Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)

    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    PIR Board Chair Maher Shuffles Responsibilities | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 10 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Your .ORG Taxes at Work - $192,000 per Year
    by Anonymous on Thursday August 26 2004, @07:23PM (#14066)
    Now that the .ORG cash-cow is flooding the ISOC,
    PIR and Dave Farber's companies with money, the
    money has to be spent (dumped) someplace.

    The insiders are now coming out of the woodwork
    to step up to their $250,000 per year grants.
    The average netizen (i.e. sucker) is expected to
    fund the insiders and work as a volunteer.

    You obviously have to be the right religion to qualify.

    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malamud- consultant-report-00.txt
    "For services rendered under this contract the Consultant will be paid
          a fee of $16,000 per month due and payable at the end of each month"
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    David Maher - A Long History as an Insider
    by Anonymous on Thursday August 26 2004, @08:48PM (#14067)
    David Maher has a long history as an ISOC insider.

    He was reported to be one of the main attorneys
    who was called on to answer the wake up call when
    MCDONALDS.COM realized they did not own their
    name. That began a long history of intellectual
    property attorney involvement which has done
    nothing but cause a lot of grief and restricted
    the growth and creativity of the Internet. People
    have naturally walked away.

    David Maher was also part of the IAHC fiasco.
    He of course is now cashing in on his years of
    involvement as an ISOC insider. The .ORG tax
    dollars will fund a small number of people with
    a lavish lifestyle of travel and bobble-head
    appearances before the infamous "community".

    As long as fools pay the domain name fees, there
    will be people collecting the money and laughing
    all the way to the next ISOC venue. It is very
    much like a labor union or a major politial party.

    In a true soviet-like style, there will be no
    real competition allowed, and circular double
    talk reasons will always be close at hand.

    People have a choice, they can continue to be
    the pawns of the ISOC or they can walk away.

    Comparing the two social systems, capitalists
    can clearly see that they can buy shares in
    public companies like Verisign. The public can
    not buy shares in the ISOC or PIR. Those so-called
    public benefit corporations are really private
    benefit tax collecting bodies that pass the
    cash on to selected insiders. They call that
    non-profit. It is really just non-surplus,
    although they all follow the same pattern, as
    soon as the cash builds, they declare that they
    need several years of funding as a reserve to
    make sure they do not fail. They are actually
    very weak organizations staffed by people who
    could not make it in the real world. The people
    live off the public dole, with very private
    corporate dealings and structures.

    The public companies, like Verisign, live off
    the private dole, with very public corporate
    dealings and structures. It is reversed, yet
    people view that as non-public-benefit. The
    public owns Verisign, via many shareholders.
    The insiders "own" the private non-profit
    companies and they are the ones that benefit.

    As with everything the insiders touch, it is
    backward from what the average person would
    expect when it comes to fairness, etc. It would
    be better if the insiders would just start
    telling the truth and drop the "for the benefit
    of the community" charade.

    It is real simple, 3,000,000 names $6 bucks
    per year, $18,000,000 to launder to the insiders.
    Over at the IETF the insiders are lining up
    for their ISOC Welfare Checks.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    "The IAHC completed a formidable task."
    by Anonymous on Thursday August 26 2004, @11:12PM (#14069)


      Don Heath, President and CEO of the Internet Society, has announced he will step down from his role as chairman of the IAHC. In doing so, he said, "The IAHC completed a formidable task. We faced many complex problems in Internet self-governance, but successfully developed innovative solutions to them. Naturally, the work of implementation is just beginning, but the way in which the Internet community has come together to debate, discuss, and solve a thorny set of issues is truly something for which we can all take pride."

    Heath also announced that the interim POC had elected as its first chair, David W. Maher, a current member of the IAHC. Maher is a registered patent attorney and a partner in the law firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal with offices in Chicago and other cities. Heath said "I am pleased to announce that Mr. Maher has been named by the Internet Society to serve a full term as one of its appointees to the POC and that he was elected Chair to serve through this critical transition phase."
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    "Only one party in the whole world can use a word"
    by Anonymous on Thursday August 26 2004, @11:22PM (#14070)

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/examiner/article.cgi ?year=1997&month=01&day=19&article=BUSINESS15704.d tl

    The importance of names

    Chicago attorney and IAHC member David Maher recalled his introduction to the importance of Internet names. It came while reading a Wired magazine article in 1994. The author had registered "McDonald's.com" as an Internet domain name to dramatize how corporations were ignoring this new medium.

    Maher, who represented the burger franchise on trademark issues, said the author gladly relinquished use of the domain name, but the incident put companies on notice that trademarks were up for grabs on the Internet.

    "Only one party in the whole world can use a given word as an address," Maher said. "Extortionists were trying to grab names and sell them to trademark owners."
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Magaziner, attended Oxford University with Clinton
    by Anonymous on Thursday August 26 2004, @11:49PM (#14071)

    http://www.soi.wide.ad.jp/library/gtld_97nov7/mate rials/david/

    But anyone using a domain name in a way becomes involved in a trademark system. A part of this was due to the people who took trademarks that didn't belong to them. Others have been cases of innocent infringement. We addressed that and you will hear much more about it later today. Our approach of a contract and a non-governmental system was fortunately endorsed by the US government on July 1st, 1997. President Clinton and Vice-President Gore announced the framework of global electronic commerce. We were gratified that the government recognized that an approach to the domain name system based on private enterprise and cooperation among private entities would be the basis for the creation of new generic top level domains. A senior counselor to President Clinton, Ira Magaziner, became very much involved with this procedure. And we have worked closely with Mr. Magaziner, who attended Oxford University with President Clinton which explains why he is so close to the President. We've also worked with the US Department of Commerce and with a number of other US agencies including the Federal Commerce Commission and again, it has been gratifying to us that almost without exception, the US government has taken the very firm position that it bow out of its involvement with the Internet. ...
    We are perfectly aware that the Policy Oversight Committee can no longer remain simply a creation of the Internet Society and IANA. We must have a broader base than what we have now and it must be acceptable to the governments of the world. And more importantly, it must be acceptable to the stake holders of the Internet, the Internet community, the users of the Internet, the trademark legal community and all the others. That, I think, gives you in a brief summary of the political issues that underlie our work. And as I said, we're fully aware that there are unsolved problems. We're not here to tell you that we have solutions to all the problems realized by the growth of the Internet. But, we think we have the best approach. I'll now turn this over to my colleague, David Crocker...

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Drum Roll - .NET Awarded to Guess Who ?
    by Anonymous on Friday August 27 2004, @07:38AM (#14073)
    Drum Roll - .NET Awarded to Guess Who ?

    The crowd is on the edge of their seats.
    The .NET owners were never allowed to vote.
    The lawyers have covered all of their bases.
    The 4,000,000+ million .NET domain names
    represent $24,000,000 in revenue, for doing largely NOTHING !!!! The Registrars do the real work and
    they have now out-sourced that to Resellers.

    Based on broad, consensus views, from "the community",
    and following on the excellent results of moving .ORG to a company (ISOC) with 8 people and NO TLD
    Registry experience with out-sourced arrangements
    with all of the "right people", .NET is poised
    to evolve to the next step.

    [Play Olympic Fan-Fare Trumpets Here]

    WHEREAS: The Internet has not melted down.
    (Pretty cool distraction HUH ? Took people's
    eye off the ball)

    WHEREAS: .NET was horse-traded for .COM

    WHEREAS: More revenue is needed to fund Internet researchers.

    WHEREAS: .NET owners are happy with their $6
    names and little or no competition with other

    WHEREAS: .ORG was moved to a new company created
    from the same people who used to run .ORG

    RESOLVED: .NET will be moved to a new company
    created by the same people who used to run .NET

    Wait, hold on, let the IETF get incorporated as
    "The Internet Foundation" and then .NET can fund

    Uh Oh, Oh Well, resolved that .NET is awarded
    to those people willing to step up on stage
    and collect their $250,000 checks each year.

    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malamud- consultant-report-00.txt

    9. Acknowledgment of Contributions and Reviews

          A number of people contributed their time in telephone interviews,
          email exchanges, and reviews of the draft. These exchanges resulted
          in many useful suggestions. Needless to say, our acknowledgment of
          their contribution should not in any way be used to necessarily infer
          support for anything contained herein. These individuals include:
          Bernard Aboba, Harald Alvestrand, Fred Baker, Bob Braden, Scott
          Bradner, Brian Carpenter, David Clark, Jorge Contreras, Dave Crocker,
          Steve Crocker, Joao Damas, Leslie Daigle, Lynn DuVal, Patrik
          Falstrom, Bill Fenner, Ted Hardie, Bob Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Geoff
          Huston, Mike St. Johns, David Kessens, Robert Kahn, Daniel
          Karrenberg, John Klensin, Rebecca Malamud, Allison Mankin, Thomas
          Narten, Jun Murai, Thomas Narten, Eric Rescorla, Pete Resnick, Joyce
          Reynolds, Lynn St. Amour, Mike St. Johns, Paul Vixie, Margaret
          Wasserman, and Bert Wijnen. The author apologizes for any names
          inadvertently omitted.

          This document was created with "xml2rfc" as specified in [RFC2629].
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Now Vixie Wants Everything in the Open? Sure, sure
    by Anonymous on Friday August 27 2004, @05:51PM (#14075)

    http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current /msg30970.html
    # From: Paul Vixie
    # Date: 27 Aug 2004 19:54:38 +0000

    "please find a way to do
    more of the negotiations out in the open."

    Translation: Use open forums as a way to distract
    people from what is really going on behind the
    scenes and ALSO to help better hide those
    back-room deals. That provides TWO layers of
    protection, as opposed to one. People might
    actually believe the public spin and make
    wrong decisions, helping to keep the insiders
    "relevant"[1] and in control.

    [1] Note: More and more people each day get their
    DNS from NON-BIND software packages. Many $70
    always-on broadband routers and wireless
    access points run Linux and DNSMASQ. The vendors
    have their own TLDs in the boxes (such as .LAN)
    and also have .COM wild-card features. There are
    also solutions to the Root Server any-casting
    that Vixie broke, without concern for stability,
    reliability, etc. For $70 consumers are free of
    the ICANN nonsense.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Internet Governance ? - Not Really
    by Anonymous on Sunday August 29 2004, @07:52AM (#14076)
    David Maher (and the 51 other co-conspirators)
    are all good examples of why the term "Internet
    Governance" is not accurate.

    The insiders have never been elected by anyone.
    They have just pushed their way into the various
    positions and now live like fat cats off the
    public dole.

    One similarity to "governance" in meat space
    is that many of the insiders are lawyers. That
    profession seems to attract a large number of
    school-yard bullies and people who have learned
    to game the system as a way of making a living.
    They also obviously have a lot of time on their
    hands. Look at the regular ICANN-goers, what
    do you think they do all day ?

    In other venues, such as U.S. Federal Court,
    we see another travesty of "Internet Governance".
    Look at the recent Verisign decision, here we
    have a male judge who never grew up in a .NET
    era, who is likely clueless about how the
    Internet really works. He is of course called
    upon to render an opinion about topics he is
    not really prepared to address. All he can do
    is toss the case out of his court. The meat
    space spin is of course that "big knows best"
    and a U.S. Federal Court has clout (despite
    being clueless) and the judge pointed to the
    U.S. Department of Commerce (more clueless
    clout) as the source of ICANN's role as
    do-gooder and non-evil conspirator.

    Backing away, if voters in cyberspace or
    meat-space really voted with true Internet
    Governance, they would never vote the evil
    people in that have pushed their way into
    all of the insider positions. People that
    live in these cyberspaces now get to see how
    third-world regimes are run. It is ironic that
    the "big is best" U.S. Government leaders claim
    to be working for democracy, yet assist groups
    like ICANN each day in their quest to destroy
    any hope of that with respect to the Internet.

    It is even more ironic that .ORG owners fashion
    themselves as protectors of the public free
    press and Internet freedoms, yet, their leaders
    are cut from the same cloth as bullies such
    as Saddam, Vint, Castro, etc.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]

    Search ICANNWatch.org:

    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com