Foxbane Ltd and Steven Heath: InternetNZ

Open standards, nah, not if your InternetNZ

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:51:33 GMT

Why does it seem that the only way you can find out what NZOC does in meetings is by accessing a PDF file? Then again it is possible details are elsewhere but finding them is another issue...

DRS results todate

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:44:06 GMT

Looks like the DRS (I still have issues writing this to me the .nz disputes process and not the Domainz project with the same acronym) is rocking away with the DNC issuing details of results todate. One of the things on my list is writing my own summary of the cases todate and based on some things I am working on this should happen sooner rather than later.

DomainTalk website

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:37:25 GMT

I have had a couple of emails about a new site called DomainTalk. It is a forum website with about a dozen areas relating to .nz. If it gets a bit more active and more people posting it might be a useful site. Then again at least it has far more activity then the moribund InternetNZ blog.

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.

So long and thanks for all the fish

Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:54:46 GMT

With the appointment of the .nz Experts (the lawyers sitting on the disputes panel) the final part of the puzzle is in place for .nz. I have spent hundreds and maybe thousands of hours of blood sweat and tears into breaking the Domainz behemoth and putting in place a flexible and successful .nz system. For no personal gain or for any other reason than 'it was the right thing to do'. I think I will get off my butt and update the .nz registrar page, and keep it updated, and leave this policy stuff to those many people now employed by InternetNZ.

I guess it is a good thing that this now does not attract my interest. It means it is running well and working as it should. I would give the current .nz system a 9 out of 10. I will post in the up coming weeks about what changes I would put on my wish list.

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?

More on DNMSL vs DNC

Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:05:03 GMT

For those that are new or have forgotten DNMSL was in the news in June. In the recent NZOC meeting an agenda item was "Policy Compliance - in committee from approx 5pm". At the time I wondered who this was.

Since reading about the ~~bullet to the head~~ deauthorisation of DNMSL as a .nz registrar this morning I have made some calls and sent some emails.

The first is from Dennis Smith who alleges bias and predetermination of the DNC and requested NZOC appoint a mediator. He states NZOC rejected his request and endorsed the DNC's recommendation. He said me might do a release about this in the new year, or he might not.

The next is I followed up on the "The company has also twice been suspended by the registry for technical breaches." comment as this looked like an unusual event, especially as it had not been reported before (that I am aware of). NZRS will suspend a registrar under two broad areas:

Whois access abuse
Actions that could impact the integrity or performance of the registry

It appears whatever they did, or threatened to do, fell under the second area. This is more than just disagreement on policy and how the DNC enforces policy. For NZRS to suspend a registrar means that they must have had pretty clear evidence of actions that would impact all registrars and/or registrants. What the hell was DNMSL thinking?

If I find any more relevant information I will post about as I am able.

Registrar smoted. DNMSL deauthorised.

Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:09:09 GMT

Just read that the DNC has deauthorised DNMSL. First time in .nz history.

Vegan vs Manufacturer

Mon, 19 Dec 2005 03:03:28 GMT

I spent about 5-10 minutes on each of the websites this afternoon.

www.premierbacon.co.nz is clearly different from www.premierebacon.co.nz but has copied, in an amateurish fashion, the look and feel of www.premierebacon.co.nz. It also looks like it has copied entire sections of copy from the target site (www.premierbacon.co.nz/premier.php compared to www.premierebacon.co.nz/about.html).

Looking at the meta tags of www.premierbacon.co.nz however does provide a glimpse into the thinking and possible trade mark infringement of www.premierbacon.co.nz. It appears to be using trade/service marks it does not ‘own’.

<meta name="keywords" content="Factory Farming Premier Premiere Bacon Ham Pork cruelty murder Country-style Wairarapa New Zealand pigs pig nz animal rights christmas lockdown campaign torture cage sow crate slaughter">

I could not see any reasonable person confusing the two sites or thinking that www.premierbacon.co.nz is anything other than a protest site of www.premierebacon.co.nz. I do think however that www.premierbacon.co.nz should not have copied verbatim entire pages from the www.premierebacon.co.nz site and should stop using any trade/service marks it does not own. These aspects just makes them open to challenge over copyright and trade mark infringement on the site.

Bringing home the bacon

Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:44:33 GMT

Stuff has a story about a .nz domain name dispute regarding premierbaconco.nz. Is it typo squating or fair use?

I will post my comments on the two sites once I have had a good chance to review them.

Call for .nz Experts

Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:39:39 GMT

The DNC has issued an announcement seeking mediators and experts for the .nz disputes process. Applications closes February 17th.

Behold the future!

Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:02:28 GMT

I have been mulling the future of this site from some time.

The reason is simple, .nz, in general, has its shit together. Things are not falling apart or lawsuits being threatened (or in some cases filed) and multi million dollar projects run by inept management are not occurring any more.

I created this blog back in July 2002 in the days of the formation of the SRS to highlight what was going to those people that did not ‘live the SRS’.

While I do not think .nz is perfect it is one of the best ccTLD’s. I think that for instance NZOC should be more transparent and broader process for appointments and full registrar stats being made public.

The last part of the jigsaw is the .nz disputes process. Once that is implemented I will cover any initial cases and then I think I will turn out the lights. I plan to keep the site online for all those amusing Google searches I get.

Other options were to turn it into a ‘personal blog’ but then again I would rather give myself a lobotomy with a spork than do that. For a brief moment I had thought about running the Unofficial DPF Fan Site (UDPFFS) but I think some 8 year old girl called Sarah is already planning on doing that so I wont steal her thunder :-)

I plan to refocus my attention on the registrar survey that I was half way through doing before a hard drive crash and being a reference site for the .nz ccTLD.

Of course if I’m lucky .nz could all fall apart and I could have a ‘target rich environment’ again and things will be back to the ‘good old days’. Here’s hoping!

ComputerWorld: Right of Reply

Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:46:26 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?

ComputerWorld gets it wrong on .nz disputes process

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 02:35:50 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 02:17:49 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 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.

parliament.nz details in .nz newsletter

Tue, 25 Oct 2005 02:13:20 GMT

Office of the DNC has updated the .nz October newsletter with the actual links. The two documents of interest are:

Both of these are interesting reading but raised some interesting questions to me. The first is that if I was a policital party in parliament I would nto activly use any domain name in this 2LD. It reduceds the 'brand' of the party and also puts it in the whim of the moderator if it will exist in the future, ie, after an election. The second is this part of the moderation document:

Names will need to be chosen which avoid confusion with other organisation. Three or four letter names will normally be used only to represent departments or other central or local government bodies where the abbreviation is widely recognised by the general public (e.g. OOC, PS)

OOC and PS are widely recognised by the general public? Really? Maybe if the general public works in the parliament buildings... certainly these terms would have a very low awareness in the general public.

.nz newsletter and the missing PDF links

Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:24:53 GMT

DNC has issued the October .nz newsletter. The main information in this is the parliament.nz recommendation and the supporting material. The PDF newsletter claims to link to them but the documents are not linked in the newsletter. I have alerted the DNC office and they are looking into it.

Interview with Debbie Monahan (DNC)

Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:09:34 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.

.govt.nz vs parliament.nz?

Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:22:10 GMT

I agree that Parliament 'legally' is separate (and equal) to 'government' but I think 99% of the population does not really realise this and in fact care. I have not yet seen all the material that NZOC was presented about the parliament.nz application and perhaps this was addressed.

Many things are simplified for ease of the many at the expense of the few and I thinkt his should have been one of them. I think we have now reached the 'tipping point' for 2LD applications in NZ.

Anyone for parlemont.nz? :-)

NZOC recommends parliament.nz be approved

Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:10:39 GMT

I fired off some emails about the NZOC meeting and in the end got one back from Frank March, NZOC Chair (I guess I should have emailed him first :-)

In response to my 'what occurred for parliament.nz' request Frank sent a detailed update which I have placed online but the lead sentence is the key one:

NZOC agreed to recommmend to Council at its next meeting on 28 October that .parliament.nz be established as a moderated second level domain.

I understand several trees were used to outline the application, supporting material and the background for the new members on NZOC (Andy Linton and Chris Streatfield).

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?

parliament.nz?

Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:34:32 GMT

On Monday the NZOC had a meeting and one of the items on the agenda was the parliament.nz 2LD application. I heard that this meeting had a member that came as an observer. I would have liked to go but had prior commitments. I am tracking down who this person is and see if I can find out what occurred at the meeting. Reading from the minutes from the previous meetings I expect that parliament.nz was approved (or at least not rejected).