- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with $100, 000-plus price tag
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 28, 2008

June 28, 2008

Sotiris and all, This is one time amongst a host of others that I did not, I actually agree with Vint. The Internet is a public resource or is supposed to be. But than again aren't governments part of the Public as well? My answer is yes, but only part! Yet governments do, can, and will, directly, indirectly, or by legal statute, regulate the Internet. How far this will go in certain countries is a matter of good guessing and significant political intrigue. Oh my, what drama! And of course all in the name of good for the internet and good for the users, and introduced by various social engineering crackpots of multiple politically diverse bents. How lovely! sotiris(a)hermesnetwork.com wrote: > > In the course of time we will have good new TLDs that will serve > > particular needs. I, for one, look forward to the possibilities offered > > by a .bank TLD. These TLDS will add value to the namespace, and they will > > be readily found by those using common search engine applications. And > > yes, we will still have some remaining vanity TLDs outside of the root > > that almost no one will find that will continue to offer little to the > > broader Internet community. > > That is a rosy picture indeed. Personally, I don't see the need for a > .bank TLD as the existing namespace has not hindered online banking > developments in any way, at least not in any way that I can see... Perhaps > you could explain to us all *how* a .bank TLD will add value to the > namespace, except of course to the registry/registrars who will peddle the > TLD? > > When Jon Postel stated his opposition to the expansion of the TLD > namespace, it was because he actually had a clear understanding of what he > was about. I think you need to take a look at an interesting article you > may not have run across yet entitled "Vint Cerf Wonders If We Need To > Nationalize the Internet" see: > http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/25/vint-cerf-wonders-if-we-need-to-nation… > > Surely Atlas must be shrugging these days... > > Regards, > > Sotiris Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ICANN Board Approves Censorship Policy for DomainNames Based on Morality: 2 Board Members Speak Against It]
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 28, 2008

June 28, 2008

Vittorio and all, I must admit that Vittorio has a good point. The ALAC hasn't formulated any consensus that can be definitely demonstrated without objection to anything what so ever. Neither have any of the ALS'es to my knowledge. But this I believe is mostly due to the poor structure of the ALAC and the ALS'es and the lack of mechanisms that delineate what positions are, or are not, broadly shared by it's participants. Hiring a consulting group did little and may have disserved the ALAC and the ALS'es in it's weak/meager attempt to determine "Consensus". This amongst other reasons is why I believe that proposals however formal or otherwise should be voted upon by each and every participant that wishes to do so, so that there is no doubt where the members/participants actually do stand on any issue it has or may be considering. Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Evan Leibovitch ha scritto: > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> 1) How comes that a statement from a constituency which is supposed to > >> represent the views of the entire world is only representing one point > >> of view, but not the other? > >> > > Because the global consensus was overwhelmingly with one side. > > > > (Why are you incapable of grasping that every region of the world might > > agree that the morality/order sections of the resolution are a bad idea?) > > Excuse me? > Can you please point me to the places where the various RALOs discussed > the issue and come to consensus to recommend against public order > considerations? > At least for Europe, I haven't seen any kind of discussion to this regard. > > > In fact, it is notable that, despite the considerable diversity within > > At-Large, it was capable of gaining consensus on this position. Perhaps > > that should indicate to you that condemnation for these clauses is > > widespread; this is absolutely not a view from just one region. > > > >> 2) How comes that the ALAC only stated the negative aspects of this > >> decision, but did not bother to mention the positive sides and the > >> satisfaction of many At Large participants? > >> > > > > Perhaps you did not take the time to listen to Wendy's actual comments; > > the very first thing she said was "the at-large, as registrants and as > > users of domain names, supports the introduction of new gTLDs". > > > > But her comments indicated that the good parts -- which we all want -- > > are seriously poisoned by the bad. Any long-term view of the situation > > must acknowledge that the short-term benefit of new gTLDs will be > > seriously impeded by the morality and order sections. > > This is your opinion. > My opinion is that the sections on morality and public order will > actually make the introduction of new gTLDs viable and stable. > I am sure that my opinion is shared by several other ALSes. > Why wasn't this opinion reflected in the ALAC statement? I'm not saying > that the ALAC must adopt my opinion, but certainly, by stating that the > At Large supports a position which is far from being consensual, it is > stating the fake. > > >> 3) How were the community and the ALSes consulted on that statement? > >> > > NCUC expressed this position emphatically yet was ignored in the GNSO > > conclusion. > > > > Of course, as is overwhelmingly the case, ALAC was put in a responsive > > position and did not have enough time to do a complete canvass of ALSs. > > So it was the ALAC -- a mainly-elected global group intended to express > > the views of the grassroots -- which did what it could, together with > > the elected RALO chairs and secretariats who were able to confirm the > > community agreements with the ALAC position. > > These recommendations have been out for one year or so, and there was no > time to ask for ALS / public comment on an ALAC position?? > I think that the ALAC should better come up with a better excuse... > Ciao, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ICANN Board Approves Censorship Policy for DomainNames Based on Morality: 2 Board Members Speak Against It]
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 27, 2008

June 27, 2008

Michele and all, Well, the subjectiveness of any given string will be the decision of the GNSO council however it will be constituted after the GNSO review decision is finalized. Than the Bod will make a final decision as to if ICANN agrees to the proposal and the string associated with same. At that point, DOC/NTIA with the input of the GAC will either approve or disapprove. The test case will again be the reconsideration of .XXX., as ICANN is looking to trying to avoid being sued by the original group that put forth that proposal pending the called upon independent review, which I believe but do not know, ICANN's legal folks feel is not going to be favorable towards ICANN or DOC/NTIA and needs to buy time. As the .XXX proposal cost an estimated $4m to prepare and present, and that if ICANN looses a potential suit from the original group that put forth that proposal and damages are assessed, those damages could easily exceed 5 to 12 times the actual cost of the original .XXX proposal and each individual Bod members and GNSO council members at the time of reversing it's original decision, could be held financially responsible for all or part of any potential damage award. Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: > > I also > >know that there are strings that spell a benign word in one language, > >and an indecent word in another, and that public morality means very > >different things in different countries. > > Exactly. It's far too subjective. > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection > http://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Money influences? Telecom Immunity Flip-Floppers Got More Telecom Money
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 27, 2008

June 27, 2008

All, A real USER issue. Kudos to Maplight and Larry Lessig! A nice analysis by Maplight.org indicating that those Democratic representatives who changed their vote on telecom immunity between March and June received on average http://www.maplight.org/FISA_June08 40% more in contributions from telecom interests than those Democrats who held firm. Maplight asks, "Why did these ninety-four House members have a change of heart? Their constituents deserve answers." Across both parties, representatives who voted for immunity in June had received almost twice a much telecom money as those who voted against. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/telecom-amnesty.html Wired's coverage includes a quote from Larry Lessig, who is on the Maplight board: "Money corrupts the process of reasoning. [Lawmakers] get a sixth sense of how what they do might affect how they raise money. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

[Fwd: [governance] dot.ASIA Front-Running scheme claimed]
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 27, 2008

June 27, 2008

Yehuda, Done. Dot.Asia has been a moderately too a very poorly manage registry sense it's very conception. It remains so. It comes as no surprise that others have finally taken note and interest in recognizing this more broadly recognized fact. It is rather amazing to me that ICANN has not yet redeligated this Registry to more a more appropriate party or parties. But this is partly due to ICANN itself having glaring and significant management and leadership deficiencies that have been shown time and time again. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [governance] dot.ASIA Front-Running scheme claimed Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:53:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Yehuda Katz" <yehudakatz(a)mailinator.com> Reply-To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org,"Yehuda Katz" <yehudakatz(a)mailinator.com> To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org All, Please (cross-post) run this on the ALAC mail-list. It looks like there is a 'Front-Running' scheme going on with the .ASIA Auctions http://www.dotasia-complot.org/ http://www.dotasia-complot.org/cat30.html The Guy (Thomas Rucker) is doing his homework, its worthy of a ALAC probe, that may flush out the bushes. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] VeriSign Registry Service Proposal
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 27, 2008

June 27, 2008

Bashar and all, For myself only, I was of the same opinion as Bashar. So I would like his questioned answered. What I think Verisign is wanting to do is a 2nd level registry to test our the idea of some unknown sort with very particular restrictions. Bashar Al-Abdulhadi wrote: > Chuck, > > Can you please explain what does two-character 2nd-level domains on .com > and .net ? i thought all two letters/characters were available for > registration and already been allocated to their respective owners? > > Best Regards, > > Bashar Al-Abdulhadi > > CEO, KuwaitNET.net > > Gomes, Chuck wrote, On 6/26/2008 10:54 AM: > > > It is for single and two-character 2nd-level domain names for .com and > > .net. > > > > Chuck > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:04 PM > >> To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org; Gomes, Chuck; > >> na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov; > >> ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov > >> Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign Registry Service Proposal > >> > >> Danny, Chuck and all, > >> > >> Thank you Danny for making us all aware of this. > >> > >> Chuck, thank you for making us as aware as you possibly > >> could regarding this proposal. Is this a TLD or a Domain > >> Name? I believe you meant TLD. In any event, our INEGroup > >> members will be very interested I am sure to review this > >> proposal very closely and shall relay their remarks to me > >> which I shall share as broadly as possible to ICANN staff, > >> Bod and other constituency groups within the GNSO. > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >>> From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > >>> Sent: Jun 25, 2008 6:33 PM > >>> To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org > >>> Subject: [ga] VeriSign Registry Service Proposal > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> CHUCK GOMES: In the interest of transparency and > >>>>> > >> disclosing my interests, I would like to inform you that > >> VeriSign has submitted a registry service proposal for the > >> allocation of single and two-character domain names. There > >> aren't very many two-character domain names available, by the > >> way, one. > >> > >>> So, unfortunately, until it's posted it is not appropriate > >>> > >> for me to discuss the details. I can tell you that I believe > >> that we incorporated a lot of the issues that were > >> recommended in the comments with regard to ICANN's paper and > >> that we think it has excellent benefit for the community. > >> > >>> And in fairness to ICANN staff so that we submitted it late > >>> > >> leading up to these meeting and at a very difficult time for > >> them to respond -- although we have had some interaction, so > >> I don't want this to come across as a criticism to ICANN > >> staff that it hasn't been posted. > >> > >>> If per chance -- and I don't know whether this will happen > >>> > >> or not -- it is posted this week, we will be happy to talk > >> about it and receive comments from people. > >> > >>> https://par.icann.org/files/paris/Paris-GNSO-22JUN08am.txt > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders > >> strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > >> Abraham Lincoln > >> > >> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with > >> what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > >> > >> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the > >> burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L > >> multiplied by > >> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > >> United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > >> =============================================================== > >> Updated 1/26/04 > >> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > >> div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > >> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > >> jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 > >> > >> > > > > > > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

user_s summit 2009 and icann committment to be user oriented
by Annette Muehlberg June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

All, We finally made it and will be able to organize a userŽs summit in Mexico, March 2009! I think it would be great if we could make sure, that the userŽs summit will not be something seperated from the ICANN Meeting. Instead, ICANN should show its committment to strengthen its bottom up structure and be user oriented in all its policies. For the public discussion my proposal is, to approach all icann bodies - such as the board, various committees, the advisory councils, the ICANN supporting organisations and their constituencies as well as icann staff. We should ask them - throughout the whole icann meetings whenever they give a public presentations - to explain what the respective issues/ policy proposals mean for the internet end-user. I think implementing such a procedure would be a great step forward. Best greetings and many thanks to all, who have been working very hard to make the summit possible. Annette

7 6

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] VeriSign Registry Service Proposal
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

Danny, Chuck and all, Thank you Danny for making us all aware of this. Chuck, thank you for making us as aware as you possibly could regarding this proposal. Is this a TLD or a Domain Name? I believe you meant TLD. In any event, our INEGroup members will be very interested I am sure to review this proposal very closely and shall relay their remarks to me which I shall share as broadly as possible to ICANN staff, Bod and other constituency groups within the GNSO. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Jun 25, 2008 6:33 PM >To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: [ga] VeriSign Registry Service Proposal > > >>>CHUCK GOMES: In the interest of transparency and disclosing my interests, I would like to inform you that VeriSign has submitted a registry service proposal for the allocation of single and two-character domain names. There aren't very many two-character domain names available, by the way, one. > So, unfortunately, until it's posted it is not appropriate for me to discuss the details. I can tell you that I believe that we incorporated a lot of the issues that were recommended in the comments with regard to ICANN's paper and that we think it has excellent benefit for the community. > And in fairness to ICANN staff so that we submitted it late leading up to these meeting and at a very difficult time for them to respond -- although we have had some interaction, so I don't want this to come across as a criticism to ICANN staff that it hasn't been posted. > If per chance -- and I don't know whether this will happen or not -- it is posted this week, we will be happy to talk about it and receive comments from people. > >https://par.icann.org/files/paris/Paris-GNSO-22JUN08am.txt > > > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Front Running motion passed
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

Bret and all, Wonderful! < sarcasm intended > So they just punted, eh? I suppose in the the Domain Name tasting non solution is yet to be implemented, the registrars and registries wanted to use Front Running as their best method of addressing the problem until of if the Domain Name tasting non solution is fully implemented across all registrars and registries which will not likely be in my lifetime. So essentially this whole process was another dog and pony show. Outstanding! < sarcasm intended > So I suppose it's time to get boned up again with those Restraint of Trade statutes, eh? -----Original Message----- >From: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> >Sent: Jun 25, 2008 9:48 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Front Running motion passed > >Dear ALAC members, > >FYI, below is a message received this morning from the GNSO Staff. I >was the designated person from the ALAC to work on this committee. If >and when the GNSO reinstates the drafting committee, let's review the >ALAC position and appointment again as well. For the time being, we >can consider the drafting committee work I was assigned to do for the >ALAC closed. > > Bret > >Begin forwarded message: > >From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >Date: June 25, 2008 7:18:15 AM PDT >To: "mail=gnso-fr-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-fr-dt(a)icann.org> >Subject: [gnso-fr-dt] Front Running motion passed by the GNSO Council >25 June 2008 > > >Dear All, > >The GNSO Council at its Open Meeting in Paris, today Wednesday, 25 >June 2008, unanimously passed the following motion on Front Running: > >Motion proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes > >Whereas, > >On 17 March 2008, the ICANN board referred a question about Front >Running to the GNSO council, and > >On 8 May 2008 created a drafting team to define a pre-issues research >effort and asked the staff to prepare a response to the questions, and > >On 29 May 2008 ICANN staff prepared a response >http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/front-running-staff-response-to-gnso-c… >to the question asked during the 8 May Council meeting, and whereas >this report recommended that more information was needed to proceed, and > >Information is needed to determine whether the changes recommended for >the AGP will affect front running, > >Resolved: > >The Council puts the drafting team effort on hold until such time as >current research efforts are completed. > > >Let me know if you have any questions. > >Thank you. >Kind regards, > >Glen > > > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org > > > >-- >Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") >smime.p7s is a digital signature >http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html >------------------------------------- > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Fw: [ PRIVACY Forum ] Priorities Amuck: ICANN Poised to Trigger Naming Quagmire
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 25, 2008

June 25, 2008

All, I and our members fully agree with Laurens review here. It's clear that pending the GNSO review completion that some Constituency groups, namely the IPC and the BC are interested in gaining influence before users, the NCUC, and other thus far non represented groups in the GNSO of ICANN gain influence in the decision making process of ICANN. What worries me is as Lauren points out, that security concerns for users of all types and at all levels will be facing increasing attempted criminal scams, far more additional UCE/Spam ect., and that LEA's will be facing a far greater challenge accordingly. Perhaps this is what ICANN intends vis a vi "dilution is the solution to polution" attitude? -----Forwarded Message----- >From: privacy(a)vortex.com >Sent: Jun 25, 2008 10:01 AM >To: privacy-list(a)vortex.com >Subject: [ PRIVACY Forum ] Priorities Amuck: ICANN Poised to Trigger Naming Quagmire > > > > Priorities Amuck: ICANN Poised to Trigger Naming Quagmire > > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000393.html > > >Greetings. With all of the high-priority issues we face today >regarding the Internet --like assuring network neutrality, or even >getting decent Internet services to the 80% of the world's >population that doesn't have them now -- it's distressing to see >that ICANN is poised tomorrow to potentially trigger a confusing and >likely highly litigious, wasteful, and disruptive land grab in new >global top-level domain names (gTLDs) -- >( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7468855.stm ). > >While ICANN's theoretical rationale for loosening up the domain name >environment is not utterly without merit, the likely real world >implications of a relative flood of new top-level domain names >should be pretty obvious to even a casual observer of the Net over >recent years. > >Everybody and his brother will want a top-level name. ICANN will be >deluged with applications. Clever crooks will find ways to game the >application and auction processes in league with shady registries. >Name confusion and phishing will rise to new heights. Full >employment for lawyers is guaranteed, as trademark disputes -- and >other legal disputes filed against ICANN's decisions regarding >particular names, balloon to capture as much oxygen as possible. >The dot-ex-ex-ex controversy and related censorship concerns >associated with the horrible idea of a sex-centric TLD will rise yet >again from the grave. > >And through it all, ICANN will be spinning its wheels with a >complicated and expensive process while so many more important >Internet issues are rotting essentially ignored on the sidelines >( http://icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm ). > >ICANN needs to get over their "domain names as issue #1" fetish once >and for all. Some minor relaxation of the gTLD structure is >probably warranted, but not the waste of time, money, and other >resources that their current plan seems sure to trigger -- and we >could definitely live without the consumer confusion and risks that >will arise from this mess as well. > >Enough is enough. It's time for ICANN to get its priorities straight. > >--Lauren-- >Lauren Weinstein >lauren(a)vortex.com or lauren(a)pfir.org >Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 >http://www.pfir.org/lauren >Co-Founder, PFIR > - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org >Co-Founder, NNSquad > - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org >Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com >Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy >Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com > >_______________________________________________ >privacy mailing list >http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0