Unfortunately I cannot be in Vancouver for the conference. I write this from Cape Town, venue of last years fall ICANN. I want to disclose a couple of things upfront. Those who know me will know I am nothing if not strongly independent in my views. However disclosure helps those of a more suspicious mind know my associations and if they choose to, take them into account in interpreting my opinions. 1. I sit on the board of SnapNames. I can’t think of any conflict this gives rise to, but in the highly charged atmosphere surrounding this discussion I felt
[read more]...TUCOWS launched [ http://www.byte.org/blog/_archives/2004/9/7/136578.html ] an expiring names auction service today. The most interesting part of Ross’s post is this: Today we announced Tucows expiring names auction service, a local implementation of the Perfect Information proposal (PIP?). What I mean is that it only realizes the efficiencies described in “Perfect Information” on a very local basis – i.e. it only works for names registered with Tucows. Because it is a “local” solution, it also lacks a few features that we set forth in “Perfect Information”. For instance, it doesn’t solve 100% of the problems faced by the registry and it doesn’t properly acknowledge
[read more]...Steven Forrest’s Free2Innovate speculates [ http://free2innovate.net/archives/000399.html ] on the reasons for SnapNames move to an auction based model for the sale of deleting domain names. He points out that I am a director of SnapNames and as such may be able to throw some light on things. A couple of points. As a director I really can’t talk publicly without Board and Management agreement. So sorry, no insight on this from me. However, I guess it’s OK to talk about the general area. Ross Raider and Elliot Noss from Tucows – http://byte.org – posted an article [ http://www.byte.org/blog/_archives/2004/9/3/135064.html ] on
[read more]...I have been attending the Icann conference in Malaysia this week. One of the key events was the submission of the report – ssac-report-09jul04.pdf – from the Security & Stability Advisory Committee regarding SiteFinder. In reading the committee’s report I discovered what I believe is an incredible breakdown in logic and as a consequence, a very mistaken, or at least confused, set of conclusions. So, why do I say that? VeriSign’s SiteFinder service effectively took a large number of non-existent domain names and “turned them on” through the use of a wildcard in the .com and .net root zones. Instead
[read more]...Steve Crocker presented his report to ICANN in Malaysia: >>STEPHEN CROCKER: THANK YOU AND YOU ECHO VENI’S CONGRATULATIONS AND THANKS. I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITH HER FROM THE BEGINNING OF MY TENURE AND IT’S AMAZING HOW MUCH SHE TAKES CARE OF BEHIND THE SCENES. I CHAIR THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. IN THE PAST I’VE TRIED TO GIVE SORT OF A BROAD PICTURE OF WHAT WE DO. TODAY I’M GOING TO FOCUS ON SPECIFIC TOPICS, AND THERE’S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAT GOES ON, BUT THIS HAS BEEN A PERIOD THAT HAS BEEN PUNCTUATED BY A
[read more]...I have to agree with Susan. The world needs ICANN or something like ICANN. But it does not need ICANN to make decisions that are better left to the market. It needs ICANN to set a minimum level of rules and processes and then let business get on with what it does best, sorting out the winning models from the losing ones. ICANN would benefit from this. I, for one, believe that no matter what one’s personal opinion of SiteFinder, WLS or multi-lingual domain names are, a registry – any registry – should be able to experiment with its business
[read more]...ICANN – the body whose job it is to coordinate control of the Internet’s naming and numbering systems – has recently been making decisions that many feel fall outside of it’s authority. Now, VeriSign, which has the contract to run .com and .net top level domains as a Registry operator, is suing ICANN, alleging it has overstepped it’s rights under the contract. The services in question are SiteFinder – a search service for helping users when they type a non-existent domain into a browser; Multi-lingual domains – allowing the use of all Unicode character strings in a domain name; and
[read more]...James has responded again. He makes clear his views on my points. It’s clear we disagree. And that we remain friends. So decide for yourself by reading both views. No more on this from me re James. Maybe more on the subject as it develops. To turn to another subject. SiteFinder is particularly interesting in the context of ICANN and its evolution. I have so far been very impressed with Paul Twomey as President and CEO. This issue is a real test of ICANN. There is enormous pressure on it to stand in the way of SiteFinder. Much of the
[read more]...James has responded again. I am responding because I believe the use of our weblogs as a place for public discussion is a great service to the community in airing the arguments – whether one agrees or disagrees with a given point of view. This doesn’t need to be long but …. James, please re-read my piece. I do not say John Klensin either does or will support SiteFinder. I say that his dns-search piece describes an outcome that is in every way similar to SiteFinder. It is an “above the DNS” search and directory layer. I also say that
[read more]...Lots of responses on my SiteFinder piece. Karl Auerbach [somebody who I generally warm too – although I never told him so] has a rebuttal here. And James Seng [who is a friend] has a piece here. Karl and James are both good people, and honest too. But …. I believe they are missing several things in their largely negative analyses. Karl makes an assault on my claim that the small % of people affected by SMTP issues was a “minor inconvenience”. He says: ” SiteFinder’s wildcard-record based redirection goes far beyond being a “minor inconvenience”. Quite the contrary: SiteFinder’s
[read more]...