Foxbane Ltd and Steven Heath: Articles

ComputerWorld: Right of Reply

Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:46:26 GMT

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?

Chesley Rafferty's luck runs out

Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:52:48 GMT

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.

ComputerWorld gets it wrong on .nz disputes process

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 01:35:50 GMT

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.

.nz disputes process

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 01:17:49 GMT

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.

WSIS round up

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 01:10:41 GMT

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:

kiwiblog has text of agreement

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:11:24 GMT

David Farrar has the text of the draft agreement. I only looked on his site after I saw the BBC headline.

Agreement reached pre Tunis meeting

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:00:26 GMT

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.

Interview with Debbie Monahan (DNC)

Thu, 20 Oct 2005 01:09:34 GMT

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.

Twomey quoted in The Guardian

Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:42:05 GMT

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?

The Economist and Karl Auerbach

Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:46:12 GMT

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.

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:58:31 GMT

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.

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 09:02:41 GMT

Kieren McCarthy has an article called Breaking America's grip on the net on The Guardian. The best summary of this story is:

After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments.

Things are happening faster than I expected.

ICANN, UN and who is the most democratic

Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:25:08 GMT

A great deal of discussion is occurring around the future of ICANN and the possible involvement of the UN.

The ‘USA give it up!’ faction has two main issues from what I have read:

1, Control of the Root
2, Cyberspace governance

Read the entire posting.

Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:18:02 GMT

Declan McCullagh has an opinion story called Power grab could split the Net. Interesting read. I think the Balkanization would never happen. I also think that as he is American he is overly harsh on his thinking of the UN. I mean most of the issue in Somalia were due to the Americans!

Guess machine names other than www dont work on the intraweb

Mon, 03 Oct 2005 03:19:48 GMT

Because jobs.domainname.com is such a hard concept we have .jobs. The funny thing is even their own press release they use a .com name and also the wrong domain name. The have listed employeemedia.com and not employmedia.com.

EU saying one thing and doing another?

Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:28:48 GMT

Internetnews.com has an interesting angle on the USA vs the World issue. They have a quote from Bret Fausett:

But it wasn't a particularly risky move for the EU to make, he said, because they are secure in the knowledge the U.S. is adamant about not giving control to the U.N. Many of the member nations within the EU, he said, still support the U.S. role for Internet governance.

That is an interesting approach. Is EU playing both sides of the field?

Milton Mueller on The Failure of Internet Unilateralism

Mon, 03 Oct 2005 01:13:51 GMT

Milton Mueller has written an article on ICANNWatch called The Failure of Internet Unilateralism. Milton is well versed in ICANN and domain name issues. The story is timely and makes some comments on the inconsistent approach of the USA governments position.

I think the current policy approach is naive and will only lead to a path of greater confrontation. It is time for the USA to state what is minimum requirements for it to allow greater involvement of other national states. You can only fight the tide so long with a bucket and spade.

ICANN: Open and transparent?

Sun, 02 Oct 2005 02:31:11 GMT

This is the first of the many comments I will make on ICANN. Heck, ICANN might be better than what is coming in the (near) future but who can tell?

Take a read of some of the background of the hiring of the new CEO Paul Twomey.

Interesting reading eh?

USA stands alone, lost last major ally.

Sun, 02 Oct 2005 01:08:34 GMT

The story from the International Herald Tribune (which is a very good online source of news BTW) about USA vs The Rest of the World called EU and U.S. clash over control of Net got me thinking.

I can not see ICANN having the same reporting structure in the following years. In fact I am prepared to bet money on it. ICANN may exist but not with the basic contracts with American government departments. The USA can not win this fight, at best they can stage a rear guard that will last years, but not win. ICANN has provided most of the ammunition to its 'foes', alas the rest of the ammunition is most governments finally waking up to their lack of control/influence in 'Internet Governance'.

Maybe ICANN will form an arm of the ITU. Maybe UN will have a reporting group over ICANN (or what it morphs into). Whatever it will be will not be a private company with a couple of wimpy contracts with the USA government.

Lets start working on making it the best it can be knowing that the rules set now will last a long time and will be near impossible to change once implemented.

USA 1 Rest of the World 0

Sat, 01 Oct 2005 00:37:20 GMT

US Government has yet again stated in public they are not going to move control of 'the root'. The part I find the most interesting is this:

"We've been very, very clear throughout the process that there are certain things we can agree to and certain things we can't agree to," Gross told reporters at U.N. offices in Geneva. "It's not a negotiating issue. This is a matter of national policy."

National policy of course USA thinks it is more important than the rest of the world combined. I would not mind so much if They freaking actually enforced their contract(s) with ICANN.

Ironic Stuff lead sentence

Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:10:32 GMT

On a story called Students 'can't write letters' on Stuff the following is the lead sentence:

A provate trainer watchdog has investigated few complaints, partly because disgruntled students cannot write letters.

Cute eh?

Interesting Technology and Internet Jurisdiction paper

Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:32:05 GMT

It is a common thinking that the 'Internet' makes it harder to enforce local laws. The thinking is the Internet can provide people with the ability to avoid all sovereign laws. The other day I found a great paper called "Technology and Internet Jurisdiction" by Joel R. Reidenberg. Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law. Read the abstract and download PDF from http://ssrn.com/abstract=691501 This paper debunks the popular conception with legal examples around the world on why local law is doing very well enforcing laws 'on the Internet'.

Stupid .nz related headline award

Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:53:23 GMT

This headline "Whodunnit? asks Whois" must be one of the most stupid I have seen. I mean what in the hell is the story about by seeing that headline?

HITS

Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:50:21 GMT

Definition. Hits; How Idiots Track Success.

I have been saying this for over 10 years since working for the first commerical ISP in Canada and one of the few 'for profit' organistations with unrestricted access to NSFnet.

WGIG news and Paul Vixie comments

Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:13:58 GMT

The WGIG report has created some interesting views. I have still yet to reach an opinion on it other than it does not have nearly as much as I had expected. I have read 'American neo conversatives' rant that the UN should just screw off and others that the UN then WSIS then WGIG is a way to palm things off and claim 'consultation'. One of the less emotive and useful writings has been Paul Vixie commenting on various aspects of the report. Worth a read, unlike most I have to date.