"If I would have a voting right, I would vote like this" said Janis Karklins, chair of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) as he empathically raised two arms in the air. He was showing his, and the GAC's, overwhelming support for the ICANN Board unanimously (barring one abstention) passing the resolution that ratified the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process, propelling it toward an imminent release. A standing ovation was given from a grateful and exuberant audience and everyone seemed pleased with this momentous decision.
Multiple reports today indicate that opposition is growing in Europe to plans for three-strikes policies that could lead to the termination of Internet access for some subscribers. In the U.K., protests are mounting over those plans in the recently introduced Digital Economy Bill. The BBC reports that thousands of people have signed a petition urging the government to reconsider its approach, while the Open Rights Group says it has seen a big spike in membership.
Last week, comments were filed with the FCC in response to the Berkman study of international broadband comparisons... Many of the comments were not supportive of the Harvard Berkman study. In an earlier blog posting, we had observed that there appeared to be statistical problems in the Berkman study that would not hold up to peer review. Our comments may have understated the extent of the problems.
Some members of Congress have gotten extremely upset about peer-to-peer filesharing. Even the New York Times has editorialized about the issue. The problem of files leaking out is a real one, but the bills are misguided. Fundamentally, the real issue is that files are being shared without the user intending that result...
Spam is not about who sent it, it's about who benefits from it. For a moment forget everything you know about filters, zombie PCs, firewalls, spoofing, viruses, beisyan algorithms, header forgery, botnets, or blacklists. These are all methods for sending spam or preventing spam delivery. None of these explain why spam is sent and for far too long all the attention has been paid to the effects and not the driving force. Under the endless onslaught of junk mail it is easy to feel that the goal of the game is send spam and annoy us all.
Paul Wilson, Secretary-General of APNIC, was correct when he reminded the panelists of the IGF2009 workshop "Adopting IPv6: What You Need To Know" that "countries don't typically get IP address allocations, network service providers do". The ITU stills seems to cling to the notion that countries get IP blocks...
At today's "Managing Critical Internet Resources" session of the Internet Governance Forum 2009, the ITU agenda on taking a role in IPv6 distribution once again reared its ugly head. In a heated exchange, Professor Dr Sureswaran Ramadass, the Director of Nav6 an ITU consultant/fanboy squared off with the new ICANN CEO about competition in IPv6 address distribution.
A domain name is a unique alphanumeric designation that facilitates reference to sets of numbers which actually locate a particular computer on the Internet. Domain names are a fundamental part of the Internet's user interface. Improving the usability of the Internet depends upon effective domain name policy. This study is intended to contribute to improvement in Internet usability for the end users of domain names. Benefits of more usable domain names include: higher sales, customer satisfaction and productivity, and reduced support costs.
A factual paper prepared in October 2009 for and endorsed by the Chief Executive Officers of ICANN and all the Regional Internet Registries that provides answers to commonly asked questions about IPv6 such as: How are allocations made, and to whom? How are IPv6 addresses actually being allocated? And why did such large IPv4 address allocations go to US organizations, including the US Government, and its Department of Defense?
"Outside applications need to be on an equal footing with our own applications," John Donovan said at a SUPERCOMM keynote here in Chicago. "My jaw dropped," one of his colleagues told me a few minutes later, because this is a reversal of AT&T's long-standing position they needed to be able to favor their own applications. AT&T D.C. needs to listen closely to their own CTO, because they are throwing everything they have in D.C. at preventing "non-discrimination" being included in the FCC Net Neutrality regulations.