CircleID: Comments

RE: "Toll Free" Broadband Service: Double Billing Ripoff Or Better Than Best Efforts Premium Option? (Phil Howard)

2012-05-11T18:32:53-08:00

It's a ploy to cut off peer to peer communication and regain the model, even if other corporations are part of it, of corporate gatekeepers of content. But can is succeed now that so much independent content is available? Will Facebook play along?

Link | Posted on May 11, 2012 6:32 PM PDT by Phil Howard

RE: Canadian Telcos Fast Tracking FttH to Combat Cable Operators (Phil Howard)

2012-05-11T18:28:41-08:00

Is this the same shared fiber that FiOS is doing? This is little more than cable over glass which still has severe limits from reach the gigabit holy grail that is already showing up in a few places. Of course, these telcos won't have to worry about too much competition from cable companies as long as they are doing a bandwidth tit-for-tat. But if they were to go with the discrete fiber model, the bandwidth potential is enormous and they could take a huge number of cable customers. But I guess that just isn't something corporate executives would do.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2012 6:28 PM PDT by Phil Howard

RE: Spam from Mobile Networks? Who Woulda Thought... (Alessandro Vesely)

2012-05-09T01:49:03-08:00

I'd agree that sticking to IETF standards, in this case Message Submission, is often a win-win solution. Applications are not always compliant, but mobile apps tend to diverge more prominently than their PC counterparts. Why?

Link | Posted on May 09, 2012 1:49 AM PDT by Alessandro Vesely

RE: Business Case for IPv6 - Part 1 (Phil Howard)

2012-05-08T13:49:41-08:00

I'm looking at putting my photography work online as a blog. One thing I am thinking about is making the full resolution images (under Creative Commons license), including camera raw files, available linked from the blog, but accessible only via IPv6. This should add another grain of sand to the bucket of motivation to "get your v6 on".

Link | Posted on May 08, 2012 1:49 PM PDT by Phil Howard

RE: 2100 New gTLD Applications. What Does It Mean? (Volker Greimann)

2012-05-08T01:40:44-08:00

I interpret the language the same way, however I do believe there will be no difference in fact from the result Anthony is suggesting. Contending strings will be preferred and more likely to end up in the first batch, as they can "fire more arrows" per string in the digital archery game. Each applicant has a shot, i.e. if there are five applications for .popular, chances are that one of them will have a good result in the archery game.
OTOH, geos, brands and IDNs have no such advantage, their one shot is the only shot they will get. Sure, a few of these may also slip into the first batches, but chances are that the contending strings will be favored. The individual applicants' skill on the digital archery game does not matter as much for contending strings due to the drag-along.

So much for equal chances for all applications…

Link | Posted on May 08, 2012 1:40 AM PDT by Volker Greimann

RE: Wall Street and Virtual Space Data: Internet Domain Name Index (IDNX) Listed on Bloomberg, Reuters (Alex Tajirian)

2012-05-08T01:15:18-08:00

Poorly written, at best :(

Link | Posted on May 08, 2012 1:15 AM PDT by Alex Tajirian

RE: Business Case for IPv6 - Part 1 (Todd Knarr)

2012-05-07T16:58:24-08:00

No RIRs are completely out yet, but as of 2/2011 the last netblocks were assigned to the RIRs. So when an RIR exhausts it's current allocation, that's it. It won't be able to go to IANA and get more space. As of 4/2011, APNIC was assigning out of it's last available /8 netblock. The only plan for dealing with this was to transfer allocation from North American to Asia, and that's just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Myself, I'll be watching Asia. When the first consumer-level ISP starts going IPv6-only, that I think will be the first indication that we've hit the knee of the adoption curve.

Link | Posted on May 07, 2012 4:58 PM PDT by Todd Knarr

RE: Business Case for IPv6 - Part 1 (McTim)

2012-05-07T15:27:01-08:00

AFAIK, there are zero RIRs that have zero addresses.

In general, the "survival" notion is one that is appealing. however, it has been around for over a decade and we are still in the single digits of v6 usage.

Link | Posted on May 07, 2012 3:27 PM PDT by McTim

RE: Business Case for IPv6 - Part 1 (Juha Holkkola)

2012-05-07T13:13:36-08:00

Thanks Todd, that's certainly a valid point you made.

On this note, one thing we've been seeing over the last 1-2 years is an increasing interest in DNS64 by those who are looking to offer an IPv6-only service to end-users. At the end of the day, most end-users want to have an access to good content - preferably today - so the service providers have an interest in making sure that's technically possible in the event they offer IPv6-only subscriptions. Assuming DNS64 gains momentum (or another similar technology, there are some others too), one possibility is that it will join NAT in technologies that put brakes on IPv6.

Not that we're betting on that: our web content has been available via both IPv4 and IPv6 since the IPv6 World Day last summer. In case anyone wonders the business case, I'm happy to tell we did it solely on the basis of hoping to get some good PR and prospective customers…

Todd 1 - Juha 0.

Link | Posted on May 07, 2012 1:13 PM PDT by Juha Holkkola

RE: Business Case for IPv6 - Part 1 (Todd Knarr)

2012-05-07T10:58:27-08:00

To me, probably the main business case is "survival". Several regions are out of IPv4 address space at the RIR level, and it won't be too long before providers at the end-user level will find it easier to go IPv6-only than to scrounge up more IPv4 addresses. At that point, as a business either you'll need to support IPv6 or you'll have potential customers who simply can't reach you. I expect it to be a tipping point: it may be slow to happen but once it happens it'll spread a lot more rapidly than expected because of the snowball effect. As a business you can either prepare ahead of time on your own schedule, or you can be forced to play catch-up on a panic schedule. I know which one makes more business sense to me.

And yes, my home network's already fully IPv6-capable internally, and I'm just looking for a quiet day or two to get full external IPv6 connectivity finished. I'd probably already have it done if I weren't being picky about the firewall (no NAT doesn't mean I want inbound access to be completely uncontrolled).

Link | Posted on May 07, 2012 10:58 AM PDT by Todd Knarr

RE: 2100 New gTLD Applications. What Does It Mean? (Alexander Schubert)

2012-05-07T05:50:59-08:00

"Balls" in plural? Well, such a deep look required probably more than one glass ball!

Good analysis. I see slightly more GEO's and slightly less generic term based applications.

Batching:
You said: "....but they have also said that applications in contention sets will go in the first batch..." and derive from it that: ".....brands, geos, and IDNs would be sparsely represented in the first batch.".

You may have different information, but in case your analysis is based on the "batching basics" (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/tas/batching-basics) then I am interpreting it entirely differently:
"...all applications for those contending strings will be placed into the earliest batch designated". You are reading it "...into the first batch". I am reading it as "...into the earliest batch designated for any of applicants of the contention set.".

So if .example has one applicant in the 4th and one in the 3rd batch, both will be in the 3rd batch. Right?

Alexander Schubert

Link | Posted on May 07, 2012 5:50 AM PDT by Alexander Schubert

RE: Donuts and TAS: What We Really Care About (Philip S Corwin)

2012-05-04T09:14:12-08:00

Paul, in regard to your correct observation that time is a critical element for ICANN as well, and that open-ended or extensive delays may degrade confidence in it — ICANN's draft budget (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm) states that it intends to hold two URS "summits" (whatever that may be) over the coming months, and then engage in further consultations with the community and current UDRP providers, before issuing an RFP soliciting URS providers. That is a big change from what ICANN staff said in San Jose, where they indicated that the RFP for URS providers would be issued within a month; I have written in detail on this at http://internetcommerce.org/URS-Summits . ICANN has also yet to set up an implementation group on the URS, while the one on the Trademark Clearinghouse has nearly wrapped up.

What they now contemplate appears to go beyond technical implementation into a complete reopening of the URS policy elements to meet their promise of a very (probably unrealistically) low-price RPM. They further state that their "goal" is to have the URS program in place and providers selected by June 2013 — but we know that ICANN does not always meet its timetable goals, and we also know that the prior debate on the elements of the URS was divisive and extended.

My understanding is that URS is required to be in place by the time that new gTLDs begin offering domains to general public registrants, or at least very shortly thereafter. So keep your eyes on this because if ICANN overshoots its June 2013 "goal" it could become another cause of delay.

Link | Posted on May 04, 2012 9:14 AM PDT by Philip S Corwin

RE: Donuts and TAS: What We Really Care About (Antony Van Couvering)

2012-05-03T19:53:06-08:00

I'm not a fan of the digital archery system but I agree with Paul. I'm glad ICANN took the time to find out what's going on, but they need to build trust and confidence by executing crisply and professionally.

Link | Posted on May 03, 2012 7:53 PM PDT by Antony Van Couvering

RE: ICANN Board Meetings Should be Webcast Live (Constantine Roussos)

2012-05-03T14:07:34-08:00

Excellent article Phil. We certainly need some accountability, consistency and some common sense in the ICANN Board decision-making process.

However, I am fascinated by Antony's comments. Antony, what makes you an expert in transparency, accountability and ethics to talk about cognitive dissonance? How would you run the Board with great effectiveness? Would you run the Board with great honesty, accountability, transparency and ethics, and with zero conflicts of interests?

If there is one company that had given ICANN and the process a black eye it certainly is your company Antony. But that is OK because you allege you have conducted everything within the rules (including rules established by your bible known as the Applicant Guidebook). Perhaps ICANN too is playing within the "rules" here too.

I agree with Phil. ICANN should have made such a decision open for public comments before it was determined. Not sure where this whole ICANN decision making process is heading, but I can say one thing: it is not looking good.

Link | Posted on May 03, 2012 2:07 PM PDT by Constantine Roussos

RE: Spam from Mobile Networks? Who Woulda Thought... (Suresh Ramasubramanian)

2012-05-02T23:32:05-08:00

Not all bots use DNS for their c&c;. And dealing with carrier grade NAT networks (like most cellular carriers' 3G internet connectivity) isn't as easy as this post makes it look.

Link | Posted on May 02, 2012 11:32 PM PDT by Suresh Ramasubramanian