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

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    .biz Is Tiny -- or Is It? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 22 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    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.
    Re: .biz Is Tiny -- or Is It?
    by joppenheimer on Wednesday June 20 2001, @09:22PM (#916)
    User #5 Info | http://JudithOppenheimer.com
    Edelman writes, "I want to be clear that the study is my own. It has not been approved or endorsed by the Berkman Center; I post it on the Berkman
    Center's web server thanks to my ongoing affiliation with the Berkman Center, but that does not mean that the Center endorses my findings in any institutional sense." (See http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg03414.html.)

    Given the implied endorsement of publishing under the cyber.law.harvard.edu domain, perhaps Edelman should have prefaced his "study" with this disclaimer.

    I also want to respond to a comment here by alexander that "The source of what you call "unverified data" is the ARNI-.biz Whois database of PacificRoot, so it's not "innocent incompetence" to use this data. "

    I agree. Its not "innocent incompetence." It is by all appearances intentionally misleading, and attempts to hold ARNI to a higher standard than the rest of the industry.

    NSI whois data is anything but accurate. The company has stated that it should not be used for ascertaining creation dates or expiration dates, nor has NSI an audit trail for past ownership of domain names.

    Jonathan Cohen of ICANN's own IPC goes so far as to state, "Among the most serious problems with the current [com/net/org] WHOIS system are: (i) inaccurate and/patently false, and incomplete registrant data;..." (see http://ipc.songbird.com/apram.htm.)

    If Ben Edelman isn't aware of this common-knowledge information about whois databases in general and their inapplicability for research conclusiveness, is he qualified to be addressing this subject at all (assuming his questions have any validity)?

    If he is aware, why is he purposefully publishing misleading data?*

    Judith

    *Having been provided accurate information by ARNI after the fact (since he didn't interview the company before publishing), I asked Edelman if he intended to verify the information provided and then update his report accordingly.

    He replied, "It remains my belief that every aspect of my report is in fact correct when understood in the context of qualifications given on that page," then, "We clearly see things differently here. I appreciate that you took the time to tell me your perspective, and hope you feel the same about my own efforts to date, but I don't want to waste your time, nor mine, with further back-and-forth on this topic. At the moment, I'm prepared to let my research speak for itself."

    A textbook Dyson response, if you ask me.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: .biz Is Tiny -- or Is It?
    by alexander on Wednesday June 20 2001, @10:16PM (#918)
    User #22 Info | http://www.icannchannel.de
    PacificRoot states that registration system POSSR was "formally launched after beta completion in October, 2000" (source).

    Ben Edelman states that, judging from the Whois, there were only five registrants before 15 November 2000, ARNI itself being the top registrant (source).

    PacificRoot states that some of the currently 189 registrations attributed in the Whois to ARNI itself were "requested by different entities and were entered in the ARNI account as a courtesy" (source).

    Ben Edelman states that almost all of these registrations fail to connect under http (source). He is (as) interested (as I am) how many of these 189 .biz domains were registered for use by ARNI versus for an ARNI customer (source).

    So this is not about the usual inaccuracies of a Whois database, and the start-up procedures before October 2000 are not the decisive question. As to the last paragraph: Ben has links both to this discussion and to the PacificRoot response on his page.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: .biz Is Tiny -- or Is It?
    by tlr (reversethis-{gro.tsixe-ton-seod} {ta} {relsseor}) on Wednesday June 20 2001, @10:19PM (#919)
    User #34 Info | http://log.does-not-exist.org/

    Judith Oppenheimer said about Ben's use of ARNI whois data: It is by all appearances intentionally misleading, and attempts to hold ARNI to a higher standard than the rest of the industry.

    The fact that the NSI whois service and database is kind of broken after long years of operation should not be used as an excuse for ARNI's whois database being corrupted from the very beginning. And it is certainly no excuse for the database's operator who - apparently - deliberately entered bad data into the database. In fact, I would have expected that the relative amount of bit rot in ARNI's database is lower than in the case of NSI, precisely because ARNI is relatively young, and had the opportunity to do things the right way from the beginning.

    In fact, this objection - as well as the posting concerning Ben's age and education - look quite a bit like attempts to argue away facts.

    (In particular, database bit rot will introduce a certain error margin, but it will hardly invalidate the entire study.)

    [ 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