Foxbane Ltd and Steven Heath: gTLD

I could not have said it better

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:03:40 GMT

Interview with Karl Auerbach Karl, what do you think of the ICANN - Verisign contract, which essentially provides for default renewal of the .com contract with Verisign? Do you think ICANN could have resolved its litigation with Verisign in a more favorable fashion? As for Verisign - wow, ICANN and NTIA have been like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to Verisign. It was utterly outrageous how ICANN let its outside attorney give all of those gifts to Verisign in at least three distinct contracts. As I said on the phone, Verisign's negotiating team is so good at negotiating the pants off of ICANN and NTIA that we ought to send 'em to the Middle East to work out a peace settlement. It is amazing how ICANN and NTIA transformed Verisign's job to maintain .com, .net, and .org into permanent ownership. It's as if the US National Park service were to give the entire Grand Canyon to the company that was hired to run the hotel.

Veri$ign does the unexpected, not!

Sun, 08 Apr 2007 04:05:22 GMT

So last week InternetNZ announced a drop in domain name fees to $1.50 per month ($18 per annum). This was a 14% drop. Now you have to realise that .nz has less than 275,000 names (actually about 270,000). So VeriSign manages about 65 million names under .com and .net. Of course due to the efficiencies they are increasing the price 7% to $6.42 (USD). So lets do the math, 65 million names up 7%. 0.27 million names down 14%. PS When I mean efficiencies I mean that of creating contracts with ICANN and not any directed toward customers.

Does it really matter?

Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:47:15 GMT

It is with some amusement I find myself very busy for next week. However my next week is not related to the first, and hopefully only, ICANN meeting in Wellington. I am off to LinuxWorld in Sydney something that actually has a technical focus, unlike ICANN.

I commented after finding out that we had ~~lost~~ won the 'right' to host the ICANN meeting that whatever was planned would mean nothing and it would just be hijacked by what other crisis event was occurring at the time. Much like every other ICANN meeting. The more things change the more they remain the same. This meeting like all ICANN meetings is much ado about nothing. Those that 'talk it up' are just those that gain their power by being involved in this process. Wouldn't be great if a ICANN meeting was held and no one showed up and would anyone care?

In my opinion the only part of ICANN that really impacts the ccTLD's is IANA. This is also not part of ICANN, ICANN just performs those duties on behalf of the US Government. Now with the Verisign agreement providing ICANN with millions of dollars direct from the monolopy agreement then ICANN can drop the final pretence of 'consulting' the community in these side shows called 'ICANN meetings'.

Enough of this ramble. I wanted to get if off my chest. Anyone want to take bets on how many press releases come out that actually say nothing, both during and after the meeting?

WSIS round up

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 02:10:41 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 12:11:24 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 12:00:26 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.

Twomey quoted in The Guardian

Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:42:05 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 02:46:12 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 10:02:41 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 Wellington update

Fri, 07 Oct 2005 02:19:27 GMT

I was wondering what is happening with the ICANN Wellington meeting and first went to www.icann.org.nz and *WHAM* I hit my head on the invisible wall. I am like 'hmm' and think right away that password protecting a document without a stated reason breaches InternetNZ policy (I helped draft the policy :-). I think ok, what about the InternetNZ website and go to www.internetnz.net.nz/icann which is not very much use. I guess with the the Executive Director and the Research Officer being away on a junket not much is going to happen anyway.

ICANN, UN and who is the most democratic

Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:25:08 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 07:18:02 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 04:19:48 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 03:28:48 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 02:13:51 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 03:31:11 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 02:08:34 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 01:37:20 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.

WTF are they smoking?

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:06:53 GMT

Serious, I mean what the fuck. Really, I do. In this case I am talking about ICANN, those bunch of [power hungry/well meaning/crazed hippies/deluded do gooders] (take your pick) board members that are going to approve .CAT. No shit. Or should that be no kitty litter... or something...

WGIG news and Paul Vixie comments

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:13:58 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.

Herald on WGIG report

Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:57:09 GMT

Herald has a Reuters story on the release of the WGIG report.

WGIG report

Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:08:09 GMT

The WGIG has finally released its report. I have only skimmed it. I will give it a read over the weekend and blog any comments.

PDT on NTIA root policy announcement

Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:18:47 GMT

Peter Dengate-Thrush has been interviewed regarding the NTIA announcement of 'keeping the root' by ComputerWorld. While most of the actual quotes are not in contention I do find it weird that the major issue of the NTIA is about the root wont be transferred over to ICANN. It just so happens that Peter is a director of ICANN. Also I am wondering if the InternetNZ media policy allows him to speak on behalf of this InternetNZ committee without prior approval.

Declan McCullagh on UN and ICANN

Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:08:03 GMT

Declan McCullagh at c|net has written another well written story with lots of background and quotes called Will the U.N. run the Internet?. I do not always agree with what Declan writes but it always makes you think about the issues he wries about. I still think an ITU approach has some possible features that are far greater than ICANN. However a proposed approach needs to be provided by the ITU (or UN) which can then be debated by all relevant parties. Then we can compare ICANN and status quo to other options. Until then its just a talk fest...

Cnet on US Root and lack of 'official' aspect of the principles

Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:34:58 GMT

Declan McCullagh at Cnet has written a good article on the root server announcement from NTIA. The one thing I find very strange is that the "U.S. Principles on the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System" document has no date, contact name, NTIA logo, document number, or anything like that. Also it is not listed under the NTIA documents relating to Management of Internet Names and Addresses. To me it looks like the speaking notes of a presentation and not an official policy statement of the US Government. Also can be removed or changed at a moments notice as well...