Archive for January 07, 2003

Me hating Radio.

I've reached that critical intercept on the "Happy With Radio" graph where the diminishing productivity curve meets the increasing problem curve. Rather than ranting about it, I leave you with the insightful comments of a few other victims of technology.

"When PCs run new applications successfully, most people feel relief and almost pathetic gratitude - a standard of reliability tolerated in no other consumer product. " - Source Unknown

"There is only one satisfying way to boot a computer." - J.H. Goldfuss

"While modern technology has given people powerful new communication tools, it apparently can do nothing to alter the fact that many people have nothing useful to say." - Lee Gomes

"Technology... is a queer thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other."  - C. P. Snow

Tue, 07 Jan 2003 23:26:53 GMT

I try and keep my nose out of local issues when it comes to the ccTLDs (except for the one belonging to my great country of Canada), so don't take this comment as anything but an excerpt that resonates with me for reasons other than those which Nominet intended. Anyways, in their filing, they state that "Since the majority of ccTLD managers are not "natural persons", but rather corporations, associations or some other form of legal entity, the ccNSO members should be these legal entitites."(sic) The point that resonates here is that company's can and should be members of the various elements of ICANN. This is something that I've long believed that needs greater emphasis at the constituency level. I mean, when someone is appointed to a Task Force, gets elected to a committee or even gets up and speaks, it, all too often, isn't clear on who is standing in front of you - the corporation, or the individual. I'd like to see some constituencies pick up the ball and write in some rules that give greater credence to the "corporation as member" concept.

Tue, 07 Jan 2003 18:58:05 GMT

A Call for CIRA Reform. Tim Denton has posted a memo that was recently distributed to dotCA registrars, the registration authority's board of directors, and Canadian government officials. On a number of points, this document calls for what can only be dubbed "CIRA Reform". As Tim puts it on his homepage, "After a year of operation, and measurable progress and improvement, I am calling for both the Board of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), together with the federal government, to review how CIRA is working in the public interest. Issues to be examined include:

• opening the policy process to public participation
• the role of corporation law in the functioning of CIRA
• whether other registry models should be examined
• dealing with monopoly rents from registry operations
• role of appointing organizations
• registrar-registry relations and efficiency of business processes"

Excerpt: "As a general rule, CIRA must start to have a more public form of discussion on a broad range of issues as a normal part of its business. I have observed ICANN from close-up for several years. I know that ICANN's board still remains firmly in charge of the affairs of the corporation, despite very open processes of debate, and despite organized forums for the consideration of ICANN issues by business groups affected by those decisions. I see no reason why CIRA should not be organized on a similar basis. One of the measures of reform that I hope will emerge from this current crisis is a formal revision of CIRA's by-laws to ensure public consultation on most issues as a normal part of business. In addition I am writing in a more public way because I see the CIRA Board being paralyzed by a faction intent on pursuing ends completely removed from customer service, an efficient registry, and a competive registration market. The immediate goal of these machinations is to paralyze the Board by delegitmizing it, and to do so it must be claimed that registrars have no business on it except under the terms they dictate. This is wrong and must be repudiated. The reasons why are advanced below in section B. The method of this takeover is the doctrine of conflict of interest pursued as if there were no other concerns and goals of CIRA, a triumph of process over substance. I argue that ideas drawn from corporation law need to be balanced against competing concerns, including the control of a monopoly. For the same reason I also think that a fundamental review of the assumptions governing the CIRA model needs to be conducted under government asupices or with government approval and interest. ...the advocates of the consumer interest and the public good on the Board of CIRA are on record as opposing price decreases and the creation of a strategic plan for CIRA. The advocates of the private sector have proposed price decreases which competition generally obliges them to pass on to the Canadian consumer. They have argued for the creation of a strategic plan to focus CIRA management on rational sales objectives, and they have supported the President in allowing him to buy the equipment to get this job done, and to create prudent financial reserves . I leave to your judgment as to whose behaviour is more responsible and better inhclined to the health of CIRA and the registry system it upholds. Who is serving the public interest?" Heady stuff... [Note: For some reason, post by mail is screwing up again. I've had to use a redirect to point to Tim's original document above - I'll fix things when I get home. ]

Posted by system at 01:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack