http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-06/name-calling-on-the-internet-is-ser... -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
Thanks for forwarding this article, but I wonder at Crawford's arguments. The first focus of it appears to be on internationalized domains which, to my knowledge, is not the major complaint. In fact, in practice many countries already have their own local subnets in other character sets and simply want to place them in the general DNS. The idea that the U.S. Gov't wants to and could stop IDNs is unrealistic and not what I've seen in the debates so far, it's a misleading opener. As for "a group of people and companies (led by the Association of National Advertisers) that isn't happy with the results of the ICANN process is taking a second bite at the apple", I ask, what was the first bite? It seems to me that trademarks have been trampled for years in DNS and consumers end up paying the price with fraud, counterfeit products, and abuse. Crawford wants us to consider "the 5 billion people who aren't yet online." I consider them potential victims of system which will easily overwhelm them without proper protections. I also take issue with her assertion that "ICANN operates by consensus" when ALACs advice is ignored. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Joly MacFie" <joly@punkcast.com> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:38 PM To: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Susan Crawford Op-ed on new gTLDs
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-06/name-calling-on-the-internet-is-ser...
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 9 Jan 2012, at 10:37, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com wrote:
The idea that the U.S. Gov't wants to and could stop IDNs is unrealistic and not what I've seen in the debates so far, it's a misleading opener.
Well if they succeeded in derailing the program, it would have derailed the IDN program as well. They did not make and excpetions, or even recognition, of other countries and their needs. Typical for the US, perhaps, but significant nonetheless.
I also take issue with her assertion that "ICANN operates by consensus" when ALACs advice is ignored.
First the consensus is rough consensus as defined by the procedures. If anyone expects that nothing will happen without their approval, they are misunderstanding what ICANN Consensus means. And yes, I wish she had use a modifier on consensus so that people would not be led into the expectation of Full Consensus. And second I object to the great myth that is being created that ICANN ALWAYS ignored ALAC advice. Like any absolute, it only takes a single counterexample to make the sentence appear to be untrue. And I think a lot can be said that the JAS/ASP program is a huge counter-example. Without ALAC and others pushing on it, nothing would be happening on this front. And while 14 applications supported is definitely short of what we would all like to see, even this would never have happened without ALAC's advice and perseverance. I am also sure that other examples can be found. I know for a fact that the GNSO has listened to the liaison advice that it gets from people like Alan and Brett. Now if you want to say Registrars never ever listened to ALAC and ICANN never listens to anyone on the subject of Registrar behavior or to ALAC on the issues on enforcement, you may be on safer ground, I don't know as I have not followed the ALAC-Regsitrar-ICANN interaction on this particular topic. I think we need to be much more specific in our use of absolute statements like: they never listen to us. avri
On 9 Jan 2012, at 17:00, Avri Doria wrote:
On 9 Jan 2012, at 10:37, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com wrote:
The idea that the U.S. Gov't wants to and could stop IDNs is unrealistic and not what I've seen in the debates so far, it's a misleading opener.
Well if they succeeded in derailing the program, it would have derailed the IDN program as well. They did not make and excpetions, or even recognition, of other countries and their needs. Typical for the US, perhaps, but significant nonetheless.
I also take issue with her assertion that "ICANN operates by consensus" when ALACs advice is ignored.
First the consensus is rough consensus as defined by the procedures. If anyone expects that nothing will happen without their approval, they are misunderstanding what ICANN Consensus means. And yes, I wish she had use a modifier on consensus so that people would not be led into the expectation of Full Consensus.
And second I object to the great myth that is being created that ICANN ALWAYS ignored ALAC advice. Like any absolute, it only takes a single counterexample to make the sentence appear to be untrue. And I think a lot can be said that the JAS/ASP program is a huge counter-example. Without ALAC and others pushing on it, nothing would be happening on this front. And while 14 applications supported is definitely short of what we would all like to see, even this would never have happened without ALAC's advice and perseverance. I am also sure that other examples can be found. I know for a fact that the GNSO has listened to the liaison advice that it gets from people like Alan and Brett.
Now if you want to say Registrars never ever listened to ALAC and ICANN never listens to anyone on the subject of Registrar behavior or to ALAC on the issues on enforcement, you may be on safer ground, I don't know as I have not followed the ALAC-Regsitrar-ICANN interaction on this particular topic.
Avri - do you honestly think I'm on this mailing list for my own personal pleasure? :) There might be a gap between registrars and ALAC, but that's a two way street. Regards Michele
I think we need to be much more specific in our use of absolute statements like: they never listen to us.
avri
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.biz http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 9 Jan 2012, at 12:13, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
On 9 Jan 2012, at 17:00, Avri Doria wrote:
…
Now if you want to say Registrars never ever listened to ALAC and ICANN never listens to anyone on the subject of Registrar behavior or to ALAC on the issues on enforcement, you may be on safer ground, I don't know as I have not followed the ALAC-Regsitrar-ICANN interaction on this particular topic.
Avri - do you honestly think I'm on this mailing list for my own personal pleasure? :)
Far be it for me to discuss what you do or do not do for your personal pleasure. As I said, I have not really followed the Registrar-ALAC interaction, so could not really comment. My point was that specific statements about specific areas of ICANN-ALAC should be the focus and that hyperbole (something I engage in at times, I must admit) rarely holds up to inspection or counter-example.
There might be a gap between registrars and ALAC, but that's a two way street.
Perhaps it would help to produce some of the counterexamples where the Registrars have indeed taken the advice of ALAC to heart and changed something because of it. cheers, avri
It's not either/or - either they do what we advise or we are being ignored. Loads of examples where ALAC was not "ignored" - the advice might not have been implemented, but ALAC advice has most often been discussed (since I've been around from 2005) and many times brought up issues that would have been ignored or remained unknown. Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
On 9 Jan 2012, at 10:37, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com wrote:
The idea that the U.S. Gov't wants to and could stop IDNs is unrealistic and not what I've seen in the debates so far, it's a misleading opener.
Well if they succeeded in derailing the program, it would have derailed the IDN program as well. They did not make and excpetions, or even recognition, of other countries and their needs. Typical for the US, perhaps, but significant nonetheless.
I also take issue with her assertion that "ICANN operates by consensus" when ALACs advice is ignored.
First the consensus is rough consensus as defined by the procedures. If anyone expects that nothing will happen without their approval, they are misunderstanding what ICANN Consensus means. And yes, I wish she had use a modifier on consensus so that people would not be led into the expectation of Full Consensus.
And second I object to the great myth that is being created that ICANN ALWAYS ignored ALAC advice. Like any absolute, it only takes a single counterexample to make the sentence appear to be untrue. And I think a lot can be said that the JAS/ASP program is a huge counter-example. Without ALAC and others pushing on it, nothing would be happening on this front. And while 14 applications supported is definitely short of what we would all like to see, even this would never have happened without ALAC's advice and perseverance. I am also sure that other examples can be found. I know for a fact that the GNSO has listened to the liaison advice that it gets from people like Alan and Brett.
Now if you want to say Registrars never ever listened to ALAC and ICANN never listens to anyone on the subject of Registrar behavior or to ALAC on the issues on enforcement, you may be on safer ground, I don't know as I have not followed the ALAC-Regsitrar-ICANN interaction on this particular topic.
I think we need to be much more specific in our use of absolute statements like: they never listen to us.
avri
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Hmmm. I never said never. The ignore referred to this specific case of At-Large advice on the new gTLD program which is the subject of the article. As we have discussed already Kurt omitted reference to ALAC in his testimony about consensus, likely because there was documented dissent. Further claims of consensus as restated in Crawford's piece are subject to question. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Avri Doria" <avri@ella.com> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 12:00 PM To: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Susan Crawford Op-ed on new gTLDs
On 9 Jan 2012, at 10:37, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com wrote:
The idea that the U.S. Gov't wants to and could stop IDNs is unrealistic and not what I've seen in the debates so far, it's a misleading opener.
Well if they succeeded in derailing the program, it would have derailed the IDN program as well. They did not make and excpetions, or even recognition, of other countries and their needs. Typical for the US, perhaps, but significant nonetheless.
I also take issue with her assertion that "ICANN operates by consensus" when ALACs advice is ignored.
First the consensus is rough consensus as defined by the procedures. If anyone expects that nothing will happen without their approval, they are misunderstanding what ICANN Consensus means. And yes, I wish she had use a modifier on consensus so that people would not be led into the expectation of Full Consensus.
And second I object to the great myth that is being created that ICANN ALWAYS ignored ALAC advice. Like any absolute, it only takes a single counterexample to make the sentence appear to be untrue. And I think a lot can be said that the JAS/ASP program is a huge counter-example. Without ALAC and others pushing on it, nothing would be happening on this front. And while 14 applications supported is definitely short of what we would all like to see, even this would never have happened without ALAC's advice and perseverance. I am also sure that other examples can be found. I know for a fact that the GNSO has listened to the liaison advice that it gets from people like Alan and Brett.
Now if you want to say Registrars never ever listened to ALAC and ICANN never listens to anyone on the subject of Registrar behavior or to ALAC on the issues on enforcement, you may be on safer ground, I don't know as I have not followed the ALAC-Regsitrar-ICANN interaction on this particular topic.
I think we need to be much more specific in our use of absolute statements like: they never listen to us.
avri
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Garth Bruen at Knujon.com -
Jacqueline Morris -
Joly MacFie -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight