.nz news & views

List of all DNC authorised registrars is available with .nz domain name pricing and other details. Please be advised that the list is out of date but it will be updated in future.

	Wednesday, 23 November 2005

ComputerWorld: Right of Reply
Paul Brislen, ~~Chief Arm Waver~~ Editor of ComputerWorld, emailed me last night about what I said about the ComputerWorld article on the .nz disputes draft. I said I would reply to his comments and asked if I could publish his email. He welcomed both.

Email as follows:

I have to disagree (respectfully or otherwise). Debbie did email Steve about this story and I called her back and left a message but she hasn't called me back so we're in phone limbo over it.
As I read the draft (and yes, I've read it. Call me old fashioned, etc) the old policy of "first come, first served and if you have any disputes take them up with your lawyers, we don't want to hear about it, pass the asprin it gives us a headache" will be replaced (all things considered) with "first come, first served but if you have a dispute we have a process that you might like to look at if you want to avoid going to court".

I particularly like this paragraph:

"Parties disputing domain-name rights have always been free to negotiate between themselves and to have recourse to the courts, and there have been a number of legal decions in this regard. But the proposed procedure is the first step into the fray by InternetNZ itself and its operational arm, the Domain Name Commissioner."

which I think sets out the position accurately and fairly. InternetNZ is stepping "into the fray" by introducing a new policy. It does not imply that IntNZ will be deciding the outcome of any dispute, simply saying the dispute resolution process is changing. Can't use the DRS term though. Oh the humanity.

So I stand by our headline "First come, first served up for review" because it is. And I still like the standfirst "Being first may no longer guarantee a domain under proposed new InternetNZ rules" although I realise now that being first wasn't any guarantee at all, but that the process was dependent on the courts seeing the light rather than the society dictating, but that doesn't fit in a singe sentence unless you run it on a bit like this one. This does not imply that IntNZ itself was ever guaranteeing a registration, simply that the process gave first dibs to the first person to register the name.

As for the tone, I just don't see any. Steve isn't saying "big corporates can grab any name they think they should have off poor little registrants" implied or otherwise. Far from it - he quotes from the report itself. Hardly implicit - it's highly explicit, listing some of the terms under which a dispute might arise.

Or am I misreading the daft report?
9:46:26 AM Like to comment? []

	Tuesday, 22 November 2005

Chesley Rafferty's luck runs out
I meant to post about this a few weeks ago but it slipped my mind. Chesley Rafferty Director and Head Scumbag of Domain Names Australia has been declared bankrupt after two creditors filed petitions against him. The amusing part is the petitions were from the ACCC and Auda. The Age has a short write up on the Chesely Rafferty bankruptcy. I like the use of the word 'shonky'.

In a 'final parting shot' Chesley posted to the Australian DNS mail list with this comment. Please note that the content may not pass any web filtering software that you or your employer may be using.
1:52:48 PM Like to comment? []

	Friday, 18 November 2005

ComputerWorld gets it wrong on .nz disputes process
It's not common for me to pick apart a story from ComputerWorld now days... but here goes.

On Tuesday a story was placed online called "'First come first served’ up for review at InternetNZ" and with a lead sentence of "Being first may no longer guarantee a domain under proposed new InternetNZ rules".

This story is in fact about the disputes process that is being put in place by the DNC. The 'first come, first served' has nothing to do with the disputes process (I can not bring myself to refer to is as the DRS... the flash backs still occur :-). The 'first come, first served' is not being changed, nor does the dispute process change or impact it. This is just a more cost effective and more agile approach than resulting to the legal process that exists in New Zealand. A High Court has always had jurisdiction over .nz names and that is not changing. However, a level between 'nothing' and 'the High Court' is being added based on a very long public consultation process.

InternetNZ has never been able to 'guarantee' a domain name and nor would it want to. The entire tone of the story implies that 'big corporates can grab any name they think they should have off poor little registrants'. Well, thats not the case. Read the draft policy and make up your own mind.
2:35:50 PM Like to comment? []

.nz disputes process
Last week the DNC issued the draft policy for the Disputes Resolution Service for .nz. I have not had a good read of it yet but after talking to several people on the working group it seems to follow all the things they have been talking about for the last 6 months. I do find it ironic that this is being referred to as 'DRS'. Lets hope they are not tempting fate and it does not go as disastrous as the previous DRS project.
2:17:49 PM Like to comment? []

WSIS round up
As the publishing issue took so long to fix I have not blogged on the WSIS issue. The following is a round up of stories that I think cover the issue:

2:10:41 PM Like to comment? []

	Thursday, 17 November 2005

kiwiblog has text of agreement
David Farrar has the text of the draft agreement. I only looked on his site after I saw the BBC headline.
12:11:24 AM Like to comment? []

Agreement reached pre Tunis meeting
BBC is reporting that an agreement has been reached before the Tunis WSIS meeting regarding the recent Internet Governance 'issue'. Have to wait for more detail but do you really think David Gross said "anything that will create any problems for the private sector"?

Further information at Dutch site called ComputerPartner. Looks like this is just hitting the news wires now. In the morning should be lots of coverage.
12:00:26 AM Like to comment? []

	Thursday, 20 October 2005

Interview with Debbie Monahan (DNC)
This is the first of a number of interviews I am doing with people involved with .nz. The lucky person I picked first is Debbie (Deborah to her friends) Monahan, the .nz Domain Name Commissioner. After reading it you have any feedback, questions or suggestions drop me a line.

Email interview with Debbie Monahan Domain Name Commissioner (DNC) of the .nz ccTLD.
2:09:34 PM Like to comment? []

	Thursday, 13 October 2005

Twomey quoted in The Guardian
The Guardian has a story on titled EU says internet could fall apart. Thanks to Bret Faustt I was alerted to a quote from Paul Twomey, ICANN CEO. It is:

"We expect to evolve, we expect to keep changing. We are concerned about stability [of the internet] and we think it's best to evolve existing institutions. Our present corporate structure is a matter of history, not of any particular design."

Bret outlines some of the recent changes to ICANN in his post but I would like to point out that ICANN was created in the manner it was to get 'the nod' from the USA government. Others were also trying to 'win the prize' but ICANN got it, partly based on the corporate structure and that Jon Postel was going to be the CTO. But hey, if you repeat a lie often enough its becomes fact right?
11:42:05 AM Like to comment? []

	Tuesday, 11 October 2005

The Economist and Karl Auerbach
Bret Fausett has links to a story in The Economist regarding ICANN and the UN. As it is subscriber only he posted the story for all to read. I guess lawyers in the US don't have to worry about copyright! :-)

Bret also links to Karl Auerbach's followup which he titled "Clueless Editorial". I actually read Karls followup before reading The Economist article. Karl is one of the three former At Large directors elected onto the ICANN board and is by far the most well known. He also has sued ICANN, and won, about access to company documents as a director.
2:46:12 PM Like to comment? []

	Monday, 10 October 2005

IDG has a story about the bankdlrect.co.nz phish. It has a screen shot of the phishing 'error' and some quotes from the DNC, DiscountDomains and ASB but other than not much new.

It does however have a curious error. The story claims that the name is still registered. This is clearly incorrect and it was deleted by the registrar the day the phish was discovered. It is in the PendingDelete status which ALL names are in after they are cancelled or lapse due to non payment.
8:58:31 AM Like to comment? []

Articles