August 16, 2002
Verisignadvisorycouncil.com?
An interesting new addition to the zone file yesterday popped up in my watchlist this morning - "verisignadvisorycouncil.com". My immediate thought was that Stratton had picked up on Brett's commentary regarding the "Value of Trust". Natch, it looks like this one went to a third party for some bizarre reason... ...any broken links will be fixed when I get in front of the console...sigh...
Update: Links fixed.
Radio eats Link. Radio 2, Links 0
Apologies for the broken links below. For some reason, when I post stories via email, the links get re-written in some cases, thus obviously breaking them. I will fix them manually when I get home tonight.
Update: Originally referred to links on the home page. I must say that this is pretty annoying that Radio keeps munging links submitted via email in this way...
Esther on the ITU
This is actually a great interview - put some very fine touches on what have been somewhat elusive issues for a while (at least in my books). Last week, over at ICANNwatch, Ray Fasset posited "Why not the ITU?" Esther nails the answer in the interview (did I say "read it!" ?)...
"Okay, here's the scenario: it loses its contract with the US Department of Commerce, and its functions revert to the United States. Then there's a huge outcry from the EU and other governments saying, 'It's unconscionable that this thing be in the control of the US government,' which it would be. The US government then says, 'You're absolutely right. We'll hand it over to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)' - which has been holding meetings, making moves and planning how to take it over. ICANN will then become part of the ITU, which for years was basically lobbying against the very existence of the Internet. This will then have all the derived power of all the governments of the world. Then it could say, for example, 'These particular web sites which criticise governments should lose their domain names because they are not in the public interest'; that is, 'We're governments and we represent the public interest - and these sites are not in our interest.' The ITU will be successfully lobbied by trademark interests and, if it follows the US, trademark interests will impose much more restrictive rules than ICANN's dispute-resolution policy. There will be very, very little progress in anything. End of scenario."
More at OpenDemocracy...
Why do users need a place at the table?
I was just reading through Esther's interview at OpenDemocracy and it occurred to me that over the last four years I've not heard (or perhaps more precisely, I don't remember hearing) any arguments concerning why user participation in ICANN is appropriate. I mean, it seems perfectly logical and healthy for providers, producers, customers and caretakers of the DNS and domain names to be involved - but actually users? If "user" means "those that use the resources of the Internet and in doing so take advantage of the resolution services of the DNS" then I need some significant education as to what the fuss is about. I'm not saying that user participation on some level is or isn't desirable, I'm just saying I don't think that I "get it" enough to actually buy either side of the argument. If on the other hand "user" means "an individual who has registered a domain name", then the picture is quite clear to me - they need representation and they need it now. I think I have some reading to do this weekend ;)
New RPSI Titleholder - new.architects new.editor
In what has to get the prize for "Most Rhetoric Per Square Inch", the new.editor of new.architect magazine Christopher Null has some pretty unflattering things to say about ICANN. I'm not sure what he has written is worthy of a response, but the piece does illustrate a) the new popularity that ICANN jousting has found as a sport and b) how easy it is to become an editor nowadays. I suppose it might sell copy though.
Boardwatch is running similarly clueless commentary from Dvorak in their latest ish....