[discuss] Wired: US pledges to loosen grip on net. Don't be fooled

Fri Mar 28 03:07:19 UTC 2014

Shouldn't the author actually attends ICANN first before he/she writes
about ICANN?  So much for investigation journalism.

Sorry, that one statement suggest that I won't waste my time reading it at
all since it is just merely an opinion of Julia Powles and not to be taken
as serious journalism as expected of Wired. In fact, I am surprised at the
level of incompetence and professionism from someone who "who researches
and writes on law, science and technology at the University of Cambridge.".

Well done!

-James Seng

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:12 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> I'll note that the author made some important updates, changing the slant
> of the article somewhat, but it is still quite a misrepresentation of ICANN
> etc.
> The author plans to attend to the ICANN meeting in London, and learn more
> about how ICANN really operates.
>
> Regards
>
> David
>
> On 19 Mar 2014, at 7:19 pm, McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with Greg, it is not very well researched.
>
> For example, the sentence:
>
> "The structure of ICANN is skewered to private interests, with
> governments taking an advisory role."
>
> Is untrue.  "There is a new sheriff in town" in recent years and it's
> called the GAC.  If one is trying to launch a new gTLD, the silly
> hoops that one has to go through and the limits on potential business
> models all come from the GAC.
>
> The GAC for instance pushed the idea that no new gTLD can have the
> word "Olympic" or even "olympia"  at any level or ".uk"  at any level.
> This is a radical paradigm shift in DNS administration, and while
> this had substantial opposition, the biz folks and IP folks and the
> Board of ICANN didn't have the temerity to stand up to such
> foolishness.  As a result, there is no longer the ability to have a
> hierarchical (by geography) namespace.
>
> In other words, MG can't register the name
> canadian.internetgovernance.guru if he wanted to or the Canadian Green
> Party can't get ca.green if they had wanted to do so.
>
> If you read the new Registry Agreement from ICANN, it's all about the
> GAC getting their way.
>
> In other words, the author is deeply wrong about many things on many
> levels, she just doesn't appear to know it.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> McTim
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Shatan, Gregory S.
> <GShatan at reedsmith.com> wrote:
> [CROSS-POSTS REMOVED]
>
>
>
> Well, that's quite a collection of doctrinaire talking points and
> prejudices
> - especially anti-US, anti-corporate prejudices.  The pro-[non-US]
> government prejudices I find even odder.  I'm sure a G77 dominated internet
> will be free, neutral and uphold privacy rights.  Or maybe it will get
> annexed like Crimea.
>
>
>
> I think the truest part of the article was "argues Julia Powles."
>
>
>
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
> Of michael gurstein
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:32 PM
> To: bestbits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: [discuss] Wired: US pledges to loosen grip on net. Don't be fooled
>
>
>
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/18/us-internationalise-internet
>
>
>
> * * *
>
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may
> well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on
> notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then
> delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for
> any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for
> your cooperation.
>
> * * *
>
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you
> that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice
> contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
> intended
> or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local
> provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> tax-related matters addressed herein.
>
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

-- 
-James Seng
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140328/2f35a0e6/attachment.html>