Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Meetings
ICANN's next meeting will be Nov. 13-16, 2000, in Marina del Rey, CA. The Internet Democracy Project is conducting a meeting of At Large members on the morning of Sunday, Nov. 12, same location, so you don't have work as an excuse to miss it! The new At Large directors will be speaking at the meeting. Following that, the Berkman Center will have its own meeting examining intellectual property and the proposed new TLDs, and they've helpfully provided a set of background materials if you're not quite current with the issues. Note that ICANN "updated" their bylaws to prevent the newly elected directors from actually taking part in the ICANN Board meeting next week - they won't take office until just after all the new decisions about TLDs, etc., which will be made by the unelected directors, so it is very, very important to have some public participation since there aren't any public advocates on the board.
Then do something about it. Support OpenNIC.
Hey just remember, as my user ID is 70 lower than yours, I am 70 times more intelligent than you.
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.
So what's this solution? Alternate root servers. Such a scheme might work like this:
So, what do you think? Is this viable? It doesn't require any significant amount of work on the part of sysadmins or users, and in fact it'd be pretty easy to implement here. The only problem I see is getting people to use it, especially the corporations that are abusing the current system to their advantage. The solution to this, I think, is to make sure that the new ruleset offers something for everyone. I would suggest one set of TLDs, one per broad trademark area (media, retail, food, networking, hardware, software, etc.), in which you must hold a trademark in the relevant area to register it, and one set of TLDs in which registration is strictly FCFS. Registration in the trademark-protected TLDs would be expensive, say a one-time $500 fee for legal costs of verifying the trademark. This would be worthwhile, however, because the registrants would know that their property is being protected by us, saving them legal fees down the road trying to take away names from non-trademark holders. At the same time, registering in the non-trademark TLDs would mean that nobody could ever force you to give up your name, and would be much less expensive since no legal research would ever be needed. Registration in this part of the namespace would also be quite inexpensive, maybe just a few dollars a year.
The way I see it, this would offer something for everyone. Trademark holders will have access to a set of TLDs in which both they and the consumers will know they're getting the real thing, breeding confidence in one another and thereby encouraging people to do business. The traditional non-commercial Internet will be equally well-represented in the borderline-anarchy of the non-trademark TLDs. Registrants in this area will be permitted to register any names they like, and consumers should be discouraged from doing business with them. The point of this system would be that there is a place for everyone and no reason for protection of trademarks to be in conflict with the spirit of the Internet. While more TLDs in the current system might help, I think it's unlikely that corporation-run ICANN would ever really accept the idea of no trademark protection for registrants in any TLD.
I'd say this is an RFC, but I haven't implemented it. So instead please consider this a Request for Discussion. :-)
I see why you believe that this system would offer something for everyone to get them to use it instead of the existing system. I just don't think you've got enough bait to get the corps to use it. They already have a small set of TLDs in which their trademarks take precedence over just about anything (at least according to WIPO). Yeah, they lose one every now and then, but for the most part, they get what they want. I don't see them wanting to move to a new system unless the old one really starts going against their will, and if that happens, then regular users will be more content to stick with the old system rather than switching to a new one.
Next there's the issue of how to govern the thing. Are you proposing a new ICANN-type body to settle disputes and make policy? I can see this being done in much better ways than the existing organization does things. I just don't see corporations being interested in a more open, democratic ICANN. They like the closed, unaccountable ICANN because it's easier to influence with money and favors.
I also don't think they'd like the idea of the FCFS TLDs. They consider their IP to be sacrosanct and I doubt they'd want to switch to a system where someone could register VerizonSucks.com AND be immune from a lawsuit.
Then there are also legal issues. What would NSI do if they had the carpet pulled out from under them? Would the new governing body allow anybody to register domains? License registrars? How would it work? What existing laws could NSI use to put a stop to it?
There are probably many other issues I haven't even though of yet (this was written after about 5 minutes of thought, and it probably shows :-). If an RFC was to be written, it needs to address all of these things. By all means though, let's discuss it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
- stop yapping and start putting your honest concerns into legible language and explain them to ICANN's Chairwoman? I mean, I have mailed her several times, made suggestions, complained [pretty often] and she actually replies, explains and advises proper cause of action, etc.
So, stop this mob-rule rampage when you talk about ICANN until you have at least tried to mail her your concerns. Don't you think this is very much the right thing to do?
Sometimes, fellow slashdotters, you behave pretty much exactly like those imbeciles who keep calling tech support because they can't be bothered to RTFM.
I like to let off steam, too - but alas, you could use that energy and your well-above-average intelligence to try to make a difference by telling ICANN what you think. Maybe, just maybe - if enough of you actually submit constructive critique and make workable suggestions, they might actually listen. Remember, ICANN doesn't realy make money from corporate sponsors - so their main interest is to keep the net running and getting all those yelling techies to write them their thoughts.
Okay, now, I trust that you will NOT {P_L_E_A_S_E) start spamming or flaming her - PLEASE -
The e-mail of the Head of ICANN is: edyson@nospam.edventure.com
[delete the 'nospam']
I dunno, they have sunday evening services here...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
--
--
You are a fucking moron.
unbroken
| Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
"...the morning of Sunday, Nov. 12, same location, so you don't have work as an excuse to miss it!"
/.?
More than half of your fellow Americans could give you an excellent reason to miss a Sunday morning meeting. Out of curiosity, have we ever had a poll here to determine the demographic makeup of
Your monitor is staring at you.
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..
You've got full control of the upper level domains, and then run amock with the process for it. Not that I support ICANN, I think you guys should give them the boot.
But don't forget you guys still have your own country domain, just like the rest of the world - .us - lucky bastards =)
When was the last time you ever saw a .us website? nobody pays it any attention, well maybe you should start taking advantage of the luxury of having this additional upper level domain space. go register some .us websites and give icann the finger. http://www.nic.us/
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin