The content of the document is extremely interesting. It looks like future changes are there. This doc is a must-read.
Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 4:00 AM PST by Jean Guillon
"5G" is not just faster speed — it's the entire baggage of telecommunications.
Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 7:58 AM PST by Bob Frankston
"5G" is simply faster speeds to break it down into the most basic of translations. My point is more based on offices. They will still opt for leased lines, mpls or even EFM technology over 4G, 5G due to the fact it is a cable in the ground technology with better SLA's. I also understand some users do not have the luxury of this option and have to revert to 3G, 4G etc for a connection.
Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 7:49 AM PST by Paul Botham
"5g no doubt will be the new flagship." - what do you think "5G" is?
Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 7:42 AM PST by Bob Frankston
leased line costs have dropped so much in price now that for the majority of businesses, they will still be the "go-to" technology. In the mobile environment, 4g has been good but a very slow rollout. 5g no doubt will be the new flagship.
Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 7:37 AM PST by Paul Botham
Thanks for the interesting use case.
What about the use where there are multiple trademark owners for the same string?
say "delta" or "united". And for the sake of argument, let's say there are no factors associating the current use for any specific goods and services.
Are there any panels that have addressed who the rightful owner should be for this case?
Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2017 12:57 PM PST by Thomas Barrett
I have readed this post because a mail on the IETF (by Stephane Bortzmeyer) stated:
"[Only if you are bored and have nothing useful to do.]
A guy solved all the problems of the Internet, thanks to a new
mathematical theory he developed, "âˆ†Q" :
He also calls us "unethical" but, among all its claims, this is the
least crazy :-)
Let's congratulate Circle ID (which, most of the time, publishes
interesting things) for its openness of mind: any random troll can
So, since I use to trust Stephane ... But I only found a seriously point of view.
I am certainly interested in joining the effort (where to click?). To see where it could go. Some of the points are certainly true. Some others to be discussed as they seem to come from a post-1986 and initially telco oriented acknowledged pro. The internet was entirely defined in the 1978 "IEN 48 Objectives 20 lines section.
The last five lines were strangled by the NTIA/militaro-industrial en 1986 replacing its global effective operations and CCITT exploration by a group of public contractors' engineers called the IETF.
That IETF tried to do a good job with the 8.5 first lines and is still lost with the implications of the 6.5 middle lines. But TCP/IP is BUGged. There is no layer six presentation, so for it to work globally some of its job is to be politically, legally, etc. carried differently; some governance having to Be Unilaterally Global (hence the need for the NTIA and now ICANN).
IMHO the line and processing bandwidth permit to address the need, however not as they are used today (in accordance to RFC 1958). Not end to end: fringe to fringe. Yet as John Maynard Keynes identified it in 1930 : "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds.". Today engineers (including yougsters) are too old for us "pre-human" veterans.
Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 12:01 PM PST by JFC Morfin
This analysis seems bogus for several reasons.
First, Trump and fellow White House occupiers have a lot more to be concerned about than ICANN - which disappears in the noise. Second, Trump from present indicators could care less about the internet - whatever that is these days - except as a cyber threat. Third, there is not anything he could really do even if he did care. Fourth, ICANN doesn't matter much anymore - it just helps market DARPA Internet domain names and runs one of many name and number secretariats and helps ramp up international travel a bit. (ICANN could go away and everything would be just fine except for fewer airline passenger miles.)
Last but perhaps best, ICANN's disappearance would hasten the shift to other namespace mechanisms. Google long ago made DNS unnecessary. Even Bob Kahn who devised the tcp/ip protocol has stood up an alternative namespace resolver mechanism and global governance body - DONA. All of these aged deterministic namespace schemes are outdated and likely to be replaced by far more effective and less resource intensive schemes like blockchain equivalents run as NFV instantiations.
Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 1:42 PM PST by Anthony Rutkowski
As a public policy consideration, creating a private right of prosecution through imposing contract terms is suspicious: A law prof writes at Washington and Lee that we have an "Ambivalent Drift into Online Content Regulation", https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2920805
I advise caution, and agree with Mr. Crocker et all that we shouldn't be involved with the contents of domains, only their names.
Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 5:43 AM PST by David C. Collier-Brown
...the SOI procedure (in English only) is so awful…
How do you expect a new comer to understand what he has to answer to the "constituency" question?
If no one understands why no one participates at ICANN, just go through this procedure and you have your answer.
Still on it…
Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 11:29 AM PST by Jean Guillon
I agree with the sentiment that we in the community should be more involved. But I also find myself wanting to quote Annemarie Bridy, who wrote, ICANN "is notoriously byzantine, consisting of scores of Advisory Committees, Supporting Organizations, standing committees, working groups, review teams, and task forces. All of these are known by acronyms that are a part of an ICANN-specific vernacular that insiders speak fluently. For the uninitiated, understanding conversations about ICANN’s structure and internal operations almost literally requires a translator. Put another way, informational barriers to entry in the ICANN universe are relatively high, and ICANN is consequently poorly understood by anyone whose curiosity about it is only casual or shallow." Sadly, it just isn't so easy to actively participate in a working group. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, of course…
Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 7:38 AM PST by Ayden Férdeline
"Your response has been recorded". Let's see what happens next.
Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 6:02 AM PST by Jean Guillon
Okay, let's assume the world is not better with new gTLDs.
To which point in the DNS's history would you have us all to regress in order to make the world a little more the way you would like it?
Pre-2012-round? Pre-2003-round? Pre-2000-round, with no new gTLDs at all?
Early 1990s, before many of the ccTLDs existed?
All the way back to the mid-1980s?
What's the number of TLDs you think is appropriate?
Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 1:21 PM PST by Kevin Murphy
I'd add another takeaway for business decision makers and service providers: IPv6 support isn't just a local decision. Other vendors and service providers are also looking at it, ones that you'll need your systems to talk to. If those other vendors and service providers decide it's too costly to pay a premium for low-availability IPv4 addresses and start deploying systems that only support IPv6, you're going to be faced with the hard choice of implementing IPv6 then and there or losing access to those vendors and service providers. Large services like Google or AWS are the most likely to run into availability issues first, so if you want to consider an example think of what would happen if AWS started charging a premium for public IPv4 addresses and suddenly a large fraction of all Web sites and back-end systems hosted on AWS went IPv6-only as a result. Better to start the process now so that when that day comes it'll just be business as usual for you.
Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 8:54 AM PST by Todd Knarr
This is a classic example of blaming the messenger
you can just as easily say it those TLD's which removed domains made an arbitrary choice
Nope. Choice was based on documented policy.
In many cases, seeing a crime and failing to report it to the police, is a crime.
Exactly, , now each of these entities have seen and not reported it.
Let's just convict people because they are "probably" guilty. Similarly, for the TLD's mentioned above, no chance for the accused to defend themselves
Not a conviction, a term of service violation. They have plenty of opportunity to defend themselves, produce a valid pharmacy license as required by law.
A respectable journalist would have been expected to inform Verisign, XYZ, and the others named that this item was coming out, to warn them what it contained, and give them a chance to provide a response, which should have been included here. Instead we have a sneaky name-and-shame game of "let's play moral outrage.”
Wrong again, each entity was given ample opportunity to respond and was fully informed.
yep, freedom of speech means sometimes people will use speech to plan criminal activity. The alternative is to monitor everything everyone says.
This isn’t free speech, its a transaction for an illegal item, not protected.
A "safe" balance is not possible here - liberty means accepting it will sometimes be misused.
A safe balance is completely possible and there is no excuse for accepting harmful activity that can be stopped.
We accept it in democracies because the alternative is worse - totalitarianism.
Reasonable people do not accept blatant narco traffic, policy obfuscation, negligence, or collusion.
If you want a world in which everyone is controlled and "safe", move to North Korea.
Illicit drugs are being manufactured and smuggled out of NK ,you’ve got it backwards here.
Democracies learned the hard way that we need very carefully designed legal systems, with checks and balances, and many procedures, in order to control what people do without harming other aspects of society.
The checks and balances exist here, they’re just being ignored by the entities in question.
What we don't need is vigilanties to start deciding for themselves that they will be cop, judge and executioner, then bad-mouth companies which refuse to submit.
The definition of vigilantism is “law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people.” Reporting illegal opioid trafficking to the companies who sponsor the domains is nowhere near vigilanteism, it’s how the abuse reporting process is supposed to work. When the Internet companies do not follow their own published policies, that's hypocrisy and negligence.
I’m sorry if this all this blunt talk is problem, because its about to get worse.
Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 6:08 PM PST by Garth Bruen