January 28, 2003

MT Templates Are Goofy...

Apparently there is something goofy with IE6 that screws with the rendering of a page in certain circumstances.

Apparently there is something goofy in the templates that ship with Movable Type that trigger this bug. Apparently there are a number of ways to fix it as described in this thread. Apparently, the easiest fix for me to understand makes the pages look goofy. Someday, someday, I might get around to fixing this. Or Microsoft will. In the meantime, get used to the elephant-man layout.

Posted by ross at 11:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


If any of you reading this actually has a vote, your support for Tim Denton would be appreciated. He has served in this capacity for the past two years and has unfailingly represented registrars in a positive fashion without backing down from the hard issues.

From the careg-discuss@egate.net mailing list...

"As a service to our registrar community please read the following:

CIRA has selected The Committee of Canadian Internet Registrars to appoint a representative to the 2003-2004 CIRA Board of Directors for the purpose of representing registrars.

The Committee of Canadian Internet Registrars is a one-registrar, one-vote organization. If you are a CIRA Certified Registrar, you are entitled to vote. Voting commences on January 29, 2003.

Please visit http://www.ccir.ca/ now to ensure you do not miss your opportunity to participate.

Voting details:

The nominees to the position are: (in alphabetic order by last name):

Paul Andersen and Timothy Denton

Voting begins anytime after 2:00 pm January 29th, and finishes on February 4th (11:59:59 pm, Pacific Time). Voting will be conducted by E-mail. All accredited registrars are entitled to one vote for one of the above."

More details on the CCIR website...

Posted by ross at 04:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dude, where's your analytical skills?

The Register asks "Where the hell is my website?" [via ICANN Googlenews] Perhaps it should have asked "What are the differences between ICANN and Nominet?". The article lays many atrocities at the feet of ICANN and neglects to recognize that responsibility for enforcement lies not with the regulator, but with the registries such as GNR, Verisign etc.

So the question should really be "Why aren't the registries moving to fix these problems?"

Posted by ross at 01:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Please, allow *me* to introduce myself. First.

Spammers don't need more rights as this bit seems to imply...

[via MediaSavvy] Spammers, legitmate direct emailers, direct mailers, and telemarketers must be required to disclose where they got your name and how to get your name off the original list.

Umm...how about. No? Let's try starting with something much simpler. Spammers, etc. need my explicit permission to send me anything that I have to bear the cost of delivery for. Full stop.

Posted by ross at 09:15 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Mo' blogging, Mo' problems...

In the spirit of the dynamic that this bit over at Techdirt describes, I'd like to propose that a whole whack of new blogging terms be invented.

In addition to "Moblogging", which is presumably a contraction of "Mobile Blogging" (lets ignore the fact that this is actually a nested contraction because that would mean that we would have to once and for all settle what "blog" is a contraction for), we need some other contractions that can act as convenient labels for the following behaviors;

  • Blogging in your underwear (Underblogging?)
  • Blogging in the winter (Toblogganing?)
  • Elitist Bloggers (Snogs?)
  • Racist Bloggers (KKKloggers?)

Ahhh forget it, its too early to try and be this funny.

Posted by ross at 08:37 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Verisign in violation of Registry Agreement?

Yesterday, as Bret noted first, the IAB has responded to ICANN's earlier request regarding the technical legitimacy of Verisign's recent IDN "launch". As expected, the answer coming back from the IAB is hardly flattering to Verisign.

In reporting these developments, "The Register" asks "what, if any, powers ICANN has relating to this kind of service". The answer to this is actually quite clear. From a layman's perspective, if Verisign has violated the terms of their Registry Agreement with ICANN then ICANN can seek compliance of their agreement as per the terms of section II-14 of their agreement, take the dispute to arbitration per 11-15 or ultimately move to terminate the agreement per II-16.

The problem is that the IAB doesn't come out and say whether or not Verisign has violated the terms of their contract because this isn't within their purview. They have stated on what basis Verisign doesn't conform to the various relevant specifications, but the problem is that they aren't directly required to adhere to any of the relevant specifications that the IAB notes. According to Section 4 of Appendix C to the .com Registry Agreement between Verisign and ICANN, Verisign is only compelled to abide by the implications of RFC 1034, 1035 and 2182 in the operation of their names servers.

It gets more complicated from here. For instance, the IAB notes that Verisign is in violation of RFC 2308 which describes negative caching of DNS records. RFC 2308 updates RFC's 1034 and 1035, but it isn't clear whether this would count as a violation of Verisign's contract.

Further complicating the matter is Leslie Daigle's role as chair of the IAB. Rather than attempting to manage the conflict as The Register implies she is attempting to do, it would be completely appropriate, nay nessecary, that she publicly declares her conflict on this matter and steps aside for the purpose of this dispute if ICANN requires further involvement from the IAB. Without impugning her motives thus far, this is what she should have done in the first place.

Posted by ross at 08:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Another brick in the [chinese] wall...

Bret notes that the folks over at GNR are taking things into their own hands. While I'm a strong believer in "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"; creating more registries possessed of more conflict of interest doesn't intuitively seem like a step in the right direction. Instead, ICANN needs to devote some of this energy towards the creation of net new registry operators and the registry operators needs to focus on upholding their contracts. In fact, new TLDs are almost secondary to this goal, although it only stands to reason that because there are limited opportunities for registry operators, that there will be a limited number of registry operators.

Of course, none of this even gets close to what many see as the central issue: the Registry/Registrar construct was implemented to ensure that the gTLD zones were indeed competitive and not controlled or unduly influenced by particular monopolies. PersonalNames should never have been accredited by ICANN in the first place unless it goes to further competition and increase diversity. This deal doesn't appear to do that.

There's another story here that no one is talking about either - what is it about the dotNAME opportunity that compels the folks at GNR to continue throwing money at the string? I'll give you a hint: its not about GNR management failing to recognize the size of their money pit (although that may yet prove to be the case), its about the behavior of the market. Customers are self-organizing in ways that very few people in the business understand or have even noticed. The typical gTLD registrar thinks that their organization is focusing on the big market opportunities. They haven't even recognized what these opportunities really are. Reminds me of the perennial favorite about the three blind men and the elephant.

Obdisclaimer: I work for a registrar, therefore my self-interest should be as plain as the nose on your face. Also note that I have a pretty good nose for what competition smells like ;)

Posted by ross at 06:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack