Afilias and Melbourne IT, and for that, you should consider supporting their bid.

And, as I said in the letter:

As a final note, we encourage you to be critical of what you hear on this issue (even from us!).

So I fully agree with you that people should do research and make up their own minds. There's plenty of public record of the entire history of .web. Furthermore, there's a lively discussion in the ICANN comments area, in which plenty of skeptics, critics, or outright IOD detractors are posting alternative viewpoints. Of course, not all of them are using their names, but that's the 'net for ya'.

Please, though, don't try to make it out like John Mitchell or I are hiding anything. We've made our affiliations clear from the first moment. When we changed the wording of the petition after realizing what Melbourne IT was up to, we mailed all of the existing signatories to let them choose whether or not to apply their signature to the new wording, or let it stand with the old.

We, FOCI, have worked very hard to be precisely the sort of effort on behalf of a company that we'd like to see more of. We're not trying to snow you, or convince you that we don't have, ultimately, capitalist interests at heart. We're trying to be straight with you, and let you decide what is important to a Competitive Internet.

Reading the .web proposal application (posted here on ICANN, I see there's a bit about watching out for copyright infringement, etc..... What I would love to see is a sort of a ".not" TLD, where copyright laws simply don't apply. A pipe dream, to be sure, but it would nice to be a place where the government would guarantee the right to parody, mock, implicate, and point out the faults of various corporations, etc. Insure our "fair use" policies, essentially. And, hey, apparently there haven't been any submissions for .not to ICANN (not that anme, anyway). Any lawyers out there want to take up the charge?

Check the context: it's not about patents, it's trademarking domain names he's speaking about. After all, patents would be a little offtopic in ICANN meetings, wouldn't it?

I did notice that odd discrepancy, and decided to respond to the original quoted comment literally because it seemed specifically to attack all "intellectual property" rather than to be confined to what one might presuppose to be this limited context that you mentioned. I'm doing a great of work on the entire field of Web communications and presentation (yes, I know very well that this task of even a broad and shallow overview is rather too large for any one individual to do decently without bringing in a team at some point), and am aware of the ICAAN and also peripherally aware of the nasty game-playing going on behind the scenes, not that I even want to know much about it. Ick, unproductive.

Whatever happend to name.space? It would be cool to see that stuff take off.

Didn't you read this Slashdot article that referenced this list of TLD applications? Look at the list, and notice how many TLDs name.space wishes to claim.

Can't say as I am enthused about a group with aspirations to some 118 TLDs -- I'm all for diversity, but aren't they asking for a bit much?

Neither was this guy.

Regardless, I don't think name.space has disappeared off the map.

Anyone heard of FOCI (Friends Of a Competitive Internet)?

http://joinfoci.org/

" We're mad because the current ICANN process to introduce new Top Level Domains (TLDs) into the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) is in danger of being hijacked in a sham designed to extend Network Solutions, Inc. ( NSI ) and the other Afilias registrars' monopoly control over the most popular Internet real estate."

Looks like Karl Auerbach already has something to work against at ICANN.

But for the rest of us, here's the other winners and their profile pages:
Masanobu Katoh - Asia/Australia/Pacific
Nii Quaynor - Africa
Andy Mueller-Maguhn - Europe
Ivan Moura Campos - Latin America and Caribbean

But for the rest of us, here's the other winners and their profile pages:
Masanobu Katoh - Asia/Australia/Pacific
Nii Quaynor - Africa
Andy Mueller-Maguhn - Europe
Ivan Moura Campos - Latin America and Caribbean

But for the rest of us, here's the other winners and their profile pages:
Masanobu Katoh - Asia/Australia/Pacific
Nii Quaynor - Africa
Andy Mueller-Maguhn - Europe
Ivan Moura Campos - Latin America and Caribbean

But for the rest of us, here's the other winners and their profile pages:
Masanobu Katoh - Asia/Australia/Pacific
Nii Quaynor - Africa
Andy Mueller-Maguhn - Europe
Ivan Moura Campos - Latin America and Caribbean

See: http://members.icann.org/pubstats.html

t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®

The candidates that are on the paper have all refused to say anything about organisational politics, trademarks and intellectual property, or corporate influence.

Just to top it of, looking at this page of statistics, it was hard to escape the conclusion that the vote was being stacked.

His biographical information can be found here. He's just a suit, albeit with a PhD. Nothing to see, folks; just move along.

.com/net/org are g(lobal)TLDs.

From the US DOC White paper at ICANN:

A small set of gTLDs do not carry any national identifier, but denote the intended function of that portion of the domain space. For example, .com was established for commercial users, .org for not-for-profit organizations, and .net for network service providers.

Could everyone Please stop making this mistake now, it's really starting to bug me.

It's not, never has been.

ICANN Sez:

The domain name space is constructed as a hierarchy. It is divided into top-level domains (TLDs), with each TLD then divided into second-level domains (SLDs), and so on. More than 200 national, or country-code, TLDs (ccTLDs) are administered by their corresponding governments or by private entities with the appropriate national government's acquiescence. A small set of gTLDs do not carry any national identifier, but denote the intended function of that portion of the domain space. For example, .com was established for commercial users, .org for not-for-profit organizations, and .net for network service providers. The registration and propagation of these key gTLDs are performed by NSI, under a five-year cooperative agreement with NSF. This agreement expires on September 30, 1998.

Then again I guess for all intents and purposes...

Reckon US voting should be opened internationally as the laws seem to be, or at the very least the pretence of being a democracy should be dropped.

• That is a United States top-level domain suffix, as decided by ICANN.

Check out the FAQ at Internic.net. To quote from it:

• Are .com, .net, and .org domain names available for registration on a global basis?

  Yes. The .com, .net, and .org domains are available for registration by Internet users across the globe.

However, Harrison Ford would probably be able to take the domain for a different reason. They generally get you with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii) (here). This is the bad faith clause, i.e. even if you are called Harrison Ford, few people who go to the site www.harrisonford.com are likely to be going there to see you. They would claim that you registered the domain name to either capture people who wanted to go to the site of the actor of the same name, or that you hoped to sting money out of him. They would say that one of these circumstances are more likely than you needing the name for yourself. [I'm trying to stay neutral - though in this circumstance I'd agree with them.]

cheers,
G

Instead of worrying about who we're going to endorse and vote on, shouldn't we be making sure that ICANN's at-large membership is truly representative of the Internet community? According to the e-mail I recieved from ICANN, only some 158,000 Internet users signed up to be members

However, according to this article, the total number of Internet users will reach 375 MILLION (!) sometime during this year. The last time I checked, 158,000 out of 378 million is only 0.000421 % representation of the entire community. Obviously, this is a case of a minority making decisions for the entire community, something which history has almost always proved a Very Bad Idea(TM).

The only reason American democracy can (used to) work is because a majority of the voters choose to make their opinions count. Unfortunately, in the last national election in America, only 45% of voters voted, so we're approaching the same fate here in the USA. In the Constitution it is called a quorum, by which more than half the members of either house of Congress must be present for any action to be taken at all.

Of course, getting half of all the Internet users to sign up for ICANN's at-large membership is, in my opinion, a pipe-dream of the most grandoise sort, but there should be at least 1% representation before any action is taken. 3.75 million members wouldn't be that hard to find, would they?

Therefore, I would like to propose a massive e-mail campaign to urge ICANN to not take any action on this election until a much larger percentage of Internet users will be represented in the final results.

Please e-mail ICANN and tell them that you demand the membership drive be re-opened! The future of the free Internet depends on it!

cya, Andrew...

Actually, there are many such people. But they're not running for the Board, they're already there, running ICANN.

Fortunately, we have Karl Auerbach's platform.

In the event that you want to endorse one of these candidates (I agree with earlier posters who recommended Karl Auerbach and Barbara Simons), you'll need to jump through several hoops.

To do that, you'll need your membership number and password (get your reminder e-mail here) and the PIN that was mailed to your home address.

Once you're an active member, you can endorse a candidate on the ICANN Membership pages. Again, you'll need your membership number, password and PIN.

Most people don't realize that you can change your endorsement right up until the last day. (See Endorsement FAQ.) So if the first candidate you endorse has no chance of reaching the 2% threshold (check the progress here), you can log in again and change your endorsement to help someone else you like get over the hump.

The endorsement period closes on August 31st. And remember, this endorsement process is simply for purposes of setting the ballot; you'll be able to vote for anyone on the ballot when the election takes place in October. Endorse early and often.

-- Bret

In the event that you want to endorse one of these candidates (I agree with earlier posters who recommended Karl Auerbach and Barbara Simons), you'll need to jump through several hoops.

To do that, you'll need your membership number and password (get your reminder e-mail here) and the PIN that was mailed to your home address.

Once you're an active member, you can endorse a candidate on the ICANN Membership pages. Again, you'll need your membership number, password and PIN.

Most people don't realize that you can change your endorsement right up until the last day. (See Endorsement FAQ.) So if the first candidate you endorse has no chance of reaching the 2% threshold (check the progress here), you can log in again and change your endorsement to help someone else you like get over the hump.

The endorsement period closes on August 31st. And remember, this endorsement process is simply for purposes of setting the ballot; you'll be able to vote for anyone on the ballot when the election takes place in October. Endorse early and often.

-- Bret

In the event that you want to endorse one of these candidates (I agree with earlier posters who recommended Karl Auerbach and Barbara Simons), you'll need to jump through several hoops.

To do that, you'll need your membership number and password (get your reminder e-mail here) and the PIN that was mailed to your home address.

Once you're an active member, you can endorse a candidate on the ICANN Membership pages. Again, you'll need your membership number, password and PIN.

Most people don't realize that you can change your endorsement right up until the last day. (See Endorsement FAQ.) So if the first candidate you endorse has no chance of reaching the 2% threshold (check the progress here), you can log in again and change your endorsement to help someone else you like get over the hump.

The endorsement period closes on August 31st. And remember, this endorsement process is simply for purposes of setting the ballot; you'll be able to vote for anyone on the ballot when the election takes place in October. Endorse early and often.

-- Bret

In the event that you want to endorse one of these candidates (I agree with earlier posters who recommended Karl Auerbach and Barbara Simons), you'll need to jump through several hoops.

To do that, you'll need your membership number and password (get your reminder e-mail here) and the PIN that was mailed to your home address.

Once you're an active member, you can endorse a candidate on the ICANN Membership pages. Again, you'll need your membership number, password and PIN.

Most people don't realize that you can change your endorsement right up until the last day. (See Endorsement FAQ.) So if the first candidate you endorse has no chance of reaching the 2% threshold (check the progress here), you can log in again and change your endorsement to help someone else you like get over the hump.

The endorsement period closes on August 31st. And remember, this endorsement process is simply for purposes of setting the ballot; you'll be able to vote for anyone on the ballot when the election takes place in October. Endorse early and often.

-- Bret

As of shortly before 1630 CDT, here are the candidates with at least 5 nominations assuming I didn't accidentally cut one out:

Karl Auerbach - 66 endorsement(s) received
Robin Bandy - 9 endorsement(s) received
Liz Bartlett - 5 endorsement(s) received
Eric Lee - 7 endorsement(s) received
Nick Nicholas - 5 endorsement(s) received
Barbara Simons - 44 endorsement(s) received
Christopher Stewart - 15 endorsement(s) received
Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - 79 endorsement(s) received

HOW TO NOMITATE
Go to the members only page and type in your number, password and PIN (remeembecr to include PIN- at the start). There's a new line item that wasn't there last time I looked: Endorse a candidate

REMEMBER: if nobody makes the 2% threshhold (and 2 or more countries, which makes it quite important for people from Canada, et al. to nominate too), we don't get ANY of our choices (not good at all)! The minimum number of nominations required to qualify will probably be in the neighborhood of 500 AT LEAST. I believe we can change our nomination later on, so I personally voted for Dr Tiller (the strongest candidate at the moment) and hope to change my vote to bolster someone else when he hopefully qualifies for the final ballot.

So does anyone have information on the other 4 seats we get to nominate people for? or would those best get articles of their own to keep things streamlined (This one for the Americas, et c.?

Totals as of a little after 1700 CDT:

Karl Auerbach - 68 endorsement(s) received
Robin Bandy - 9 endorsement(s) received
Liz Bartlett - 5 endorsement(s) received
Eric Lee - 7 endorsement(s) received
Nick Nicholas - 5 endorsement(s) received
Barbara Simons - 45 endorsement(s) received
Christopher Stewart - 15 endorsement(s) received
Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - 80 endorsement(s) received

sulli

• ICANN's UDRP
• ICANN's list of approved arbitrators

  The complaintant ( the company that wants to take over a domain for example ) gets to choose the arbitrator.

  The implications of this are very serious. If WIPO makes it very easy for corporations to "take back" domains they want, think what happens to the little guy ( worse than what already has happened... ). This is generally not good news.

• ICANN's UDRP
• ICANN's list of approved arbitrators

  The complaintant ( the company that wants to take over a domain for example ) gets to choose the arbitrator.

  The implications of this are very serious. If WIPO makes it very easy for corporations to "take back" domains they want, think what happens to the little guy ( worse than what already has happened... ). This is generally not good news.

If you are in the Australia/Asia/Pacific region and are a geek then you have someone that will listen.

If you are in the Australia/Asia/Pacific region and are a geek then you have someone that will listen.

I've got to throw in a "me, too," here, as I'm listed on Karl's endorsements page :)

I've worked closely with Karl for a number of years on the InteropNet NOC Team (when it was still a harrowing experience :) ). He knows his stuff in all the important dimensions - technical, philsophical, ethical, etc. He's very much been "in the trenches" (quote borrowed from his ICANN At Large Candidate Page), and has used that experience to formulate a set of very good basic values centered around the individuals of the Internet's population (ie: not the corporations).

Karl has a long history of interest in issues that are only now being recognized as "important" to the continued freedom of the Internet (an Intellectual Property law degree can work against corporatism as well as for it :) ).

Visit his platform page, though. Don't let me put words into his mouth.

Well, obviously, I think that I'm the most interesting candidate ... ;-)

I tend to agree...

I'm personally a lot more comfortable with a guy like this whose bio includes things like "has been president and chairman of the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science" I mean it really comes down to what type of voice we want on the committee... do we want the voice from a networking company, or an academic, or worse yet... a lawyer. True, the law is important in this cause, but does anyone really think that Lessig might have a clue as to how this should all work? I doubt it.

Does anyone else agree with me on that one?

Also, did anyone go through and look at the bio's? For North America, each candidate has at least 3-4 lines, with at least decent sounding qualifications. Except Lessig, he only has one... pity, it's almost as if they don't even think he's qualified.

Well, I'm registered, I got my PIN, and I've confirmed online.

I wrote a short article pointing out some interesting statistics on Technocrat.net, but didn't get much of a response.

In short, although the US has the largest 'Internet Population', other countries are far overpresented in the ICANN registration.

BTW, Lawrence Lessig seems like the most interesting candidate for N. America, what do you think?
--

The ICANN page http://members.icann.org/nom.html at the beginning of this article has links to the self nominated candidates, too.

Domain names have several rules that must be followed.
And so I must wonder if this concern only projects under the GPL? What I fear most is a rise of partisanship in the handling of the assignment of domain names like theses ones, as well as some of the newly proposed extensions like .net, .jobs and the like.
My biggest interest is the handling of projects under GPL-Compatible lisences such as the MPL and the QPL.

I therefore propose not to allow the handling of new domain names, .cx or otherwise, be controlled by a single entity which might be subjected to pressure from interest groups like GNU, with all due respect that I hold for that organization.


--
Kiro

• I - NORDUNet (Stockholm, Sweden)
• K - RIPE-NCC (London, UK)
• M - WIDE (Tokyo, Japan)

Combine this with some of the other available snooping tools and technologies, such (Echelon, C arnivore, etc..) and there are IS no privacy on the net.

Throw ICANN into the mix and see how they are "protecting" the internet, and it makes me very glad the Microsoft, regardless of the disagreements I have from them, is proactively making it possible for users to protect themselves from these abuses.

Paragraphs 4a and 4b

I trying to answer my own question, I did manage to find this list of aribtrations performed by the WIPO. They are apparently one of several groups that can solve disputes.

Can someone post a link to or explain the current domain name resolution policy in plain English? I had a quick perusal of this at ICANN but there was too much legalese :)

TIA

but would it be worth the investment?

Resolved [00.48], the President is authorized to establish a non-refundable fee of USD $50,000 for the submission of an application to become a sponsor or operator of a registry, which the Board finds is a reasonable estimate of ICANN's costs likely to be associated with receipt and evaluation of such applications, and follow-up. [ from ICANN site ]

Resolved [00.46], that the Board hereby adopts the Names Council's recommendation that a policy be established for the introduction of new TLDs in a measured and responsible manner.

That these will include .shop, .tel and .news are only examples that ZDNet takes out of thin air. Now, you should be able to guess that from ZDNet's own words:

The first new Web addresses should start to appear by this year's end or the beginning of next, but no one will know what the new top-level domains will be until November.

So, it is not clear that .shop, .tel and .news will be on the list. And, the At Large Directors who are going to be elected will probably be involved.