There were a few issues that we never got resolved. You'll notice much of the communications is one-way from me to them and while there are a few answers, but some things just get ignored. The big one was an offer we made to do 7 mbps multicast of all 24 channels of House video onto the Internet2 backbone so everybody could get into the archiving business. They decided they'd rather go with a unicast ("webcast") solution provided by the Library of Congress at lower resolutions with no access by the public to the archival data. The second issue was giving us half the archive to process then cutting off the flow of bits. The third issue is fixing how they do closed captions and handle transcripts. I'm hopeful they'll take the ball and run with it at the Committee on House Administration and the various other parts of the House that deal with these issues, but it was disappointing that they didn't want to work with us and let us continue the pilot program we had started and expand it.
> I'm sure you've read the proposals much more carefully
Unfortunately, that is probably true. I haven't waded through so much boilerplate since I did government work.:)
I agree with you that the winner of.org should be a straightforward bid. I was actually quite impressed with a couple of the straight-commercial bids. I was equally unimpressed by the various hybrids, which all seemed to be papering over a desire for a "nifty revenue stream" with whatever they thought the reviewers and ICANN board wants to hear. As you noted in the case of the so-called ".Org foundation," their perception of what the ICANN board wants to see and what the bidders actually said seems to be rather divergent.
In any case, when we put our bid together, we decided we wouldn't play that game. We put the best bid together we could which, we think, reflects a good way to run.org. Hopefully other folks will agree with us. The important thing is, if we win, we'll be able to look ourselves in the mirror the next morning and go to work believing in what we do.
As one of the official supplicants, I naturally read the profiles (and even read the full proposals). So, it was with some bemusement that I noted a continued strain of ".org has to go to a for-profit registry provider because that is the only way the system will be stable."
We posted a few choice words on this subject. The "trust us because we're a.com and will run a stable argument" argument just doesn't wash.
You're correct... but (modulo some legal changes, which are sorely needed anyway), there is still lots of work to document all the "inventions" that were already invented a long time ago. Many of the patents being filed are equivalent to work that happened 10 years or more ago. Even 1-click and affinity programs were well beyond the one-year ticker.
Slashdot Mirror
There were a few issues that we never got resolved. You'll notice much of the communications is one-way from me to them and while there are a few answers, but some things just get ignored. The big one was an offer we made to do 7 mbps multicast of all 24 channels of House video onto the Internet2 backbone so everybody could get into the archiving business. They decided they'd rather go with a unicast ("webcast") solution provided by the Library of Congress at lower resolutions with no access by the public to the archival data. The second issue was giving us half the archive to process then cutting off the flow of bits. The third issue is fixing how they do closed captions and handle transcripts. I'm hopeful they'll take the ball and run with it at the Committee on House Administration and the various other parts of the House that deal with these issues, but it was disappointing that they didn't want to work with us and let us continue the pilot program we had started and expand it.
Whoops. we had a disk issue, were running off a backup. we're back to the main system, should be working now. Sorry about that!
> I'm sure you've read the proposals much more carefully
Unfortunately, that is probably true. I haven't waded through so much boilerplate since I did government work. :)
I agree with you that the winner of .org should be a straightforward bid. I was actually quite impressed with a couple of the straight-commercial bids. I was equally unimpressed by the various hybrids, which all seemed to be papering over a desire for a "nifty revenue stream" with whatever they thought the reviewers and ICANN board wants to hear. As you noted in the case of the so-called ".Org foundation," their perception of what the ICANN board wants to see and what the bidders actually said seems to be rather divergent.
In any case, when we put our bid together, we decided we wouldn't play that game. We put the best bid together we could which, we think, reflects a good way to run .org. Hopefully other folks will agree with us. The important thing is, if we win, we'll be able to look ourselves in the mirror the next morning and go to work believing in what we do.
As one of the official supplicants, I naturally read the profiles (and even read the full proposals). So, it was with some bemusement that I noted a continued strain of ".org has to go to a for-profit registry provider because that is the only way the system will be stable."
We posted a few choice words on this subject. The "trust us because we're a .com and will run a stable argument" argument just doesn't wash.
Carl Malamud
Internet Muticasting Service
You're correct ... but (modulo some legal changes, which are sorely needed anyway), there is still lots of work to document all the "inventions" that were already invented a long time ago. Many of the patents being filed are equivalent to work that happened 10 years or more ago. Even 1-click and affinity programs were well beyond the one-year ticker.
:))
No system is perfect.
Hi -
Aware of spi.org. Nice service, but not nearly net clueful enough to do the job. Definitely the right idea, though!
Carl