Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


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

Karl Auerbach Wins Right To Inspect ICANN Records 185

Posted by timothy from the some-kind-of-wonderful dept.
Siobhan Hansas writes: "Karl Auerbach was in court today fighting for the right to inspect and copy documents he first asked to see in 2000, shortly after he became a member of the Board of Directors. Salon have the AP story. Auerbach won the right to inspect documents, but not to copy them, and was required to give ICANN 10 days notice of release of any information marked "confidential" to give them the opportunity to seek a court order stopping him." M : A first-hand report from the hearing makes good reading.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Karl Auerbach Wins Right To Inspect ICANN Records More

Karl Auerbach Wins Right To Inspect ICANN Records

Comments Filter:
  • 'bout time ICANN had their nose bloodied! And they had the nerve to say that they were considering appealing the decision!?! What gall.
    -russ

    • Gall! Poppycock! They are above reproach! They are the Internet! To HELL with everyone else!

      The problem with the populace is they don't know what is good for them. They will me made to know, and fairly we will rule them, with an iron fist!

      --
      Zig!

  • Wrong Name (Score:5, Funny)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @08:46PM (#3975722) Journal
    I'm sorry, you have his name wrong.

    During Standard Time, his name is Karl Auerbach.

    But during Daylight Savings Time, his name is Karl Adenauer!

    (ducks)

  • ...Since ICANN is getting rid of his position in November. He's got to cause a stink with what he finds and cause it fast, or it's going to be too little, too late.
    • ...which means that he won't get very far, because ICANN will of course attempt to get a court order to stop him from releasing any information to the public, and he'll be prevented from doing so until the court renders its opinion one way or the other. And that's for every separate instance. ICANN will of course make sure that each attempt to get a court order takes as long as possible.

  • remind me... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by skydude_20 ( 307538 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @08:59PM (#3975778) Journal
    remind me again why we have to have these kinds of legal battles with the orginization that is "running" the Internet? Doesn't it counter the "priciples" of the 'net? (openness, sharing of knowledge, etc..)

    • Re:remind me... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      >Doesn't it counter the "priciples" of the 'net? (openness, sharing of knowledge, etc..)
      'net' is a registred trademark of Microsoft corporation.

    • Re:remind me... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by bons ( 119581 )
      What principles are you talking about? I don't recall a single RFC that specifies that sort of stuff.

      I've read a lot of RFCs over the years and I somehow don't recall any of them having to do with openness, sharing of knowledge, or any of the other traits people keep thinking the internet ought to have.

      • Re:remind me... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Oculus Habent ( 562837 ) <oculus.habent@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Monday July 29, 2002 @09:28PM (#3975894) Journal

        We have the problem of equating the Internet with a truly distributed, open system controlled by no one and belonging to no one.

        Too often we forget that DNS is completely dependant upon 13 central systems, and much of the networking is commercially owned.

        That last part has come to mind recently, due to the troubles of KPNQwest and WorldCom.

      • Re:remind me... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by JabberWokky ( 19442 ) <slashdot.com@timewarp.org> on Monday July 29, 2002 @11:13PM (#3976250) Homepage Journal
        I've read a lot of RFCs over the years and I somehow don't recall any of them having to do with openness, sharing of knowledge, or any of the other traits people keep thinking the internet ought to have.

        I've read many of them over the years too. Perhaps you missed some like RFC 3271 [sunsite.dk], titled "The Internet is for Everyone", or ones like 1121, a collection of poetry about the net, or 3271, a memorial to Jon Postel.

        The net was created by very intelligent people. Intelligent people tend to think about lots of things, including the importance of openness, sharing of knowledge, and keeping a very human perspective on the rigors of engineering a community.

        --
        Evan

      • Re:remind me... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by fuckface ( 32611 )
        What principles are you talking about? I don't recall a single RFC that specifies that sort of stuff.

        I've read a lot of RFCs over the years and I somehow don't recall any of them having to do with openness, sharing of knowledge, or any of the other traits people keep thinking the internet ought to have.

        How could you have read all those many RFCs if the net wasn't built with principles of "openness and sharing of knowledge" in the first place? WTF do you think those RFCs are if not documents of "openness and sharing of knowledge"?

    • Like all good non-profit organizations based in the US, ICANN has become corrupt, money-grubbing, and responsible to no-one for their actions.

      Do they offer a course in this or something?

      • Oh, that's to go along with all the FOR PROFIT organizations, called Corporations?

        Yeah, the course is Intoduction to Greed 101 , along with Advanced Averace 401.

        Cheers!
  • ICANN has -- as we all know -- hindered Mr. Aeurbach and others representing the public interest since elected. Now, they're finally forced to give him access to all documents -- though he should also be given an unequivicol right to copy them and make them publicly available.

    It would be in character if ICANN went through before Friday and labelled all of their documents "confidential". These guys are crooks just like the people at Enron and Global Crossings.

    ICANN obviously realized what a mistake they made in "allowing public elections", as critics were elected. They're revoking elections so they can retain their totalitarian control. Fucking nazi's.

    Auerbach should have a permanent seat. No one on ICANN has done a better job than him. All the rest of them -- aside from that European elected fellow, allied with Auerbach -- are crooks.
    • If it looks loke a crook, quacks like a crook and smells like a crook, it is probably a crook.
    • It would be in character if ICANN went through before Friday and labelled all of their documents "confidential".

      Why stamp what you can shred?
    • Ah, the double curse of Godwin's Law and poor spelling. Ouch. Otherwise, I agree.
    • "To ruin the net to save Disney is the equivalent of burning down the library of Alexandria to save monastic scribes"

      Actually it's the equivalent of putting taxes on printing presses to SUBSIDIZE monastic scribes.

      Or on establishing a "trade group" made up of representatives from the buggy industry to regulate automobile highways...

      The old media companies established ICANN and other horrors strictly for the purposes of making the Internet safe for their profit.

      Frankly, I feel it's more than slightly treasonous for ANY American administration/Congress to turn over US sovergnity to any kind of international body, which ICANN is.

      Why? Because groups/treaties like ICANN, WIPO, NAFTA, WTO, almost ALWAYS end up being exploited by the powerful corporate intrest, both domestic AND foreign, to subvert the rights and interest of the common American Citizen.

      The excuse for passing the DMCA, BTW, was that it was REQUIRED by WIPO...

      • Another point I meant to make (hit submit too fast), is that the reason WHY corps and their allies in government favor turning over US sovergnity to such international alphabet soups is this:

        To subvert the law (US Constitution).

        Their loophole is to claim that obeying WIPO, WTO, ICANN, etc, is required because we are signatory to a TREATY. Which is how they justify overriding the Constitution.

        The fact is, the Constitution puts rather severe restrictions on the government, AND corps, and there IS a limit to how far they can subvert it.

        Setting up international orgs that operate in shadow (under US law, a director of ANY corp would have full access to records that Arebauch is having to SUE to get from ICANN), they can get greater lattitude that they could not get under US law.

        For instance, want to have perpetual copyright? Get WTO to mandate it, and the President and Congress can say "we signed the treaty, we are obligated", thus striking away a DIRECT provision of the Constitution without going through the legal amendment process.

        I submit to you all that it's not those who wish to fight back (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/26433.html ) against these international corporate cartels who are subverting the law, but the cartels themselves!
    • It would be in character if ICANN went through before Friday and labelled all of their documents "confidential". These guys are crooks just like the people at Enron and Global Crossings.

      What strikes me as odd is why an organization like this should have *any* documents labelled as confidential.

  • Heheh (Score:2, Funny)

    by TheDanish ( 576008 )
    Auerbach is one of five elected members on the 19-member ICANN board. His term expires in November, and ICANN already has said it will not hold another round of elections.

    Gee, isn't that convenient? Well, I suppose I don't blame them; if I had the choice and I were them I wouldn't, either.
    • Sounds like it is time for ICANN for be dismantled.

      Since they have not lived up to their contract, let the authority revert back to the Department of Commerce, which will buy time to establish a new board that will be more accountable.
  • "...and was required to give ICANN 10 days notice of release of any information marked "confidential" to give them the opportunity to seek a court order stopping him."

    Right. So if he decides to secretly leak the documents, he has to tell them a week and a half in advance?

  • Backgrounder (Score:5, Informative)

    by ke4roh ( 590577 ) <jimes@NosPam.hiwaay.net> on Monday July 29, 2002 @09:28PM (#3975893) Homepage Journal
    For those of you just tuning in, Auerbach was elected to the ICANN [icann.org] (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) board in November 2000 by the public at large. According to a Salon primer [salon.com], ICANN "had already earned a reputation for ineptitude and closed-door policies that favor corporate interests. ... Auerbach intended to guide ICANN toward reform." He requested access to the financial records, he says, "[T]o find out where the money goes. Why does it take $2.4 million (47 applicants paid $50,000 each) to evaluate seven top-level domains?" As a director, according to California law, he was entitled to "the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect and copy all books, records and documents of every kind," but ICANN thought otherwise, and the suit whose outcome is the topic of this story followed.

    • Re:Backgrounder (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, the lawsuit was not about Karl's right to inspect the records. Read the filings.

      The lawsuit was about who got to decide what he got to do with the records besides look at them himself.

      Karl maintained it was not appropriate for ICANN to impose any restrictions whatsoever on what he personally as an individual decided to do with those records. ICANN maintained that it was not appropriate for an individual Director to assume all discretion over what could be done with the corporation's records; each Director has a fiduciary responsibility for the well-being of the corporation, but no Director decides alone what that is.

      The judge imposed a balance between the Director's right to inspect the records and the corporation's right to retain some control over what an individual does with the corporation's records. If they could have reached this compromise themselves, there would have been no lawsuit. But people on all sides preferred to be stubborn.

      It doesn't generally seem to occur to anyone that ICANN's records may have material in them that legitimately should be kept confidential. Everyone would far rather assume that the only possible motive for confidentiality here is for ICANN staff to conceal wrongdoing.

      Karl will be deeply disappointed to discover that there isn't really all that much money to start with; there's a lot that the USG and others have asked ICANN to do and limited sources of funding. Everyone wants something from ICANN, everyone wants ICANN to stop doing something else, and no one wants to pay. This is a real problem, which ICANN's reform process has tried (badly) to address.

      The saddest part is that people like Karl and the others associated with ICANN in their various ways, including most of its critics, should be teaming up against the real threats to the openness of the net, mostly the corporatization of access and content and the threats of *real* government regulation via the ITU: ICANN has fought VeriSign as far as feasible, has resisted the interest of various corporate powers in content control of the DNS, and has provided alternatives to the government control that would be imposed by turning over the DNS to the US government or to the EU or the ITU. As flawed as ICANN is, it's a compromise that successfully preserves many important values against some even worse alternatives.

      The lawsuit is mostly an unfortunate distraction.
      But if people would rather cheer mindlessly over a great victory for The Peepul, so be it. At least when they've crippled ICANN beyond any hope of effectiveness, there won't be anywhere for them to go to whine about it. You don't actually think the ITU and such agencies hold public meetings and comment boards where real people who are real users of the technology they oversee can actually speak, do you?
      • Bah, finally an AC with something to say, and no one has modded it up. Since I hate posting, "Mod the parent up!", I'll just quote him. Mod the parent up if you like what it says... I'm no karma whore, dammit! :)

        Actually, the lawsuit was not about Karl's right to inspect the records. Read the filings.

        The lawsuit was about who got to decide what he got to do with the records besides look at them himself.
        Karl maintained it was not appropriate for ICANN to impose any restrictions whatsoever on what he personally as an individual decided to do with those records. ICANN maintained that it was not appropriate for an individual Director to assume all discretion over what could be done with the corporation's records; each Director has a fiduciary responsibility for the well-being of the corporation, but no Director decides alone what that is.
        The judge imposed a balance between the Director's right to inspect the records and the corporation's right to retain some control over what an individual does with the corporation's records. If they could have reached this compromise themselves, there would have been no lawsuit. But people on all sides preferred to be stubborn.
        It doesn't generally seem to occur to anyone that ICANN's records may have material in them that legitimately should be kept confidential. Everyone would far rather assume that the only possible motive for confidentiality here is for ICANN staff to conceal wrongdoing.
        Karl will be deeply disappointed to discover that there isn't really all that much money to start with; there's a lot that the USG and others have asked ICANN to do and limited sources of funding. Everyone wants something from ICANN, everyone wants ICANN to stop doing something else, and no one wants to pay. This is a real problem, which ICANN's reform process has tried (badly) to address.
        The saddest part is that people like Karl and the others associated with ICANN in their various ways, including most of its critics, should be teaming up against the real threats to the openness of the net, mostly the corporatization of access and content and the threats of *real* government regulation via the ITU: ICANN has fought VeriSign as far as feasible, has resisted the interest of various corporate powers in content control of the DNS, and has provided alternatives to the government control that would be imposed by turning over the DNS to the US government or to the EU or the ITU. As flawed as ICANN is, it's a compromise that successfully preserves many important values against some even worse alternatives.
        The lawsuit is mostly an unfortunate distraction.
        But if people would rather cheer mindlessly over a great victory for The Peepul, so be it. At least when they've crippled ICANN beyond any hope of effectiveness, there won't be anywhere for them to go to whine about it. You don't actually think the ITU and such agencies hold public meetings and comment boards where real people who are real users of the technology they oversee can actually speak, do you?

      • It doesn't generally seem to occur to anyone that ICANN's records may have material in them that legitimately should be kept confidential. Everyone would far rather assume that the only possible motive for confidentiality here is for ICANN staff to conceal wrongdoing.

        Bullshit. There are no records they possess that should be held confidential and I'm not talking root passwords and such. They've made ludicrous dispute decisions that clearly favor corporations. Remember canadian.net? The only possible reason ICANN would refuse to allow him access to these records AND disseminate them is to conceal wrongdoing. They should be public records anyway.

        That said, the parent post was an insightful and outstanding rebuttal against ICANN naysayers like myself. But it's still bullshit.

      • Yes, the dispute was about who gets to make the choices. But you made a common mistake when you think that the purpose of looking at the documents was to make them public. The purpose is to permit me to obtain information that would allow me to be better able to make informed decisions.

        There are many who believe that an elected director is like a publicly elected official to a governmental body. There is, however, quite a difference. Much as I wish I had the freedom under the law to act like an elected official, I can't. I have suggested in various places that square peg bodies such as ICANN do not really fit into the round holes created by the corporations laws of various states.

        ICANN has decreed that they can slap a label of confidentiality onto a document and then dictate the restrictions. That kind of thing effectively gives the majority the ability to keep the minority from seeing anything the majority doesn't want him/her from seeing. As the judge declared yesterday, that is contrary to public policy and California law.

        The win yesterday will largely be for naught unless ICANN directors other than myself make use of the now open-channel to information that my case has provided. If those directors remain true to their sit-back-and-consume-whatever-management-feeds-the m then ICANN will remain an opaque, unresponsive, and unaccountable body.

        This is one of the reasons why it is so important not to accept ICANN's recent "evolution" or "reform" attempts to eliminate elections by the public for directors on its board of directors.
  • Does anyone see a connection? Mr. Auerbach raises a stink, and ICANN decides, "Hey! Let's not re-elect this SOB!" Of course, this is me, just restating the obvious. But then, all is fair in love, war, and corporate politics.
    • But then, all is fair in love, war, and corporate politics.

      I hate this expression. All is not fair in any of the above. This is a case where they are trying like hell to cover their own tracks. I am beginning to think maybe Mr Auerbach is going about this in the wrong way. $2.7mil for 7 top level domains was given to ICANN. Go get the IRS involved, find out how much money went into the pockets of those board members. There's your real ticket. Creative accounting can only get you so far. Check the homes, the cars, the life-styles of the other members. There's your $2.7 million. Of course, I am sure the people doing the real work at ICANN are getting crapped on, just like everyone else.

  • I met Carl, and he is a really nice guy.

    He is standing up for us little guys.

  • 10 days so they can do... what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kelnos ( 564113 ) <`ude.llenroc' `ta' `32tjb'> on Monday July 29, 2002 @09:43PM (#3975951) Homepage
    "...required to give ICANN 10 days notice of release of any information marked 'confidential' to give them the opportunity to seek a court order stopping him."
    oh really? or might this be the 10-day period of "oh shit let's see what we can cover up and hide in ten days so he doesn't find out?" while that is of course illegal, i wouldn't put it past them if there really is anything incriminating in those records. granted, they've had plenty of time to do so...

    does this seem to anyone else as just a pitiful bid for extra time? auerbach has been working for two years to get ahold of these documents. what could an extra 10 days possibly do for ICANN? they're just trying to be difficult on principle...
    • I think you misunderstood that sentence. Everything that Karl wants to review must be turned over to him, confidential or not, before August 9th. He can publish anything non-confidential any time he wants, and if he wants to publish something that is "confidential" then he gives them 10 days notice that he is going to do it, and they have to convince a judge that there is good reason to keep it confidential if they want to stop him. Since California law says all those records are public, ICANN would have a darn tough time ever convincing a judge to seal anything from publication, but they are free to try.

      As others have said, this is a pretty complete victory for Karl. Of course this is only the beginning of any real action Karl might be able to take, but it is a very good beginning.
    • I was the one who proposed this notice period - I proposed it last September as a compromise to try to break the apparent deadlock. ICANN refused to accept it. The judge picked up my idea and has put it into the judgement and made it clear that the burden is on ICANN to demonstrate that a proposed publication is improper.

  • Why don't we have the will to replace ICANN? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by btempleton ( 149110 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @10:04PM (#3976023) Homepage
    As those who design DNS software know, the power over DNS resides not with ICANN, but collectively among all the people who configure the root server tables in the major sites and ISPs of the world, and in particular, in the sites that distribute the most common name servers (BIND and IIS) which come pre-configured with a root table that points at the official ICANN list.

    If the net community got together and could express a unanimous will, that table could be changed. No court would be needed. Governments would be hard pressed to stop it.

    But it requires near unanimity because a splintered net, where some people use some roots and the other half uses a different set, so names don't resolve the same, is bad for everybody.

    Unanimity is impossible over a given policy but it seems near-unanimity might well be possible over replacing ICANN with another body that will represent the users in choosing a replacement for ICANN. We might universally agree to make the change according to some democratic user-based process even if we don't know how the final decision will go. We just all have to agree to do whatever 51% of the users approve.

    How this works is documented on my web site at this essay [templetons.com] along with my proposed possible replacement. [templetons.com]

    But the key isn't if I can get unanimous support for my particularl proposal -- I can't. The question is, can we find a way to a path away from ICANN without yet agreeing on what it is?

    • Dude, you've got a wonderful idea. It lacks the magic ingredient: $. Lots of $. Not to build the software. No, big $ -- cubic $ -- to pay for the bandwidth of a chunk of the world's name resolution traffic. I'm not sure, but it seems to me that at least some of the businesses that have the cash to make it happen, have an interest in keeping the system the way it is. It's easy to say "chuck the whole ICANN monopoly, let's build our own," but it's something entirely different to actually make it work.

      The opinions expressed above do not necessarily represent the views of the poster. The voices in the poster's head though, are pretty sure that's what they meant.

      • Actually, dollars are not the issue. Root servers actually can have a quite manageable load since they only have to tell you where the actual TLD servers are, and you cache that so you only ask quite rarely.

        The money to run a set of root servers can quite easily be arranged. It's the will that's currently lacking.

    • You want OpenNIC (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SuperDuG ( 134989 )
      Okay, in all seriousness what you're asking for is OpenNIC. They have all the entries from ICANN along with their own. They also have entries from numerous other open roots across the world. Basically I see opennic as being the number one resource in taking away the power that ICANN holds. New.net had the right idea, but screwed it up when they popped themselves in with just about every bit of spyware out there, plus I don't know of anyone that actually uses their domains, no one mirrors them and they require a really funky plugin that messes up your TCP/IP in windows.

      None-the-less ... check out opennic [unrated.net]

      • Re:You want OpenNIC (Score:4, Insightful)

        by btempleton ( 149110 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @12:13AM (#3976420) Homepage
        No, I am not talking about opennic or new.net or similar. A splintered net is useless, which is why nobody uses these extra TLDs. I have yet to see any of these extra TLDs appear in a URL, ad, billboard or E-mail address, and for good reason.

        There is a natural monopoly in the root. We all have to use the same root, or I can't tell you my e-mail address and expect you to be able to e-mail me with it. Or I have to tell you which root I use, which means a super-root that lists roots, in otherwords a shared root once again.

        Attempts at alternate roots will fail both because of this, and because most of them so far have just tried to be a different ICANN. They still wanted to hand out TLD monopolies to people and create TLDs with inherent meaning.

        A really workable system has to have all TLD operators (and thus the 2lDs under them) on an even footing. If they are not on an even footing you get artificial scarcity as people try to own meaningful words and phrases ahead of everybody else. Then you get conflict.

        Nobody has done this.

        • Re:You want OpenNIC (Score:4, Informative)

          by SuperDuG ( 134989 ) <<kt.celce> <ta> <eb>> on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @12:21AM (#3976439) Homepage Journal
          Did ya even bother going to OpenNIC's website???

          From the www.opennic.unrated.net website

          The OpenNIC is a user owned and controlled Network Information Center offering a democratic, non-national, alternative to the traditional Top-Level Domain registries.

          Users of the OpenNIC DNS servers, in addition to resolving host names in the Legacy U.S. Government DNS, can resolve host names in the OpenNIC operated namespaces as well as in the namespaces with which we have peering agreements (at this time those are AlterNIC and The Pacific Root).

          There ya go ... problem solved ...

          • Re:You want OpenNIC (Score:4, Insightful)

            by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @01:09AM (#3976505) Journal
            But the flow isnt 2 way. What happens to the AOL user who can resolve your domain? This is why most splinter DNS NICs dont work.

            • When the AOL user can't resolve your domain, you point them to www.opennic.unrated.net ... the same way that the new.net domains work. You can't just tell ICANN what to do, but you can inform the people who rely on ICANN about their other options.
          • Not only does OpenNIC not solve the problem, it appears to be little better than ICANN, handing out ownership of ordinary words like "geek" to those who are simply the first to claim them.

            Even the trademark lawyers, usually the bad guy in this, worked out centuries ago that you don't give ownership in real words to anybody. The generic terms can't be owned, only brands.

            Nobody should own "com" or "museum" or "aero" or "org", or 2LDs within them. But we do have that, so we fight over it.
            • I read your proposal, and if I understand correctly (mabe I don't), you envision a situation like this...

              There would be a TLD named "apple", and Jobs' company would want to register "computer.apple" and people might visit "store.computer.apple" to buy an iMac. The Beatles would register "music.apple". Monopoly control over the "apple" TLD itself, wouldn't be particularly valuable, since the monopolist would exert power over so few entities.

              Suppose I'm a farmer ("Sloppy's Orchard, Inc") and I sell real apples (the fruit). I can't register "fruit.apple" because "fruit" does have inherent and generic meaning within the context of apples (unlike music and computer), so I have to register something like "sloppy.apple"? Or perhaps some nonprofit concern (?) takes "fruit.apple" and I register "sloppy.fruit.apple" with them?

              Do I have this right? Did I get confused at the end? ;-)

              • You got it backwards. If there were an .apple TLD the growers of the fruit would not be able to register in it because that would be a generic use. In the real world, NOBODY gets to own the term "grannysmith apple" and it was a crazy mistake to let people own terms like this in DNS.

                In theory companies that use apple as a trademark (and thus by law have nothing to do with apples) could possibly register in such a domain, if they were not operating it, but it might be better to design things to avoid this too.
                • Please give an example. I'm getting the feeling that their domain name isn't going to contain any references to the company's name or type of business, and instead it will be limited to fanciful words like "Altivec."

                  Ideally, under your system, what might Apple Computer's domain name be?

                  • There would be a large number of branded TLD naming providers, all on an even playing field, all competing and innovating as they wish. They would have names that would be satisfactory international brands in the "directory" or "naming" business.

                    Examples I give would be .yahoo, .dunn, .wipo, .sloppy, .yellowpages, .fredsdirectory.

                    If you could legally get a trademark around the world for "XXXX Directory Company" (or if you already have one) you could have .XXXX as a resale TLD.

                    That would include of course any made-up word nobody is using yet, or any real world term that qualifies as a trademark law. The principles of that are well established and ruled in law and courts and used by businesses every day.

                    Thus there would be tons of competing companies, and you would choose the best one. The one with the best price, best policies, best technology, whatever your definition of best is. Whatever the market likes.

                    Thus Apple might decide to use apple.yahoo. If Apple records like's Dunn and Bradstreet they could be apple.dunn. If apple is taken within too many branded domains, more will spring up to meet the market need.

                    WIPO might run .wipo under trademark rules. They might insist that nobody gets apple, but Apple Computer can get apple.computer.wipo and Apple Records can get apple.records.wipo. Or they can set any rules they want. Don't like their rules, go to a competitor.

                    What matters is all the competitors are on a level playing field. If somebody owns ".computer" then if you don't like their rules you can't go to another TLD for a computer name that's just as good. Their TLD is inherently valuable, because it has an intrinsic meaning. They didn't create the value, the just staked a claim on it, presumably by being their first.

                    Brands, on the other hand, by definition have no intrinsic value. The acquire value, lots of it. That's what branding is about. Yahoo has a valuable brand in internet directories now, for example.
                    • Ah, I get it now. Thanks for taking the time.

                      Hmm... Ok, I'm sold. Adios, OpenNic.

                      Now just tell me what addresses to type into my /etc/dnscache/root/servers/@ and The World will be one user closer to switching. ;-)

        • The USENET newsgroup hierarchy seems to have worked quite well. The newsgroup names are very similar to domain names. Why not copy that model? For instance you get enough votes to create a 'developer.php', and then anyone can sell subdomains of that.

          Phillip.
          • It is not fair to give ownership of words to people simply because they claimed them first. Trademark law worked out that principle over centuries. Nobody should get monopoly control over ordinary words that have intrinsic meanings. Not the TLD owner, not the 2LD registrants. When there was only .com for business in people's minds, people paid fortunes for names like drugstore.com because it let them own an english word like drugstore. Something trademark law had forbidden for good reasons.
    • Well, we have OpenNic. I use them. If we could persuade our ISPs to configure their servers to use the open nic root, which of course is merged with the ICANN root and AlterNIC for the largest namespace, then we could eventually phase out ICANN.

  • Marginalizing ICANN (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FattMattP ( 86246 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @10:08PM (#3976037) Homepage
    What will it take to marginalize ICANN? Isn't ICANN only an issue because we can't collectively agree on using new root nameservers? A huge task, I realize, but ICANN only has power because everyone in the net community continues to give them power. There's no technical reason that we can't take that power away from them, is there not?

    Please comment.

    • I think the net community should establish it sown alternate open governing authority for a community or root name servers and bypass this ICANN garbage. Later as the alternate board gets established and proves that it can openly mange the names, then it should petition the Department of Commerce to take over that current root name servers.
      • Department of Commerce? Don't you mean Ministry of Commerce? Or some other country? Remember, the Internet shouldn't be run by a country.
        • Department of Commerce? Don't you mean Ministry of Commerce? Or some other country? Remember, the Internet shouldn't be run by a country.

          Oh, the parent quite clearly meant Department of Commerce, as in the US DoC. As I recall, ICANN was chartered by the US DOC, therefore if they were to fail to execute their contract, ownership would fall back to the US DOC. Should the Internet be an international non-political entity? Sure, but I don't think anyone has enough crack to actually believe that will ever happen. At best the US will charter an organisation that has elected representation of the largest internet-using countries as well as a number of unaffiliated representatives.

      • ummm ... go here [unrated.net] that's a link to OpenNic, which is exactly what you're asking for. Hell it goes one step further, everything is free.

  • So what happens next? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ukryule ( 186826 ) <slashdot&yule,org> on Monday July 29, 2002 @10:13PM (#3976053) Homepage
    Great. So he gets to read all the documents - one assumes that all of them will be marked 'confidential' (if they're not, then why didn't they let him see them in the first place?). So assuming that he'll then try to publically question some of the reports, ICANN will seek a court order to stop him releasing confidential information.

    So are we just in for another round of legal battles?

  • ICANN's response (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jonathunder ( 105885 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @10:35PM (#3976102) Homepage
    ICANN has posted a statement [icann.org] responding to the decision. In part, the statement says:
    ... Judge Janavs ruled that California law does not permit California non-profit corporations to place any restrictions or conditions on director's inspection rights, but allows only courts to place restrictions, after a demand for inspection has been refused. In this respect, the court rejected ICANN's position. ICANN respectfully disagrees and will consider whether to appeal this decision upon review of the Court's written judgment, which will be issued next week.

    Of course, if an appeal allows them to delay revealing anything interesting until Auerbach is out of office, they will have won.

    • Re:ICANN's response (Score:3, Informative)

      by davidu ( 18 )
      The judge can specifically state that an appeal will not hold up his access to the data or request that this be granted by an appealate judge.

      IANAL, obviously, but it's no uncommon for a ruling to be held while the appeal is ongoing.

      The judge is well aware of his lack of time and any appeal judge would certainly respect the meaning of the original ruling allowing Karl to see the documents while the appeal was still in court.

      -davidu

  • E-Bay (Score:5, Funny)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @10:38PM (#3976113) Homepage
    Has anyone else noticed the odd surge in bids on papers shredders at E-Bay lately?

    -

  • Replacing DNS (Score:2, Interesting)

    by obi ( 118631 )
    I've been pondering about maybe replacing the DNS system outright.

    Something that is distributed, and based on a kind of certification that the users give. Something that would of course have to be attack-resistent (in the sense that a single entity or small group can't profoundly influence the certification of a name->ip mapping on it's own)

    The major problem I see, aside from the obvious difficulties in implementing and deploying such a system, is in organising the namespace. Can a name be owned by more than one entity?

    You could imagine a system where names would have a subjective meaning, depending on what you and your 'friends' have certified. Other people could get a different entity for the same name.

    Needless to say this subjective view is more than just annoying if you think about email for instance. You don't know if a name will lead you to a specific entity. All you're sure of is that the people you trust have picked this one.

    Enforcing the one name-one entity mapping could however lead to problems like we currently have:
    - first come, first served is a good rule, but gives opportunities to cybersquatters. Conflicting trademarks need to be worked out. Big corp with a trademark practically always wins over an well-intentioned individual. Inevitably disputes follow, courts get involved, lawmakers get involved, everything gets messy and too expensive for individuals, so individuals drop out.
    - we could have a global certification where the majority of votes wins. But that leaves little protection for unpopular entities (ie tyranny of the majority).

    • The authorities know the solution to trademark conflicts.

      You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course. Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. Just in my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm.

      Fact: Virtually every word is trademarked. In this vast ocean of domains on the Internet, mostly non-trademarks, a marker is absolutely essential - for people to identify it as trademark (e.g. protected TLD of .reg) - as in apple.reg. This is because all word domains are 'confusingly similar' to trademarks. That is one of the excuses they use to steal domain in UDRP.

      This .reg could serve the same purpose as the registered trademark symbol ® - to advise the public that it is legally registered and protected by law.

      Yes, it is true - check USPTO link at end of paragraph - Virtually every word is trademarked. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with five trademarks - in the U.S. alone [uspto.gov] (please check).

      Whatever word you have for your business or personal web site, you will have some big bully try take your domain away from you. This is all a fraud by big business - the authorities are corrupt in helping them overreach Trademark Law.

      It is ILLEGAL for one trademark to prevent others from using their trademark - even if using identical word. To allow this without consumer confusion or trademark conflict, it is absolutely essential that the class or subclass is included. Please visit WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] - Not associated with United Nations WIPO.org

  • Court ruling (Score:5, Informative)

    by pberry ( 2549 ) <pberryNO@SPAMmac.com> on Monday July 29, 2002 @11:23PM (#3976283) Homepage
    The EFF has the court ruling [eff.org] in HTML thanks to Cryptome [cryptome.org]. You can also read the press release [eff.org].
  • Well, ICANN will win regardless, if you shift views of what they were trying to accomplish. They were running down the clock, and they've accomplished this. Soon the gadfly will be gone.

    Interesting. Even though the judge seems sympathetic, there is really no law to punish corporations who misbehave. WHO gets punished? So classic. No one really does. It's a win-win for them. And the very wealthy movers behind ICANN will still make their millions, or is it billions, in the years to come.
    • That depends on what they were trying so desperately to hide, doesn't it?

      They sure were making a lot of effort to prevent information from ever getting out, if it was harmless information.

      o/` Enroooonnnn... o/`

  • The full verdict is on line (Score:4, Informative)

    by dirkx ( 540136 ) <dirkx@vangulik.org> on Monday July 29, 2002 @11:40PM (#3976326) Homepage
    From http://www.eff.org/Cases/Auerbach_v_ICANN/20020729 _superior_court_ruling.html [eff.org] - the most entertaining parts:
    • Having considered the applicable law and the undisputed facts presented herein, he court concludes that paragraphs 3, 5, and 6 of the Inspection Procedures conflict with section 6334 and Art. V, 21 of the Bylaws by unreasonably restricting directors' access to corporate records and depriving directors of inspection rights afforded them by law.
    • Furthermore, Lynn's 10/5/01 letter violates both section 6334 and Bylaws Article V, Section 21 because it deprives Auerbach of the inspection rights he has under law and imposes such unreasonable requirements as having to sign a confidentiality agreement and having to pursue burdensome review in any effort to enforce his inspection rights.
    • Additionally, the Inspection Procedures here apparently have not even been adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors, but were promulgated by an ad hoc group of functionaries consisting of the Audit Committee, Louis Touton, Diane Schroeder, and Lynn (Auerbach Dec. Ex. 17, 18, 21).
    • Based on the undisputed facts, there is no triable issue as to any material fact and Petitioner Auerbach is entitled to judgment as a matter of law granting his Petition for Writ of Mandate.
    I'd say - that is clear.

  • Time to change the name... (Score:4, Funny)

    by still_sick ( 585332 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @11:46PM (#3976345)
    ...From ICANN to UCANT.
  • Okay everyone, I keep reading the posts, ICANN is a non-profit organization that makes too much money and has too much power. If you think that, keep reading, if you want to go on about your day and think that this is something not worth fighting over, then that's your perrogative.

    The internet was based off of the ideas of intellectuals and academics, and has turned into a world nearly exactly opposite of what it was initially intended to do. No I'm not against any porn sites or anything else that is "wrong" with the internet today, I'll leave that battle for the conservatives.

    What we are seeing here is a group who likes the control they have and they will be damned if they are about to just give it up. And why should they, the only ones who are against them are the ones who have no real say in the matter, in terms of numbers. Have I purchased a few of the DNS entries that ICANN holds, of course, it's the only way that is widely accepted as a way to identify yourself on the internet.

    So where do we go from here? Stop supporting ICANN and start supporting something worth supporting. I support OpenNIC [unrated.net], a free and democratic DNS root. And not some democracy that ICANN has created, a real democracy where everyone gets one vote and that's it. The most votes, wins. Simple majority rules type of governance. While they aren't widely advertised like some other Alternate TLD's [new.net] I can say that they aren't interested in doing this for the money. They are interested in doing this to take away ICANN's power/influence on us all. If we stop financially supporting ICANN than there will really be no reason for them to exist, they will be a company without assests, which in the capitalistic society we Americans live in, sucks.

    Basically I see it like this, if we can all band together and show that we as true computer intellectuals can become something great. A group that can out do the professionals. A group that is designed to have a fair DNS system. A group that is not ICANN. A group that is truly INTERNATIONAL. A group that knows that not everything has to be about money. Money is nice, but certainly some things are more important than money, and freedom happens to be one of them.

    • The problem I see with this is that (as I understand it) in order to Take The Internet Back we all have to not only agree to switch to OpenNIC (lest the net become fragmented), but also switch to using completely non-standard TLDs. Currently a portion of every registration fee we pay to our ICANN-approved registrars goes back to ICANN, right? So in order to cut off their power there could be no more .com, .net, .uk, .cx, etc. That seems even less likely than universally reconfiguring to an OpenNIC root.

      Now, if the TLDs got more uppity and took a page from the US's book on paying its UN dues, well, maybe this wouldn't be an issue.

      • This is everyones misconception about OpenNIC.

        from the opennic website.

        The OpenNIC is a user owned and controlled Network Information Center offering a democratic, non-national, alternative to the traditional Top-Level Domain registries.

        Users of the OpenNIC DNS servers, in addition to resolving host names in the Legacy U.S. Government DNS, can resolve host names in the OpenNIC operated namespaces as well as in the namespaces with which we have peering agreements (at this time those are AlterNIC and The Pacific Root).

        Membership in the OpenNIC is open to every user of the Internet. All decisions are made either by a democratically elected administrator or through a direct ballot of the interested members and all decisions, regardless of how they are made, within OpenNIC are appealable to a vote of the general membership.

        Right there ... they do um all plus their own. That's what's so great, you can use OpenNic, but you don't have to give up what you're used to.

        • Yeah, I know that OpenNIC covers the "Legacy Namespaces" as well. My point was that for every "traditional" domain you register or renew, a portion of your reg fee will be sent to ICANN -- they invoice the TLD registrars for their "fair share" kickback to the ICANN mothership.

          ICANN sends out a letter like this [icann.org], hitting up the TLD Registries to drop some cash in their sacred offering plate.

          Their efforts (for 2000, at least) appear to be halfway successful [wwtld.org]!

  • Democracy - Dictatorship (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Phili ( 243217 )
    ICANN already has said it will not hold another round of elections

    Sounds to me like: Democracy is no fun, if someone does not fully agree and follow the flock.

    So lets get back to dictatorship.

    If is interesting to note, that the US home os the ICANN, tries to get rid of all of the dictators of this world.

  • Delays... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bartmoss ( 16109 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @02:21AM (#3976599) Homepage Journal
    "Your honor we need to drag this trial out just two days more while we get the rest shredded."

  • ICANN doesn't think of itself as public... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @07:12AM (#3977225) Homepage
    I thought this was very interesting: (from http://icann.blog.us/stories/2002/07/29/auerbachWi nsCourtCriticize.html cited above:)

    "ICANN responded that it didn't see Microsoft or IBM putting their general ledgers and charts of account on the web, but the Judge quickly intervened with this: Court: 'As a non-profit, public benefit corporation, you have a duty to the public -- the international public in this case -- that is very different than Microsoft or IBM. This is a public benefit corporation.'"

    That's just the problem. ICANN keeps forgetting that it's public, and keeps falling back into the private, corporate mindset.
  • The Judge acknowledged that Mr. Auerbach was elected precisely because he was a critic of ICANN...

    Ah. She gets it.

  • It's fascinating, and yet depressing, how people with nothing to hide will go to great length to keep things from public eyes and ears.

  • Karl KNOWS where the MONEY is going (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Garry Anderson ( 194949 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @09:55AM (#3977974) Homepage
    TO ICANN LAWYERS - JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE

    Why do ICANN stick with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue? Is it because of certain old ICANN links with them? Are JDRP profiteering? They are very costly - have ICANN looked for other Law firms?

    Have you checked out JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN?

    A quote from a Karl Auerbach:

    Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.

    Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.

    Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.

    Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.

    And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.

    There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.

    Karls platform [cavebear.com].

    ***End quote.

    In a good two month period, October and November 2000, they got $465,553.67 from ICANN.

    ICANN minutes [icann.org].

    As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers, I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.

    Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue [jonesday.com].

    Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu - even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat - most many times over.

    MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - U.S. alone [uspto.gov] (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.

    The solution to this problem has been ratified by experts - so that ALL registered trademarks can be identified on the Internet.

    Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue know this solution.

    They would lose a lot of money, if there was less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?

    Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.

    There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption - it is beyond doubt.

    Please visit WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] to see. No connection with the United Nations WIPO.org.

  • I hope he tries to publicize everything, and let ICANN try to convince a judge, for each item, why it has to be a confidential record. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I can't imagine why this organization would need to have any secrets (other than mundane info such as domain contacts, private keys to authenticate to the servers ICANN control, etc, which Auerbach wouldn't care about). The only things I can imagine they would want to hide, are all Bad Things (waste, corruption, etc).

    Can anyone dream up some plausible hypothetical bullshit theoretical possible type of information ICANN could have, that would really be legitimately confidential?

Slashdot Top Deals

The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.

Close