I should point out that that last sentence was written by troublemaker Veni Markovski. What I was planning to say was - check it out online at http://igf2006.info./ I *will* read your comments
The premise of this post is totally wrong, but there's plenty of reason why you should check out the IGF.
The IGF has been designed to be about all the issues that we as Internet users actually care about - spam, security, privacy etc - and to *avoid* the ongoing arguments about the US government and ICANN.
I know because I'm sat here in Athens. There's some great discussion going on about freedom of expression, Google and China, bloggers being arrested, new solutions to spam. It is all being webcast and whatever you think, you are all going to read what I write, and I will not read your responses!
The organisation that has created the most fuss about this agreement - the Coalition for ICANN Transparency (CFIT) has said that the new agreement does not answer its three main concerns and has promised to fight it "with every option we have".
Those options are quite plentiful. It is suing ICANN in San Jose and has discovery until mid-March, it has got the EU investigating the agreement, and it has a 1,000 or so documents that it got through the Freedom of Information act that it is looking into as we speak.
CFIT also reckons that the agreement will serve as a recruiting poster for it - with people signing up to make sure deals like this don't get agreed.
You can read more on my blog post. I wrote The Register article btw.
I would argue that the fact you didn't read beyond the first page yet felt confident enough to comment on the story, and to the story's author, virtually defines your own personal lack of credibility. Not that I don't think uninformed comment is pointless - it is often useful for giving wider oversight. Sadly, not in this case.
No, remember that ICANN is still effectively owned by the DoC. ICANN would never have made such a policy shift without tacit approval - we are talking about governments owning parts of the Internet here. ICANN used the US government's own wording to justify the change, and the whole process came about because of the US government irritation with not being able to shift ownership of Iraq's domain.
Since this would not have happened without US government action and approval, it is really the US government and not ICANN that is responsible. Sure, ICANN made the most of it, but that's not the same.
You can read the IANA report here. You should also note the miraculously good timing of the letter in terms of US administration control.
I tried to contact Mr Stanekzai by phone and email after the takeover and failed. No one had heard a thing from him from the first day of the bombing of Kabul. And yet the US on the ground had found him and got him to agree to hand over the whole Afghan internet domain. Incredible. US representatives were also unfortunately unable to tell me how I might be able to contact Mr Stanekzai. For a man that ran an entire's country's Internet, you would think Mr Stanekzai would also be able to access his email.
I actually prefer the results the MSN gives at the moment. That's doesn't mean it's any better - all it means is that no one has started targeting it like they do Google or Yahoo.
MSN is a search engine virgin at the moment. If it became important, then comes the real challenge - trying to keep one step ahead of efforts to bend the results. That is where the real search engine battle lies. And, let's be honest, Google is the master of algorithms.
I reckon this is an elaborate recruitment scheme by British cinemas. How many kids will take the awful job and wages if they get to play with night-vision googles?
Whether they use them to grab people recording the film or to perve over couples groping each other is another matter entirely.
"Kudos to Microsoft on this one" - what are you talking about? This has nothing to do with kudos, it is a business decision pure and simple. The delay in a large number of software products has meant that Microsoft's existing support times are leaving large gaps for millions of customers to walk through.
But, bigger than that, its Software Assurance programme - which it has stated it intends to make an increasing proportion of its revenue from - looked set to collapse unless it extended support because hundreds of thousands of them are up for renewal in July and many customers have been complaining they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and have received absolutely nothing in return (read the IT press for details).
The support extension is because of product delays. It is nothing but a business decision to protect its market, especially when open-source alternatives are becoming more popular.
Do you honestly think Microsoft would make this decision just because it reckons it would be nicer and fairer?
Slashdot Mirror
I should point out that that last sentence was written by troublemaker Veni Markovski. What I was planning to say was - check it out online at http://igf2006.info./ I *will* read your comments
The premise of this post is totally wrong, but there's plenty of reason why you should check out the IGF. The IGF has been designed to be about all the issues that we as Internet users actually care about - spam, security, privacy etc - and to *avoid* the ongoing arguments about the US government and ICANN. I know because I'm sat here in Athens. There's some great discussion going on about freedom of expression, Google and China, bloggers being arrested, new solutions to spam. It is all being webcast and whatever you think, you are all going to read what I write, and I will not read your responses!
The organisation that has created the most fuss about this agreement - the Coalition for ICANN Transparency (CFIT) has said that the new agreement does not answer its three main concerns and has promised to fight it "with every option we have".
Those options are quite plentiful. It is suing ICANN in San Jose and has discovery until mid-March, it has got the EU investigating the agreement, and it has a 1,000 or so documents that it got through the Freedom of Information act that it is looking into as we speak.
CFIT also reckons that the agreement will serve as a recruiting poster for it - with people signing up to make sure deals like this don't get agreed.
You can read more on my blog post. I wrote The Register article btw.
Kieren
I would argue that the fact you didn't read beyond the first page yet felt confident enough to comment on the story, and to the story's author, virtually defines your own personal lack of credibility. Not that I don't think uninformed comment is pointless - it is often useful for giving wider oversight. Sadly, not in this case.
Kieren
Oops. I actually meant this letter: http://www.iana.org/cctld/af/razeeq-letter-13aug02 .pdf.
Although I think the first letter is suspicious enough in itself.
Kieren
No, remember that ICANN is still effectively owned by the DoC. ICANN would never have made such a policy shift without tacit approval - we are talking about governments owning parts of the Internet here. ICANN used the US government's own wording to justify the change, and the whole process came about because of the US government irritation with not being able to shift ownership of Iraq's domain.
Since this would not have happened without US government action and approval, it is really the US government and not ICANN that is responsible. Sure, ICANN made the most of it, but that's not the same.
Kieren
I wrote the story in question. You clearly didn't look very hard. Here is a link to a pdf of the letter "signed" by Mohammed Stanekzai - http://www.iana.org/cctld/af/stanekzai-to-iana-10a ug02.pdf.
You can read the IANA report here. You should also note the miraculously good timing of the letter in terms of US administration control.
I tried to contact Mr Stanekzai by phone and email after the takeover and failed. No one had heard a thing from him from the first day of the bombing of Kabul. And yet the US on the ground had found him and got him to agree to hand over the whole Afghan internet domain. Incredible. US representatives were also unfortunately unable to tell me how I might be able to contact Mr Stanekzai. For a man that ran an entire's country's Internet, you would think Mr Stanekzai would also be able to access his email.
Kieren
I actually prefer the results the MSN gives at the moment. That's doesn't mean it's any better - all it means is that no one has started targeting it like they do Google or Yahoo.
MSN is a search engine virgin at the moment. If it became important, then comes the real challenge - trying to keep one step ahead of efforts to bend the results. That is where the real search engine battle lies. And, let's be honest, Google is the master of algorithms.
Mind you, I'd love to see the court case. "I have prior art, your Honour...
"Look see how my finger moves - that finger has worked since 1975."
Or has Microsoft in fact patented time?
Night-vision goggles aren't going to help much
I reckon this is an elaborate recruitment scheme by British cinemas. How many kids will take the awful job and wages if they get to play with night-vision googles?
Whether they use them to grab people recording the film or to perve over couples groping each other is another matter entirely.
"Kudos to Microsoft on this one" - what are you talking about? This has nothing to do with kudos, it is a business decision pure and simple. The delay in a large number of software products has meant that Microsoft's existing support times are leaving large gaps for millions of customers to walk through.
But, bigger than that, its Software Assurance programme - which it has stated it intends to make an increasing proportion of its revenue from - looked set to collapse unless it extended support because hundreds of thousands of them are up for renewal in July and many customers have been complaining they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and have received absolutely nothing in return (read the IT press for details).
The support extension is because of product delays. It is nothing but a business decision to protect its market, especially when open-source alternatives are becoming more popular.
Do you honestly think Microsoft would make this decision just because it reckons it would be nicer and fairer?
No kudos at all. Simple business.