The other day I said I wasn't the typical domain name consumer. I suspect Rich Miller is closer to the target. He has a weblog called "DomainWorks" which focuses on the business of domain names. (And he's using one of those newfangled TLDs: domainworks.biz).  I've subscribed. Today's story: "Cleveland Man Patents WHOIS Integration in Search Results." Worth reading.

Speaking of the business of domain names, two conferences (Seattle / Las Vegas) are competing next week for the hearts and minds of the domain name industry. I really wish I could attend both of them but a family vacation will take me home to Arkansas next week. Next year, if you folks hold the conferences at different times, I'll attend them both.

Question: How do we get all of the people who are paying to go to these conferences interested in the work of ICANN?

Interesting story on ICANNWatch, but temper it with this: The first time I heard that an "exclusive, invitation only" meeting was occurring in Washington, D.C., I was surprised...and offended. No longer. It's happened so many times over the last seven years that I've lost count. The folks in Washington think they have some exclusive authority to govern. That may be true when it comes to things like the U.S. tax code, but it's ridiculous when it comes to the Internet. Let them choke on their own cigar smoke. I no longer worry about the private meetings in D.C. It's all a charade to make them feel important...or, at best, look important to their employers and constituents. Kudos to ICANN for opting out.

New ICANN Help Wanted Ad for Regional Liaison Managers: "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has immediate job openings for the position of Liaison Managers for multiple world regions." Closing date for applications is 30 June 2005.

Alick Wilson: "It seems inappropriate...to post these 'immediate job openings' when Version 7.3 of the plan is still open for comment; Version 7.3 proposes deferment and detailed treatment of issues related to regional presence; and the Board has not approved Version 7.3 of the plan or any variation thereof. Perhaps this is a logistics error, in which case the job listings should be removed ASAP with appropriate notice. If it is not a logistics error, would Board and/or staff please explain?"

It's not yet posted on the Reconsideration Committee's web page, but last week, I submitted another in my continuing series of requests related to posting minutes. By sharp contrast, the GNSO posted an mp3 of the Council's call within minutes after the call ended. Transparency has never been an impediment to the Council's work.

Today's blog entries courtesy of the United Airlines terminal at SFO.