Subscribe: CircleID: Comments
http://www.circleid.com/rss/rss_cmnts/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
anthony rutkowski  arpa  bank  berryhill  cac  domain  fee  jan pst  jan  john berryhill  member panel  posted jan  posted  pst  udrp 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: CircleID: Comments

CircleID: Comments



Latest comments posted on CircleID



 



RE: The End of Net Neutrality Regulation COULD Mean the End of Last-Mile Oligopolies (Tom Evslin)

2018-01-17T09:32:54-08:00

I think the option should certainly be left open; we need more competition. Some munis have succeeded; some have failed. It is not an easy service for a municipality to manage.I do think munis will do better at wholesale than retail but, as a practical matter, it is hard for the retailers to then offer the mix of "cable" and communication consumers want. with more direct access to content, however, Internet access by itself may be sufficient.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 9:32 AM PST by Tom Evslin




RE: The End of Net Neutrality Regulation COULD Mean the End of Last-Mile Oligopolies (Larry Press)

2018-01-17T09:21:17-08:00

Tom,
What do you think of municipally-owned wholesale networks with competing retail service providers?

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 9:21 AM PST by Larry Press




RE: DOJ Closes Probe of VeriSign Over .Web TLD (Karl Auerbach)

2018-01-16T16:38:25-08:00

Caveat Emptor: The .web TLD has existed and been operating in California for decades.  There is a potential for legal risk to anyone who uses .web or tries to sell .web registrations in California.  ICANN does not have the legal authority to pre-empt that prior use.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 4:38 PM PST by Karl Auerbach




RE: Hackers Hijack DNS Server for Cyrptocurrency Wallet BlackWallet, Over $400K Stolen From Users (Karl Auerbach)

2018-01-16T16:35:56-08:00

This article does not say enough to be useful.  Was a DNS server taken over via a penetration, or was the registrar/registry penetrated (e.g. a password or phishing attack) and the delegation changed to a masquarading DNS server, or some other attack vector?

Another point - Since we are talking security here - does CircleID support HTTPS?

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 4:35 PM PST by Karl Auerbach




RE: The Meeting That Changed the DARPA Datagram Internet (Anthony Rutkowski)

2018-01-16T14:24:59-08:00

The total NSF monies allocated to the internet NREN program between 1989 - 1999 was $2.4 billion.  Most was allocated in the early years after 1989.  It is not clear what the ultimate sources of that money were.  The basic thrust is unchanged, as $2.4 billion provides significant network paradigm change leverage.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 2:24 PM PST by Anthony Rutkowski




RE: The Meeting That Changed the DARPA Datagram Internet (Anthony Rutkowski)

2018-01-16T03:39:52-08:00

DARPA Director Emeritus Lukasik provided a comment noting that the sequence of positions and people involving the transition between Larry Roberts and Bob Kahn was more complicated than portrayed in the article, but are minor points compared to the thrust of the paper.

The story begins with Bob Taylor. Bob Taylor was the head of IPTO and he was the one who sold Charlie Herzfeld on the importance of networking and got a million dollars from Charlie to get it started. He asked Charlie to lean on Lincoln Laboratory to allow Larry Roberts to be hired by ARPA. Larry agreed to come to ARPA but he refused to work under Bob Taylor. Therefore, Larry was listed as a Special Assistant to the Deputy Director of ARPA to undertake the technical work on designing the ARPANET. So Larry was never in IPTO. Larry brought Bob Kahn to ARPA to undertake a project on manufacturing technology. Bob Kahn came from BBN to do that because he said he was sick and tired of working on networking at BBN. That project never developed and Bob Kahn therefore found himself back in the networking business in IPTO.

The next thing that happened was that Bob Taylor left ARPA. The question was finding a prestigious computer scientist to take over IPTO. I was quite annoyed to find out that all the people who were benefitting from ARPA support of computer science refused to give up their research and come to ARPA to lead the program. I then prevailed on Licklider to come back to ARPA for a second tour as the head of IPTO. He did, but as soon as he got there he found himself quite unhappy because it had become so bureaucratic compared to when he was there in 1963. So I moved Col. Dave Russell from my old nuclear monitoring office to serve as his deputy to do all of the bureaucratic work. When I left ARPA at the end of 1974, Licklider and Russell as his deputy were still in place.

Eventually Lick left ARPA and Dave Russell became the director of IPTO. And that continued for several years and it was only then that Bob Kahn became the director of IPTO.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 3:39 AM PST by Anthony Rutkowski




RE: In Memoriam: UDRPsearch.com (Gerald M. Levine)

2018-01-15T11:00:28-08:00

I will likely grow into it by necessity not by choice

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2018 11:00 AM PST by Gerald M. Levine




RE: In Memoriam: UDRPsearch.com (Zak Muscovitch)

2018-01-15T10:47:59-08:00

I relied on UDRPsearch.com daily. It was very helpful.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2018 10:47 AM PST by Zak Muscovitch




RE: In Memoriam: UDRPsearch.com (John Berryhill)

2018-01-15T10:15:07-08:00

A much better search function for WIPO decisions only is at dndisputes.com.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2018 10:15 AM PST by John Berryhill




RE: A Tipping Point for the Internet: 10 Predictions for 2018 (Anthony Rutkowski)

2018-01-14T14:16:09-08:00

It is not clear what your are referring to here as "the internet" or why there is a "tipping point" of some kind.

The ten developments raised are certainly some of the more significant developments among a larger set. Most of them affect telecommunication and information network provisioning to varying extents - especially the largest infrastructure, the global commercial mobile network.  The internet thing, however, is a mystery.

It is also unclear how the FCC's NetNeutrality reversal has any relevance to anything outside the U.S. as it only pertains to the jurisdictional basis over U.S. domestic broadband internet access service.

Lastly, you omit entirely the most significant development.  The current massive efforts to roll out NFV-SDNs and instantiate network slices, enables an almost infinite array of network instantiations with different identifiers, end points, architectures, performance parameters, services, and gateways for designated periods of time and geographies.  It will allow a million internets to bloom.  That's all a bit poetic, but captures where we are heading.  This certainly raises significant public internet cybersecurity law challenges, among others.  However, you don't discuss any of that.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2018 2:16 PM PST by Anthony Rutkowski




RE: First Do No Harm: Ensuring Compliance with the EU's GDPR While Preserving Access to WHOIS Data (Rubens Kuhl)

2018-01-13T04:58:36-08:00

While I understand IP interests in accessing registration data, it's curious that is being suggested that contracted parties do not use a low-risk approach in order to keep that access. It's somewhat comfortable and self-servicing telling other parties to take a risk, without sharing it.

One possibility would be a wide-range consortium of IP interests that would provide indemnification to contracted parties that kept WHOIS access as it's today and end up fined. Adding another popular saying to the mix, "put your money where your mouth is".

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2018 4:58 AM PST by Rubens Kuhl




RE: New UDRP Filing Fees at Czech Arbitration Court (John Berryhill)

2018-01-11T12:00:14-08:00

Incidentally, the "teaser fee" problem does not exist at NAF, since their three member panel fee is exactly double the single-member panel fee.  So if you are filing a complaint, and you anticipate any likelihood of a competent response requesting a three-member panel fee, you won't go insane chasing your client for more money after you told them the job was already done.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 12:00 PM PST by John Berryhill




RE: New UDRP Filing Fees at Czech Arbitration Court (John Berryhill)

2018-01-11T11:55:51-08:00

You will note the (approx) in Doug's estimate of the CAC fee in dollars. What you will find out, if you have ever had reason to pay a fee to the CAC, which Doug has never done, and I have had the miserable experience several times, is that there are two catches in that "(approx)". The first catch is that fees can only be paid by wire transfer.  If you do not have a bank account denominated in euro, then the CAC does not permit any rounding errors in what the CAC considers the exchange rate to have been, versus what your bank or any intermediary bank may have applied as the current exchange rate applicable to the transaction at the time the wire was sent. The second catch, which the CAC will not warn you about, is that even if you add to your bank's charge the amount of your bank's fee for sending a wire, it turns out that the bank used by the CAC assesses an additional inbound service charge for wire payments to the CAC.  The CAC goes by the net deposit to their account, and does not consider the charge (undisclosed on their web site) which their own bank charges them for the wire. And, be mindful of Footnote 3 to their fee chart, which states: "The Czech Arbitration Court will return the UDRP Fees applicable for filing a request to review the CAC’s administrative to terminate an administrative proceeding due to administrative deficiencies, if the review is concluded in favor of the Complainant." I challenge any speaker of English to tell me what that means. So, do consider the fact that if you are a US firm whose bank account is denominated in dollars, you are in for a Kafkaesque ride with CAC fees. It's not so bad if you are a Complainant, since the CAC will inform you that you are 15 euro short (their bank fee) when you send your fee the first time, and will provide you with additional time to wire that 15 euro.  If your bank is anything like, oh, TD Bank, and rapes you on international wire fees, then you will end up paying around $80 (approx) to send around $18 (approx) in order to account for your bank's fee and the CAC's bank's fee, once you have learned what it is.  Caution: their bank's fee changes. If, however, you are a Respondent and want to select a three member panel, as the UDRP permits, the CAC will require the entire fee to be paid by the response deadline without any additional time.  So, you need to plan well in advance.  And, how much is that fee?  Good luck reading that table to figure it out. And here's the really funny part about how the CAC administers three-member panel proceedings.  The UDRP requires that in a Respondent-requested UDRP, that the total UDRP fees be split equally between the parties.  It's an actual rule, not a suggestion. So, while the Complainant has paid the CAC's "teaser" fee, and the Respondent has ponied up 1500 euro, you would expect the CAC to do what WIPO does with their "teaser" fee.  But they don't. This requires a little digression on "teaser" fee's at WIPO and CAC.  WIPO charges 1500 for a single member panel complaint, and 4000 overall for a three member panel proceeding.  So the normal sequence is:  (a) Complainant pays 1500, (b) Respondent pays 2000, and then WIPO will chase the Complainant for the additional 500 it owes.  Fortunately, there is no deadline, and I have seen WIPO go well over a month (while your client's domain name remains locked) trying to chase the Complainant for that additional 500 because, duh, now you have a $400 an hour lawyer who has spent their client's retainer trying to get another $500 out of their client. Be that as it may, the CAC will not actually require the Complainant to pony up their share of the fees that the UDRP[...]



RE: Domain Name Disputes Break Two Records in 2017 (John Berryhill)

2018-01-11T10:10:45-08:00

Finally, in order to make a quantitative statement about the incidence of anything, you have to normalize the data to the size of the sample.

For example, if domain name registrations increased by, say, 10%, and abuse increased by 5%, then the incidence of abuse DECREASED. 

Yes, the raw number is an increase, but this is like saying "there are more congenitally blind people in the US today than there were in 1800" as a basis for concluding that preventive efforts to combat congenital blindness are a failure.

This is pointed out every year, and then ignored every following year when the same half-baked statistics and assumptions are trotted out. 

Now, sure, in a world where a talk show host is taken as an authority on vaccinating children against disease, these sorts of numbers sound meaningful.

But I would put it to you, Doug, and we will have the same January conversation next year, as we do every year, that the "increase in UDRP cases" is most likely due to the "increase in domain registrations".  The last time we crunched those numbers, we found that the simple increase in domain registrations proportionally exceeded the increase in domain disputes. 

Since you are an expert, Doug, and I will tell you I haven't crunched this years' numbers, would you care to guess what is "probable" in those terms - i.e. Do you believe, without looking, that UDRP cases increased by a greater proportion than domain name registrations in 2017?  Yes or no?

Because if it turns out that domain registrations subject to the UDRP increased by a greater proportion than UDRP cases, then the increase in UDRP cases is "probably" a consequence of there being more domain names.  Period.

It's just hard to believe this has to be explained on an annual basis.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 10:10 AM PST by John Berryhill




RE: Domain Name Disputes Break Two Records in 2017 (John Berryhill)

2018-01-11T09:58:47-08:00

A third record broken in 2017 is that the 35 findings of abuse of process (reverse domain hi-jacking) in cases initiated in 2017 at WIPO exceeded the number of instances of abuse of the policy than any other year in the history of the UDRP. 

As a proportion of WIPO UDRP cases, this works out to around 1%.

If we take UDRP cases as a measure of domain abuse, it becomes clear that the incidence of domain abuse is proportionally lower than the incidence of abuse of the process designed to remedy domain abuse.  Perhaps someone will come up with a better metric and some actual data, so it may or may not be reasonable to believe that as many as 1 out of every 100 of domain name registrations are abusive.  But if the process itself does turn out to have a greater incidence of abuse than the system which it is intended to regulate, I would suggest there is a problem there.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 9:58 AM PST by John Berryhill