If you wrote to me, I never received your e-mail. You'll see a response from me both in the threads above and in the magazine. Or feel free to re-send your message if I haven't already addressed it.
Blackhole lists are "opt-in" for the ISPs who subscribe to them, but for end-users, there's nothing you can do. If your ISP or upstream provider subscribes to the list, you don't get e-mail from blocked sites. An end user's choice devolves to changing ISPs.
Hi folks, no need to be four hundredth person to write to me and tell me that I am operating an open relay. I received enough of those letters when this article first ran a couple of months ago. (My response to the letters is below).
Rather than focus on what constitutes an "open relay," which is really a technical issue rather than a policy issue, I'd rather see more thought given to the damage caused by blackhole lists. Are we really interested in championing their use? Spam today, something else "offensive" tomorrow? How different is this than when Chinese ISPs decide to block Google? As vile as spam is, I don't think this is the right tool.
My response to the original letters sent in by New Architect readers:
When it comes to mail administration, it appears I was several years behind the curve. Since my mail server software, circa 1996, had been purring along quietly without problems since it was new, I had never upgraded it to a version capable of a higher degree of authentication. I'm also old enough to remember when an "open relay" was a relay intentionally left open for anyone to use, not one merely susceptible to misuse. Thanks to all of the readers who wrote to bring me into the new millennium. Both my software and my definition are now upgraded.
At the same time, I labeled the blackhole list operators "vigilantes" for good reason. It was always my understanding that if you lie about your identity to gain access to something that would be closed to you if you told the truth, you've done something wrong. That's true whether you intend to send spam or prevent it. As vile as spam is, the ends don't justify the means. Regardless of whether my mail server used to be "open" or not, I stand by the legal analysis that placed fault on the blackhole operators who forged their identity.
Anyone who runs their own web site knows that Google dominates the search engine world. Over 80% of my referrals come from google and my webmaster friends report similar statistics. All other search engines are on the margins
The intro blurb is wrong. The revolt is not against ICANN, but against the structure of representation within ICANN. The ccTLDs voted to leave the Domain Name Supporting Organization, not ICANN itself. In fact, what they are looking for is increased representation on the ICANN Board, not to leave the organization altogether.
-- Bret
I don't read the chart posted on the ICANN web site as showing Netsol's "decreasing market share." Section B on "New Registrations" shows that NSI's share of new registrations has leveled out at 37%. You have four straight quarters at 37% (+/- 2%), which suggests to me market share is stabilizing and that new inroads into NSI's market share will be difficult.
I have a column on this very issue (linking as "trespass to chattels") in the current issue of Web Techniques. One of things I discuss there, in the context of streamlinking, is that a better solution to these issues generally is for developers to use links generated on the fly or session-specific permissions if they want to block linking.
This may not be a solution for Register.com, as it has to follow standard protocols for the implementation of Whois, but we shouldn't let this Register.com precedent carry over to other scenarios. For standard linking problems, the better solution is to use code to prevent linking, not court orders.
Thanks for all the comments on the article in Web Techniques (even the flames).
One point of the article that seems to have been largely missed here on Slashdot and in the comments sent to my personal e-mail (bret at lextext dot com), was in regard to whether there is a role to be played by the public domain in open or free software development (or any other creative endeavor for that matter), as I think we as a society benefit from a richly endowed public domain
The primary point in the article was not that we should find ways to make competing licenses compatible, but to ask whether there would come a time at which it might be appropriate to drop the "copyleft' and GPL-style licenses altogether. It could be that the answer is no, and that there are good reasons that the answer is no, but I thought it was a fair question to ask. Self-perpetuation of the movement, one of the prime reasons for a copyleft license, may no longer be threatened by dropping the license.
I appreciate the notion, expressed here and elsewhere, that there's no free speech without an enforcement mechanism and the obvious analogy to the enforcement capabilities made possible by copyleft licenses. But if there is a community of developers dedicated to contributing to the public domain, there is no regulatory force (like the state, in the free speech analogy) that is going to prevent that. Only market forces, greed and sloth, stand in the way of perpetuating and growing the public domain. Are those factors sufficiently great to warrant building in an enforcement mechanism? Are there concerns that I'm missing that warrant maintaining the licensing restrictions? If there are legitimate concerns justifying maintaining copleft licenses, might those concerns be outweighed by the potential benefits in dropping all barriers to collaboration?
These are issues that obviously can't be solved in a 2000 word column, but by raising them I hoped to get the kind of feedback that I've seen here. Thanks for that. Any additional comments on the ideas raised in my column and underscored above would be most welcome.
Who knows whether the Palm thing is really in the works or not? The product wasn't the point. The point was the press release and the attempt to scoop a competitor. Handspring has a real product today, and Palm is hoping the press falls for the "vaporware." And most of it did.
The Things People Register
on
Typosquatting
·
· Score: 1
I'm constantly amazed at the things people register. It's not just typos. Someone registered yyaahhoooo.com
There's also been a run on Zs. z.com is owned my one registrant, zz.com is owned by someone else. zzz.com is in the hands of third owner. zzzz.com, zzzzz.com, zzzzzz.com, and zzzzzzz.com each have unique owners. Then one registrant appear to have 8 Zs through 29 Zs. In fact, the last time I checked, you have to go out to 30 Zs.com (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.com) in order to find a Z string that is registerable in.com.
As if to underscore the absurdity of the.US naming heirarchy, the Dept. of Commerce asks, in all seriousness, whether there are "issues that need to be specifically addressed in the required study, such as 'locality-squatting'...." (see Question 5).
Don't forget that the authors of this gem, "Defendant Pavlovich is a leader in the so-called 'open source' movement, which is dedicated to the proposition that material, copyrighted or not, should be made available over the Internet for free," were the lawyers at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.
If that's their understanding of the open source movement, you'll be well advised to send your tech related business elsewhere.
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.
AOL is already an ICANN-accredited registrar, with the ability to register names in.com,.net and.org. Aside from the ability to register names in ccTLDs, this co-branding deal seems to add little of value.
The only thing I can think of is that AOL has not been able to make the registration process work, so it's turned to NSI for help. The AOL domain name registration page has always been closed to non-AOL members, so I don't know if it was actually offering this as a service prior to today's announcement.
As if you needed any more proof that the Metallica events of the last week revealed a band full of old guys, out of touch with new technology and in the last days of a failing career, the Band is now doing a VH1 Special.
Don't get too excited. Apple generates much of its revenue from selling boxes, and just a few weeks ago, at the January Macworld Expo, Steve Jobs touted the fact that Apple can do things with its OS that no other manufacturer can, since it controls both the OS and the box.
If this "leak" came from Apple, then I'm guessing it was misinformation meant more as a kick in the pants for Motorola than a real leak of a new strategic direction.
The new policy posted by NSI contains the same the policies, arbitration rules, and pool of arbitrators as those in the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy adopted by ICANN several months ago.
NSI appears to have simply repackaged the ICANN material and branded it as "domainmagistrate.com." Every other ICANN accredited registrar has the same policy. It is required by their accreditation agreements with ICANN. Give the NSI marketing department credit though for getting all the press on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
Systech,
If you wrote to me, I never received your e-mail. You'll see a response from me both in the threads above and in the magazine. Or feel free to re-send your message if I haven't already addressed it.
-- Bret
Blackhole lists are "opt-in" for the ISPs who subscribe to them, but for end-users, there's nothing you can do. If your ISP or upstream provider subscribes to the list, you don't get e-mail from blocked sites. An end user's choice devolves to changing ISPs.
-- Bret
Rather than focus on what constitutes an "open relay," which is really a technical issue rather than a policy issue, I'd rather see more thought given to the damage caused by blackhole lists. Are we really interested in championing their use? Spam today, something else "offensive" tomorrow? How different is this than when Chinese ISPs decide to block Google? As vile as spam is, I don't think this is the right tool.
My response to the original letters sent in by New Architect readers:
Thanks.-- Bret
www.lextext.com
Anyone who runs their own web site knows that Google dominates the search engine world. Over 80% of my referrals come from google and my webmaster friends report similar statistics. All other search engines are on the margins
The intro blurb is wrong. The revolt is not against ICANN, but against the structure of representation within ICANN. The ccTLDs voted to leave the Domain Name Supporting Organization, not ICANN itself. In fact, what they are looking for is increased representation on the ICANN Board, not to leave the organization altogether. -- Bret
I don't read the chart posted on the ICANN web site as showing Netsol's "decreasing market share." Section B on "New Registrations" shows that NSI's share of new registrations has leveled out at 37%. You have four straight quarters at 37% (+/- 2%), which suggests to me market share is stabilizing and that new inroads into NSI's market share will be difficult.
I have a column on this very issue (linking as "trespass to chattels") in the current issue of Web Techniques . One of things I discuss there, in the context of streamlinking, is that a better solution to these issues generally is for developers to use links generated on the fly or session-specific permissions if they want to block linking.
This may not be a solution for Register.com, as it has to follow standard protocols for the implementation of Whois, but we shouldn't let this Register.com precedent carry over to other scenarios. For standard linking problems, the better solution is to use code to prevent linking, not court orders.
-- BretThanks for all the comments on the article in Web Techniques (even the flames).
One point of the article that seems to have been largely missed here on Slashdot and in the comments sent to my personal e-mail (bret at lextext dot com), was in regard to whether there is a role to be played by the public domain in open or free software development (or any other creative endeavor for that matter), as I think we as a society benefit from a richly endowed public domain
The primary point in the article was not that we should find ways to make competing licenses compatible, but to ask whether there would come a time at which it might be appropriate to drop the "copyleft' and GPL-style licenses altogether. It could be that the answer is no, and that there are good reasons that the answer is no , but I thought it was a fair question to ask. Self-perpetuation of the movement, one of the prime reasons for a copyleft license, may no longer be threatened by dropping the license.
I appreciate the notion, expressed here and elsewhere, that there's no free speech without an enforcement mechanism and the obvious analogy to the enforcement capabilities made possible by copyleft licenses. But if there is a community of developers dedicated to contributing to the public domain, there is no regulatory force (like the state, in the free speech analogy) that is going to prevent that. Only market forces, greed and sloth, stand in the way of perpetuating and growing the public domain. Are those factors sufficiently great to warrant building in an enforcement mechanism? Are there concerns that I'm missing that warrant maintaining the licensing restrictions? If there are legitimate concerns justifying maintaining copleft licenses, might those concerns be outweighed by the potential benefits in dropping all barriers to collaboration?
These are issues that obviously can't be solved in a 2000 word column, but by raising them I hoped to get the kind of feedback that I've seen here. Thanks for that. Any additional comments on the ideas raised in my column and underscored above would be most welcome.
-- Bret
They have. That page was linked from the original article in Web Techniques by the guy who wrote that article in Web Techniques. -- Bret
This was a press release designed to coincide, to the day and hour, with Handspring's new cellular phone plug-in.
Who knows whether the Palm thing is really in the works or not? The product wasn't the point. The point was the press release and the attempt to scoop a competitor. Handspring has a real product today, and Palm is hoping the press falls for the "vaporware." And most of it did.
I'm constantly amazed at the things people register. It's not just typos. Someone registered yyaahhoooo.com
There's also been a run on Zs. z.com is owned my one registrant, zz.com is owned by someone else. zzz.com is in the hands of third owner. zzzz.com, zzzzz.com, zzzzzz.com, and zzzzzzz.com each have unique owners. Then one registrant appear to have 8 Zs through 29 Zs. In fact, the last time I checked, you have to go out to 30 Zs.com (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.com) in order to find a Z string that is registerable in .com.
As if to underscore the absurdity of the .US naming heirarchy, the Dept. of Commerce asks, in all seriousness, whether there are "issues that need to be specifically addressed in the required study, such as 'locality-squatting'...." (see Question 5).
Only in America(tm).
Don't forget that the authors of this gem, "Defendant Pavlovich is a leader in the so-called 'open source' movement, which is dedicated to the proposition that material, copyrighted or not, should be made available over the Internet for free," were the lawyers at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.
If that's their understanding of the open source movement, you'll be well advised to send your tech related business elsewhere.
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.
First, you need to activate your ICANN membership.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
The only thing I can think of is that AOL has not been able to make the registration process work, so it's turned to NSI for help. The AOL domain name registration page has always been closed to non-AOL members, so I don't know if it was actually offering this as a service prior to today's announcement.
As if you needed any more proof that the Metallica events of the last week revealed a band full of old guys, out of touch with new technology and in the last days of a failing career, the Band is now doing a VH1 Special.
If this "leak" came from Apple, then I'm guessing it was misinformation meant more as a kick in the pants for Motorola than a real leak of a new strategic direction.
NSI appears to have simply repackaged the ICANN material and branded it as "domainmagistrate.com." Every other ICANN accredited registrar has the same policy. It is required by their accreditation agreements with ICANN. Give the NSI marketing department credit though for getting all the press on this one.