Would you want Delta faucets to register Delta.* thereby locking out Delta airlines?
The intellectual property laws in each country resolve these sorts of disputes; only low grade morons and some layers think the issue can be addressed in the DNS claiming "consumer confusion"
"Let me ask you this... do you turn on your faucet and ask what time your flight is?" - John Berryhill, ESQ
The.sucks tld was proposed by somebody on NANOG and she set up authoritative nameservers for it. It's bee live for a couple of years.
Set up the domain and I'll pass along your nameservers and it'll work for at least the l33t. You have to promise not to tell ICANN though, they have utterly no sense of humor about this.
Lee put the pieces together. Brian Reid for his PhD thesis invented Scribe which begat SGML which begat HTML. Einar Stefferud invnted MIME and got Nathaniel Borenstein to implement it. Add the Mac Hypercard ideas to this, shake, bake, and you have a WWW cake.
Lee is dead wrong about this issue too. In any other fora I'd explain why but this is slashdot and I don't even need to read thw article let alone explain how.
Why is the USG in charge of all DNS? Because you agree to it. Your use of the USG funded root servers gaurentees you will forever be a slave to whatever ICANN and the USG think you should have for domain names. For exercise, follow the money; it always leads back to some organization that starts with a capital I; they're all part of what is cynicallly referred to as the I* MLM.
You can slag alterative roots all you want, but now that they've been running for 8 years, in daily use by a very large number of people, you have ansolutely no technical basis in fact to complain; I will debate this with you any place, any time for as long as you want on their technical merits, which the astute reader will note ICANN has never allowed to happen. "They're just evil, the IAB says so, keep paying is please and thank you". ICANN can not afford to have this happen as they lose their control, their funding, and their first class once-per-querter jaunts around the gloce to ignore te Internet community.
Remember, the first order of business of any organization is to survive and at the end of he day ICANN could give a shit about the internet, they care if they're still around in a year. Never confuse the two.
You are simply wrong about alternative roots and the FUD published by the IAB notwithstading, you are simply echoing silly comments about something you've never used.
"I don't like asparagus, I've never tried it but I know I don't like it".
Yeah, riiiiiight.
Look at the organizations that insist the ONE TRUE ROOT is all you should ever use: ISC, IANA, ICANN, IETF, IAB and so on and so forth. So to ask why the USG has control over his is truly idiotic. It's because you and your ilk insist agaist all reason that the USG plan must be followed and keep those cards, letters and checks coming, folks!
First of all the size of the internet when this all came to a head in 1996/7 wasn't THAT big, and the size had nothing to do with Jon's problems; his problem was IANA had no legal personality; it did not exist in any legal sense, so, Jon, and not "IANA" or USC/ISI would have been the target of any lawsuits. USC was too chickenshit to give him any legal support and Don Heath of ISOC promised him a solution to this whuch begat the ill fated IAHC whaich begat ICANN. Same thing, same people just more cluelessness and greater corruption.
As for NSI's influence over ICANN structure that is simply patently untrue; you can check the records going back as far as the IFWP meetings; NSI wanted a simple "every pays $5 or $10 membership to "newco" and gets to vote on a small baord". To suggest they had anything to do with the behemoth of an org chart that is the moden ICANN is utter nonsese.
If you have proof of this I'd love to see it, if not it should be presented as your opnion, not as a fact.
The NSF contracted 3 companies to run the RS, DS and IS fucntions of "the internic project" AT&T got DS, Government Solusions got RS, General Atomics tgot IS. GA failed miserably, and GS got RS. GS changed it's name to Network Solutions; remeber at the time it sold network software and the domreg stuff accounted for a truly miniscule portion of their revenue.
When Joshua Glasner (?) wrote that article in Wired it began the great domain goldrush, domregs went asymtotic; domreg latency went from 3 days to 11 weeks.
The NSF thought it was funding a service for US universities and R&D labs, that was their mandate. When it became clear it was now well beyond that it didn't feel like funding it any more and instruced the FNCAC to come up with a solution. The FNCAC recommended the NSF tell NSI to charge for domains, and a part of that fee was set aside fot the "intellectual infrasrtucture fund"; this was NSF staffer Don Mitchell's creation, an it's purpose was to "keep the IETF process pure" that is it was to be used as a source of grants for people/workshops etc, Don was concerned about the commercializatin of the IETF *process* not the IETF per se.
Somehow the US congress get wind of this and appropriated this and gave that $32M to the US Internet2 project, related to Educause who now run.edu and whose president was the first President of ICANN.
Nice little ecosystem they have there.
People from all over the world paid into that fund and a corrupt bunch of fucks in the US stole it.
Don Mitchell said he'd resign if his fund got raped. Don no longer works for the NSF. It's good to know there's at least one ethical guy in DC, or rather, used to be in DC.
When NSI deployed that sitefinder thing 17 other TLDS were already doing what they did.
There are specifics in the ICANN/NSI agreement that says they will not apply rules unequally across all TLDS.
So, ICANN's choices were to tell all TLDS to stop it, or allow them all to.
Since ICANN has no signed agreements with other TLDS (they told them to go fuck themselves when icann asked) they couldn't do the former and didn't feel like doing the latter. So, ICANN went and violated it's own agreement.
Of course ICANN has a history of violating it's agreements and it's own bylaws the changing them after the fact so this is not really news. And it's not like that actually have any oversigher or elected board members from the internet community. So what in hell do you expect?
Look at/. posts from around the time of ICANN's creatsion. "Seems dicey but it's worth a shot".
The US government, via ARPA and then DARPA paid Jon Postel to perform the "IANA function". Under this aegis, he, as a *part time* activity was IANA. The US government paid for this and the NSF funded cooperative agreement; from this the USG thinks it owns the legacy domain and IP space. That's their claimed source of authority.
How commerce got it is a bit more frightening. When it became clear the cooperative agreement was going to expire the USG scrambled and had a series of "inter-agency task force" meetings with the NSF, CIA, FBI, DOC - 13 government agencies in all. The way Don Mitchell (who was responsible for the cooperative agreement, and remember when it started this was for the American educational and research community, so this was all for universities and R&D, not mypetfluffykitten.com) explained it to me was the interagnecy meetings were a "turkey shoot" and "commerce claimed to have all the answers so we gave it to them".
IBM admitted to certain people, Vint Cerf and Dave Farber among them, that "we spent 2 years of our sixty million dollar a year DC lobbying budget to make sure there were no new TLDS". Golly, I wonder why DoC was so eager to obtain oversight over the DNS?
And you wonder why the new ICANN tlds are so lame and why they passed over, say.web that has been operational since 1996?
Two years ago ICANN asked for a budget increase to $3M. Last year they asked it be increased to $8M. Now they're asking for $15M to perform the same function Jon Postel used to do part time, an equivalent task to say, coordinating the UUCP maps (in their day) or netnews/usenet newsgroup names. I guess I'm just a stodgy old fart that believes given half a chance the Internet community can actually do this for itself. But we'll never know will we?
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help"; ICANN uber alles, and line up here folks for your chance to speak for 45 seconds into a mic in Kuala Lampur so you too can be ignored.
Now, as for the GAO/ICANN/DOC... beats me. You Americans have this mess to deal with. It's not like the rest of the world can write their congresscritters. In theory congress has oversight over DoC and those hearings have borne no fruit so far.
I see ICANN as a much larger problem than NSI. If ICANN had any teeth NSI wouldn't be a problem, but as long as the nice little ecosystem they've set up keeps the cash flowing, well, you've got what you've got, don't you?
I play with Mercedes parts sometimes aligned as running vehicles and old BMW's. They cost a years salary new but that was 20+ years ago you can pick them up for dirt cheap if your very very careful. They're an utter blast.
I used to write diagnostic software for computer companies in the early 80s. If the computer was together enough to run my software there was not that much that could be wrong with it and very little I could find.
Keep in mind typical diagnostic sofware back then would test for things like memory not really being there (bad address or data line problem) or interrupts stuck on or not happening when they should or can't talk to the disk drive.
None of this crap really helps is you have a bad scsi cable (ouch, that was a long drawn out pig) or a bad cable or the wrong cache controller chip (ouch) or a bad power supply or wrong speed RAM any of which will cause a system to beheva erratically and in a - and this is the bad part - non repeatable way.
Back then almost every part was $8000, these days the answer to "how do I fix a flakey computer" is "buy a new one".
> why not extend the control up to a little UI that is accessible from the driver's seat
Most people I know who are serious about this drive with a laptop on the passengers seat and are constantly tweaking things. When they get it right they burn a chip.
And what's with all the "one bad bolt and your dead" crap? You guys are a bunch of candy-assed wooses about this stuff!:-)
You need to go back to first principles and examine the legal framework of the internet. A lot of people refer to it as "the public internet" or some sort of global resource.
It is absolutely not.
What it is is a network of networks. We all agree, implicitly by our use of a specific protocol suite, to interchage packets. But each piece is privatly owned. I own mine, you own yours, and every bit in the middle is owned by somebody else.
None of it is publically owned or a public resource. It is a network of private networks.
There is no central control, no government licenses. ICANN/UN/ITU only has control for as much as you're willing to let them have it.
You'll notice that routing is and under the aegis of ICANN or any government. That's because there was a very sensible decision made when breaking up the AUP defined arpanet to pass this off to the community. Sadly, registration of names and number was neglected, and this left a critical choke point for power hungry lawyers to rush in to fill the vacuum that a lack of control leads to in situations like this.
So here we end up talking about which is worse, ICANN, the UN or the ITU while usenet, routing and a host of other coordinated activities hum merrily along freely (as in software and beer) with no need for "coordination" from governments of any kind.
We need a way to translate names to numbers, not a new world government.
This takes a clue, and a willingness to cooperate.
Look at how usenet is managed. Without the central point of capture DNS suffers from (the root zone) usenet cannot be controlled and it's administration is a boring technical fact, not an object of a power grab by bored Swiss political wonks.
> "When its controlled by the government, it will be lobbied into a capitalist tool of consumer exploitation. Profit at its best"
Wake up, it's already happened. At the end of one meeting 4 years ago the head trademark lawyer for IBM bragged they'd spend 2 years of their $30M a year Washington lobbying budget to make sure no new top level domains had been created to protect their intellectual property interests. Dave Farber was at that meeting (as was Vint "Darth" Cerf).
Roger Cochetti, then a VP of IBM, helped Ira Magazier pick the "interim" ICANN board in secret - when that was supposed to have been done by the internet community. Cochetti is now an NSI VP and figures prominently behind the scenes of ICANN.
The IFWP effort, started in Becky Burr's (US Department of Commerce who have oversight over ICANN) office at the suggestion of Kathy Kleinman and Mikki Barry and had 3 meetings worldwide - Reston Va, Geneva, Singapore to determins consensus points to use as guidelines to create bylaws and elect a board for the organization that would replace IANA. While this was going on Cochetti and Magaziner were running around in secret getting the likes of Ether Dysan and Mike Roberts on board. Mike Single handedly tanked the IFWP effort (notice he has Farbers ear) and became the first president of ICANN and his organization was the recipeint of the "intellectual infrastructure fund" - the domain tax fund that we all paid into back then, and and.edu. Nice little payoff. Esther was by her own admission clueless about the whole thing and did nothing. It's probably just a concidence she was in IBM commercials at the time.
ICANN was created to do one thing: make new tlds at a time when it seemed (at least to the US government) the US government had to step in to solve the war between the IAHC camp (who had just been shut down) and the alt root camp (who seemed to be making progress). Magaziner met with us all and created the "white paper" that was going to create 7 new tlds immediatly. Trademark lawyers and the EU freaked and when it was revised as the "green paper" it had punted to "ICANN will create a method to elect a board and a process to create new tlds". Instead they spent 3 years futzing around with the UDRP and other things trademaek laywrs wanted and didn't get round to new tlds till the fall of 2000 and it must have had all of ten minutes thought put into it and was intentinally lame as hell. To this day the new tlds that were picked are still viewed by ICANN as a "feasability study" to deteremine the effect of net stability when adding new tlds. Never mind in that period 100 new cctlds were added almost all of which were commmercial in nature.
Then you have the "Government Advisory Committe" the well named GAC of ICANN. Governments of the world get to meet in secret and "advise" ICANN.
Govrernments and the Tradmark Lobby have already coopted ICANN. It's foolish to worry that the ITU/UN will let this happen if they're in control, it's already happened.
So, don't move control of the internet to ineffective treaty organizations, move it to you
Yeah well, Intel did the right thing at the right time. They giggled at the patent for about 8 seconds then filed for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. As soon as they can get this they can sit back, wave it and say "bogus!" whenever anybody mentions this silly patent.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you want Delta faucets to register Delta.* thereby locking out Delta airlines?
The intellectual property laws in each country resolve these sorts of disputes; only low grade morons and some layers think the issue can be addressed in the DNS claiming "consumer confusion"
"Let me ask you this... do you turn on your faucet and ask what time your flight is?" - John Berryhill, ESQ
I fail to understand why TBLee doesn't grok this.
The .sucks tld was proposed by somebody on NANOG and she set up authoritative nameservers for it. It's bee live for a couple of years.
Set up the domain and I'll pass along your nameservers and it'll work for at least the l33t. You have to promise not to tell ICANN though, they have utterly no sense of humor about this.
Lee put the pieces together. Brian Reid for his PhD thesis invented Scribe which begat SGML which begat HTML. Einar Stefferud invnted MIME and got Nathaniel Borenstein to implement it. Add the Mac Hypercard ideas to this, shake, bake, and you have a WWW cake.
Lee is dead wrong about this issue too. In any other fora I'd explain why but this is slashdot and I don't even need to read thw article let alone explain how.
It's a real domain name and you can use any .arpa domain delegated to you like any other.
It's horrifically ugly and long, but hey, it's free.
Why is the USG in charge of all DNS? Because you agree to it. Your use of the USG funded root servers gaurentees you will forever be a slave to whatever ICANN and the USG think you should have for domain names. For exercise, follow the money; it always leads back to some organization that starts with a capital I; they're all part of what is cynicallly referred to as the I* MLM.
You can slag alterative roots all you want, but now that they've been running for 8 years, in daily use by a very large number of people, you have ansolutely no technical basis in fact to complain; I will debate this with you any place, any time for as long as you want on their technical merits, which the astute reader will note ICANN has never allowed to happen. "They're just evil, the IAB says so, keep paying is please and thank you". ICANN can not afford to have this happen as they lose their control, their funding, and their first class once-per-querter jaunts around the gloce to ignore te Internet community.
Remember, the first order of business of any organization is to survive and at the end of he day ICANN could give a shit about the internet, they care if they're still around in a year. Never confuse the two.
You are simply
wrong about alternative roots and the FUD published by the IAB notwithstading, you are simply echoing silly comments about something you've never used.
"I don't like asparagus, I've never tried it but I know I don't like it".
Yeah, riiiiiight.
Look at the organizations that insist the ONE TRUE ROOT is all you should ever use: ISC, IANA, ICANN, IETF, IAB and so on and so forth. So to ask why the USG has control over his is truly idiotic. It's because you and your ilk insist agaist all reason that the USG plan must be followed and keep those cards, letters and checks coming, folks!
Bah.
Beacuse I'm lazy and stupid. Of course the s should not be capitalized.
First of all the size of the internet when this all came to a head in 1996/7 wasn't THAT big, and the size had nothing to do with Jon's problems; his problem was IANA had no legal personality; it did not exist in any legal sense, so, Jon, and not "IANA" or USC/ISI would have been the target of any lawsuits. USC was too chickenshit to give him any legal support and Don Heath of ISOC promised him a solution to this whuch begat the ill fated IAHC whaich begat ICANN. Same thing, same people just more cluelessness and greater corruption.
As for NSI's influence over ICANN structure that is simply patently untrue; you can check the records going back as far as the IFWP meetings; NSI wanted a simple "every pays $5 or $10 membership to "newco" and gets to vote on a small baord". To suggest they had anything to do with the behemoth of an org chart that is the moden ICANN is utter nonsese.
If you have proof of this I'd love to see it, if not it should be presented as your opnion, not as a fact.
The NSF contracted 3 companies to run the RS, DS and IS fucntions of "the internic project" AT&T got DS, Government Solusions got RS, General Atomics tgot IS. GA failed miserably, and GS got RS. GS changed it's name to Network Solutions; remeber at the time it sold network software and the domreg stuff accounted for a truly miniscule portion of their revenue.
.edu and whose president was the first President of ICANN.
When Joshua Glasner (?) wrote that article in Wired it began the great domain goldrush, domregs went asymtotic; domreg latency went from 3 days to 11 weeks.
The NSF thought it was funding a service for US universities and R&D labs, that was their mandate. When it became clear it was now well beyond that it didn't feel like funding it any more and instruced the FNCAC to come up with a solution. The FNCAC recommended the NSF tell NSI to charge for domains, and a part of that fee was set aside fot the "intellectual infrasrtucture fund"; this was NSF staffer Don Mitchell's creation, an it's purpose was to "keep the IETF process pure" that is it was to be used as a source of grants for people/workshops etc, Don was concerned about the commercializatin of the IETF *process* not the IETF per se.
Somehow the US congress get wind of this and appropriated this and gave that $32M to the US Internet2 project, related to Educause who now run
Nice little ecosystem they have there.
People from all over the world paid into that fund and a corrupt bunch of fucks in the US stole it.
Don Mitchell said he'd resign if his fund got raped. Don no longer works for the NSF. It's good to know there's at least one ethical guy in DC, or rather, used to be in DC.
When NSI deployed that sitefinder thing 17 other TLDS were already doing what they did.
/. posts from around the time of ICANN's creatsion. "Seems dicey but it's worth a shot".
There are specifics in the ICANN/NSI agreement that says they will not apply rules unequally across all TLDS.
So, ICANN's choices were to tell all TLDS to stop it, or allow them all to.
Since ICANN has no signed agreements with other TLDS (they told them to go fuck themselves when icann asked) they couldn't do the former and didn't feel like doing the latter. So, ICANN went and violated it's own agreement.
Of course ICANN has a history of violating it's agreements and it's own bylaws the changing them after the fact so this is not really news. And it's not like that actually have any oversigher or elected board members from the internet community. So what in hell do you expect?
Look at
Always trust your gut feelings.
The US government, via ARPA and then DARPA paid Jon Postel to perform the "IANA function". Under this aegis, he, as a *part time* activity was IANA. The US government paid for this and the NSF funded cooperative agreement; from this the USG thinks it owns the legacy domain and IP space. That's their claimed source of authority.
.web that has been operational since 1996?
How commerce got it is a bit more frightening. When it became clear the cooperative agreement was going to expire the USG scrambled and had a series of "inter-agency task force" meetings with the NSF, CIA, FBI, DOC - 13 government agencies in all. The way Don Mitchell (who was responsible for the cooperative agreement, and remember when it started this was for the American educational and research community, so this was all for universities and R&D, not mypetfluffykitten.com) explained it to me was the interagnecy meetings were a "turkey shoot" and "commerce claimed to have all the answers so we gave it to them".
IBM admitted to certain people, Vint Cerf and Dave Farber among them, that "we spent 2 years of our sixty million dollar a year DC lobbying budget to make sure there were no new TLDS". Golly, I wonder why DoC was so eager to obtain oversight over the DNS?
And you wonder why the new ICANN tlds are so lame and why they passed over, say
Two years ago ICANN asked for a budget increase to $3M. Last year they asked it be increased to $8M. Now they're asking for $15M to perform the same function Jon Postel used to do part time, an equivalent task to say, coordinating the UUCP maps (in their day) or netnews/usenet newsgroup names. I guess I'm just a stodgy old fart that believes given half a chance the Internet community can actually do this for itself. But we'll never know will we?
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help"; ICANN uber alles, and line up here folks for your chance to speak for 45 seconds into a mic in Kuala Lampur so you too can be ignored.
Now, as for the GAO/ICANN/DOC... beats me. You Americans have this mess to deal with. It's not like the rest of the world can write their congresscritters. In theory congress has oversight over DoC and those hearings have borne no fruit so far.
I see ICANN as a much larger problem than NSI. If ICANN had any teeth NSI wouldn't be a problem, but as long as the nice little ecosystem they've set up keeps the cash flowing, well, you've got what you've got, don't you?
I havn't formatted my main machine since 1994.
p ine (for whiney users)
First few installs are:
djbdns
postfix
apache
mysql
majordomo
and then half a dozen of my own content management tools.
Where do you guys get the time to play games and listen to music? Holy...
I have dnscache (2 of them actually), tinydns and bind on the same machine.
Bind will be outta here by year end. It's nothing but trouble.
Ewwwwwww. As for Vixie calling it "the best software" he should try DJBDNS.
Bind is utter crap. As reliable as Windows-ME with all the easy of use of UNIX System V.
They even squished the bugs. Slick stuff.
I play with Mercedes parts sometimes aligned as running vehicles and old BMW's. They cost a years salary new but that was 20+ years ago you can pick them up for dirt cheap if your very very careful. They're an utter blast.
I used to write diagnostic software for computer companies in the early 80s. If the computer was together enough to run my software there was not that much that could be wrong with it and very little I could find.
Keep in mind typical diagnostic sofware back then would test for things like memory not really being there (bad address or data line problem) or interrupts stuck on or not happening when they should or can't talk to the disk drive.
None of this crap really helps is you have a bad scsi cable (ouch, that was a long drawn out pig) or a bad cable or the wrong cache controller chip (ouch) or a bad power supply or wrong speed RAM any of which will cause a system to beheva erratically and in a - and this is the bad part - non repeatable way.
Back then almost every part was $8000, these days the answer to "how do I fix a flakey computer" is "buy a new one".
> I ran just about every one of them in Toronto in the 80s and 90s
That was you Peter? I thank you, and my weird friends thank you. My brother thanks you, and my brothers weird friends thank you.
The wife and kids say hi; say hello to the gang there for me. Pick up some garbonzo beans on the way home.
> why not extend the control up to a little UI that is accessible from the driver's seat
:-)
Most people I know who are serious about this drive with a laptop on the passengers seat and are constantly tweaking things. When they get it right they burn a chip.
And what's with all the "one bad bolt and your dead" crap? You guys are a bunch of candy-assed wooses about this stuff!
You need to go back to first principles and examine the legal framework of the internet. A lot of people refer to it as "the public internet" or some sort of global resource.
It is absolutely not.
What it is is a network of networks. We all agree, implicitly by our use of a specific protocol suite, to interchage packets. But each piece is privatly owned. I own mine, you own yours, and every bit in the middle is owned by somebody else.
None of it is publically owned or a public resource. It is a network of private networks.
There is no central control, no government licenses. ICANN/UN/ITU only has control for as much as you're willing to let them have it.
You'll notice that routing is and under the aegis of ICANN or any government. That's because there was a very sensible decision made when breaking up the AUP defined arpanet to pass this off to the community. Sadly, registration of names and number was neglected, and this left a critical choke point for power hungry lawyers to rush in to fill the vacuum that a lack of control leads to in situations like this.
So here we end up talking about which is worse, ICANN, the UN or the ITU while usenet, routing and a host of other coordinated activities hum merrily along freely (as in software and beer) with no need for "coordination" from governments of any kind.
Question everything, then follow the money.
> "Not very well acquainted with the darker side of human nature, are you? "
He reads slashdot doesn't he?
We need a way to translate names to numbers, not a new world government.
This takes a clue, and a willingness to cooperate.
Look at how usenet is managed. Without the central point of capture DNS suffers from (the root zone) usenet cannot be controlled and it's administration is a boring technical fact, not an object of a power grab by bored Swiss political wonks.
> "When its controlled by the government, it will be lobbied into a capitalist tool of consumer exploitation. Profit at its best"
.edu. Nice little payoff. Esther was by her own admission clueless about the whole thing and did nothing. It's probably just a concidence she was in IBM commercials at the time.
Wake up, it's already happened. At the end of one meeting 4 years ago the head trademark lawyer for IBM bragged they'd spend 2 years of their $30M a year Washington lobbying budget to make sure no new top level domains had been created to protect their intellectual property interests. Dave Farber was at that meeting (as was Vint "Darth" Cerf).
Roger Cochetti, then a VP of IBM, helped Ira Magazier pick the "interim" ICANN board in secret - when that was supposed to have been done by the internet community. Cochetti is now an NSI VP and figures prominently behind the scenes of ICANN.
The IFWP effort, started in Becky Burr's (US Department of Commerce who have oversight over ICANN) office at the suggestion of Kathy Kleinman and Mikki Barry and had 3 meetings worldwide - Reston Va, Geneva, Singapore to determins consensus points to use as guidelines to create bylaws and elect a board for the organization that would replace IANA. While this was going on Cochetti and Magaziner were running around in secret getting the likes of Ether Dysan and Mike Roberts on board. Mike Single handedly tanked the IFWP effort (notice he has Farbers ear) and became the first president of ICANN and his organization was the recipeint of the "intellectual infrastructure fund" - the domain tax fund that we all paid into back then, and and
(" Esther Dyson says that she was approached by Roger Cochetti of IBM and Ira Magaziner in Aspen, Colorado and asked if she would be interested in joining the ICANN Board. The IFWP wrap up was finally completely derailed by ICANN's refusal to participate in the meeting."
ICANN was created to do one thing: make new tlds at a time when it seemed (at least to the US government) the US government had to step in to solve the war between the IAHC camp (who had just been shut down) and the alt root camp (who seemed to be making progress). Magaziner met with us all and created the "white paper" that was going to create 7 new tlds immediatly. Trademark lawyers and the EU freaked and when it was revised as the "green paper" it had punted to "ICANN will create a method to elect a board and a process to create new tlds". Instead they spent 3 years futzing around with the UDRP and other things trademaek laywrs wanted and didn't get round to new tlds till the fall of 2000 and it must have had all of ten minutes thought put into it and was intentinally lame as hell. To this day the new tlds that were picked are still viewed by ICANN as a "feasability study" to deteremine the effect of net stability when adding new tlds. Never mind in that period 100 new cctlds were added almost all of which were commmercial in nature.
Then you have the "Government Advisory Committe" the well named GAC of ICANN. Governments of the world get to meet in secret and "advise" ICANN.
Govrernments and the Tradmark Lobby have already coopted ICANN. It's foolish to worry that the ITU/UN will let this happen if they're in control, it's already happened.
So, don't move control of the internet to ineffective treaty organizations, move it to you
Yeah well, Intel did the right thing at the right time. They giggled at the patent for about 8 seconds then filed for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. As soon as they can get this they can sit back, wave it and say "bogus!" whenever anybody mentions this silly patent.
This should be non-news by, say, tuesday.
IANAL. IAAP.
THe hot tip for UUCP in that era was the Telebit Trailblazer 19.2Kbps modems. Never mind they were like $7000 a pair.
14.4 came much later.