Slashdot Mirror
ICANN CEO Proposes Radical Changes
Froomkin writes: "ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn today released a plan for a "strong" ICANN that would have 5 of 15 Board members selected directly by governments and the rest by registrars, registries, plus a few Board-squatter-like ringers chosen by the ICANN Board or staff. The main justifications offered for this shift are that in order to be "strong" ICANN needs more money, more support, and less "process". Of course, promises Lynn, ICANN's "core values of openness and broad participation" should be "preserved". (Don't laugh. It's not funny.) "Meaningful participation" will be achieved by cutting out any direct representation for end-users. Oh yes, ICANN wants a much bigger budget, and to be independent of the US Dept. of Commerce, and to get direct control of the root server operators too, all so as to ensure that ICANN has unimpeded ability to execute its (undefined, growing) "mission". ICANN was supposed to save the Internet from governments; since major interest groups such as the ccTLDs and RIRs won't do what ICANN wants, and won't pay it, ICANN now turns to governments to save it from the Internet. See the Press Release here, and then look at entire plan, then visit ICANNWatch.org for updates and commentary." Yep. The proposal would eliminate any pretense of At-Large involvement in running ICANN - it would be solely a governmental and corporate body.
This sort of thing would only cause me concern if I felt that governments and corporations didn't have my best interest and whole-heartedly good intentions in mind.
I think that the Government should have at least a little bit of control (although not as much as the US has right now) and each government should be represented fairly (not this whole US gets .gov while the UK gov gets .gov.uk.) ICANN should really be an international body rather than the Dept. of Commerce one that is is now.
...just an End-User.
The problem with giving the End-User control in ICANN is that there are too many End-Users around the world to do this, and aren't the governments supposed to be representative of the people? As for corporations having control...I think they should have little, if at all. But who am I?
Just my US$0.02
Hargun
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
Except for totally cutting the end user (us, the people) out!
- Nothing is true, everything is permitted
You know it, I know it, and they know it. They are just another "dot-bomb", but without the for-profit aspect: No leadership, constant change of direction, people in positions waaaaay out of their league, no clearly defined objectives, etc.
I know a lot of people will give me flak for this, but I for one am tired of the outlaw nature of the internet. Sure it was fun for awhile, with Napster and that sort of stuff, but I think it's about time for the entire thing to settle down and grow up.
Of course lots of people don't want this to happen, because they think it's so "cool" to be a rebel and they like the way they feel when the do something related to the anarchy online. But disregard those people, who even now are probably crying that world is going to hell, and this will be the straw that breaks it's back.
Sure, whatever. Let the paranoid rant and rave. The undeniable fact is that it's time to get a new marshal in town, and if ICANN can step up and do the job, I say more power to them. Let's get the internet moving as a positive force in the world, a force of good to help the poorer countries develop, not as the US-centric anarchy/piracy/porn AOL OutLet Center (TM)
The government being difficult and evasive? ICANNot believe it!
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
If Big Brother was watching you!
(Ominous music)
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
Brazil has decided you're cute.
Sometimes amazing what certain groups/companies will try to get away with, sometimes even being fairly sure that they will fail. If you try to get away with 100 absurd ideas, like certain patents for example, if even one or two of them fall through the cracks it ends up being worth it.
"I Think ICANN, I think ICANN."
(yes, I know, that was horrible)
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
As is said, ccTLDs are a major component of the DNS and most are not getting involved with the current ICANN. Given most ccTLDs are controlled or have government oversight in their respective countries I don't see a problem with governments (plural) being involved.
How else does everyone propose to convince these private companies to act in the public interest? Certainly nobody wants Verisign and AOL and Cisco to be the defacto policymakers...do they?
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
It's time for peer-to-peer HOSTS swapping!!
Got friends?
The US Congress is the ultimate governing body of the Internet, and it's time it took some serious action. They need to take decisive action on the IP and domain issues. They've grilled the NetSol people in the past, but not much came of it.
...to UCANT.
(Universal Controller of All Network Traffic)
I mean, how simple can this be ?
That's some good stuff, and not too far off the mark, either.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
...than gov't megalomaniacs is wannabe gov't megalomaniacs.
but really, don't they have better things to do than to help large corporations buy the rest of the internet?
I'm sure Esther Dyson (genuflects) is a very smart person and all that, but I shudder to think what will happen if governments and corporations are the only people left with any say on how the internet, and the web in particular, is run. I fully expect the world wide web to become just another string of TV stations with really lousy reception. Sort of like the cable access channel, only with product placements.
Perhaps Esther Dyson (genuflects) should think twice before auctioning off the rest of the public commons... again.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
If 'major interest groups' already ignore it and refuse to pay it, how does a change of plan affect us? So, it's not democratic or representative, but 'major interest groups' were already ignoring it anyway. It seems it can just go on being as undemocratic and self serving as it likes... with little affect.
If you look at the history of new communication methods they always become the domain, pun intended, of governments and businesses.
a sm at/class1/tvhist.htm
m at/class1/tvhist.htm
Telegraph and Radio: http://www.ipass.net/~whitetho/part1.htm
Television:
http://www.rcc.ryerson.ca/schools/rta/brd038/cl
I am surprised that the internet has lasted this long in the public after the government ceded control to a panel.
It all comes down to funding in the end. In 1999 they started making noises: http://www.rcc.ryerson.ca/schools/rta/brd038/clas
If we think that the domain situation concerning freedom of speech is murky now, wait until countries such as China, Iran, etc. get onto the board.
But how can government's be represented fairly? Should every government have equal say, or should it be based on the number of users, or number of sites operated by a government's citizens? The good thing about giving End-Users control, despite the possibility of it turning un-wieldly, is that it's End-Users who are affected.
Well this article's been posted about twenty minutes and the responses are pouring in. Has everyone read the 16,000 word announcement that was the main link to the Slashdot post? I didn't think so.
One of the key problems here is that everything that ICANN is saying, in both their press release, and their 16,000 word announcement, is written in the most unimaginably dry style possible.
The wretched quality of the writing is, I think, deliberate. Because what people can't understand, they can't criticize.
How much money does ICANN leadership rake in each year? How about giving some competent writer $1500 of that, so that this mega-announcement and its press release can be written up in terms any interested person can get through? As it stands now, very few of us (and certainly not myself) are capable of debating this vitally important announcement. It can't be understood, and perhaps that's the way ICANN wants it.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
The more ICANN has [d]evolved, the more ICANN has gone away from its grassroot.
I am an ICANN member, - just a ordinary member thank you very much, - and I can tell you that I am really disappointed with ICANN's [d]evolution process so far.
Granted, there _are_ things that ordinary members like me don't know. Mebbe there are some valid reason for ICANN to do what it has been doing. I won't utter a blanket condemnation towards ICANN, not just yet.
But I have to say this - as I am a member of ICANN, I am also a member of the cyberspace, aka Netizen.
As a Netizen, and as one who don't really trust government - any government, mind you - that much, the ICANN's latest maneuver, in inviting the government to take such a large part of ICANN's operation really worries me.
If ICANN is let to do its own thing, there is a huge possibility that ICANN will be yet-another-irrelevant-organization.
I don't care who that ICANN CEO is, but this is what I will say - if ICANN forgets its grassroot, ICANN might as well fold its operation. Because without the grassroot, ICANN will no longer be representing ANYTHING relevant.
Governments and corporations already have their own way to express their views. ICANN was set up primarily to address the views of the grassroots.
No matter it's DCMA or ICANN's latest move, the future for grassroots in the cyberspace doesn't look good.
We keep losing in the power struggle. The corporate power and the bureaucrats from the governments keep on winning.
What will it be like 10 years of 20 years in the future, if the Net can not tolerate FREE VIEWS anymore ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Acroding to this article on icannwatch Taiwan is using its own DNS root. Anyone got any more info on this?
The great benevolence of govenments such as China should serve as a shining model and example of plans like this. Who knows, the Chinese government may be able to bring down it's great wall, even Saudi Arabia as ICANT makes the internet safe for all good corporate citezens. What a glorious day this is for public networks and the independence of the North American Directorate. Can you feel the goodwill coming in from WIPPO, and DCMA? Every state will have it's say as the national borders go up in the name of unity. Intelectual property will be safe as will the big pubishers will no longer fear competition. Telcos can loose their fears of loosing their franchises as new more centralized and stronger means of information interchange are devised by ICANTs board members like Microsoft and Sun. The freedom this will bring is unbelievable. Like an advert flier says, there's no limit to the internet is there? Only strong government control will be able to squash the emergent wireless internet, they had better hurry!
Oh well, I did not expect more. As the people of the United States accept violations of the first and fourth amendments, the experiment that was the Bill of Rights dies. It started with regulation of the airwaves. It will end with electronic publishing. As all the dead tree acid paper rots and people are taught that obsolete communications methods are not to be trusted and the ideas contained in those rotting pages are no longer valid, and all electronic publishing comes under the control of the government and two or three large companies.
Bill Gates really can see the future. He's buying it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Enough said.
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast.
With so many people and organisations that control parts of the Internet, it will be rather difficult to get them all to agree to this proposed change. Granted, ICANN may be trying to bring some semblance of organisation to the hodge-podge of hacks and kludges the Internet has become, but by trying to "control" a large part of it like this will only alienate many people.
The only way to reorganise the internet is to EMPulse the entire world and rebuild it from scratch. Not a favoured solution...
If you support ICANN, click on this link.
ICANN is getting a lot more focus then necessary. This summer, the ICANN sessions got way more attention than the ones of ISOC at the INET conferance, and I really don't understand why. Actually, it's all about the naming conventions of the Internet and IP-adresses. And so? As long as I can use regular IP-addresses to go where I want, I don't really have to care what ICANN does and doesn't. Of course, I wouldn't like to loos my good domain names, but still, its all about naming. Right?
ICANN finally admitting that they are run by, and for, the large groups with big pockets is just truth in advertising.
Something everyone should read and understand is Reed's Law as in the end ICANN et al don't matter a lot...
By the time ICANN "gathers consensus and buy-in from various ancillary parties on the direction it wants for how it will make later decisions," users will have grown frustrated enough to not resist a takeover by a Microsoft-like entity- running roughshod over the idea of "openness."
Scientists report a massive change in the Earth's orbit. This change has been traced to the gyroscopic effect of Jon Postel spinning in his grave.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
the story's submitter obviously didn't read the proposals the icann president made. he was far more reasonable than usual. go read the goddamn thing before you make assumptions about what he said.
-----
For the supreme protest against ICANN, try an alternative root server, such as OpenNIC.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Freedom on the internet is a little like prostitution and illegal drug use, i.e., it's always going to be around. Like the tax exempt, economic power of the North American shadow economy where barter and cash hide transactions from the respective tax departments, the internet has a 'profile', if you will, that has inherent a strong support of freedom and innovation and the technical means to implement programs.
heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
(Mind you, I'm just laughing as Rome burns, here, but still...)
Stuart Lynn, CEO of ICANN, announced today that the board has appointed a new member - Mr William Gates. Lynn said: "Mr Gates will help ICANN function as a strong organisation, dedicated to core values and open participation".
.NET and all domain names which do not include ".msn" will be banned.
/. reporter, asked whether "all our domains are belong to Microsoft?" which Mr Lynn dismissed by stating: "You are either with us or against us".
Mr Lynn also announced that the Internet will now be officially renamed
Jon Katz, infamous
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
The obvious answer is to have multiple root servers, and have a version of bind that can query multiple DNS hierarchies, with administrator specified weightings, or some sort of voting scheme. This seems so straightforward to me that I must be missing something. Can anyone explain?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
...we must create our own DNS. True: this may be rather difficult to implement (especially on closed-source architectures, like Windoze), but it is our [sarcasm=to_taste] only hope [/sarcasm] of finally escaping the capitalist clutches of ICANN "UCANT".
The first step will be selecting our own root server. This must obviously be a fixed IP, which would ideally be some hapless DSL user wishing to donate some bandwidth to the cause.
(To improve performance, clients could cache IP addresses they had already looked up. This would actually improve on the current system.)
In brief, we would create an alternate DNS, with more open rules on the creation of new domains. Think of it: Free domain names! Less government interference in the Internet? Who could refuse such a thing? Let us start today!!
(But don't ask *me* to help...)
TANSTAAFI: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free iPod.
OpenNic sounds like a reasonably democratic choice. They allow voting on new TLDs. If there is any criticism of them, I'd like to hear it right here. Remember, if we can't vote, we can still vote with our feet.
It's strongly apparent that a corporatist dictator is attempting to take over the administration of our Internet. In removing the voices of the end-users, absolutely rejecting direct democracy in ICANN, and dumping the board members we have already elected, I have but one thing to say:
ICANN must be destroyed! destroyed! destroyed!
Anyone on the board who has been conspiring with Stuart Lynn on his little decision need to show up in the center square for their just public flogging. Reputations of those individuals are hereby compromised, and may they never make one more cent in their pathetic careers. You know who you are.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Nor does it do this in the open-source browser Konqueror 2.1.1. Odd that IE6, which is produced by the premiere software company in the world, Microsoft, should be discomfitted by such a childish ploy.
Mort Halperin: Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy, The Brooking Institute, Washington, DC 1974
The first responsibility of any bureaucracy is the preservation of itself.
The second is to expand its 'responsiblities'.
davejenkins.com |
I define the internet as the IP address space and the Domain Name System. Since both of those are controlled by the US Department of Commerce, I'd say that the US "owns" the Internet. As I've said, the rest of the world is free to create its own network, one that doesn't use our DNS or IP system, but until the quit your whinning about the Internet being global and deal with the truth.
Stuart Lynn, ICANN CEO (Primus: super mack-daddy of all ICANN biznezz?), whoever the hell he thinks he is, is obviously crying out for help because he says ICANN can't make DNS work in the future. I read his stupid whining polemic, and it isn't really worth more than a brief scan. He wants some real money and guns so he can pay lawyers and boss the root DNS server operators around. De facto, he says they can do whatever they want without accountability to the ICANN or anyone else. He wants to make policy decisions to govern the technical operation (and design) of current and future DNS services.
ICANN is going down, because it doesn't DO anything for anyone involved. He is like the country bumpkin character from Kafka's short story: Before the Law. BIND comes with a list of compiled-in root server IP addresses. You can query all of those for a complete and curent list of root servers. This is how your DNS server knows who to ask when it doesn't know the IP address you're trying to get. Your DNS server (at the whim of your ISP) could possibly start using root servers that are not on that list. The websites you thought you knew (or maybe just their typos) would not come up; maybe you would see some nasty pr0nz (from people who paid marketing $$ to your ISP) instead. The nasty pr0n fake root operators (NPFROs) can't guarantee the pr0n marketdroids that their sites will get hits because you might configure your computer to use an independent (or your own) DNS server that the ISP doesn't control. Therefore the ISP can't get marketing kickbacks for screwing with your DNS. Likewise, none of your ISP's upstream DNS providers can do it, nor any of the root DNS operators. People could always just stop hitting their DNS.
What Mr. Stuart Lynn wants is a legal binding document that says "one ring to bind them all" so his ICANN can force the root DNS operators to become like his own personal NPFROs, but now bona fide by the contract (called a Memorandum Of Understanding or MOU) that opens the root server operator up to civil lawsuits and criminal liability. He wants to say "You must agree on penalty of law to publish the list of root DNS servers I tell you to" to make the root DNS operators kow tow to the corporate and lobbying interests that pay.
Right now, nobody has any reason to pay him for anything. People who don't understand how the political consensus exists and flows in DNS de facto tried to make ICANN do it artificially. Everyone who can, right now should go learn how to run a DNS server (not trivial) and imagine you and all your buddies and everyone who used to be on Napster are all going to run your own root servers. Think yourself through all the possibilities, and act on the best one(s) you can come up with. Stuart Lynn is not going to get his money, because we can all change our DNS settings and no amount of money or lawyers can change that. Be prepared if some root servers start humming a different tune, you might decide you want to hear something else.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
As Bob Frankston has been saying and saying and saying: "The solution is very simple. Just separate the technical mechanism of the handles from their role as names. This can be done within the existing system by just assigning meaningless identifiers, such as numbers, instead of words. We already have the example of phone numbers that don't have any relationship to names."
And still no one is listening!
It's beyond foolish to think that governments represent their people in any significant way.
Certainly here in the 'States at least.
It's call sarcasm. A property sometimes displayed by people with intelegence.
This kind of message is exactly what they need to hear, and also exactly the kind of message that will never make it through the bureaucracy.
Seriously, bureaucracy never tollerates the message that they are not needed. Bureaucracies always expand and extend their power, not restrict it.
As needed as this message is as a "reality enema", the ICANN and the governments whos force the ICANN thrives on will never officially "hear" it.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
The only people who control the IP address space are the ones who control the routers. It's agreement between these people that allows the internet to exist. ICANN can proclaim whatever they want, but doing something like revocing all of China's IP space simply isn't going to happen.
.aol sites.
And the government controls the Doman Name System? Tell that to the 30 million americans who regularly hit
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
What matters is the state of affairs NOW. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the United States Department of Commerce signed a contract with ICANN in '98 granting them authority over the root name servers and the IP address space. This would seem to indicate that the ultimate authority over the internet lies with the US Gov. So the US government has every right to add:
www.bbc.co.uk IN CNAME www.mcdonalds.com
to the A root server, and my understanding is that a whole lot of people would get mcdonalds when they went looking for the BBC.
Not to mention that Worldcom Sprint etc (the major backbones) are US corporations. If a law is passed instructing them to operate the Internet in a paticular manner guess what happens.
The Internet, as it currently exists, is clearly an American entity with international aspects. As with so many other issues the international community has let its envy of the US cloud its thinking.
I'm not opposed to having international representation in whatever board oversees the Internet, I just don't think they should have a vote.
Alternative NIC's have and do exist. Root name servers take very little resources compared to a major corporate web site, and there are many thousands of those.
.US is alive and well, but very few people use it. If the US government wants to set a good example, just retire the .GOV domain and start using .GOV.US like the rest of the world does.
.SPAM, go right ahead.
The AlterNIC.net ran fine for many years, and has recently morphed into another name which I am not going to bother to look up at the moment. Anyone who wanted to reach their sites merely pointed their name server to them. Gee, that was hard. But it was also not tollerated by the ICANN.
Governments already have full control over their own name space.
That's right, NO TOP LEVEL DOMAINS AT ALL. Just use the country codes for official real names.
Anything that doesn't use the official country code is not official nor controlled by government. If you want to point to
All bureaucracies will try to survive, regardless of their usefulness. The ICANN is no different, as can be seen by this proposal.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Why do the Olympic games always have to have French as the first language, even though French is known by a relatively small percentage of the world? Because the founder was French. The Olympics have grown well past the earlier "US only" phase too.
The US government started the Internet as a Defense Dept project and then poured billions into it through the defense dept and research grants. If France or UK or Japan had done what we had done you could bet your bottom dollar they would have control over it too.
Brian Ellenberger
Tell your government to use, and enforce the contracts utilizing, the two-letter country code of their own country.
.us, South Africa over .za, France can enact all the francophobia it wants to over .fr, etc. etc etc.
That's it. No need for ICANN at all. The US has control over
Anything more is abuse of power.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Alternic.net did this for many years.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
And yes the Government does control the DNS system that all of us use everyday. The US govenment ordered NSI to give the A root server to ICANN and I believe it(or they) sits in California as we speak.
All it takes for the typical end-user to begin using the open root is a few minutes' engaged in some independent action. I can see a couple hundred TLD's -- ICANNot!
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
Think MS, the patent/copyright debacle at W3C....the list goes on.
Sure, I'm worried about Big Brother. But I'm more worried about the corporations. Maybe having government in there is a good thing.
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
The question is, are we, as individuals, willing to give up the ease of letting corporations and governments make marginally correct decisions (but progressively and cascadingly worse ones) and do it right, ourselves? Who's willing to sacrifice time, money, and effort into developing a viable alternative to this nonsense?
The problem is that 99% of the time, the person who's willing has their own agenda for volunteering, therefore corrupting the movement at the onset, even though for the most part the effort seems sound.
We want those people who don't want the job because they know what it what it entails. They had to push George Washington into the president's seat, no?
ICANN's management created this monstrosity on its own initiatiative - it is esssentially an act of gross insubordination by ICANN's management and an act of disdain for the Board of Directors and for the internet community.
This "restructructuring" is a complete recreation of ICANN, but with even the hint of public participation stripped away.
I just go off the airplane home from this ambush. I'm really ticked off.
pushing more users and admins into the arms of SuperRoot and suches. They shoulda stayed happy with their fat checks. Oh well.. Aesop's dog was smarter.
I used to say "Fuck RIAA," but I think I'll be changing my motto.
Fuck ICANN.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Maybe AOL, Microsoft, RIAA, or some other Company/Group would consider... owning ICANN.
There is no reason that one needs to be part of one contiguous internet. If corruption cedes control of the internet to the wrong people, the internet will fracture into private networks
that aren't under the auspices of the illegitimate
rulers.
If ICANN wants to steal the ball, the games will move to other places.
Of course a contigous internet is a priceless resource to not be discarded at a whim. But if forces such as ICANN begin to take over the benefits of a contigous internet erode from any number of factors. Some sort of taxation schemes, tariffs, monopolies, thoughtcrime indictments, introduction of llegitimate standards.
The days of the freewheeling contiguous internet are on the way out.
What make you think your ISP can't catch all your requests to the root servers and feed you what they want? ICANN might start by encypting their communications streams, but I doubt that's on the corporate agenda. Then again, your ISP can substitute any kind of IP for IP you request.
I don't really know the ins and outs of the protocal but running DNS is trivial with Debian. It's a binary install that sets itself up and works, no fuss. I'd prefered to use the at home DNS, but it never worked and they only offered me one machine to chose from in a different state. Needless to say, mine worked much better.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I had one of those annoying on-the-tip-of-my-tongue experiences, but I felt like I had to say something. So I stammered and blurted out:
Unfortunately, that expansion is now stuck in my head.I wonder if this will mean ICANN will have enough balls to make Network Solutions (or I guess VeriSign now) stop sitting on domains. They refuse to release almost all domains that expire...they just sit on them and sit on them and sit on them (unless of course you use their SnapNames backorder service).
//m
All the proof we really need that ICANN is irrelevant, defunct, incompetent, and dangerous lies in the fact that example.com, example.net, and example.org now resolve, thanks to ICANN and Kent Crispin, directly contradicting their definition in RFC2606.
These are the people who want MORE control? They should be kept as far away from name and IP-space as possible.
Personally, I'm just waiting for them to blunder big enough that someone in the USG will be forced to consider the incident a terrorist act (and I think a brief conversation with the Office of Homeland Security about the importance of DNS and the danger to the US infrastructure if it's destabilized by non-technical demagogues should take care of that.)
.@.
Umm, is it just me, or is the Internet(TM) being taken away from us, piece by piece?
... thought coming into mind ...
More to the point, is it just me, or is the US govt, in conjunction with the Zaibatsus (hi, Bill!), expressing more and more interest in being able to say who can and cannot play in what had been made into a global sandpit?
Wait
#ifdef RANT
The way any power structure exercises power is to control who can and cannot do x. When the powers are comfortable in their authority and control, then restrictions are unnecessary, and therefore few. The more the powers get frightened that their control may be slipping, the more controls are instituted. The ultimate sanction is execution ('Thou shalt not kill' circumvented by defining lawful killing != murder. Think about this: execution == lawful murder). On the net, extreme sanction is denying the priviledge of being allowed to interface with dangerous thoughts. This means censorship, nannyware, great firewalls, Passport(TM) and now this.
The internet was built by people, not governments, although governments are responsible for allowing access to the internet (mainly through infrastructure -- phone lines and international pipes), although privatisation increasingly means that even this has been taken out of their hands (with a sigh of relief on their part, usually).
But now, even the saurian beaurocracies have realised that their power is under threat from free access to What Other People Think. (We'll just put pr0n and such to one side here as basically a side effect, even if on of the reasons why the net has grown so huge, so quickly). What do you do if something is a threat? Control access to it! You don't want to dismantle it, especially when it can be so useful to you, but you certainly don't want those grubby plebians getting access!
Congratulations, my friends! we, all of us, have built something which Threatens World Safety (as defined by the people who brought you the Bay of Pigs and Enron). Now that we have built this pearl around the nucleus which they provided (ARPANET), and made it into something in its own right, they want to take it back.
Well? what are you going to do about it?
#endif
Thank you for your time.
"This is a Hollywood movie: when it comes to the Laws of Physics, they're lucky if they get Gravity!" --- my wife
As I have said previously why not set ICANN up like the UN that way there would be no one dominating party and all voices would be heard.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
Please investigate DNSSEC. True the ISP can tranparently proxy your DNS requests, but he would have to log each of his successfully spoofed DNS answers and bill based on that. The marketdroids will want proof they are getting something for their money.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
But ICANN's decided that not only has it scammed its way into control (as opposed to the IETF committee that was working on the same problems), but that it should increasingly get rid of any grassroots control, ignoring as much as possible the processes for elections by the actual public for members of its board. Now that it's declared itself no longer bound by the processes that it always refused to follow anyway, it's time to dump it. Part of that process is replacing control of the root - Lynn's proposal itself says that the root servers aren't really under ICANN's control or funding now.
Dump ICANN, I say!
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Hey - I'm a numbnuts who can't seem to post to the right thread. Someone mod my last post down to the depths of hell and burn my ass for some serious karma.
Flamebait more like it especially on closed-source architectures, like Windoze
I can run a root DNS on a Windows machine if I wanted it.
It would handle the traffic without a problem was well, considering that all of around 2 people would actually use it as thier root server....
Meanwhile, I'd say to ICANN's current leaders, that you're not Al Haig, and you're not in charge here.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I think it would be easier to resurrect the IANA.
--Blair
"No, really."
"Because what people can't understand, they can't criticize."
You, sir, are apparently not from the United States.
ICANN is in the pocket of the moneyed interests, and has shown no interest at all in a "better" Internet, only one with them having more control. Sort of like Microsoft but worse, because it is arguable that Microsoft actually produces something :-)
.com etc) because the fat cats who "own" them would see their net worth go dot bust if there were real competition, such as letting anybody who wants to run a root server with their own idea of top level domains.
For instance, ICANN very much wants to restrict top level domains (.edu
I believe ICANN is also behind the atrocious domain name resolution panels, which you may have heard about. I could be wrong here, I think it was ICANN who set them up, but it might have been someone just as slimy. In case you haven't been following this, people who registered a domain name years before some corp with $$pull$$ still lose the domain name because the complainer gets to choose the judge of their choice, and of course the judge$ with fore$ight $aw the light early on and alway$ rule for the corp$, thu$ en$uring more bu$ine$$ coming their way, a good illustration of positive feedback.
ICANN has stalled at every possible point in every possible way when any smell of true Internet representation comes up. They truly want to be dictators, because they are running an unnecessary bureaucracy, and the only way to perpetuate it and line their pockets is to keep the riff raff out of it.
Their problem is that they are not necessary, a true bureaucratic solution in search of a mission. The Internet could get along better without them. People would choose their own root servers and never know the difference. ICANN only survives because businesses don't want to be bothered, and because teh US gov is also afraid of the riff raff -- some of these riffraff no doubt use crypto to communicate dirty deeds with each other, so best to keep a bureaucracy in charge.
You should care because they are in search of power to perpetuate their useless bureaucracy. The only way to do so is to MAKE themselves necessary, much as prison guard unions HAVE to be against parole and rehabilitation if they want to increase their power, same as lawyers writing laws and DEA thugs setting national drug policy. They need to be nipped in the bud.
</rant>
Infuriate left and right
Rather, I would advocate simply having lots of privately run non-generic TLDs and hardly any ICANN at all
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Need Mercedes parts ?
just hand it over to Verizon?
Thank you very much.
Apart from a dog and pony show in Stockholm with some V6 blocks that nobody really uses, ICANN never allocated an IP address in it's life. You might be thinking of IANA (may he rest in peace)
The DoC has temporary custody of the legacy root servers because at the interagency domain name task force meetings, the DoC claimed to have all the answers. When the other 13 agencies (NSF, CIA, etc) stopped giggling, they said "ok, run with it".
To say "the US government controls the DNS" is factually incorrect. The US Department of commerce has control over the legacy root servers. That's very different. The sum of the DNS is controlled at the edges of the net by the people that have the root passwords to the namesevers that actually make the net work. If they were to all point to different root servers, the DoC would be in charge of 13 servers nobody used.
However, the notion of using root servers has always been IMO, a little silly. In the transition from the hosts.txt model to the decentralized DNS model, reliance on root servers to point to the tld servers for you is placing far too much faith on those 13 machine. Again IMO the proper way to do this is to secodnary the root zone - any root zone - ICANN's, ORSC's, what have you) thus saving you an intermediate step in looking up names. In other words, you won't need to hit the root servers to find the tld servers, your namesever will know where to find them itself. That same time and network bandwidth.
And of course if you secondary the ORSC root, you'll be able to see the entire Internet, not just the parts the DoC allows you to see.
Do you really think any government controlled domani agency would ever let you see http://free.tibet ?
Need Mercedes parts ?
IBM spent at least 2 years (maybe more, my data is 2 years old) of it's $60M/yr Washington lobbying budget to prevent the creation of new TLDs to protect its trademarks.
That's just one thing we've found out. You'd be a fool to believe they were the only ones.
Need Mercedes parts ?
A long long time ago, the efforts to network computers together were on two distonct and parallel courses. TCP/IP was one and OSI was the other. Governments of the world, through the ITU maintain their own OSI/X.400 namespace. In fact the NTIA of the DoC maintain the US X.400 root. We've seen how wildy successful X.400 is. Governments of the world already control one namespace, despite the fact it never really worked and hardly anybody uses it.
The Internet, OTOH grew wildly largely because of the "anybody with a clue can play" attitude and the contributiuons to infrastructure and content from people like you. If you want governments to control your namespace, why don't you use X.400 - then you'll have what you wish for. But, if you relish the idea of a namespace without central control, rather, controlled at the edges by the people with the root passwords to the nets nameservers - who can point them to any root server system - then you might be happier with the DNS.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Talk to me... I know squat about P2p.
Need Mercedes parts ?
It's difficult to imagine why you think we're a scam Bill, when it's the ICANN franchiees that were dragged into court for running an illegal lottery after ICANN staff ("lawyers") had spent the losing applicants money to review the winners proposals and bless them.
:-)
Perhaps you have a bad taste in your mouth from some of the 1996/7 bad craziness that went on. That didn't do anybody any good, no argument there, but those people have, uh, "retired" mercifully. And hey, if it's good enough for an ICANN baord member to use the ORSC root, it's good enough for you
If you don't want to be scammed, don't spend any money. You can still have an non-ICANN domain name , honest.
Need Mercedes parts ?
So don't use any root servers. Secondary the root zone of your choice and cut out that intermedate step in name resolution, and you'll be diminishing the load of those poor overworked legacy root servers, and you'll be resolving names as fast if not faster than what you're doing now.
Remember hosts.txt? Think of your own copy of the root zone as that on steroids. You can even do this with old Windoze with a really nifty program called "Simple DNS+".
Need Mercedes parts ?
As a result, the ICANN policymaking process is impoverished by the absence of most of the entities with the greatest direct interest in DNS stability and those whom its decisions will most directly impact, and by the consequent overrepresentation of advocates for one special interest or another. While this lack of participation by those who critically depend on the successful fulfillment of ICANN's mission may be explainable, it puts enormous pressure on what is supposed to be a consensus development body to come up with responsible policies when major stakeholders are silent.
Therefore, ICANN is formally giving notice to the governments and network operators of the world, that unless we procure the neccessary funding to implement and fulfill our recommendations, we will be forced to turn the root name servers off.
President Bush, you have 24 hours to deliver to me, Dr. Evil, one MILLION dollars! MUWHAAWHHAHWAAHA! And just to demonstrate that I am not kidding, I will now obliterate the ccTLD
...as the elected North American at-large representative.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Jon used to run the IANA as a part time task. Think about it. One guy... part time. If you're familiar with the organizational structre of the ICANN that replaces it, it's a little mind boggling.
The only mistake he ever made was accepting government funding. That gave the USG the crack it needed to claim owbership of it: "we paid for it".
Need Mercedes parts ?
Why is it so difficult to de-centralize the top level domain administration? There must be some research proposals? I have one idea:
Let's set up 26 new TLDs:
a.
b.
c.
.
.
.
x.
y.
z.
After that, if I want to have a name www.anssi for my server, I will go and talk to the administrator of domain "i." And register there a domain www.a.n.s.s.i.
Depending on if the domains "s.i.", "s.s.i.", etc. already are registered, I need to go to talk to the highest order domain administration that is already registered.
After that we need to standardize a convention, that a resolver breaks down the last part after the last dot in a name into letters (www.anssi -> www.a.n.s.s.i), before it forwards the query to a DNS server.
Additionally the old TLDs will also be served in new "synonymous domains"
c.o.m.
f.i.
u.k.
.
.
.
etc.
Of course the old TLDs com., fi. and uk. still exist and work, if older resolvers query them.
Now happens something nice:
a) www.anssi works with the updated resolvers
b) *.com and *.fi work with all resolvers, both with the updated and old ones
c) manually written www.a.n.s.s.i. and www.yahoo.c.o.m. work with all resolvers
Yours,
Anssi Porttikivi
app@iki.fi
Anssi Porttikivi / app@iki.fi
I like your vision for the DNS Brad, but the problem with your vision of it... and ICANN's vision of it is that it's well, one persons vision of it. The DNS is big enough such that a subset of it can contain one mans vision of what it should be. That it, throw all the ideas of what it should d be together. I don't believe any one person - or organizatin should decide what the namespace should be (I don't see anything partitularly wrong with generic tlds, YMM indeed V), it should be allowed to grow organically like, say, usenet namespace did. Despite it's many flaws, usenet, and particularly it's namespace is still the worlds largest cooperative collaboratin.
The actual mechanics of how this is done is not terribly difficult (and yes, golly yo uhave some good ideas there, thanks) but is not as important as "you respect my ideas and suppoert them and I'll reciprocate" much in the same was as the UUCP paradigm of "I'll pass your packets if you pass mine".
RS
Need Mercedes parts ?
Is that you behind those Foster Grants?
Monsieur, tu es un betard.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
I guess they would stop using Australia as their map icon?
Why would a small island in the Caribbean sea want to identify itself with the largest island in the world?
I know 39 square miles is small, but the only thing they have in common with australia is the temperature.
I wonder if www.vaporware.ms or www.windoze.ms is still available?
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
http://adamsnames.tc/whois/whois2.cgi?names=vaporw are.ms+windoze.ms
I guess they would be cool to have if you wanted to discuss problems with microsoft products.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
Actually, I'm impressed. If you search for the above words in Google my diatribe appears at the number 1 position.
Go on, you know you want to read it and find out what I think about just how useful ICANN are.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
From ICANN to UCANT
(Posting anonymously for plausable deniability - I don't want to get fired.)
:(
I've been in a meeting of the RSSAC (Root Server System Advisory Committee), and my company runs one of the root name servers (K) and helps another (J), plus I know a few of the guys working on the Verisign server (A).
I am shocked at how slipshod the root servers are run. For everybody that assumes that they are run with military precision, I can assure you that they are not. The root server operators treat themselves as some sort of secret cult, who need answer to nobody, period.
It's amazing.
This would be fine if there were never any problems, but there are, but they are never talked about.
I would be glad for some oversight, especially by industry or even governmental organizations.
This seems to be a good idea, they just need multiple root servers.
[waiting for the slashdot troll about multiple roots]
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
has been going for about 21 months now, seems to be working exactly as you described.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
I like the idea. I want to read more about P2P. I hear tidbits here and there, but what is it exactly.
Someone please post a URL so we mere mortals can look and see what P2P is...
Or you could just email me something at:
dan SPAM morg a t sc DOT rr PERIOD com
Wouldn't that mean we would have to pay lots of money every 6 months for a new "improved" internet. Internet 95, Internet 98, Internet ME, Internet XP.
Oh, let's not forget that if the Internet comes to a crashing halt, we have to wait for MS to provide a service pack to get it working again!
Oh, they would probably make the new internet incompatible with non-microsoft products too -- just like everything they do.
This is merely a reason to adopt http://www.opennic.unrated.net/">open nic as a viable alternative DNS.
Why don't you accept that an excess of corporate or governement control of the internet DNS would lead to censorship, regardless of the fascist or communist policies.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2 + 2 = 4.
George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
Is ICANN a bunch of non-technical people who are there politically?
Worse thing is to let a non-technical person dictate how a technical matter should be.
After reading through this, I browsed over to OpenNIC and registered for free. Then I setup my name server as per their instructions ( They have instructions for regular, non-nameserver running people too ) and everything is up and running smoothly.
I highly recommend that others do the same "just in case".
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Please mod parent up moderators.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
...as the elected North American at-large representative.
(reposted from here because original poster, rs79, apparently did not have enough karma to bump this up to being visible)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Regards
Mikael
Pawlo.com
The only article that expresses a reasonable solution, IMO, is this: Brad Templeton: How to fix the DNS
Big, fat, hairy deal.
Domain names are addresses, people! They're not speech! In an age of search engines such as google, who cares whether or not someone can use disneysucks.info to slam Disney, or some other domain name, as long as the content is there? ICANN doesn't control content, or even how you get to it.
This is a tempest in a teapot.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Paul Mockapetris, creator of the Domain Name System was asked, what do you wish you had invented?
.REG, for trademarks would act as certificate of authentication and directory, when entered directly.
He replied, "A directory system for the Internet that wouldn't be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats."
The Internet is going to the dogs.
Fact: UDRP is not only imperfect and inconsistent - it a fatally flawed system.
Fact: You are being deceived - the authorities know the answer to trademark problems on the Internet.
The United States Department of Commerce and the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization are hiding it.
The US Patent and Trademark Office virtually admitted this, "The questions you raised with respect to trademark conflicts, as well as the proposed solutions, have their basis in good common-sense. As such, they have been debated and discussed quite exhaustively within the USPTO, the Administration, and internationally."
Honest attorneys, including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III (UN WIPO panellist judge), have ratified the solution.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
This is most important - as Sunrise and UDRP abridges what words people can use in an open (repeat - OPEN) gTLD. They also give priority of one business over another.
Please keep re-reading last paragraph until you completely understand - they violate the First Amendment and go against Unfair Competition Law.
That is quite apart and separate from the fact that they know the solution.
Which is this:
User enters apple.com - is redirected to apple.computer.us.reg
User enters apple.newTLD - is redirected to apple.record.uk.reg
In the address bar - can you tell the difference between, apple.computer.us.reg and apple.record.uk.reg?
So, no 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' there then.
A new restricted TLD, of
Lawyers read feeble excuses link on my site before replying - I have heard them all.
Nobody wants the solution - because by not having it they gain. Primarily - Lawyers get loads of money from the conflicts and Big Business by muffling criticism and ensuring they monopolize their trademark words on the Internet.
My beliefs and findings, above and on my site, have proven corruption beyond all reasonable doubt - nobody can refute the logical conclusions made.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk - nothing to do with United Nations WIPO.org.
As opposed to Queens? :-)
Actually we did have a little republican experiment here, chap called Cromwell. This led to the development of democratic ideals by Locke, Hume & co. which were copied almost verbatim into the US Constitution. Anyway, this republic basically followed the general pattern of announcing liberty, fraternity etc. and then embarking on massive civil war. Pikes and muskets were the main weapons, but they still managed to cause the biggest body count until the first world war. There's just been a middling TV series on it, not seen it but might be coming your way.
since the republic was founded in AD301, so I think you're out by over a millenium there. D'oh!
but ours just claims to be a figurehead (and the PM and newspaper editors have the power) whereas yours doesn't claim to be a figurehead (and the oil companies have the power).
I know there are multiple roots available to choose from, however I don't want to make a static choice. I want a named.conf entry where I can say, "check opennic first, then icann, then pacific root."
Alternately, I might want to say, "use the result from icann unless opennic and pacific root both agree on different result."
I want to be able to use multiple roots, not choose from multiple roots.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I'm beginning to have doubts about the viability of the net. The damage is becoming too general to route around. The cruft of established interest: the RIAssA, MPAssA and now this quasi-governmental, quasi-functional gravy-boat are metastasizing like discrete tumors upon the body of the network. Will the last one off the Internet get the lights, please.
Not to mention our ability to sue the Department of Commerce for all the "oversight" they're giving.
Heh. Can't wait until Congress hears about it, particularly with Karl's nice quote...
So let me get this straight.
- Premise: Our system is imperfect;
- Evidence: People don't want to playt by our rigged rules.
- Premise: Yet a system based upon governments (those silly things built around public participation and rights) is wrong.
- Evidence: None
- Conclusion: Let us do whatever we want so that we can be nimble.
Tune in tomorrow boys and girls when we prove that the sky is green, up is down and dictatorships are the only good thing in this world.For a moment, Just a moment, lets assume that he is correct and that the openly elected board members are not representative, and that the true problem is lack of public participation. The fact that they have reduced the number of elected board positions from nine to six is, of course, immaterial.
That fairy story being the case, how is a new board composed of five government representatives, five industry clones, and five unelected, self-pupretuating representatives of unknown powers supposed to help. Assuming that the 5 government reps are actually reponsive to the needs of their constituents this gives us a whopping one-third of the board. Those poor government reps will be so maligned and sidelined that they won't have a reason to show up (just like now!).
In all likelyhood this won;t be a problem though the Government Reps will probably come from groups like the Department of Commerce whose commitment to big business is so total that they have managed to offend other portions of the government such as the Small Business Administation.
Come to think of it this plan makes perfect sense.
5 Industry reps + 5 Dept of Commerce toadies <fnord>+ 5 representatives of the New World Order</fnord>
and all pesky discussion can come to an end. No more arguments, no more 'research' to back themselves up, and no oversight. I have to give that boy credit, he's smarter than I thought. This will truly be a far far more efficien ICANN. Open too, <fnord>provided you're one of them.</fnord>
Remember "Peace is War" -- 1984
Just give me your money and shut up.
I'm no net.ghod, I may be missing something very elementary, but let me ask this: if an entity decided to do DNS, and -your- nameserver field pointed to that entity, would DNS not continue to do the right thing if the domain space controlled by ICANN were a subdomain of the one served by the new entity? If you decided that 'legacy addresses extant 25 Feb 02 would be resolved via ICANN, newer would be resolved by (new.net|novus|whatever)', would that not allow existing addresses to be served, while opening new TLDs and drawing ICANN's teeth at one swell foop?
It wouldn't even matter if ICANN tried to trump this - that won't work unless they do what we want (expand the TLD space enough) anyway.
"If it weren't for time, everything would happen at once, and we would all be very confused." - G. G. Kay
"I fully expect the world wide web to become just another string of TV stations with really lousy reception."
Maybe I'm just not a high enough status geek, but the www doesn't hold a whole lot of interest for me. I download drivers, read news pages, umm... and thats about it. I have been expecting the web to try and turn into TV channels for a while, and if/when it does I'll do the same thing with it as I do with my TV...
I'll turn it off.
Sean Donelan, who some of you may be familiar with via nanog has posted a timeline.
I tried opennic once. I liked the idea; backwards compatibility to ICANN (with one exception), democratic structure, and so on. But I never got any names resolved at all. I assume the reason was load, or maybe because all the root servers are people's 486s at home sitting on cable modems.
What opennic needs is university sponsorship. The real strategy for opennic is first to convince ISPs and corporate WANs to use it, then to convince web site admins to move their names to it once it is ubiquitous. That means it absolutely has to be reliable, and I think university sponsorship is the best path for them to take.
If I were them, I would be e-mailing the IT departments of every major university in the world. The sooner the better, the way things are looking now.
LAMP hosting on Debian, SSH, no bandwidth cap, PayPal accepted - http://secondbrainhosting.com/
Yes, a beowulf cluster of opennic root servers would be the best way of running this project.
I'd want to have multiple failsafe opennic, then you wouldn't have the single Tier 1 master server.
The way things stand now, opennic is fscked if Oakland has another power blackout.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
It's no secret the whole net cannot resolve alternative tlds. The important thing to note here is that the percentage of that net that can is increasing. Get an alternative name - for free, don't pay for God's sake. Use it with your friends that can, and use it. If you don't you're stuck with what ICANN gives you. In other words, yeah it's not great but the alternative is worse.
.BIZ tld that was dragged into court and found to be an illegal lottery (pay a fee get a "chance" to get a domain) - THAT was a scam.
Scammy? If it's really a scam it's illegal and will be shut down. The alt roots have been aorund for years. Maybe you're thinking of the ICANN approved
40+ companies paid $50,000.00 USD to ICANN for as "TLD application fees" and only 7 of them actually got tlds. The losers money was used to scrutinize the winners applications. THAT's not a lottery? What did they get besides a "chance"???
Need Mercedes parts ?
Lame-D
.info name in name.space's dns servers (FCFS!) and if you don't find it look it up in the icann dns servers.
If cen be set up to do things like "look up a
It's a bit leading edge, but it does work. I agree you should't have to know or care what root server cluster you use.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Brad that makes no sense - if you allow for anybody's vision then you can't exclude generic tlds.
Generic in what language, btw?
Need Mercedes parts ?
(who wants to admit working for NSI? Sorry)
I did some work for NSI on contract (I wrote some diagnotics for them) and the problems with the legacy root servers are quite real. Two examples - the Nordic one will occasionally go tits up and God help you if that happens in summer; they're unreachable by phone someties for weeks. The B root used to fall over so often that NSI quietly shadowed the IP. (This was 3 years ago when Dave Holtzman was CTO). If you check the old newdom archives you'll find people that crashed Vixies F root for laughs very simply.
There's lots of things not to like about NSI, but their operation of THEIR root servers was above average IMO.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/dns/
Worth a read. From the man who brought you the dot. I personally like the idea of having any number of TLDs, run as independent registries or almost directory services.
Given your expertise Jay, I am greatly suprised that you don't get it.
You say, "Domain names are addresses, people! They're not speech!"
That is a simplistic and slightly misleading statement.
Domains names are for naming resources.
Paul Mockapetris, DNS creator, said, "The goal of domain names is to provide a mechanism for naming resources in such a way that the names are usable in different hosts, networks, protocol families, internets, and administrative organizations."
I use WIPO.org.uk because the United Nations use WIPO.org to take away domains from owners. There was no better domain for me to make protest and publish the solution to trademark problem.
ICANN and Big Business want control over words you can use on the Internet. They say to stop trademark problems - to my mind that is a lie. For one thing, they want to muffle you.
Which of these gets the message across better: WIPO.org.uk OR freespace.virgin.net/garry.anderson/WIPO?
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
You would think then, they would want solution to stop 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' on the Internet - wouldn't you?
A solution that does not make restrictions upon them or mean giving up their dot com domains?
The answer was self-evident - but they do not want it. This is even though Sunrise and UDRP abridges US citizen rights to even use dictionary words - it also gives priority of one trademark over another - with non-trademark holder standing no chance. This violates First Amendment principles and is against Unfair Competition Law.
great clarification - thanks!
Besides, if there's an ICANN board member using ORSC, it's probably just that non-conformist Karl, who thinks that being actually elected by the user public should somehow allow him onto a board of elite appointees...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You miss the point:
Virtually ALL words are trademarked, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. True or False?
Why then - AS CONFLICT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID - do they not want solution to stop 'trademark conflict' and 'consumer confussion'?
The ANSWER is quite simple - Big Business wish dominant control of these words.
Reason being, they wish to flout Unfair Competition Law.
By giving priority to trademarks for ALL words, the authorities totally disrespect your rights to use them. True or False?
WHY is that, do you think?
The ANSWER is quite simple - amongst other reasons, they do not wish open public criticism of them.
Reason being, a good domain name shouts it louder.
I said, "Which of these gets the message across better: WIPO.org.uk OR freespace.virgin.net/garry.anderson/WIPO?"
You replied, "NEITHER!"
You later say, "Further, if I'm going to go looking for information about the WIPO, there's not a reason in the world why I'd blindly type wipo.org.uk into my browser's URL window, any more..."
Which are you most likely to find looking for information about UN WIPO in the UK - and which more likely to remember in a weeks time?
You also say, "Neither one of those addresses carries any information whatsoever about the point you're propounding."
As UN WIPO.org take away like sounding domain names to trademarks (like United Nations has trademark 'WIPO') - I think it makes my point quite well - True or False?
P.S. You also said, "Here's where you lose me: I see no logical connection whatsoever between Paul's statement and this one."
There was a paragraph in between those two, meant to explain WIPO.org.uk was a NAMED RESOURCE - you said domains are just addresses.
G> My beliefs and findings, [...], have proven corruption beyond all reasonable doubt - nobody can refute the logical conclusions made."
;-)
BM> That statement makes me wonder whether your findings and your ways to gather them really are separated from you beliefs.
You have no idea how I gathered them, have you Big Mouth?
I have spoken to many in the Legal Profession and also both US and UK authorities.
The authorities know to stop 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'. They could let ALL trademarks be used on the Internet without these problems.
Not one lawyer has been able to refute the solution.
Perhaps you would like to have a go - if you think your hard enough
No? - Perhaps then, you would explain why they do not use it?
Please check feeble excuses link before answering.
So, given that no all trademarks can use their mark (against Unfair Competition Law) - are they corrupt or are they stupid?
My money, given that they have virtually admitted knowing solution, is that they are corrupt.
BM> I'm refuting your post that suggests that you let your beliefs interefer with your findings.
My beliefs are based on reasoned logic - and have not been refuted. My findings are objective - and can be proven to be so. Please give evidence that the findings are not objective.
BM> I interpret this as if you think that your beliefs - in conjunction with your findings - have proven something, which of course is rubbish.
As my reply above shows - you misinterpret.
BM> I don't see corruptness or conspiracies here...
Just like there was no corruptness or conspiracies at Enron.
I see it to be just like there - they all gain - the Lawyers, ICANN, WIPO and US DOC.
You are either niave, stupid or somebody with vested interest (e.g. Lawyer or in Big Business).
I believe the corruption runs deep through ICANN right to the United States Department of Commerce.
For instance, checkout JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN.
A quote from Karl Auerbach:
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.
Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.
Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.
Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.
And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.
There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.
***End quote.
In a good two month period in October and November 2000 they got $465,553.67 from ICANN.
As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers; I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.
They would lose a lot of money, if there were less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?
Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.
There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption.
I apologize - good grammar is not one of my skills :-)
;-)
But you are obviously of good intelligent to get my meaning
From the article, paragraph 2 of section "A Reformed ICANN Can Be Successful":
- The Amazina Llama
The Awesome IRC Archive Presents: "enlightened discourse: a short story"
By L. Ron Hubbard and rhilman!
Subtitles provided by Naturally Speaking for OS/2
<SheilaWarner> Where's the *#$%#%^&*)(&*($ Wakki?
* KinkyTurtle blinkblinks... Sheila?
<SheilaWarner> *$#%^@$%^*&^& DALnet ^&*($%@^#()%$%^$E inconsistent policies!
<SheilaWarner> THREE %$%@#$%&$%^&*($#$@^% HOURS AGO!!!!
<SheilaWarner> 30 days would expire DAY AFTER TOMORROW!
<SheilaWarner> Once again, I get FUCKED BY DALNET!!!!!
<SheilaWarner> Once again, I get fucked by DALnet inconsistency.
<SheilaWarner> Why do I even bother?
<SheilaWarner> IT WAS A YEAR OF MY LIFE! IT WAS MY BABY!
No kidding. It's deliberate.