[i cann] see dissimulation here

At first sight, it looks like another example of encroachment - the net's [so-called] regulator Icann … voting to decide if the strict rules on so-called top level domain names, such as .com or .uk, can be relaxed.

The BBC comments:

If approved, firms could turn brands into web addresses while individuals could also grab a unique domain based on their name, for example.

There’s already, for example, http://iangrey.org/ but this could possibly now be turned into http://morleyis.iangrey. My question is, ‘What’s the point of it?’ Ian wouldn't bother doing it. The answer to this lies in this, methinks:

If there is a dispute [over domain names], we will try and get the parties together to work it out... but if that fails there will be an auction. [Dr Paul Twomey, Icann chief executive]

Money. As simple as that.

Naturally there’ll be cyber-squatting and disputes and Icann will resolve them at a price. So what’s the story with Icann in the first place?

ICANN is a California non-profit corporation that was created on September 18, 1998 in order to oversee a number of Internet-related tasks previously performed directly on behalf of the U.S. Government by other organizations, notably the The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority IANA.

So, it used to be run by the U.S. government and yet they have a meeting in Paris? Who are these people to wield such power? And do you understand a word of this?

On September 29, 2006, ICANN signed a new agreement with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) that is a step forward toward the full management of the Internet's system of centrally coordinated identifiers through the multi-stakeholder model of consultation that ICANN represents.

All right, so they are somehow under California law or U.S. or whatever but they hold their meetings far away:

Critics argue that the locations of these meetings are often in countries with lower Internet usage and far away from locations that the majority of the Internet-using public can afford to reach. This makes public input or participation from traditional Internet users less likely.

As I read on, the point continually comes through about them being asked to do this or to oversee that. But who asked them? Read on:

The original mandate for ICANN came from the United States Government, spanning the Presidential administrations of both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Some other worrying little things:

On March 14, 2002, in a public meeting in Accra, in Ghana, ICANN decided to reduce direct public ("at large") participation.

Also:

In September and October 2003 ICANN played a crucial role in the conflict over VeriSign's "wild card" DNS service Site Finder. After an open letter from ICANN issuing an ultimatum to VeriSign.

Well Verisign itself is an issue all of its own but by now it's probably best to stop and let you put me straight over all this. Am I completely out of order in thinking that a progressively less transparent U.S. government agency is running the internet for the globe?

Just asking.

[commemoration] blending the old and the new

Nice work of art at Ian Grey's place. A slice of the old Morley is commemorated but admirers are also reminded they're under surveillance at the same time.

A bit of the old, a bit of the new, ushering in the New Feudalism and the ASBO generation.

[interim report] the heat is on ... and on ... and

This Wikipic of Judaea by David Sharkbone vividly shows what we are in today. Already 34 degrees early, it's building and building and certain things become clear.

Firstly - it is not always the case that in the country is cooler. The buildings in town afford shade and the large buildings have that walkway and courtyard effect which certainly cools things down. Every home has shutters and offices are airconditioned.

So, on the way back from downtown just now, it was skipping from shade to shade with the option of stopping in at any of the gelaterii and having granita or whatever. Bottled water is everywhere and it's all set up for "hot". True "hot" is when the cafe owners blanch and mutter, "Caldo, caldo!"

In Russia, the two foot thick walls, intended for the cold, also helped against the heat and certainly water and ices abounded there too ... and yet somehow it wasn't a heat-conscious place as such. This place Sicilia is organized for it.

Perhaps this is all a yawn for you in cooler climes and yet the heat is so pressing on us here that we can think of little else. Incidentally, I had my first Italian lesson yesterday and didn't do too badly.

Next report soon.

[thought for the day] tuesday evening

When contemplating your navel, do you ever consider:

1. Why would anyone in New York or Chicago want to scrape the sky anyway?

2. Do dogs actually talk or do the ones in the house opposite just bark in the middle of the night in sympathy with those in the house on the other side?

3. If some people get richer, must others get poorer in sympathy or do they stay the same?

4. Why don't the centrist pollies on all sides just form one big party with a rotating administrator?

5. What is the best song ever released?

[blogosphere] mutual support and its possible limits

In March, this blog ran a post on the blogosphere to join the myriad other soul searching blogger posts and it focussed on how much we could achieve as bloggers.

There is a point to this post now and the difficulty is not to offend, particularly with fellow Brits [which statement in itself is likely to offend, I know].

The thing is, each blogger is essentially publicizing his wares and hopes that a great many people will stop by and read what he's written, perhaps even comment. Where he goes wrong is when he has other expectations of the process.

For example, the Usmanov and Darling affairs had much publicity and the blogosphere, by and large, rallied round and told those two where to get off. Rousing stuff and well done. I think most people are good natured enough to run a banner in support or even a post or two but what do we do when the question, say, of donating money comes up?

This was why I tried to resist putting a paypal or whatever during my recent troubles although I did bleat a fair bit, it's true. The resolution to the difficulty has been catalogued on this blog and it does show that things can happen for the good.

But what do we do when someone wants much much more?

When someone wants us all to lay down our lives supporting something he or she is into and when they draw it to a close, berates said people for not continuing on and on? Most people are too sensitive and tactful to say this but there are limits.

Similarly, when someone sees his blog as a route through which all other bloggers will come on any particular social issue, with all the aggregators and what have you collating the grateful bloggers' contributions or when a particular blogger sees others as paying for the use of his material and countless other schemes, I'm a little less than forthcoming, I'm afraid.

I'm aware that some will read these words and say, 'Oh, that's wonderful - look how well Higham has done out of blogging, swanning around Sicily et al.' Well yes, I am exceedingly grateful for what has happened but I really don't feel it's the same question per se.

I'm referring above to the expectation that other bloggers are going to tune into another blogger's schemes or devote part of everyday to that scheme.

I'm not explaining myself well.

I suppose the point came out of a discussion Welshcakes and I had earlier about different bloggers and expectations of how much time and effort can really be devoted to a cause when most of us are having difficulty even keeping our blogs up, answering comments and visiting our rolls. Of course we must not be selfish, of course any of us would welcome new ideas and help someone in distress but there are surely limits.

One point Welshcakes has just made is that of geographical location. Let's say there was a difficulty in the UK, for example. All right, we can write to our local MP but no MP in Britain will read a letter not coming from a resident constituent. There are, sadly, limits to what an expat can do, much as he/she might wish to help. Of course we'd do what we could from where we are.

We'd like to know what others think about this.

[plastic surgery] new improved competition

Well it's high time we ran another competition for you plastic surgery devotees and here are four to start the ball rolling:







Your task - to rate the stars in terms of the effectiveness of their plastic surgery and their attractiveness to you personally. Don't stand on ceremony - tell us your thoughts on these beauties.








Disclaimer:

We make no claim that any of these stars have actually undergone plastic surgery. Let's just say it's a hunch.







Ancillary question:

Do you feel there are any richly deserving of inclusion in this competition whom we've sadly neglected?






Hat Tip: Welshcakes, with whom I was discussing famous Welshmen and one thing led to another, you know ...

[trees] trust them to get their hands on these too

Longrider, in his Plague of Tree Inspectors, highlights just what the problem is with those in power - they try to create problems which don't exist, particularly in the case of the trees that never needed to come down:

This tells me that English common law worked exactly as it is supposed to. What we have here is the law working as intended yet a quango wants to impose regulation and inspection to solve a problem that does not need solving because, frankly, it does not exist.

Read the whole post. It's more than this though. It's utilizing any possible pretext to exert control, including that of the health of trees. I'd like to say "total prats", except that this was a quite cynical move on their part.

Pity the trees and pity us.

[total politics] give it a try

Try the new concept in total resource politics.

Mosey around and explore.

Hat tips: Iain, Ellee

[exploiting grief] masterclass by sky and the bbc

We were watching Sky News and BBC World News last evening and something occurred which we'd already spoken of for a week or more.

To put it in context, I'd been into the Melbourne Age in the morning and had noted it was full of killings and 15 girls becoming pregnant and all that and quite frankly, I don't wish to have this thrust onto my plate early morning or late at night.

Don't get me wrong - it's not that I'm uncaring or don't feel for the victims - it's just that I object to having it thrust upon me as "news".

So to last evening and sure enough - there was Sky with closeups of the contorted faces of newly bereaved people with tears rolling down their cheeks, as the reporter thrust a mike at them and asked them how they felt. But perhaps the most distressing aspect for me was how the camera rolled on, lovingly taking in their grief to enable the home viewer to cluck-cluck in sympathy and feel awful for the night.

So I suggested we switch to BBC. Not quite as bad but not good either. As for Sky, they are in no position to defend themselves on the charge that they are not only exploiting grief for entertainment purposes but are actively seeking it out in world "trouble spots".

I find it all bizarre and sickening.

[thought for the day] sunday evening

Justice is open to all, like the Ritz Hotel.

[James Matthew, 1955]