Except it doesn't lack oversight at all. They have to justify the need for these warrants to a judge, just like they have to do to tap your phone without your knowledge.
Librarians have blown this entire issue way out of proportion.
Also,does anyone have a count of how many times this story has been published here as "New" on Slashdot? Talk about lack of editorial memory;)
Well, that is one of the prices that you would expect to pay using a hardware platform that is not as widely in use. If the situation were reversed, and Macs were the dominant computing platform, then the price situation would most likely be reversed as well.
Not saying you should switch, or being critical, not at all. Just pointing out the factual reality of the platform decisions we make.
Anyone who acted on Reuter's information is potentially at risk of being accused of insider trading (yes! even though the details were published in a newspaper, they had NOT been published by/to the burse).
This is incorrect. If I overhear the CEO and CFO at lunch discussing something that is not general public knowledge, I am free to act and/or report on that, without running afoul of insider trading laws.
Now, if the CEO or CFO passed that information specifically to me, that is another matter, because it is defined as an intentional selective disclosure.
In any event, this is all a moot point with relation to this case, as Reuters made the information public, thus there was no longer any legal theory that the information was not generally available. Generally available does not mean that it must be generally available from the company in question, under any legal theory.
Might want to check the online documentation a little deeper, and find out the truth, rather than making false statements and thinking you are being witty.
I think they would be a very positive step in that direction.
That said, I still think that the page in question would still be intentionally confusing on the subject.
I will be out of town the rest of the day at a client location 50 miles north of here, but perhaps when I get back, I can draw up a brief example of what I think would serve both intellectual honesty about the GPL, and the obvious, and lauduable effort to encourage users to purchase commercial support and licenses for non-GPL compliant use. I haven't done so until now, because, quite frankly, this is the first time someone from MySQL has ever shown an interest in maybe addressing this contradiction.
Our software is 100% GPL licensed, and if your use of it is 100% GPL (or OSI) license compliant, then you may use it without a fee. In all other instances, you are better served by our commercial licence.
But that is not what the company is saying on that webpage, and that is not the impression that are trying to give.
This has been an issue with MySQL AB for a long time, and I'm far from the first person to point it out to them, and the exchanges I know of illustrate either a complete lack of understanding of the GPL, or an intentional attempt to present a false impression in order to drive people to purchase commercial licenses.
As I said, all I am saying is that the explanation of the licensing needs to be more honest and more direct about the facts, rather than being an attempt to make people feel like they should/must purchase a commercial license.
I guess I just don't understand why you'd want to give something of monetary value to a business for free
Because you want to support the continued development of the software, because you know your company will only continue to benefit by the additional time and investment that company will be able to make in the on going development, enhancement, and bug fixing that the product will undergo as a result. I could go on and on and on, but the bottom line is that it just makes sense to do so, and it is the ethical thing to do, as well as the financially sound thing to do.
Sorry, but you are wrong. In the DEVEL release of MySQL 4.xx the client lib is GPL, in the 3.xx version, which is still the version in wide use except for those willing to use pre-release software in production environments, the client lib is LGPL.
You might want to make sure you are right before telling others they are inaccurate.
From the manual for Mysql 3.23.53a, the latest version:
A license is *NOT* required if:
- You do not need a license to include the client code in commercial programs. The client part of MySQL licensed with the LGPL `GNU Library General Public License'. The `mysql' command-line client includes code from the `readline' library that is under the `GPL'.
The rest of this is to the MySQL AB rep who posted earlier, I found the text I was referring to in a local copy of MySQL 3.22 (pre-GPL days, and I'm including it here:
* A license is required if:
- You sell the *MySQL* server directly or as a part of another
product or service
- You charge for installing and maintaining a *MySQL* server at
some client site
- You include *MySQL* in a distribution that is non
redistributable and you charge for some part of that
distribution
On the website then was an explanation of the "You sell the *MySQL* server directly or as a part of another product or service" specifically mentioned that web hosts who bundled MySQL database access with hosting accounts had to buy a commercial license per CPU in this case. The only exception was if the hosting client installed MySQL themselves, and therefore MySQL was not a part of the bundled service, and in fact that line in the licensing would mean webhosts would be required to buy a license.
The client code was public domain then, and this is one of the key reasons why MySQL was adopted by commercial software developers and why MySQL support was built into so many commercial software programs. Alas, they are now shooting themselves in the foot in the 4.xx versions.
Where does it contradict the GPL? We explictly state in the first sentence that GPL compliant software can use MySQL for no cost.
Because the GPL CONTAINS NO SUCH RESTRICTION!
The GPL also places no restriction on the distribution of the GPL Software in combination with other non-GPL products, but your "licensing explanation" continues to try to protray the GPL as meaning that.
Quite seriously, if your knowledge level of open source licensing is typical of that at MySQL AB, then I understand why this contradiction has existed for so long, and you all need to get someone in to explain it to you.
I am available for that task if needed.
I do know that a change in the client lib licensing in 4.x from LGPL to GPL will be the first thing to seriously motivate me to switch to Interbase/Firebird or PostgreSQL.
Had they left it LGPL, and thus seriously encouraged its commercial use, they would have a FAR greater community using it from which to pull support, financial and otherwise. Moving to the GPL only for the MySQL client lib will be the first step in the end of commercial products using and supporting MySQL as a database option. As a developer of commercial software that supports MySQL databases (as well as other DB backends), I know that I will cease support of MySQL except for the 3.xx version.
As for the ISP, the "free license" was supplemented by additional restrictions, including a detailed document on when the party would be REQUIRED to purchase a commercial license. ISPs providing MySQL preinstalled for access by their hosting customers was one of those exceptions listed in that document.
Because the "licensing policy" explanation contradicts the GPL.
And no, you didn't have an "open license" you had a free license for non-commercial use. Under that old license, ISPs offering MySQL databases were required (though I'm sure most didn't) to purchase commercial licenses, as were many others that would not be required to once the product was GPL'ed. Open does not equal "limited free" in the licensing world.
The Windows licensing was different, in that you didn't even offer a free for-non-commercial use version, and restricted it to purchased licenses only.
And if it is true that they are changing the licensing policy on the MySQL client libraries for Version 4, and using the GPL instead of the LGPL for them, that is a huge step backward in my opinion, and will do more to push users to alternatives with more friendly licensings, such as PostgreSQL and Interbase/Firebird.
Because that is a contradiction. If the software is free, then you can't then turn around and try to control HOW it is used. The two requirements would be mutually exclusive.
The fact is that software DOES cost money to produce, but that doesn't mean that the best way to profit from it is by selling it only as a commercial non-free product. I believe that MySQL does profit from its commercial support services, for those who need that service, or use it as a means of supporting the product. The problem I have is only that I feel that the licensing explantion is deliberately deceptive, and that it reflects poorly on them.
It is not anything new there, it has been this way ever since they become GPL. The text describing the licensing is almost identical to the text describing their non-open source licensing prior to becoming GPL, except they replace non-commercial use with GPL in the text.
If you want to release a product and require a commercial license to use it, then release it under that commercial license, but don't try to also claim that it is GPL, and that you can't use the GPL license if you are using it commercially. The GPL license allows no such exemption, nor should it.
The reasoning is somewhat inaccurate here. The mysql client library is LGPL, making it prefectly ok to link in non-GPL software.
What gets people is that MySQL continues to describe the GPL licensing of MySQL in a false light, and as such creates a confusion among those who are not already knowledgable about the GPL.
As I said in my earlier post, I understand the reason why they are doing it, they want to encourage purchase of commercial support licenses. But in doing so, they are making themselves look ridiculous, and should instead post an accurate explanation of the licensing.
It's my opinion that MySQL AB never really wanted to open source their product, but did so under pressure from the community who regularly used its non-open source licensing as an attack against it. So this is their way of getting open sourced, but still trying to make people feel that they are obligated to purchase licenses that they are not obligated to do under the GPL license.
MySQL has always published incorrect information about it means for MySQL to be licensed under the GPL. Much of the text was from when it was published under the free-for-non-commercial use license. They keep this incorrect explanation to encourage people and companies to financially support the company's work.
And while I applaud them seeking financial support, and hope companies who profit from MySQL do support the company and the product's development, their having that false explanation of the GPL licensing and what it means should be removed and replaced with a more honest licensing explanation.
He wasn't smuggled across the border. He was arrested in Denmark for hate statements as he was attending a Neo-Nazi convention there, and was, months later and following an appeal all the way to the Danish Supreme Court, extradited to German where he was tried, convicted and served 4 years in German prisons.
Actually the author of that article has no affiliation with any alternative root system at all. Your claim is absolutely baseless.
Besides, calling what Garrin and his group have done as quality and imaginative is a gross overstatement. Their own dns servers continue to be misconfigured and prone to errors.
They tried to sue their way into the main roots, in order to give themselves a goldmine. They failed. Their politics have been as bad as the rest of their operation.
Everyone here should listen to Karl on this, after all he is one of the most progressive (not to mention honest and ethical) ICANN Board members. And one of a small minority that was actually elected to the board.
In other words: He's one of the good guys.
He also was one of a small minority of board members who opposed today's ICANN action.
The problem with this is that.org was never intended for non-profit organizations, it was intended as the catch all domain for those who didn't fit into the others.
Further, the enforcement of such a provision would drive the cost and prices of domains up into the hundreds of dollars per year.
Lastly, when the TLD has been in use, and has millions of registered domain names in use, for as many years as.org has been running in this fashion, it would be grossly inappropriate to change the policy now. The harm to existing domain owners alone is a reason why this particular move should be blocked.
There are some excellent comments in the DNSO GA list for March 2001 that describe the problems with this change in policy in detail. Please take the time to read them before jumping to the conclusion that this change would be a good thing.
The archives are here, make sure you fast forward up to March 2001 (they start in Nov 2000).
ICANN was facing a real problem with this issue. They need the additional money Verisign/NSI will be paying them under this contract compared to the old one, but in a rare instance, nearly all of the organs of the Domain Name Supporting Organization opposed the new contract. The Constituencies, except the one of which Verisign is the sole member and the Intellection Property one who is counting on getting commercial activity in.org prohibited and the ccTLDs who are hoping this means less money from them to ICANN, indicated strong and vociferous opposition to the new contract. The General Assembly also came out strongly against the new contract. The Names Counil was slightly less strong on the point, but still came out against the new contract by a clear and indisputable majority.
So how could ICANN adopt the new contract without abandoning their pretense that they were a bottom up consensus organization?
Get some very minor concessions in the last 24 hours that address some of the more irrelevant points raised by the constituencies, and then use those changes to say that they addressed the concerns of the DNSO and that justifies their ignoring the consensus of the DNSO that the original contract should have remained in effect.
They have shown similar patterns in the past, including during their startup when the Department of Commerce mandated that they address concerns raized by the Boston Working Group and the Open Root Server Confederation. They made some minor token changes and then proceeded to do business as usual.
Under this contract the only type of organization who can run the.org registry is a non-profit organization, thus setting the framework for disenfranchising millions of.org domain name holders by changing the registration policy for.org. Even if the existing.org holders get to keep their domains, they face some serious disadvantages as a result of any change of.org from an unrestricted catch all gTLD, as it was intended, to a non-profit only TLD.
They say the change to.org is not for certain, do you believe them?
ICANN MANDATES that every registrar permit their whois to be sold via annual subscription for no more than $10,000.
This is mandated by the accreditation agreements, and has been the case for well over a year now. I don't know why this is being brought up now, didn't anyone read the ICANN rules back in the fall of 1999 when this was all announced?
Here is the relevant portion of the ICANN Accreditation rules:
a. Registrar shall make a complete electronic copy of the data available at least one time per week for download by third parties who have entered into a bulk access agreement with Registrar.
b. Registrar may charge an annual fee, not to exceed US$10,000, for such bulk access to the data.
c. Registrar's access agreement shall require the third party to agree not to use the data to allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of
mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail (spam).
d. Registrar's access agreement may require the third party to agree not to use the data to enable high-volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to Registrar (or its systems).
e. Registrar's access agreement may require the third party to agree not to sell or redistribute the data except insofar as it has been incorporated by the third party into a value-added product or service that does not permit the extraction of a substantial portion of the bulk data from the value-added product or service for use by other parties.
f. Registrar may enable SLD holders who are individuals to elect not to have Personal Data concerning their registrations available for bulk access for marketing purposes based on Registrar's "Opt-Out" policy, and if Registrar has such a policy Registrar shall require the third party to abide by the terms of that Opt-Out policy; provided, however, that Registrar may not use
such data subject to opt-out for marketing purposes in its own value-added product or service."
And our response should be :
"We will take agressive steps to stop Sony. We will not buy its walkmans and stereos, we will not buy their computers, we will not buy their CD and DVD drives, we will not purchase music from their record labels, in short we will stop Sony dead in its tracks for trespassing upon our free choice to do what we want on the internet.
We will firewall Sony at our wallets!"
You mention the voting processes, etc, but you also failed to mention that only things that meet Joop's approval get voted on, and that when votes are going against his wishes, mysteriously the vote swings his way just hours before the polling closes.
The IDNO is FAR FAR away from ever being considered as a constituency by ICANN. It is not democratic, it has absolutely no cohesion, and it is not representative of the group it purports to be a constituency for.
I am not just a simple detractor. I was one of the founding members, betrayed by the ego of the founder who abused our trust to create a bully pulpit for his own views, rather than a really open place for domain owners to be represented.
If it doesn't fit his view of what is right for domain owners, it doesn't get included in the IDNO agenda. Plain and simple. Until this changes, the IDNO is not a legitimate effort, and I do not encourage people to join it.
A few of us fed up members have talked about a truly open IDNO, with an open sourced polling booth with auditing tools of the results, and with a structure that works for all the members, and doesn't let anyone one person's personality or agenda dominate. If you are interested in being a part of this, please email me.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up, it very much needed to be said, and echoed my own thoughts after reading some of the pathetic responses so far on this subject.
USB 2.0 has a higher speed than FireWire.
This lacks oversight
Except it doesn't lack oversight at all. They have to justify the need for these warrants to a judge, just like they have to do to tap your phone without your knowledge.
Librarians have blown this entire issue way out of proportion.
Also,does anyone have a count of how many times this story has been published here as "New" on Slashdot? Talk about lack of editorial memory ;)
Try being a Mac user
Well, that is one of the prices that you would expect to pay using a hardware platform that is not as widely in use. If the situation were reversed, and Macs were the dominant computing platform, then the price situation would most likely be reversed as well.
Not saying you should switch, or being critical, not at all. Just pointing out the factual reality of the platform decisions we make.
Anyone who acted on Reuter's information is potentially at risk of being accused of insider trading (yes! even though the details were published in a newspaper, they had NOT been published by/to the burse).
This is incorrect. If I overhear the CEO and CFO at lunch discussing something that is not general public knowledge, I am free to act and/or report on that, without running afoul of insider trading laws.
Now, if the CEO or CFO passed that information specifically to me, that is another matter, because it is defined as an intentional selective disclosure.
In any event, this is all a moot point with relation to this case, as Reuters made the information public, thus there was no longer any legal theory that the information was not generally available. Generally available does not mean that it must be generally available from the company in question, under any legal theory.
Might want to check the online documentation a little deeper, and find out the truth, rather than making false statements and thinking you are being witty.
I think they would be a very positive step in that direction.
That said, I still think that the page in question would still be intentionally confusing on the subject.
I will be out of town the rest of the day at a client location 50 miles north of here, but perhaps when I get back, I can draw up a brief example of what I think would serve both intellectual honesty about the GPL, and the obvious, and lauduable effort to encourage users to purchase commercial support and licenses for non-GPL compliant use. I haven't done so until now, because, quite frankly, this is the first time someone from MySQL has ever shown an interest in maybe addressing this contradiction.
Our software is 100% GPL licensed, and if your use of it is 100% GPL (or OSI) license compliant, then you may use it without a fee. In all other instances, you are better served by our commercial licence.
But that is not what the company is saying on that webpage, and that is not the impression that are trying to give.
This has been an issue with MySQL AB for a long time, and I'm far from the first person to point it out to them, and the exchanges I know of illustrate either a complete lack of understanding of the GPL, or an intentional attempt to present a false impression in order to drive people to purchase commercial licenses.
As I said, all I am saying is that the explanation of the licensing needs to be more honest and more direct about the facts, rather than being an attempt to make people feel like they should/must purchase a commercial license.
I guess I just don't understand why you'd want to give something of monetary value to a business for free
Because you want to support the continued development of the software, because you know your company will only continue to benefit by the additional time and investment that company will be able to make in the on going development, enhancement, and bug fixing that the product will undergo as a result. I could go on and on and on, but the bottom line is that it just makes sense to do so, and it is the ethical thing to do, as well as the financially sound thing to do.
Sorry, but you are wrong. In the DEVEL release of MySQL 4.xx the client lib is GPL, in the 3.xx version, which is still the version in wide use except for those willing to use pre-release software in production environments, the client lib is LGPL.
You might want to make sure you are right before telling others they are inaccurate.
From the manual for Mysql 3.23.53a, the latest version:
The rest of this is to the MySQL AB rep who posted earlier, I found the text I was referring to in a local copy of MySQL 3.22 (pre-GPL days, and I'm including it here:
On the website then was an explanation of the "You sell the *MySQL* server directly or as a part of another product or service" specifically mentioned that web hosts who bundled MySQL database access with hosting accounts had to buy a commercial license per CPU in this case. The only exception was if the hosting client installed MySQL themselves, and therefore MySQL was not a part of the bundled service, and in fact that line in the licensing would mean webhosts would be required to buy a license.
The client code was public domain then, and this is one of the key reasons why MySQL was adopted by commercial software developers and why MySQL support was built into so many commercial software programs. Alas, they are now shooting themselves in the foot in the 4.xx versions.
Because the GPL CONTAINS NO SUCH RESTRICTION!
The GPL also places no restriction on the distribution of the GPL Software in combination with other non-GPL products, but your "licensing explanation" continues to try to protray the GPL as meaning that.
Quite seriously, if your knowledge level of open source licensing is typical of that at MySQL AB, then I understand why this contradiction has existed for so long, and you all need to get someone in to explain it to you.
I am available for that task if needed.
I do know that a change in the client lib licensing in 4.x from LGPL to GPL will be the first thing to seriously motivate me to switch to Interbase/Firebird or PostgreSQL.
Had they left it LGPL, and thus seriously encouraged its commercial use, they would have a FAR greater community using it from which to pull support, financial and otherwise. Moving to the GPL only for the MySQL client lib will be the first step in the end of commercial products using and supporting MySQL as a database option. As a developer of commercial software that supports MySQL databases (as well as other DB backends), I know that I will cease support of MySQL except for the 3.xx version.
As for the ISP, the "free license" was supplemented by additional restrictions, including a detailed document on when the party would be REQUIRED to purchase a commercial license. ISPs providing MySQL preinstalled for access by their hosting customers was one of those exceptions listed in that document.
Because the "licensing policy" explanation contradicts the GPL.
And no, you didn't have an "open license" you had a free license for non-commercial use. Under that old license, ISPs offering MySQL databases were required (though I'm sure most didn't) to purchase commercial licenses, as were many others that would not be required to once the product was GPL'ed. Open does not equal "limited free" in the licensing world.
The Windows licensing was different, in that you didn't even offer a free for-non-commercial use version, and restricted it to purchased licenses only.
And if it is true that they are changing the licensing policy on the MySQL client libraries for Version 4, and using the GPL instead of the LGPL for them, that is a huge step backward in my opinion, and will do more to push users to alternatives with more friendly licensings, such as PostgreSQL and Interbase/Firebird.
Because that is a contradiction. If the software is free, then you can't then turn around and try to control HOW it is used. The two requirements would be mutually exclusive.
The fact is that software DOES cost money to produce, but that doesn't mean that the best way to profit from it is by selling it only as a commercial non-free product. I believe that MySQL does profit from its commercial support services, for those who need that service, or use it as a means of supporting the product. The problem I have is only that I feel that the licensing explantion is deliberately deceptive, and that it reflects poorly on them.
It is not anything new there, it has been this way ever since they become GPL. The text describing the licensing is almost identical to the text describing their non-open source licensing prior to becoming GPL, except they replace non-commercial use with GPL in the text.
If you want to release a product and require a commercial license to use it, then release it under that commercial license, but don't try to also claim that it is GPL, and that you can't use the GPL license if you are using it commercially. The GPL license allows no such exemption, nor should it.
The reasoning is somewhat inaccurate here. The mysql client library is LGPL, making it prefectly ok to link in non-GPL software.
What gets people is that MySQL continues to describe the GPL licensing of MySQL in a false light, and as such creates a confusion among those who are not already knowledgable about the GPL.
As I said in my earlier post, I understand the reason why they are doing it, they want to encourage purchase of commercial support licenses. But in doing so, they are making themselves look ridiculous, and should instead post an accurate explanation of the licensing.
It's my opinion that MySQL AB never really wanted to open source their product, but did so under pressure from the community who regularly used its non-open source licensing as an attack against it. So this is their way of getting open sourced, but still trying to make people feel that they are obligated to purchase licenses that they are not obligated to do under the GPL license.
MySQL has always published incorrect information about it means for MySQL to be licensed under the GPL. Much of the text was from when it was published under the free-for-non-commercial use license. They keep this incorrect explanation to encourage people and companies to financially support the company's work.
And while I applaud them seeking financial support, and hope companies who profit from MySQL do support the company and the product's development, their having that false explanation of the GPL licensing and what it means should be removed and replaced with a more honest licensing explanation.
He wasn't smuggled across the border. He was arrested in Denmark for hate statements as he was attending a Neo-Nazi convention there, and was, months later and following an appeal all the way to the Danish Supreme Court, extradited to German where he was tried, convicted and served 4 years in German prisons.
Actually the author of that article has no affiliation with any alternative root system at all. Your claim is absolutely baseless. Besides, calling what Garrin and his group have done as quality and imaginative is a gross overstatement. Their own dns servers continue to be misconfigured and prone to errors. They tried to sue their way into the main roots, in order to give themselves a goldmine. They failed. Their politics have been as bad as the rest of their operation.
This coverage of the same story presents why Paul Garrin's efforts aren't productive or well respected.
Everyone here should listen to Karl on this, after all he is one of the most progressive (not to mention honest and ethical) ICANN Board members. And one of a small minority that was actually elected to the board.
In other words: He's one of the good guys .
He also was one of a small minority of board members who opposed today's ICANN action.
The problem with this is that .org was never intended for non-profit organizations, it was intended as the catch all domain for those who didn't fit into the others.
Further, the enforcement of such a provision would drive the cost and prices of domains up into the hundreds of dollars per year.
Lastly, when the TLD has been in use, and has millions of registered domain names in use, for as many years as .org has been running in this fashion, it would be grossly inappropriate to change the policy now. The harm to existing domain owners alone is a reason why this particular move should be blocked.
There are some excellent comments in the DNSO GA list for March 2001 that describe the problems with this change in policy in detail. Please take the time to read them before jumping to the conclusion that this change would be a good thing.
The archives are here, make sure you fast forward up to March 2001 (they start in Nov 2000).
I guess some browsers have problems with that large domain name.
You can reach the site at http://www.disgrace.org/ also.
Also, the DNSO statements to ICANN are at:
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/dnso-input-verisign -revisions-28mar01.htm
The ICANN propoganda about the agreement is at:
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revis ions.htm
ICANN was facing a real problem with this issue. They need the additional money Verisign/NSI will be paying them under this contract compared to the old one, but in a rare instance, nearly all of the organs of the Domain Name Supporting Organization opposed the new contract. The Constituencies, except the one of which Verisign is the sole member and the Intellection Property one who is counting on getting commercial activity in .org prohibited and the ccTLDs who are hoping this means less money from them to ICANN, indicated strong and vociferous opposition to the new contract. The General Assembly also came out strongly against the new contract. The Names Counil was slightly less strong on the point, but still came out against the new contract by a clear and indisputable majority.
So how could ICANN adopt the new contract without abandoning their pretense that they were a bottom up consensus organization?
Get some very minor concessions in the last 24 hours that address some of the more irrelevant points raised by the constituencies, and then use those changes to say that they addressed the concerns of the DNSO and that justifies their ignoring the consensus of the DNSO that the original contract should have remained in effect.
They have shown similar patterns in the past, including during their startup when the Department of Commerce mandated that they address concerns raized by the Boston Working Group and the Open Root Server Confederation. They made some minor token changes and then proceeded to do business as usual.
Under this contract the only type of organization who can run the .org registry is a non-profit organization, thus setting the framework for disenfranchising millions of .org domain name holders by changing the registration policy for .org. Even if the existing .org holders get to keep their domains, they face some serious disadvantages as a result of any change of .org from an unrestricted catch all gTLD, as it was intended, to a non-profit only TLD.
They say the change to .org is not for certain, do you believe them?
Have a .org domain? Join the protest.
http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-IICANN MANDATES that every registrar permit their whois to be sold via annual subscription for no more than $10,000.
This is mandated by the accreditation agreements, and has been the case for well over a year now. I don't know why this is being brought up now, didn't anyone read the ICANN rules back in the fall of 1999 when this was all announced?
Here is the relevant portion of the ICANN Accreditation rules:
WilliamXa. Registrar shall make a complete electronic copy of the data available at least one time per week for download by third parties who have entered into a bulk access agreement with Registrar.
b. Registrar may charge an annual fee, not to exceed US$10,000, for such bulk access to the data.
c. Registrar's access agreement shall require the third party to agree not to use the data to allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail (spam).
d. Registrar's access agreement may require the third party to agree not to use the data to enable high-volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to Registrar (or its systems).
e. Registrar's access agreement may require the third party to agree not to sell or redistribute the data except insofar as it has been incorporated by the third party into a value-added product or service that does not permit the extraction of a substantial portion of the bulk data from the value-added product or service for use by other parties.
f. Registrar may enable SLD holders who are individuals to elect not to have Personal Data concerning their registrations available for bulk access for marketing purposes based on Registrar's "Opt-Out" policy, and if Registrar has such a policy Registrar shall require the third party to abide by the terms of that Opt-Out policy; provided, however, that Registrar may not use such data subject to opt-out for marketing purposes in its own value-added product or service."
And our response should be : "We will take agressive steps to stop Sony. We will not buy its walkmans and stereos, we will not buy their computers, we will not buy their CD and DVD drives, we will not purchase music from their record labels, in short we will stop Sony dead in its tracks for trespassing upon our free choice to do what we want on the internet. We will firewall Sony at our wallets!"
The IDNO is FAR FAR away from ever being considered as a constituency by ICANN. It is not democratic, it has absolutely no cohesion, and it is not representative of the group it purports to be a constituency for.
I am not just a simple detractor. I was one of the founding members, betrayed by the ego of the founder who abused our trust to create a bully pulpit for his own views, rather than a really open place for domain owners to be represented.
If it doesn't fit his view of what is right for domain owners, it doesn't get included in the IDNO agenda. Plain and simple. Until this changes, the IDNO is not a legitimate effort, and I do not encourage people to join it.
A few of us fed up members have talked about a truly open IDNO, with an open sourced polling booth with auditing tools of the results, and with a structure that works for all the members, and doesn't let anyone one person's personality or agenda dominate. If you are interested in being a part of this, please email me.