|
||||
|
Monday, February 28
by
Bret Fausett
on Mon 28 Feb 2005 11:57 AM PST
The SBC DSL line at home has been down for the last week. SBC is
blaming it on the rains or something -- I understand that connections
are down in spots all over Los Angeles County. This explains why
bret.net has been offline (and still is), so if you hit a link that
doesn't work, check the URL: the page may have been served from
bret.net. Anyway, the repair truck is finally making its way to my
house tonight between 4-8 p.m., and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that
it will be carrying a solution.
I have podcasts to download! Update: Mission accomplished! Thursday, February 24
by
Bret Fausett
on Thu 24 Feb 2005 07:48 AM PST
Veni Markovski's Statement to the WSIS Plenary: "Dear Mr. President, Dear Colleagues...."
Wednesday, February 23
by
Bret Fausett
on Wed 23 Feb 2005 09:32 PM PST
ICANN Statement on IDN Homograph Attacks and Request for Public Comment: "ICANN calls for views and positions regarding both
homograph vulnerability, which is not unique to IDNs, and the proposed
countermeasures, which include having browser support for IDNs turned off by
default, while at the same time not protecting against older forms of URI
and domain name abuse."
by
Bret Fausett
on Wed 23 Feb 2005 08:20 PM PST
Here's a Weblog to Add to Your Newsreader: "Truth comes in many forms. ...Vitriol can irritate, but it is often the price of
freewheeling discussion and the discovery of important stuff."
But Jerry, you need your own domain name. http://jerrybrown. typepad.com/ jerry/ is sort of cumbersome.
by
Bret Fausett
on Wed 23 Feb 2005 07:35 AM PST
From the CENTR Statement on IDN Homograph Attacks:
[O]n 15 February
2005 the Mozilla Foundation announced it had a plan to disable IDNs by
default in future versions of its web browsers. CENTR, a group of many
of the world's domain registries - representing over 98% of domain
registrations worldwide - believes such strong reactions are heavily
detrimental to the effort to introduce non-English languages and
scripts to the Internet, and could have lasting repercussions on the
ongoing effort to internationalise the DNS. With this in mind, CENTR
would like to make the following points....
The CENTR Statement is well worth reading if you've been following this thread.Tuesday, February 22
by
Bret Fausett
on Tue 22 Feb 2005 08:13 PM PST
The Names Council of the GNSO has issued a call for nominations for Board Seat 14, the seat currently filled by Michael Palage. The nomination period closes on Friday, March 11th. After they are made, nominations will be posted on this page
(which is empty as of the date of this post). The vote will conclude on
April 1, 2005. The person elected will serve a three-year term on
ICANN's Board of Directors.
Monday, February 21
by
Bret Fausett
on Mon 21 Feb 2005 06:06 PM PST
I need a new registrar. Once upon a time I opened an SRSPlus
account and have used that for the bulk of my domain name registrations
(I only have about 25 or so). My primary reason for using SRSPlus was
that the company provided Los Angeles County as the exclusive forum for
litigating disputes and made California law the law governing the
contract. That fit me perfectly. After the Verisign-Netsol split
though, SRSPlus adopted the policies of its parent Network Solutions,
complete with Virginia domain name law and forum in the Eastern
District of Virginia. So I plan to get the hell out of Herndon and move
my domain names back home to California. In an ideal world, I'd like a
Los Angeles-based registrar or, absent that, a registrar willing to
give me my choice of forum and my choice of law. Any recommendations?
by
Bret Fausett
on Mon 21 Feb 2005 07:47 AM PST
by
Bret Fausett
on Mon 21 Feb 2005 07:44 AM PST
Overheard on the Publc Address System this morning at the Bob Hope Burbank Airport: "Mr.
_______, please return to the airport inspection station to retrieve
your pair of Levi jeans. Repeat. Mr. ________, please return to the
airport inspection station to retrieve your pair of Levi jeans."
Friday, February 18
by
Bret Fausett
on Fri 18 Feb 2005 02:10 PM PST
From the ICANN Meetings page, here is the agenda for the February 18th Special Meeting of the Board:
If recent history is any guide, a preliminary report will be available at some remote time in the future, far beyond the time required by ICANN's Bylaws. Official minutes ought to be posted some time in the next year.
by
Bret Fausett
on Fri 18 Feb 2005 11:22 AM PST
Bhavin Turakhia, writing on the Registrar Constituency List: "ICANN
is currently reviewing the RAA and intends to make changes and come up
with a new RAA by June. This is very important to all of us from the
following perspectives...."
This will be an important process to follow. "RAA" stands for "Registrar Accreditation Agreement," which is the primary document that governs a registrar's rights and responsibilities vis-a-vis ICANN. Thursday, February 17
by
Bret Fausett
on Thu 17 Feb 2005 04:32 PM PST
From Verisign's Appellate Brief:
"The Supporting Organizations and
Constituency Groups of ICANN that engaged in the restraints of trade
alleged in the FAC [First Amended Complaint] were substantially
controlled by existing and potential competitors of Verisign and others
sharing similar economic interests with Verisign's competitors. ICANN
has expressly admitted (as quoted in the FAC) in other proceedings that
this bottom-up policy making process is subject to control or 'capture'
by small groups of competitive interests. According to ICANN, an
important reason that its processes are subject to capture is that
competitors may have strong interests directly affected by particular
actions of ICANN, while other members of ICANN's Constituency Groups
generally are part time volunteers, are not directly affected by such
actions, and/or lack the time or resources fully to participate in
ICANN's processes, therefore not attending meetings or voting on issues
presented to Constituency Groups. The result, according to ICANN, is
that a small number of highly motivated competitors may control the
actions and decisions of ICANN's Supporting Organizations and this its
Board."
The "proof" for these allegations is supposedly Paragraphs 84-87 of Verisign's First Amended Complaint. The problem is that all of the allegations, including those attributed to ICANN itself, reference the pre-Reform ICANN of 1998-2002. The Reform process, in which these statements were made and which precedes the decisions at issue, was designed to correct these perceived deficiencies.
by
Bret Fausett
on Thu 17 Feb 2005 02:14 PM PST
The last two blog posts came from this page on the ICANN-Verisign litigation, updated yesterday with many new pleadings. A lot of interesting reading there, including the appellate briefs before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Verisign's antitrust claim (Verisign's Brief / ICANN's Brief) and various other pleadings on the current California state court skirmish. Now I suppose we know what this Board meeting was all about. Thanks to the reader who wrote with news that the litigation page had been updated!
by
Bret Fausett
on Thu 17 Feb 2005 12:39 PM PST
From Verisign's Request for Arbitration: "Under the express terms of the .net Registry Agreement, neither the current ICANN selection process nor the selection of a successor registry operator pursuant to that process would be of any force or effect with respect to Verisign." Paragraph 3 of Verisign's January 15, 2005 filing.
by
Bret Fausett
on Thu 17 Feb 2005 12:29 PM PST
From the Los Angeles Superior Court: "ICANN
is moving to stay this action pending the results of the .net
arbitration proceeding. Since the arbitration provision in the .net
Registry Agreement is found by the Court to be invalid, however, the
arbitrators' findings and award in the .net Registry Agreement
arbitration will have no legal preclusive effect on this present case. The Court denies the motion."
Wednesday, February 16
by
Bret Fausett
on Wed 16 Feb 2005 01:19 PM PST
According to the LA Times,
Steve Jobs sent an e-mail to record executives yesterday with a link to
an article about insecurities in Napster that would allow users to
convert songs covered by their Napster subscription to permanent files.
The Napster CEO responded by e-mailing record executives with links to
software designed to defeat Apple's DRM solution. Folks, this is foolishishness. The "my-DRM-is-better-than-your-DRM" game is not good for consumers...and it's not good for technology companies either.
I'd much rather see Apple and Napster compete on price, depth of their respective music catalogues, and new services than on which can best withstand the legal fury of the RIAA. Monday, February 14
by
Bret Fausett
on Mon 14 Feb 2005 08:48 PM PST
This is interesting. The Mozilla Foundation announced today that "In the forthcoming Mozilla Firefox 1.0.1 and Mozilla 1.8 Beta releases, IDN support will be disabled." And Ross Rader from Tucows wrote: "Tucows has been selling IDNs since the initial NSI test-bed was announced. It was a bad idea then and I'd be much happier now if we hadn't jumped in as quickly as we did."
Serious stuff. I now want to read more -- a lot more -- about "homographic spoofing." Links welcome. Any solutions? Add: Paul Hoffman on "IDN Spoofing Solutions with Balance". Paul writes "Given the assumption that billions of people would actually like to have their domain names be in characters that they use every day, there has to be better solutions to the homograph spoofing problem. Fortunately, there are...." More here. Reading:
by
Bret Fausett
on Mon 14 Feb 2005 09:16 AM PST
PR Newswire: "BulkRegister, the world's leading business registrar, today announced the industry's first wholesale Private WHOIS Registration service, which will end unwanted solicitations and guard against identity theft for domain owners...."
Friday, February 11
by
Bret Fausett
on Fri 11 Feb 2005 08:52 AM PST
New York Times writes: "Bret Fausett, who publishes Lextext.com,
a Web log following the domain name industry, and who first disclosed
the news that Google had become a registrar, said Google could improve
the quality of search results by getting better access to the list of
expiring domain names - a list available only to registrars."
I spoke with Bob Tedeschi at the New York Times about this article a couple of weeks ago when the Google story first started making the rounds. Nice fellow. But I didn't say "a list available only to registrars." In fact, I said the opposite. We actually talked about this in some detail, and I said that registry zone file access -- available to anyone who wants it (I'm a registered user, for example, with Verisign, Afilias and Neustar) -- would be sufficient. I did say that access to the information might be easier and better as a registrar (NYT: "better access") but that I couldn't speak to that since I'm not a registrar. I appreciate that the accurate information is too much detail for a short column, but the shorthand, reader-friendly answer isn't correct. A nit, perhaps, to those who follow this tangentially, but an important correction for regular readers here.
by
Bret Fausett
on Fri 11 Feb 2005 08:27 AM PST
Thomas Roessler: "Some
initial notes from the 'Amsterdam Consultation on the ICANN Strategic
Plan,' as the meeting has ultimately been called...."
|
||||

