The IGF's official Web site is notoriously useless. A few members of the IGF community have begun a grassroots effort (under the banner of the Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition) to produce a community Web site at igf-online.net to redress the problem.
The new site already hosts a number of useful resources including a community blog, wiki, calendar, chat and needs feeds, most of which were selected for their capacity to support multilingual usage. It also features a specially-designed menu running along the top of most pages of the site, that links in external Web sites including the Secretariat's official Web site and that of the Rio hosts.
By registering (or logging in with your existing OpenID) you can begin posting on the community blog, adding events to the calendar, and entering information on the wiki. Hosting of other content will be accommodated on request. Volunteers are needed to help with translating the site's content into other languages, designing a complementary set of themes, and spreading the word.
This is a spurious argument. Many of the root servers are already maintained by and paid for by organisations from outside the US. See http://www.root-servers.org/ for a list of them. It is one of ICANN's great bugbears that it has no direct control over these independent root server operators.
I was severely flamed in Slashdot for saying the exact same thing to a journalist eighteen months ago. How the wheels turn! Next time, maybe don't be so quick in scorching the messenger.
I wouldn't take it out on the lawyers, it is their job to act for whoever needs legal representation. And T3 are certainly in need of that, if they have any hope of surviving the summary judgment application I'm putting in next week.:-) But seriously, I think to have competent lawyers on both sides who are able to make a precedent out of this can only be good for the anti-spam cause (assuming that the precedent comes out on our side, which I'm confident it will).
I'm on the committee of WAIA, and I'm also the lawyer for the spammee in this case. Compliance with the WAIA spam policy will only be required for people who want to peer their content over WAIA's network or to receive transit from WAIA. If they want to spam or support spammers, they can't peer with the rest of the local industry or take WAIA's services. Is that so unfair?
Slashdot Mirror
The IGF's official Web site is notoriously useless. A few members of the IGF community have begun a grassroots effort (under the banner of the Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition) to produce a community Web site at igf-online.net to redress the problem. The new site already hosts a number of useful resources including a community blog, wiki, calendar, chat and needs feeds, most of which were selected for their capacity to support multilingual usage. It also features a specially-designed menu running along the top of most pages of the site, that links in external Web sites including the Secretariat's official Web site and that of the Rio hosts. By registering (or logging in with your existing OpenID) you can begin posting on the community blog, adding events to the calendar, and entering information on the wiki. Hosting of other content will be accommodated on request. Volunteers are needed to help with translating the site's content into other languages, designing a complementary set of themes, and spreading the word.
This is a spurious argument. Many of the root servers are already maintained by and paid for by organisations from outside the US. See http://www.root-servers.org/ for a list of them. It is one of ICANN's great bugbears that it has no direct control over these independent root server operators.
I was severely flamed in Slashdot for saying the exact same thing to a journalist eighteen months ago. How the wheels turn! Next time, maybe don't be so quick in scorching the messenger.
I wouldn't take it out on the lawyers, it is their job to act for whoever needs legal representation. And T3 are certainly in need of that, if they have any hope of surviving the summary judgment application I'm putting in next week. :-) But seriously, I think to have competent lawyers on both sides who are able to make a precedent out of this can only be good for the anti-spam cause (assuming that the precedent comes out on our side, which I'm confident it will).
I'm on the committee of WAIA, and I'm also the lawyer for the spammee in this case. Compliance with the WAIA spam policy will only be required for people who want to peer their content over WAIA's network or to receive transit from WAIA. If they want to spam or support spammers, they can't peer with the rest of the local industry or take WAIA's services. Is that so unfair?