AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion made it pretty clear that clauses of this type are permitted to trump State laws, such as California's ban on unconscionable contract terms. This kind of provision is now found in a large portion of contracts. This Federal preemption does not, however, remove the fact that California, the State where ICANN obtains its legal existence as a public-benefit tax exempt corporation, has found such provisions so abusive as to shock the conscience.
Link | Posted on Dec 07, 2016 8:33 AM PST by Karl Auerbach
The market/transaction price is not necessarily an asset’s intrinsic value. Only in very efficient global markets they are equal (for the overwhelming majority of times). When the market price is higher than its intrinsic value, the asset would be overpriced and no rational entity should buy it, and vice versa. The intrinsic value of any asset, including intangible assets such as domain names, can be estimated with standard financial valuation models.
Link | Posted on Dec 05, 2016 10:41 AM PST by Alex Tajirian
Thanks for reading, Alex. No problem with arm's-length purchasing. If purchaser wants the domain name and is willing to pay the sticker price (that is, that he or she agrees with the seller as to its market value), then the sticker price is the domain name's intrinsic value.
Link | Posted on Dec 04, 2016 6:31 AM PST by Gerald M. Levine
How do you determine “intrinsic value”? There can be no reliable inference without a robust unbiased estimate.
Aside from your interesting trademark issues, what is the problem with someone legally buying something while paying an amount over its intrinsic value? This can arise when either the buyer is irrational, does not understand asset valuation or knows something about the domain name that is not public information. Where is the problem from the seller’s perspective?
Link | Posted on Dec 04, 2016 2:19 AM PST by Alex Tajirian
It was recognised that even though Hyderabad was a longer meeting, it seemed much less productive than the shorter, policy-focused meeting held earlier in the year in Helsinki.
It seemed that way because it was.
Do we need programming like High Interest Topics? Personally, I have a higher interest in my family and would rather be with them. The IGF, not ICANN, is the place for HIT's, with rare exceptions.
Do we need opening ceremonies? Do we need institutionalised cocktail receptions? Should trade associations be given rooms to meet in and spots on the schedule? My answer to all of these posits is 'no'.
ICANN Meetings should be for work, not for ceremony. This is a corporation, not a University or alumni association. We managed, at best to do 3 days of work in a 7 day meeting. Let's dump the ceremony, dump the extraneous stuff, focus on ICANN and start making these meetings more working sessions than conventions.
Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2016 2:28 AM PST by Edward Morris
A section dedicated to reporting on new gTLDs would be of high interest. The world does not really pay much attention to auto-congratulations such as what could be read in the Hyderabad résumé (more than 50% of it).
Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 10:44 PM PST by Jean Guillon
Larry, is this article meant to be an expert opinion, or just an opinion? Everyone's entitled to their opinions, and I'm not inclined to argue against every single one with which I happen to disagree (life's too short), but if this is meant to be the expert opinion of a Professor of Information Systems, then I don't want to let it go unchallenged.
Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2016 9:41 PM PST by The Famous Brett Watson
"The power to control language offers far better prizes than taking away people's provinces
or lands or grinding them down in exploitation. The empires of the future are the empires
of the mind".
Winston Churchill, Harvard University, Monday 6 September 1943.
"If you do not find a remedy to these evils it is a vain thing to boast of your severity in punishing
theft, which, though it may have the appearance of justice, yet in itself is neither just nor
convenient; for if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from
their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them,
what else is to be concluded from this but that you first make thieves and then punish them?"
- Sir Thomas More, Utopia, 1516
The problem starts when I allow someone else to think for me, to perform my research for me. I am not interested in having others "do for me", nor should anybody else. This is accepting responsibility for self.
Priestcraft, regardless the discipline, is the illusion that we are dependent on others to "do for us", and thus we become their slave.
Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2016 4:12 PM PST by Charles Christopher
Some do; some do not. We all confabulate to an extent, but I like to think I would pay attention to a fact-checker calling out a fake pro-Clinton post. (Note that politifact shows that she (and Bernie Sanders and President Obama) lie sometimes — just not nearly as frequently as Trump: http://cis471.blogspot.com/2016/09/lying-crooked-donald.html).
Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 12:06 PM PST by Larry Press
You're assuming people care about truth. They clearly don't.
Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 10:19 AM PST by Kevin Murphy
True — there have been tons of stories on the fake sites and lies, but few suggestions as to what to do about it. A true-names policy is one small (and controversial) measure. I think prominent buttons on Facebook and other posts to crowd-source junk might also help as well APIs on fact-checking sites to let Facebook, et al, look for likely fakes. What else?
Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 10:09 AM PST by Larry Press
BuzzFeed blew scam this wide open two weeks ago.
But that's irrelevant.
Trump supporters either a) wouldn't know what Whois is or b) know what Whois is but don't care about whether the article is true or not, so long as it supports their guy or makes the other guy look bad.
Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 8:35 AM PST by Kevin Murphy
The opposite of Trump was "aiding and abetting" criminality. Is that what you were for, Larry?
Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 4:33 AM PST by Geoff Goedde
Thanks for writing this, including the consideration of remedies.
Jacob Weisberg's fascinating article on "Bubble Trouble” in Slate in 2011 on the occasion of Pariser's book's publication, looks like it foretold what has unfolded over the past year - especially the observation about "the Web turning into everybody's narcissistic "Daily Me" feed." It turns out it wasn't the Web, but social media that seem to have done the trick, coupled with the television news media who have emulated the same bubble promoting architectures.
It should be noted that it was the Apple spinout General Magic in the early 1990s that pioneered some of the early mobile agent information gathering with its Telescript platform coupled with its Magic Cap mobile personal communicator. Indeed, there was a crossover into the Nick's Media Lab crew via researcher Pattie Maes who jointed together with the General Magic staff to form The Agent Society to promote the technology. General Magic subsequently failed for multiple reasons, but many of the people and ideas scatter across Silicon Valley.
Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 4:16 AM PST by Anthony Rutkowski
Guillaume, I must respectfully disagree with you. The data you have presented is very misleading as it seems to suggest some correlation between obtaining a Dot Brand in 2012 and brand performance in 2016. A savvy CMO will ask the next logical question: “what are those companies doing with their gTLDs and how did it help them with their growth?” The answer is a resounding “they have done nothing and the fact that they obtained a TLD has nothing to do with their growth and performance.” These companies have done nothing more than put up the required nic page and in some cases redirect a domain name to their existing Dot Com space. I share with you a passion for the opportunities that exist in the Dot Brand space and the opportunities for real innovation and development. I see many exciting opportunities for brands, but am concerned that when you present misleading information in this way, a C-Suite level executive will quickly poke holes in the theory and then the entire industry is discredited.
Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 7:24 AM PST by Jennifer Wolfe