 qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA | ICANN-blow me! So ultimately, it comes down to ICANN following the Golden Rule: The one with the most gold makes all the rules! | |
|
 | 
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: ICANN-blow me! I fail to see why we need even more TLD's. There needs to be an entirely new layer of abstraction above domain registration that maps trademarks/etc to domain name and then DNS translates URL to IP.
To a large degree search engines like Google already perform an analogous task. What is needed is national and international registration of company names and trademarks as Internet identifiers. This allows trademarked names to be translated to domain name, and domain name to IP address. Today we have overloaded DNS to act not only as a convenient naming service but businesses want a way to map trademarked product names to web sites.
/tom | |
|
| | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Re: ICANN-blow me! The problem with that idea is that multiple trademarks can have the same name so long as they apply to different industries. If I ran Widget Software Inc, I could have a trademark on the name Widget as applied to software. If you ran Widget Plumbing, you could have a trademark on Widget when it came to plumbing. So who would get the "company name identifier" of Widget? If your answer is that I could get Widget Software and you could get Widget Plumbing, then we're right back where we started. I would take WidgetSoftware.com and you would take WidgetPlumbing.com.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | |
|
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | These new domain rules are a nightmare. | |
|
| |
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Akron, OH
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| broadband=opec 2? there may be some similarities but that article just isn't sensible IMO.
for one thing, OPEC demanded that members use USD as their currency and took on the US Debt; no such demand exists with broadband. another point is that somehow a broadband 'cartel' will be formed if we don't head off some coming crunch; I don't see this happening ever.
The thing one must remember about the Internet is it was designed for the free exchange of ideas and information. If you want it fast (and let's be honest- it's not like the www is a public utility that everyone has a right to) then you gotta pay. Now I agree that the US is way behind, but the issue is broadband in general- meaning the faster on-ramps offered by ISP's other than free wi-fi and dialup. faster anything with computers costs more. there's no cartel holding our data ransom and for the most part our Internet is still working just as designed.
...unlike oil where there are lots of factors at work. As our debt grows the USD is falling below a lot of other currencies in the world, and a weak dollar means slower debt pay-off, and more (or longer lasting) debt equals higher inflation. unless taxes go up to pay the debt off faster than one of our enemies (read: OPEC members who don't trade in USD, or a country that invests heavily in their economy) buys our debt and owns everything we have- including our Internet.
--
"I saw Matlock in a bar last night; the sound was off, but I think I got the gist of it..." | |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
 from:
Dogfather 
| verizon ... neutrality paranoia ""We need to guard against turning technical and business decisions into political decisions,""
"Both Comcast and Verizon said that engineers, not lawyers and lobbyists, should be making network management decisions."
Keep spouting your bs, trying to convince us that engineers are making the decisions at verizon and comcast.
Business decisions are often political decisions. Managers, marketing drones and bean counters drive company behavior. If decisions were made by engineers, for technical reasons, we wouldn't be having these debates. | |
|
| 
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| Re: verizon ... neutrality paranoia Actually in a number of much more technical engineering forums (vs BBR) there is a fair amount of consensus that traffic priority of interactive vs non-interactive is the right thing to do. How this is done is a different discussion.
Here in BBR there are more end users than engineers so the conversation focuses on more entitlement aspects or broadband vs the technical merits. If you debate the majority, you are called a "fanboy". Many times it is not worth the effort as a few (who I am sure will reply to this) are not worth debating.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik | |
|
| |
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Re: verizon ... neutrality paranoia I agree with much of your post but, as you say, the devil is in the details("How this is done is a different discussion" ).
Back in the day, when engineers actually drove most internet decision making such discussions were had as well. The key though is that engineers are driven by the desire to maximize the utility of the network for users. Business managers are driven by the desire to maximize the profit of their company controlling the last mile bottleneck.
Sure there would be discussions about network management if engineers made the decisions but those decisions wouldn't be warped by the incentives that drive management.
I suspect, if you were to really get inside the minds of engineers at comcast, for example, that many of them would express frustration at the decisions being made and the motives behind them. I don't believe that what comcast did was driven by the demands of engineers. | |
|
| |
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Let me put it another way. When I say we wouldn't be having these debates I don't mean that there wouldn't be discussion about network management, sensitivity of different applications to latency, etc.
I mean that the whole neutrality backlash, triggered by managers like ed whitacre exposing their intentions(which have little to do with the technical aspects of the network) with rhetoric about how the leeches of the world, like google, wouldn't be allowed to continue to use their network for free, would never have taken place.
Net neutrality advocates don't start out opposing network management discussions but it has become painfully obvious that many of the "network management" claims made by incumbents have a hidden agenda to subvert competitor services and use control of the last mile to extract additional revenues. This agenda has become more aggressive because 97% of broadband access for residential and small business is controlled by a telco/cableco duopoly and these companies intend to use their power. | |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Just because we're Paranoid.... ... Doesn't mean they really aren't out to get us!
So, Net Neutrality proponents are paranoid. Gee. Given the past history of the industry, they have every right to be. | |
|
| |
| | |
| | | |
| | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Just because we're Paranoid.... No Al Gore is not an Alien! | |
|
|
| 
Dogfather
Altitude is your friend
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: MobileMe just sucks...Steve wasn't doing his JOB Nice troll. | |
|
| | |
kruser
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Chesterfield, MO
clubs:
·AT&T Southwest
| Who is ICANN? Who is ICANN? Are they a government funded outfit?
If not a government funded outfit then how do they make money? Maybe by selling TLD's? If so then it should be illegal.
The internet was designed to be free for the most part. Look at it now, it is ripe with advertisments | |
|
|
|
|
·
