Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

ICANN At-Large Study 114

Posted by michael from the gerrymandering-and-poll-taxes dept.
perp writes: "ICANN has published the draft of its At-Large recommendations. It's long, but it looks like they're trying to raise the bar for at-large membership by requiring at-large members to a) pay a fee and b) be a registered domain holder. Their comments about all the non-committed at-large members who "enrolled only because it was easy" gave me a laugh; it took three days of trying for me to register." The draft also proposes slashing At-Large board members from 9 to 6. But there are some good points in there about organizational issues.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ICANN At-Large Study More

ICANN At-Large Study

Comments Filter:

  • Re-evaluation of domain names (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mcelli ( 518034 ) on Thursday August 30, 2001 @01:53PM (#2235576)
    I think that the issue of domain name registration is very problematic and needs to be completely re-evaluated.

    Here is the issue: I wanted to visit classicgaming.org, spelled it wrong, and ended up with so many ads that I had to kill my browser. What does a million banner ads have to do with classic gaming?

    Everyone has stories like this, and the issue here is deception. There has been no reprimand for deceiving people with domain names. If I create a website like www.guinnessucks.com, Guiness sues me, but there is no consumer watch organization that looks out for situations that clearly interfere with usage of the internet.

    This consumer watch organization should be the ICANN. No more of this "do what you want with it" philosophy. If I create a website called clasicgaming.com, it better have something to do with the words in it's title, or lose my domain name. Registering a domain name should be like registering a Trade mark or a radio station, but just more streamlined.

    In the name of civil liberty and through obscure definition of Free Speech, people are letting serious violation of a user's rights pass on the Internet. We are even defending this in fear that they'll come after us. It's time to realize that communities need policing, and usually the cops don't bust your door down if you're not breaking the law. It is time for regulation.

    • I had something similar happen to me this morning. Was looking for Cheat Code Central [cheatcc.com] and typed in cheatcodecentral.com by mistake (forgot what the original domain was). AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

    • I wanted to visit classicgaming.org, spelled it wrong, and ended up with so many ads that I had to kill my browser. What does a million banner ads have to do with classic gaming?

      What does ICANN have to do with Javascript and poorly thought out web browsers? If going to a web page can crash your browser or slow down your machine or something like that, quit blaming the internet and start blaming your software.

    • Vanity domain names do not fall into either category you've laid out. For example, I own "bitey.net". Now, honestly, with what you're proposing, my website ought to be about biting things, otherwise it's deceptive and I have no right to my domain.

      Who are you to tell me I can't own bitey.net?

      And who are you to tell me I must run a website on every domain I purchase? Believe it or not, there are plenty of domains that exist but do not have websites! Is there something inherently wrong with this? I think not. I hope nobody thinks so.

      - A.P.
      • Vanity domain names do not fall into either category you've laid out

        I'm not arguing that Slashdot has to have anything to do with slashes or dots. If you tell ICANN that bitey is a cute name that I think is easy for people to remember, and my website is about fishing, that should be fine. What I'm after is people who create domain names that are a clear deception. Clasicgaming.org is not a cute generic name, it is specific to one thing, and even though it is spelled wrong, the idea is still there.

        Believe it or not, there are plenty of domains that exist but do not have websites! Is there something inherently wrong with this?

        The discorse on domain names needs to change. Yes, I would arge, this is wrong. Domain names is how users identify websites/ftp/etc. It is not for you to brag to your friends that you regestered www.ourteacherisfat.com. Domain names need to get out of this trough model, where everyone feeds from it until it is gone, and into the model of a medium for recognition. The domain name is how people identify your site, and recognize it.

        There is a level of cognation that happens when one types in www.hotmail.com or www.slashdot.org. These catchy names have an appeal. It's the same when I dial 1-800-COLLECT. Domain names have a lot of power, and this power needs to be regulated or it will be used for deceptive sites like www.whitehouse.com.

        • The discorse on domain names needs to change. Yes, I would arge, this is wrong. Domain names is how users identify websites/ftp/etc. It is not for you to brag to your friends that you regestered www.ourteacherisfat.com.

          And why not? What if I want to use it for email? What if I just don't like typing my IP address when I ping my machine? What if I don't wish to provide any service (ftp, telnet, gopher, archie, whatever) to the rest of the Internet? Who are you to tell me how I should use something I've purchased? Are you really that arrogant?

          As for people who think they're going to see Bush when they type "www.whitehouse.com": why don't we just legislate common sense and solve all these unimportant problems?

          Nice troll, btw.

          - A.P.
          • Who are you to tell me how I should use something I've purchased? Are you really that arrogant?

            Your TV, Radio, Car, etc. are all regulated. Public entities are reguled by the public. If you buy a T1 between work and home, go ahead and register all the domains you want with yourself. Furthermore, if you don't like typing IPs when you ping yourself, put an entry in your hosts file.

            The "who are you to do this" argument is a fallacy commonly used by civil libertarians. Who are you to tell me I can't murder my enemy?


      • Believe it or not, there are plenty of domains that exist but do not have websites! Is there something inherently wrong with this? I think not. I hope nobody thinks so.


        I think so in some cases. It's almost a type of cybersquatting. When there are really obvious names like "america.com" that have had nothing on them, web-wise, for a number of years I'm temped to say the owner should have web rights stripped of them and given to someone else.



        I also wonder what people think of the tendency to register lots of unrelated domain names to pull people into a generic commercial site, sich as how america.org [america.org] and Top50.com [top50.com] both send you the same site.



        Personally, both these sites (and usa.com [usa.com] {looksmart and infospace content channelled through a different name/site} ) are a pet peeve of mine. I'd like to see or put something up about my own country using the name of the country as a domain that isn't a clone of 500 other portals. At least USA.org [usa.org] is part of the open directory project.


        For a while people really were squatting on these names and auctioning them off. (and yes, there is active auctioning on america.info and usa.info that I'm hoping will either go to someone creative and/or be screwed by the start-up phase away from the registrars that are trying to pump the price and to (randomly selected) registrars with smaller-time non-rich folk using them.)


        perhaps I'm an optimist

    • mcelli wrote,
      If I create a website called clasicgaming.com, it better have something to do with the words in it's title, or lose my domain name. Registering a domain name should be like registering a Trade mark or a radio station, but just more streamlined.

      Like the name of "amazon.com" has something to do with books (and every other kind of merchandise they sell)? Like the name of "yahoo.com" has something to do with the concept of a web portal? You really want an organization like ICANN to define what is meant by the phrase "classic gaming" and whether your site meets their definition?

    • Should verbotenplanet.com be removed because the owner doesn't actually have a forbidden planet?

      Should amazon.com be killed because it's not about really tall women?

      Should slashdot.org be killed because it's about neither slashes nor dots?

      • Unless your browser displays a progress meter comprised of dots while loading a page. If so, /. will give you dozens of dots on every page request!
      • I think your taking his post a little too far. There is a big difference between having either a mispelled current domain to trick users into visiting than to have a site (that is named...slashdot for example) on the domain that doesn't seem to match. Amazon.com is a company name, hence relating the domain to the site..but that is really irrelevant.

        The fact of the matter is someone needs to be watching out for the web users. I certainly wouldn't have enjoyed being in my school district's shoes when a computer teacher told a class to go to the whitehouse site, and about two thirds of the class went to www.whitehouse.com. It musta been really fun trying to explain to those kids parents when they were all pissed that their children saw some pornography.

        People make typo's, make mistakes in choosing the proper .com, .org, .net, etc....and those people don't deserve to be forced to see something offesnive.
        • see, you're not thinking this problem through.

          You're recommending that an arbitrary group of people be allowed to censor the web at will. Think about this for a minute and see if you really mean that?

          Your domain, for instance, is called whoisandy.com, which does not appear to be a registered TM or SM. Let's say Nickelodean comes up with a new kids show called "Who Is Andy?", which is about the life of a fictional character, Andy. Should you lose your domain, since you don't hold the trademark? You're obviously causing public confusion for purely personal gain.

          For a less contrived example, let's think 'pokey.com'. You know the one where the little kid was nicknamed pokey, but there's also a much more famous, Claymation figure named Pokey? And the "Big Bad Corporation" took it away? What you're saying is that the child had no right to own that name.

          Sure it's inconvenient to hit spelling error related websites, but the consequences of eliminating the problem, especially when you keep in mind that the web is global, is far too dire to even consider.

          If you want to keep the kids from hitting whitehouse.com, buy a proxy that can filter out such requests. They're mighty common these days and very reasonably priced. Don't do it by restricting my rights.

    • I hope what you typed there was a joke, but i fear it wasn't.. so your upset because you typed classicgaming.org wrong and got a gazillion ads... learn how to spell man... the whole point of a global network set up the way it has been so far is a place where any one can say and do(hopefully) anything.. so if your taken advantage of because you got pudgy fingers.. tough get over it.. or go and play with your doll house some more.

    • Ugggg.....

      Repeat after me;

      "DNS is NOT a keyword system. DNS is NOT a keyword system. DNS is NOT a keyword system."

      Why do people keep insisting that it is, and then complain when it isn't?

    • If you want domain names regulated in some fashion, pick a single top-level domain and choose that one domain to be regulated! It would be nice if the governments would get together and say: ".biz will be regulated, all other domains are Free." Then set rules about using trademarks or deceptive content in the .biz domain. If nothing else, at least set aside ".fcfs" for First Come, First Served.

  • Abuse of power (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MatthewLovelace ( 465003 )
    Isn't the assignment/registration of domain names ICANN's sole responsibility? If ICANN strays from this responsibility to exert influence on other areas, then ICANN is abusing its power and must be opposed.
    • Isn't the assignment/registration of domain names ICANN's sole responsibility?

      No, it is not. Go read their charter. I am reasonably sure you know where to find it.

  • ...I tried numerous times, repeatedly, and couldn't in over a week of random attempts. ICANN's "legitimacy" to me is ALWAYS in question when they pull stupid stunts like this. If anything, it should be administered as the United States political system is-- each netizen can vote for a person to represent their part of the world, and each part of the world is given up to X many reps to represent them. (This would more closely model the U.S. Senate I suppose.) These same netizens would also elect a Director or President which would have veto power and be able to try to define the tasks ICANN tackles.

    As it is right now, ICANN isn't much more than a government (DoC) mandated farce.

    (Forgive me if this seems flame-like, but I'm sincerely unhappy with ICANN (on so many levels this post probably only hit the top one or two things I dislike about them).)

    • I think I'm registered. The problem isn't registration, the problem is their draconian access restrictions which get in my way everytime I try to participate. I'd like them to just send me a letter with (a) a URL to a client side certificate and (b) the password to install the certificate. Then I don't need anything further!

      Right now I have to jump through several hoops... and then once I do, they expire the cookie... in essence makign me jump through all the hoops a second, third, time. Of course they don't get the participation that their "registration" numbers would indicate.... if you have to fight to use the system even with the registration!

      Further, their entire organizational structure and web site is opaque. How can I participate if the system is a "inner circle" where all the participant is given is the right to bless what someone else decides. Ba!

      ;( Clark

  • From the report (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gorilla ( 36491 ) on Thursday August 30, 2001 @01:57PM (#2235596)
    ICANN represents an effort at global self-regulation that, if successful, has great merit in a number of different ways and if it fails, it has the potential to fuck up our lives in a number of different ways. I don't think that making it less accountable is likely to make it more successful.
    • That really depends on your definition of 'success'.

      They seem to be defining it as 'ICANN eventually becomes a legitimate quasi-governmental entity that is self perpetuating and has the power to direct the evolution of Internet infrastructure to it's own ends'.

      I'd say they're well on their way to becoming 'successful'.
    • global self-regulation? riiiiight.

      The board is run by people appointed by corporations that have pumped money into ICANN. Since they want to reduce the number of At Large elected members, and make it harder to join the At Large program, I hardly believe that it could be considered "global self-regulation". Perhaps this should read:
  • First they allow Network Solutions to screw around with policy and now they're trying to make it more difficult for indeviduals to have a voice. This is truly outragous. Unfortunately, there aren't that many alternatives as far as influencing the process. At this point, what level of governmental oversight is there for ICANN? (I should know this but I'm getting old - memory isn't what it used to be... :)

    --CTH

  • A Self Perpetuating System (Score:4, Insightful)

    by webmaven ( 27463 ) <webmaven@nOsPAM.cox.net> on Thursday August 30, 2001 @01:59PM (#2235611) Homepage
    The reccomendation that the at-large membership be comprised of domain-name holders rather than the broader internet user population is setting up a conflict of interest.

    Domain names are primarily valuable currently because they are a scarce resource. By creating an at-large membership comprised entirely of domain name holders, they are setting up an entrenched interest that will oppose the proliferation of gTLDs, as Karl Auerbach has been pushing for.

    Clearly, they hope that this action will not lead to his re-election, but will place someone more 'reasonable' in his place.

    This is just another tactic aimed at maintaining an artificial scarcity of domain names, and sharpening ICANN as a tool to manufacture and maintain this scarcity. ICANN is looking more like the diamond cartel every day.

    For the record, I currently own 35 domain names.
    • For the record, I currently own 35 domain names..

      Nope. You rent 35 domain names.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Your first argument - that too many gTLDs make trademark enforcement impossible - simply does not wash. I can't set up a travel agency and call it American Express, the AXP lawyers will be all over me, whether or not I also have registered the domain americanexpress.travel or americanexpress.leisure, or americanexpress.co.uk. Hell, I could register the domain name american-express-travel.com, or americanexpresstravelcom.net, and still be found to infringe on the trademark. The availability, or lack thereof, of more TLDs to register under does not affect whether or not I have infringed, nor does it make it harder to enforce the relevant laws. Infringement is infringment, on- or off-line, with or without a trailing dot-and-letters.

        You then said:
        And there's even technical considerations with unlimited gTLD's that some (Auerbach) claim are virtually nonexistent, but that is all basically the equivalent of "talking out the arse."

        Speaking out of the posterior is what you are doing, by making these baseless declaratory statements. I have yet to see anyone present a case for what these technical considerations are, and why they are a problem when there are too many TLDs. You can't just make noise about DNS stability, and expect people to buy it. I say there is no technical reason why any number of TLDs cannot be introduced tomorrow. You will need to to better than hand-waving to convince me otherwise.
    • Domain names are primarily valuable currently because they are a scarce resource .

      I don't know what the meaning of "scarce resource" is. Two months ago, I decided I wanted a domain just-for-me, and I got xmau.com . A four-letter name in the most crowded TLD, the first choice I searched for. This for scarceness.

      We may argue whether there is a need for indefinite number of Top Level Domains: my personal opinion is that either there is some body who "owns" TLDs and checks whether the requirer har genuine interest in the field named by the TLD, or we end up having .microsoft , .ibm , .whatever instead of microsoft.com, ibm.com, whatever.com. What an enlargement of the namespace!

      I have serious doubts about the utility of ICANN-At-Large, but I do not believe either that liberalization of TLD is the Graal.

      ciao, .mau.

  • The ALSC is concerned by some evidence that the very low entrance barrier in last year's At-Large election may have resulted in a large enrollment of people who were not actively interested in ICANN, but who enrolled only because it was easy, or who were "encouraged" to do so simply because of nationalistic competition. Membership fees may help address this problem, as well as contribute to a reduction in fraudulent registrations.

    Anyone know what the evidence they mention is? Or is this actually just pure speculation instead an actual reference to evidence?

    I'm not aware of ICANN doing anything to research whether that speculation is true or not. All I really know is that they haven't asked me why I signed up.

    • ... a reduction in fraudulent registrations.

      What exactly is a "fraudulent regustration"? Do they mean the registration of a non-person? Fine. Check to see if the people who signed up exist. Is that what they're alleging? It seems to me that if someone is interested enough in ICANN to bother registering, they are interested enough to have a say.
  • The so-called Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a fraud foisted upon the world by thieves trying to steal from humanity the greatest communications mechanism in human history: the Internet. The U.S. Department of Commerce has been an accomplice in the give-away of the publicly developed Internet to provate, corporate interests. The chicanery behind ICANN, which is similar to the corruption of the American Supreme Court, whose chief hoodlums Rehnquist and Scalia partisanly awarded a Presidential election in A.D. 2000 to the losing side, points to an organization of inept bunglers like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight" or erstwhile movie fame. Once democracy in America is restored, the ICANN privateers may find themselves subject to prosecution and federal imprisonment under the laws of the American democracy -- along with military officers prosecuted and imprisoned for "following orders" issued by the cabal that includes the illegitimate Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appointed by the illegitmate American President.
    • on a side note, guess what, using gores plan for the election voting counts, he would have lost by MORE votes than if they used bush'. gore lost, under the rules of the election process (if you dont like those rules, do soemthing about it, but those are the rules now). gore excepted it, why cant you
    • Yes, but don't be a fool. Clinton created ICANN, and most of the mega-corporations today. If you flee blindly from one tyranny, you'll run into the arms of another.
    • The beauty of the net is like what I imagine the universe will be, should we ever invent FTL. Leave the fuckheads behind, and do your own thing, never to be bothered by them again...

      I totally agree with you, on all your points. But remember this, it doesn't need to be this way. We don't have to try to fix this system, or wait for someone else to do so. Create a new one from scratch, and never look back, that's my motto. And if you'd like to join me, you're more than welcome. Besides, gives us a chance to fix some of the flaws that the old system would never be able to get rid of.
    • Dude, Mentifex, you're a total friggin moron. Go to hell you communist scumbag, okay? Renounce your American citizenship, and go live in the communist paradise of Cuba or China. Alternatively, you may go to hell.

      You and your fellow travelers are the only true problem with America. G-d bless President George W. Bush; G-d bless America. (By the way, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, which is very different from representative or pure democracy.)

      Apple Acolyte

  • I Can Assimilate (yet) ANother Nickle.

    -S

  • Not as bad as first appears? (Score:3, Informative)

    by trust_no_one ( 178716 ) <skirsch@nOsPAm.bellatlantic.net> on Thursday August 30, 2001 @02:21PM (#2235694)
    At first I thought this was just a power grab by the corporate interests which already dominate ICANN. But then I came across this in the document (note I didn't read the whole thing, just skimmed).

    "We propose the At-Large user "community" include institutions, but only individuals may vote. Institutions already play a greater role in the existing Supporting Organizations, so this seems an appropriate balance. We encourage your input on this issue. "

    Further down they discuss the issue of multiple domain names and the possibilities of fraud. Since it is relatively inexpensive and easy to register a domain name these days, I don't think that the individual net user is necessarily locked out of the process.

    It can't be any worse than the system they used in the last election. I never did receive the snail-mail that was supposed to give me my password. I got many e-mails telling me it was coming, but apparently they sent it via the Pony Express.

    --

  • Fees are the way to go (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Thursday August 30, 2001 @02:29PM (#2235728) Homepage Journal

    It is a valid concern that members be Real People and not just throwaway email accounts one someone's machine, so physical snail mailings should remain a part of the process.

    Physical snail mails, especially to many thousands of people all over the world, cost real money.

    Requiring that members have a registered domain name is a sneaky way of keeping ICANN from being the entity that pays that money -- instead the registrar handles it, and the expense actually gets covered when domain holders pay for their domains. It seems like a nice idea at first, but as others have pointed out, it does create a conflict of interest.

    IMHO, the best thing to do is to charge fees to cover the mailing and administration expense. This really does solve the problem, and it is superior solution to requiring domain registration.

    The question is whether it'll be ten bucks or a thousand. When I see the dollar amount, I'll know if ICANN is still trying to maintain an appearance of legitimacy.

  • ...only land-owners will be allowed to vote.

  • OpenNIC (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Jama ( 157205 )
    The OpenNIC [unrated.net]is a user owned, international Network Information Center alternative to the traditional Top-Level Domain registries. OpenNIC was started in reaction to the growing concern about the lack of democratic control within the ICANN. The best thing you can do to help this initiative is to point your root-nameserver(s) and/or your resolving configuration to the OpenNIC nameservers. You'll still be able to resolve all the traditional ICANN TLD's, but you'll also have access to the new TLD's.


    "Scooby Doo is essentially about casting the light of reason
    on corruption cloaked in mysticism" - Scrymarch


    DebianLinux.Net [debianlinux.net]

    • Half-asses. The same people who have "all.your.bases.are.belong.to.us" in the root.cache, even though they have no authority over dot us? I'm not even complaining that it's lame, but rather that they are breaking the old dns to make the new, something that is perfectly avoidable. Besides, who can respect an organization that creates as many (more?) tld's as they have members?

      Pointing resolv.conf to them, gives them control over what you see, period.

      • You, sir, are full of shit. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Inti ( 99884 ) on Thursday August 30, 2001 @05:50PM (#2236843) Homepage
        Some of the alternate roots did establish an 'all.your.base.are.belong.to.us' domain as a joke, around the time of the ICANN Melbourne meeting (March?). OpenNIC did not. We discussed the matter, decided we had no authority over the .us TLD, and decided not to do it. You have us confused with another root, apparently.

        We are not breaking the old DNS. We agree completely with ICANN on the importance of the stability of the inclusive namespace. We absolutely will not touch a TLD or domain that is outside of our purview.

        Our root.cache file is here [unrated.net] (or here [opennic.glue]). See for yourself. There are no .us domains in it whatsoever.

        The OpenNIC claims only 5 TLDs [opennic.glue]. We have over 500 registered members - growing fast - and many more users.

        Finally, pointing resolve.conf at ANYONE gives that party control of what you see. I think the OpenNIC is more worthy of user trust than any other root, including ICANN/VGA. This is because the entire organization is governed by the vote of its members, much like the Debian people. So nobody's cutting deals behind the scenes.

        Get it straight, Cleatus. You're embarassing yourself.

        • Whoops. (Score:2)

          by Inti ( 99884 )
          The link to the 5 TLDs above is to the OpenNIC domain (www.opennic.glue). I just copied and pasted out of my galeon window. For the rest of the world. the TLD list is here [unrated.net].

  • The 3 board seats they are removing, won't be the corporate members, will they? Ha ha.

    Fuck ICANN. The AlterDNS Project beta is going well, and we'll have 3 broadband root servers before we go live. You'll run bind like you should be doing anyway, and we won't take over the entire "." root zone, like orsc or alternic does. As a matter of fact, you'll just as easily be able to add them, should you suddenly be struck dumb and tasteless. And our rules reflect our belief that DNS is a community resource, not a hostage that corporations hold over us.

    Those rules are...

    #1 No corporate registrations. Your trademarks are not recognized here.
    #2 No reselling of domain names.
    #3 No cybersquatting. All domains must be used within 2 weeks of registration
    #4 No bulk registrations.

    On top of that, we've managed to choose aTLDs that are somewhat meaningful, tasteful even. They're free, in every meaning of the word. So really, what's stopping you?
    • ...what's your beef with OpenNIC? It sound like you're doing about the same thing, and they've been live for over a year now. Is there a reason you don't want to work with OpenNIC? Not that there's anything wrong with starting a new root, of course, but we do have an established userbase, and it sounds like your politics are compatible.

  • I tried signing up when they first ran the @Large thing. It was a huge hassle and in the end they never sent me the confirmation code so I could complete the process. I tried to use the form on their website to get the confirmation code and it never worked. I gave up after trying a half dozen times and wasting a few hours of my life.
    My opinion of them is that they are an incompetent bunch of fools, and are probably dangerous to the freedom of the internet.
  • From the (draft) report
    To further define At-Large membership, the ALSC recommends the following:

    • Each individual who holds a domain name be given the option of becoming an At-Large member and paying a membership fee;
    • Individuals who hold multiple domain names are eligible for one At-Large membership (and one vote in an At-Large election);
    • Entities, such as ISPs, that may conduct batch registrations should be asked to alert the domain name holder of the opportunity to become and At-Large member; and
    • To further focus At-Large membership on individual domain name holders, sub-registrations should be ineligible.

    ICANN already gets several million dollars a year in funding, and now it wants more. This particular tax would be attached to domain registration, raising the price of that even higher. And what do I get for this extra money? Less representation.
    Personally, I'd like to see ICANN actually do something before I give them even more money. The Open Root Server Confederation [open-rsc.org] looks better every day.

    • You missed the best part (not directly related to money, but still darn funny nonetheless):

      34,035 people voted, which is approximately 1/100ths of a percent of a projected potential electorate, raising questions of whether the election met the popular democratic standards upon which it was based

      They're worried whether ICANN in its current form is adequately representing their constituency (domain owners), and yet simultaneously they're planning to make it even harder to participate.

      I'm a domain owner; I've got three or four of 'em. Domain names are ten bucks a year, so that's not a big deal. Anyone want to take bets on how many zeroes will be at the end of this At-Large membership fee? I've got a quarter that says it'll be more zeroes than I can muster.

  • I believe ICANN are corrupt - they know the solution to trademark and domain name problems.

    The First Amendment is totally ignored and big business abuse their trademarks - to give themselves a dominant position over others with same or similar name.

    Quote from NY Times:

    Sun Makes Claims on Domain Names [nytimes.com]

    "But among the names on the list are generic terms like "enterprise" and "ultra" -- and for that matter, "sun" -- that could be claimed by other businesses. Indeed, a main reason for introducing new extensions, referred to as top-level domains, is to increase the pool of names available to individuals and businesses and to relieve crowding in the .com domain."

    Please visit WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] for details.
  • I'm not sure that mandating owning a domain name is such a bad idea. Sure, it may create a small conflict of interest, but on balence in means that ICANN will be only full of people with a vested interest, thus full of people who (have to) care. Making judgements from the outside based on what we (who don't own a domain) see as The Right Thing is one thing, but making a descision where we have somthing at stake is another.

    Think of this as being comprable to voting for your President/Prime Minister/Head of Government; if I wat to have a voice in who the head of the UK government is, I have to be a British citizen (or for some odd reason, a Commonwealth citizen resident in the UK). Think of how screwed up global political systems would be if anyone could vote for any head of government. I interact with the UK (through the world economy and by breathing the same air as they do) in much the same way I interact with the internet - so why is it that anyone (including those who arn't "citizens of the internet" - not owning a domain) can elect people to its highest office? I can't vote for US President, so why should those not invloved be able to vot for mine.

    The long and the short of it is that most people who really care and are informed enough to make a competent descision do already own domains - thus they have a vested interest in making sure the system dosen't go to hell. Much like citizens of a given county have a vested interest in the political stability and competency of their leadership.

    This isn't a flame, and for the record I own a domain.

  • The decreasing of board members from 9 to 6 members should only be allowed if there is a big election of all at large members who can elect the 6 board members. Otherwise the whole democratic process behind the ICANN system is just a fake! I am realy suspicious about the pseudo democratic elections at at-large. Maybe an alternativ root dns server might help, but I am have not too much convinience in that ( i would realy miss the sience servers (universities etc.) but the rest goes up in my ass!). I wonder what would happen if there is a large (lets say a majority of internet users/providers) which make their own regulations organization. I wonder if these laws would been accepted by countries. I think it wouldn't because the big companies lobbys put too much money in the politicans asses! I think it is time to make some real grass root politics in the context of the internet. At least it was our way to freely communicate.

    Sorry for my bad english

    - Yasa ((Y)et (A)nother (S)tupid (A)lias)

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close