<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Re: net neutrality
A most insidious form a multi-tier traffic is the
racial/culural/religious discrimination. This discrimination I oppose
with some success at the IETF (why they banned me) is built-in the
RFC 4646. It permits to qualify the language, the script, and the
country of a site, mail, or document or of a person in using
"retro-meta-spam" or "dynamic cookie". You send a mail to someone in
adding a language tag, qualifying a language or anything else (you
can do it in using a private area). If the person respond, you know
something more about her. You can also trace the mails copied to you.
IETF, IESG, and IAB formally refused to include a warning in the
security section about it. Odd enough :-)
This will simplify the e-war on terror ("we must fight the net" says
the DoD roadmap on information operations). This can also be used by
ISPs or Telcos to provide slower/cheaper service to poor minorities
or country communities. This will also be eased by possible control
of ICANN (Staff?) on the "IDN 3166" list required by the BoD in Sao
Paulo and presented on Monday by a GAC English consultant, in
opposition with the WSIS resoltions. May be because they want "UK" to
be corrected in "GB" :-) ?
jfc
At 15:44 23/03/2007, kidsearch wrote:
from the ny times today
The Federal Communications Commission said yesterday that it would
study the business practices of high-speed Internet providers and
consider adopting rules to ensure that all Web traffic is treated equally.
The study will focus on how Internet service providers are managing
traffic on their networks and whether they are charging different
prices for different speeds or levels of service, the commission said.
The F.C.C. adopted four principles on Internet policy in 2005, and
the study will consider whether a principle of nondiscrimination in
Internet traffic should be added.
Consumer advocates and other supporters of so-called net neutrality
have pushed for the F.C.C. to adopt such rules.
The net neutrality issue pits consumer groups and some Internet
content providers against telecommunications carriers.
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] lifetime rights
At 05:43 p.m. 23/03/2007, you wrote:
I suggest that you ask CNNIC. I understand they plan to give away
.cn names @ .10 per year, so you could have a lifetime DN for $ 10.
jfc
:-) China has just made legal protection of property part of the law.
.cn privileges are likely restricted to PRC residents and not
open to registrants at large; perhaps the People's republic of
ICANN could now follow ..
At 06:11 23/03/2007, Joop Teernstra wrote:
Dear Ga-ers,
As part of the feedback that ICANN is asking on new RAA
agreements, I would ask for a new service that truly adds value
to registration rights: lifetime registration.
Just as a person has the right to name his children for life, so
should individual registrants have the right to lifetime
registration of their chosen domain name.
No more domain theft during shortened or non-existent grace periods.
No more registrar swindles.
There is no inherent need for a 10 year limit on "domain
licences" and the implied possibility of future extortion on valuable names.
Direct lifetime registrations, securely escrowed with ICANN, is
a much more valuable service. A simpler operation as well.
Such rights should be given to identifiable individuals and could
perhaps be restricted to one name per individual.
As long as the principle is expressed that an individual
registrant should have such rights and at what price.
This database would also make a very good electorate for
Individual Domain Name Owners.
-joop-
-joop-
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|