No, don't bother joining the IDNO. The IDNO is run by one man, Joop Teernstra, who puts his own agenda ahead of all others, and does not really care to represent domain owners, but himself and his like minded friends. He silences those who disagrees with his agenda, and runs the entire organization with a heavy hand. See the IDNO list archives for more information.
The IDNO is NOT worth the time.
Anyone interested in creating a real, and OPEN, domain owners constituency, feel free to email me.
In reality members will not get to elect board members, or have any other rights commonly associated with membership. Those rights belong only to the special interest constituencies in the DNSO (Domain Name Supporting Organization, donminated by Trademark and Corporate Interests) ASO (Address Supporting Organization - ARIN, RIPE, APNIC) and PSO (Protocol Supporting Organization - IETF). The membership only gets to vote forward a small group of people who then get to elect a board members.
I just registered ICANNT.net and am thinking of posting information like this there. Should I take the time?
Sir, You are absolutely wrong. Your comment shows that you clearly do not understand how the NSI Guardian system works, by any stretch. Indeed, if the email address you send the template to NSI from is the same as the one in your contact handle, and you have Mail-From security, then NSI will process that form. Sure, you get an Ack Message, but READ THE MESSAGE before replying to it. By that time the change has already been processed. Why they attach an ACK at the top of a completion message I'll never understand, because all it serves to do is give a false sense of security to people like you who do not take the time to learn how the system really works.
What is sad is that it is people with that mentality who are the most likely to get victimized. Just like several large ISPs did over the holidays.
Yes, I am starting a domain registration service. However it is NOT online now, and it will be at least 60 days until it is. However, I have been involved in Domain-policy forums for over 4 years now, and indeed founded an organization for domain name holders, and am in the process of starting a second organization that will raise defense funds to help domain name holders defend their rights.
So I suggest you yourself look at the facts before you start criticizing people without the facts. Your own messages shows you did not take the time to even READ the substance of the article. If you would like an email address for someone at NSI who works with the guardian system to verify that my description of the process is accurage, feel free to email me.
What makes you think NSI would have anything to do with the new top level domains? That is one thing there is a clear consensus on, there would be new registries running the new top level domains.
And you have no absolute need or right to have your name in every top level domain. If you choose to do that, then that is your perogative, but by no means do you HAVE to. You choose to.
That's what new Top Level Domains are about. CHOICE. Introducing real competition into the domain name business, and helping to alleviate the real and actual shortages of available domains in the existing infrastructure.
The only obstacle remaining are those, which seem to include you, with anticompetitive attitudes.
I certainly hope etoy does continue their suit against eToys. If they can afford to, it would serve to put corporate America on notice that there are consequences to their legal bullying tactics, and perhaps make them stop and think before acting.
The intellectual property groups, like the RIAA, MPAA, attorneys for companies like AT&T, are working right now to stop new Top Level Domains, like.web,.biz,.box, etc, because they want rules in place that let them suspend someone's domain name rights without having to go meet the legal standards that a court filing would force them to. I am on the Workgroup C group of the Domain Name Supporting Organization of ICANN, and this workgroup is charged with coming up with a proposal or proposals for ICANN to consider in creating new Top Level Domains. The Intellectual Properties advocates have been fighting VERY hard to block any results, despite the fact that the two largest and most contentious camps in this process have been able to find common ground to move forward with 6-10 new top level domains.
Corporate America needs to be taught a lesson that they can't assert rights they don't have, or try and abuse the rights they have, to trample the rights of others. A win by etoy over eToys would go a long way to putting them on notice.
Not the issue, the customer pays expecting the service provider to stick to it's end of the agreement. If that customer pays his bills on time and does not break the agreement, the service provider has to hold up it's end. If it does not, there is a problem.
The customer has NO right to expect the ISP to defend their rights for them, especially when such an action could reasonably be seen as putting an end to the EXISTENCE of the ISP's business.
Most ISPs have a Terms of Service that spells out that the ISP has the right to act and remove or suspend a site as a result of likely harm to the ISPs business or other clients. This is a reasonable condition. The ISP can't be expected to defend your rights at the expense of losing their livelihood.
It's not about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a right that protects your from the GOVERNMENT, not a right that forces a business to be the vehicle for your expression. If an ISP elects not to host controversial content, they are perfectly within their rights, and that's not censorship.
In this case, the ISP took precautionary action, got legal advice and did some research. His research and legal advice resulted in his returning the site to working order, after determining that no real harm or threat existed. This was the SMART thing to do. He should be praised for doing that.
I'd love to see you guys when the FBI comes knocking, and how quickly you cave in and give them what they want. Sure, it's nice to pretend you know how you will respond and react, but until they are there, you have no way of knowing what you will do. Do you have the money it takes to defend yourself? And if you do, is it likely to end up making you lose your business or livelihood spending all that money defending SOMEONE ELSE'S rights????
If you read what the ISP operator said, what changed his mind was getting some sound legal advice, probably gratis, from people who are QUALIFIED TO GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS.
When was the last time? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on 10:07 PM -- Tuesday November 30 1999 PDT (#253) [Raising hand] I did, a couple of years ago. Yes, I'm posting as an AC, so you may not believe it, but, that doesn't change the fact. For me, it's been a couple of years; for others, no doubt more recently, knowing how the FBI works. I'll bet though that they won't have the courage to post about it (even as an AC) for a couple of years, so I will. BTW, what's been said recently about not knowing what it's like unless you've had "the knock" yourself is quite true. Reading others saying that brings back the feelings myself just like I would imagine "the look in their eyes" would, if this were offine.
Since no one seems to want to moderate this up, I'll repost it here and make sure it gets the benefit of at least my one little point. It's easy to send those digital bits out there, but when its your butt on the line, your very livelihood, not to mention your family's, it's a VASTLY different thing.
If anyone wants to mirror this, please email me. I've had to point the domain to an unused IP at the moment, absolutely couldn't handle the load any longer (especially for a freely hosted user).
Of course, it would of helped had the author (who had hours of advance notice apparently) had emailed with I or my associate that agreed to host his site letting us know he was going to be on slashdot, then arrangements could of been made much earlier. He posted a notice on his site that it was happening, but failed to notify either one of us. (Can you tell I'm not real happy with him right now?).
So if anyone has the resources to mirror this, contact me and I'll arrange it with the author, or contact him directly and arrange it. Either way works.
Australia has always been on the edge of the censorship issue, and it is really no surprise to seem the placing the same draconian limits on the Internet that they have been known to do in traditional media.
Makes one appreciate our bill of rights here in the US.
It's been a long time, but I seem to remember a story being told in one of my Information Systems courses that went along the lines of:
An group of engineers built a powerful supercomputer, meant to be totally independent of human control and interaction. One that would not be dependent on outside factors, and that could reprogram and enhance itself. One day one of these engineers decided to have a little fun, so he logged in and asked the computer a question, "Is there a God?"
The computer examined whether there were any portions of its power or supply chain that were under human control any longer, concluded there wasn't, and spoke in a voice of thunder, "Now there is."
Check out this Fact Sheet http://www.dnspolicy.com/fe atures/99/09/28/137222.shtml. NSI has basically had to already concede this point under the agreement. Now anyone with $10,000 can get the full database, and NSI has to place the data in escrow also, in case the function is ever transfered to a third party.
Actually, the mandatory arbitration you reference is worse than the current NSI situation. It leaves the domain name holder with little to no recourse should the WIPO arbitration process (WIPO is HEAVILY slanted towards trademark holders) rule in favor of the trademark holder. The domain name holder than must bear the burden and cost of filing a suit, and the simple fact is that once a case has gone to arbitration, even if it is non-binding, courts don't want to touch it without a VERY pressing reason.
You say the Hollywood types are rallying against it, the simple fact is they rallied this, and pressed the board to vote for it. Their issue is rather that it doesn't go far enough. I invite you to listen/watch the Real Audio/Video archives of the ICANN Santiago Meeting to see evidence of this.
Rather the Hollywood interests are trying to get seperate representation for themselves, rather than being in with the "Intellectual Property" group. They are pressing for rules that will enable you to lose your domain name because you use infringing CONTENT, not related to the domain name. That is their suggestions, and yes, the archives provide evidence of this.
The fact is that the NSI policy gives you more rights than the ICANN one does. And this is the travesty.
Bottom line, don't take mine or J. Reynolds word for it. Go check out the archives and you will see it for yourself. It's all very well documented.
This board has voted to extend its own term, without elections, and they have voted on a sweeping set of policies that directly affect domain name holders, despite the fact that they deny representation to individual domain name owners, and indeed have refused to consider their application for recognition.
They have adopted policies that give trademark and other intellectual property holders more rights than they have in ANY other media in the world. In EVERY other media, the trademark/copyright holder must bear the burden, and expense, of filing a case and proving it, and indeed the penalty of sanctions for filing a case without merit.
The ICANN Policy will eliminate this burden for them, thus giving them more than the law would give them, at the expense of you and I, and every individual domain name owner.
This is all going to become a moot point now, though. ICANN has developed a new Uniform Dispute Policy that very soon all new domain registrants and all renewing domain registrants will be obligated to abide by as a condition of domain registration. It makes NSI's dispute policy look like a friendly thing.
The trademark and copyright interests are lobbying ICANN very heavily (including big money Hollywood interests) for stronger protection, even beyond what the law currently gives them. They can't get Congress, or even the courts, to back them up, so they are lobbying hard within ICANN, and ICANN is listening, not wanting to have to fight big corporate interests who are the ones actually paying ICANN's bills right now (see Follow the Money).
Soon individuals and small businesses with find themselves in the position of having to do what Clue Computing did, be the plaintiff in a case suing to KEEP your domain name, since under these new policies Trademark holders won't be obligated to take you to court and prove infringement or dilution. You will have to prove you aren't infringing, thus shifting the burden of proof as well as the expense.(Clue Computing sued NSI to prevent implementation of the Dispute Policy)
Not a very promising outlook.
I've been advocating some sort of grass roots campaign to rally against these actions by ICANN, but some people just see that ICANN is fighting NSI and think that is a justification for them trampling our rights.
-- William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services Email: william@dso.net Fax:(209) 671-7934 Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
"The document clearly indicates that the advertising was for the whois and whois results pages, and that they seem to be targeting Internet Service Providers as potential advertisers."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, you must of skimmed right over that, rather than not read it at all.
-- William X. Walsh william@dso.net / william@dnspolicy.com DSo Internet Services
(IDNO MEMBER) Support the Cyberspace Association, the constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners http://www.idno.org
My Original Report on this subject includes comments from ISPs on why this is a concern for them, and on my own take on this issue.
Later tonight there will be a letter and petition for ISPs to sign on the website. The letter will be directed to the Dept of Justice and the Dept of Commerce asking them to look into this and stop NSI from acting in this fashion, and the petition will be an open petition to all registries and registrars calling for Domain Registration sites to be safe havens from this type of activity, and will spell out why.
ISPs are the the single source more responsible for funnelling domain registrations to NSI, and if another registrar caters to them, by providing a safe and easy way for ISPs to funnel their registrations through them, they will use their influence with their customers to show their dissatisfaction.
-- William X. Walsh william@dso.net / william@dnspolicy.com DSo Internet Services
(IDNO MEMBER) Support the Cyberspace Association, the constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners http://www.idno.org
Re:I work for a large national ISP. Here's the dea
on
NSI to be RBL'ed?
·
· Score: 1
Your response to this forgets one important thing. Your customers PAY you to provide them with email, and if that means the ability to receive advertisements, that is what is includes. If you need more hard drive space to provide the email service your customers have contracted you with, and this doesn't fit your budget, then you have poor planning with regard to your pricing structures.
Not to mention that Vixie sits on the Board of an opt-in Email Advertising company, Whitehat.com, a subsidiary of the direct marketing service bureau American Computer Group, one of the largest opt-in email advertising services on the internet.
I think that Vixie is wearing hypocricy very well. The action against Real was just testing the water to go after companies like Netsol. Now they are flexing their muscles again, to see just how far they can push their power.
I hope they do Blackhole NSI, and that NSI sues them, joined by any other company that has been affected by the overly broard definitions that MAPS has been using of late.
No "constitutional" type protection of free speech rights exist in Australia. Their system has always been subject to this type of regulation. The same rules have always applied to all their broadcasting.
Really its no surprise, no matter how pathetic it is to see it actually happen in a supposedly free nation.
Slashdot Mirror
The IDNO is NOT worth the time.
Anyone interested in creating a real, and OPEN, domain owners constituency, feel free to email me.
In reality members will not get to elect board members, or have any other rights commonly associated with membership. Those rights belong only to the special interest constituencies in the DNSO (Domain Name Supporting Organization, donminated by Trademark and Corporate Interests) ASO (Address Supporting Organization - ARIN, RIPE, APNIC) and PSO (Protocol Supporting Organization - IETF). The membership only gets to vote forward a small group of people who then get to elect a board members.
I just registered ICANNT.net and am thinking of posting information like this there. Should I take the time?
Blizzard sent a letter this week demanding the owner of blizzard.net turn over the domain to them or face legal action.
What is sad is that it is people with that mentality who are the most likely to get victimized. Just like several large ISPs did over the holidays.
Yes, I am starting a domain registration service. However it is NOT online now, and it will be at least 60 days until it is. However, I have been involved in Domain-policy forums for over 4 years now, and indeed founded an organization for domain name holders, and am in the process of starting a second organization that will raise defense funds to help domain name holders defend their rights.
So I suggest you yourself look at the facts before you start criticizing people without the facts. Your own messages shows you did not take the time to even READ the substance of the article. If you would like an email address for someone at NSI who works with the guardian system to verify that my description of the process is accurage, feel free to email me.
William X. Walsh
DNSPolicy.net
And you have no absolute need or right to have your name in every top level domain. If you choose to do that, then that is your perogative, but by no means do you HAVE to. You choose to.
That's what new Top Level Domains are about. CHOICE. Introducing real competition into the domain name business, and helping to alleviate the real and actual shortages of available domains in the existing infrastructure.
The only obstacle remaining are those, which seem to include you, with anticompetitive attitudes.
--
William X. Walsh
william@dso.net
The intellectual property groups, like the RIAA, MPAA, attorneys for companies like AT&T, are working right now to stop new Top Level Domains, like .web, .biz, .box, etc, because they want rules in place that let them suspend someone's domain name rights without having to go meet the legal standards that a court filing would force them to. I am on the Workgroup C group of the Domain Name Supporting Organization of ICANN, and this workgroup is charged with coming up with a proposal or proposals for ICANN to consider in creating new Top Level Domains. The Intellectual Properties advocates have been fighting VERY hard to block any results, despite the fact that the two largest and most contentious camps in this process have been able to find common ground to move forward with 6-10 new top level domains.
Corporate America needs to be taught a lesson that they can't assert rights they don't have, or try and abuse the rights they have, to trample the rights of others. A win by etoy over eToys would go a long way to putting them on notice.
--
William X. Walsh
william@dso.net
The customer has NO right to expect the ISP to defend their rights for them, especially when such an action could reasonably be seen as putting an end to the EXISTENCE of the ISP's business.
Most ISPs have a Terms of Service that spells out that the ISP has the right to act and remove or suspend a site as a result of likely harm to the ISPs business or other clients. This is a reasonable condition. The ISP can't be expected to defend your rights at the expense of losing their livelihood.
It's not about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a right that protects your from the GOVERNMENT, not a right that forces a business to be the vehicle for your expression. If an ISP elects not to host controversial content, they are perfectly within their rights, and that's not censorship.
In this case, the ISP took precautionary action, got legal advice and did some research. His research and legal advice resulted in his returning the site to working order, after determining that no real harm or threat existed. This was the SMART thing to do. He should be praised for doing that.
I'd love to see you guys when the FBI comes knocking, and how quickly you cave in and give them what they want. Sure, it's nice to pretend you know how you will respond and react, but until they are there, you have no way of knowing what you will do. Do you have the money it takes to defend yourself? And if you do, is it likely to end up making you lose your business or livelihood spending all that money defending SOMEONE ELSE'S rights????
Get real!
--
William X. Walsh
william@dso.net
Wrong!
If you read what the ISP operator said, what changed his mind was getting some sound legal advice, probably gratis, from people who are QUALIFIED TO GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS.
--
William X. Walsh
william@dso.net
Since no one seems to want to moderate this up, I'll repost it here and make sure it gets the benefit of at least my one little point. It's easy to send those digital bits out there, but when its your butt on the line, your very livelihood, not to mention your family's, it's a VASTLY different thing.
--
William X. Walsh
william@dso.net
Forgive the gross errors above.
--
William X. Walsh
william@dso.net
Of course, it would of helped had the author (who had hours of advance notice apparently) had emailed with I or my associate that agreed to host his site letting us know he was going to be on slashdot, then arrangements could of been made much earlier. He posted a notice on his site that it was happening, but failed to notify either one of us. (Can you tell I'm not real happy with him right now?).
So if anyone has the resources to mirror this, contact me and I'll arrange it with the author, or contact him directly and arrange it. Either way works.
--
William X. Walsh
william@dso.net
Australia has always been on the edge of the censorship issue, and it is really no surprise to seem the placing the same draconian limits on the Internet that they have been known to do in traditional media.
Makes one appreciate our bill of rights here in the US.
--
William X. Walsh - Email: william@dso.net
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
--
William X. Walsh
Email: william@dso.net Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
You say the Hollywood types are rallying against it, the simple fact is they rallied this, and pressed the board to vote for it. Their issue is rather that it doesn't go far enough. I invite you to listen/watch the Real Audio/Video archives of the ICANN Santiago Meeting to see evidence of this.
Rather the Hollywood interests are trying to get seperate representation for themselves, rather than being in with the "Intellectual Property" group. They are pressing for rules that will enable you to lose your domain name because you use infringing CONTENT, not related to the domain name. That is their suggestions, and yes, the archives provide evidence of this.
The fact is that the NSI policy gives you more rights than the ICANN one does. And this is the travesty.
Bottom line, don't take mine or J. Reynolds word for it. Go check out the archives and you will see it for yourself. It's all very well documented.
This board has voted to extend its own term, without elections, and they have voted on a sweeping set of policies that directly affect domain name holders, despite the fact that they deny representation to individual domain name owners, and indeed have refused to consider their application for recognition.
They have adopted policies that give trademark and other intellectual property holders more rights than they have in ANY other media in the world. In EVERY other media, the trademark/copyright holder must bear the burden, and expense, of filing a case and proving it, and indeed the penalty of sanctions for filing a case without merit.
The ICANN Policy will eliminate this burden for them, thus giving them more than the law would give them, at the expense of you and I, and every individual domain name owner.
--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
Member of the Individual Domain Name Owners Association
The trademark and copyright interests are lobbying ICANN very heavily (including big money Hollywood interests) for stronger protection, even beyond what the law currently gives them. They can't get Congress, or even the courts, to back them up, so they are lobbying hard within ICANN, and ICANN is listening, not wanting to have to fight big corporate interests who are the ones actually paying ICANN's bills right now (see Follow the Money).
Soon individuals and small businesses with find themselves in the position of having to do what Clue Computing did, be the plaintiff in a case suing to KEEP your domain name, since under these new policies Trademark holders won't be obligated to take you to court and prove infringement or dilution. You will have to prove you aren't infringing, thus shifting the burden of proof as well as the expense.(Clue Computing sued NSI to prevent implementation of the Dispute Policy)
Not a very promising outlook.
I've been advocating some sort of grass roots campaign to rally against these actions by ICANN, but some people just see that ICANN is fighting NSI and think that is a justification for them trampling our rights.
--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
--
William X. Walsh
william@dso.net / william@dnspolicy.com
DSo Internet Services
(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org
Later tonight there will be a letter and petition for ISPs to sign on the website. The letter will be directed to the Dept of Justice and the Dept of Commerce asking them to look into this and stop NSI from acting in this fashion, and the petition will be an open petition to all registries and registrars calling for Domain Registration sites to be safe havens from this type of activity, and will spell out why.
ISPs are the the single source more responsible for funnelling domain registrations to NSI, and if another registrar caters to them, by providing a safe and easy way for ISPs to funnel their registrations through them, they will use their influence with their customers to show their dissatisfaction.
--
William X. Walsh
william@dso.net / william@dnspolicy.com
DSo Internet Services
(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org
Your response to this forgets one important thing. Your customers PAY you to provide them with email, and if that means the ability to receive advertisements, that is what is includes. If you need more hard drive space to provide the email service your customers have contracted you with, and this doesn't fit your budget, then you have poor planning with regard to your pricing structures.
I think that Vixie is wearing hypocricy very well. The action against Real was just testing the water to go after companies like Netsol. Now they are flexing their muscles again, to see just how far they can push their power.
I hope they do Blackhole NSI, and that NSI sues them, joined by any other company that has been affected by the overly broard definitions that MAPS has been using of late.
No "constitutional" type protection of free speech rights exist in Australia. Their system has always been subject to this type of regulation. The same rules have always applied to all their broadcasting.
Really its no surprise, no matter how pathetic it is to see it actually happen in a supposedly free nation.