Slashdot Mirror

Apparently he is using a bot to repeatedly check for newly expiring domains, hoping to capitalize on the traffic from people's old bookmarks/search engine listings. I'm calling this "expire-squatting".

It will be interesting to see if any australians challenge this action by filing an ICANN reconsideration request during the next

There's also a story over at The Boston Globe but it doesn't add much if you've been following along.

Since then, we've run stories on

• Tucows tables a pro-privacy proposal
• Australian Panel Issues Report on .au Registration, Dispute Rules
• ICANN GA Chair Calls For Discussion of TLD 'Name Collisions'

Since then, we've run stories on

• Tucows tables a pro-privacy proposal
• Australian Panel Issues Report on .au Registration, Dispute Rules
• ICANN GA Chair Calls For Discussion of TLD 'Name Collisions'

Since then, we've run stories on

• Tucows tables a pro-privacy proposal
• Australian Panel Issues Report on .au Registration, Dispute Rules
• ICANN GA Chair Calls For Discussion of TLD 'Name Collisions'

Since then, we've run stories on

• Tucows tables a pro-privacy proposal
• Australian Panel Issues Report on .au Registration, Dispute Rules
• ICANN GA Chair Calls For Discussion of TLD 'Name Collisions'

Since then, we've run stories on

• Tucows tables a pro-privacy proposal
• Australian Panel Issues Report on .au Registration, Dispute Rules
• ICANN GA Chair Calls For Discussion of TLD 'Name Collisions'

Ongoing coverage of ICANN issues in a Slashdot-like format can be found at ICANNWatch.org. In addition to today's coverage, note the interesting letters from Senator Burns to the Dept. of Commerce and to the GAO.

Ongoing coverage of ICANN issues in a Slashdot-like format can be found at ICANNWatch.org. In addition to today's coverage, note the interesting letters from Senator Burns to the Dept. of Commerce and to the GAO.

At ICANNWatch.org

There's ICANNVote.com and ICANNWatch.org but I guess you were thinking more along the lines of broad-based independent sites, huh? ;)

The article gets two facts wrong:

1. The US government remains in charge of the DNS. ICANN is just its agent, by contract. The contracts expire in a few months, but are renewable. The US government can under the current contracts take back all power and terminate ICANN's authority. The government wishes to downpeadal this, both to avoid being held responsible for ICANN and to lessen attention to the issue of renewing or even expanding ICANN's role this fall.
2. It is not correct that "Nine of its board members are chosen by organizations that run the technical side of the Internet." Even if one accepted this fits the PSO, and the ASO, it cannot by any analysis fit the DNSO - which is the business constituency, and has NO technical element AT ALL.

I invite you to visit ICANNWatch for details on what's wrong with ICANN.

P.S. To say that "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" is to (1) allow "truth" to turn on how extreme participants happen to be; (2) ignore the possibility that there is real truth (is the truth half way between the flat-earth crowd and the spherical-earth crowd? What sort of shape is that?)

Is it really "worth a try"? In it's short history (18 months), ICANN has shown at every turn that it prefers vacuous PR about "transparency," "bottom-up governance," and "consensus" to the messy facts of actually functioning according to those ideals. By signing up for At-large Membership -- a body that has no direct power whatsoever within ICANN's policy-defining structure -- you give ICANN grounds for claiming that it's listening to netizens. ICANN has managed to outmaneuver and circumvent hundreds of people who've been involved in net-governance processes for decades; what makes you think it won't be able to diddle thousands of ill-informed newbies?

For some history of ICANN's hijinks, take a look at the long essays by Gordon Cook, an expert on telecom issues: What's Behind ICANN (Sept 1999) and ICANN Internet Takeover" (June 1999). "ICANN Watch" is another good resource for learning about ICANN's dubious dealings, though it hasn't been updated much lately. For an explanation of the strange circumstances under which ICANN passed the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy before its board was elected, see this short "roving reporter" column and Keith Dawson's excellent chronology of the DNS debates. And here's a summary of some critical views of ICANN from a conference last fall.

There are lots more resources. If you plan to "get involved," you'd do well to know what you're getting involved with. But if you think your voice will be heard, you've got another thing coming. Don't believe me? Here's ICANN's organizational chart.

Is it really "worth a try"? In it's short history (18 months), ICANN has shown at every turn that it prefers vacuous PR about "transparency," "bottom-up governance," and "consensus" to the messy facts of actually functioning according to those ideals. By signing up for At-large Membership -- a body that has no direct power whatsoever within ICANN's policy-defining structure -- you give ICANN grounds for claiming that it's listening to netizens. ICANN has managed to outmaneuver and circumvent hundreds of people who've been involved in net-governance processes for decades; what makes you think it won't be able to diddle thousands of ill-informed newbies?

For some history of ICANN's hijinks, take a look at the long essays by Gordon Cook, an expert on telecom issues: What's Behind ICANN (Sept 1999) and ICANN Internet Takeover" (June 1999). "ICANN Watch" is another good resource for learning about ICANN's dubious dealings, though it hasn't been updated much lately. For an explanation of the strange circumstances under which ICANN passed the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy before its board was elected, see this short "roving reporter" column and Keith Dawson's excellent chronology of the DNS debates. And here's a summary of some critical views of ICANN from a conference last fall.

There are lots more resources. If you plan to "get involved," you'd do well to know what you're getting involved with. But if you think your voice will be heard, you've got another thing coming. Don't believe me? Here's ICANN's organizational chart.

Here's a website that is a "reference point for ICANN news and developments, in order to promote informed discussion and debate in shaping this institution"; ICANNWatch.

Hmm, I-CAN sounds like some kind of self-esteem things, but I-CAN-Watch.... that sounds a little strange... =)

Net libertarians also worried that the ruling legitimized the idea that the government needs to step in and regulate the Internet. History suggests they have good for concern. Judge Jackson's ruling was, in fact, by far the most significant and far-reaching intrusion into Net commerce by a federal authority, and represents a landmark judicial effort to begin writing Net law.

I'm afraid these un-named "net libertarians" (who are they?) have it about 100% backwards. First, the MS case is not primarily about e-commerce. It's about old-fashioned markets. How many copies of Windows are sold online? Second, there's little or nothing in the decision relevant to regulation of the Internet except in the sense that businesses located in the US that happen to do Internet-related work are of course subject to the same (antitrust, and other) laws as everyone else. This was already pretty clear -- just as making phone calls doesn't allow you to contract out of local law, so too with a modem. (Yes, you can do regulatory arbitrage but that takes more than one jurisdiction.)

What this case shows is that it is not really that difficult to apply traditional anti-trust principles to the software business. Which is at best a small part of the e-commerce business.

Attention "net libertarians": Want to worry about global Internet goverance? You will get more traction (although the jury is still out) by worrying about ICANN instead. Now that's a real potential (so far) for regulation of the Internet on a global basis.

The MS opinion, for all its vices or virtues, is not about "net law". It's not about the Internet. It's about old-fashined strong-armed marketing and anti-competitive behavior with (alleged) domestic, territorial, effects. And it's not the first time someone sold (gave away) well below cost to hurt a rival, either.

When ICANN was formed, its charter contemplated having a big chunk of the Board directly elected by individual "members" of the Corporation. The date for that election continues to recede, and the terms by which ordinary domain name registrants or other regular folks might get to choose representatives get more and more crabbed and limited.

The following exchange I had with Joe Sims, ICANN's Chief Counsel, regarding ICANN's proposed By-laws changes illuminates the issues. I should note that there is a fourth message from Sims that is not in the ICANN Bylaws comment archive. In that fourth message he says, among other things, the he is speaking in his personal capacity, not as an ICANN spokesperson. (As Sims authored most of the legal documents that shape ICANN, the distinction is a subtle one, but real.) When I get permission to host an HTML copy, I'll post a link to it on my WIPO/ICANN page.

• My original comment attacking the proposal
• Joe Sims's Response
• My reply to Sims.
• Sims's Latest. This link takes you to a Harvard Law School newsgroup. Look for a message from Joe Sims dated Mon Oct 25, 7:08 pm entitled Re: [names] from Michael Froomkin

Perhaps the most interesting issues to come out of this debate are, first, to what extent is it correct, as Sims argues, that allowing individuals a direct role in ICANN governance threatens to "destabilize" either ICANN or the Internet. Second, if one has strong individual representation in ICANN (or even if one doesn't) how to structure the body to avoid "capture" by a small faction. And, last but not least, how much individual representation, of what nature, does ICANN require to be legitimate?

Visit ICANNWatch.org !

For extensive evidence that you can criticize ICANN and falsify conditions (a)-(c) above (i.e. have nothing to gain, have some sanity, and probably too much education), see The ICANN Watch site organized by yours truly, David Post and David Farber.

or for a lengthy critique of ICANN see Gordon Cook's report on ICANN at http://www.cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml