Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

ICANN Is Up to Its Old Tricks

Must read: Kieren McCarthy, ICANN’s leaving the nest, so when will it grow up? The org that will run the internet still acts like a teenager.

Protected by its important father, the US government, ICANN has become a surly, entitled, and vain figure. It will want for nothing. It will listen to no one. It is always right. …

Unfortunately, the real ICANN has a visceral loathing of anything decided by its “community” – the people it is supposed to be serving. …

Despite ostensibly being a community organization, at its thrice-yearly conferences ICANN corporate tightly controls the agenda. There are no “unconferences” or even community-led sessions. All sessions – and frequently panelists – are chosen and controlled by the staff. Sessions are added and removed according to whim.

Just as ICANN was showing real signs of maturity, it lapsed. Rather than using its greater autonomy to step up to the plate, the prevailing atmosphere within the organization was that it couldn’t believe its luck. And then, with the arrival of a new CEO and the approval of the money-minting new gTLD program, ICANN more than quadrupled its own budget. It’s now a child with both fewer constraints and more money to spend.

Now in 2016, with the transitioning of the IANA contract, ICANN is finally coming of age and the US government can no longer expect to keep it in its house. Rather than sending forth a well-prepared and mature young adult, however, we’re letting loose a know-it-all teenager with a chip on its shoulder and a determined belief that it doesn’t have to listen to anyone.

Milton Mueller’s ICANN Accountability – Present, Future and Past is good too, but more polite. (Which, if you know Milton, is quite an amazing thing to be writing!)

Posted in ICANN | Comments Off on ICANN Is Up to Its Old Tricks

Krugmania

Awesome!

Posted in Econ & Money | Comments Off on Krugmania

Take That!

A Judge got mad. Something good (and, sadly, unusual) resulted:

The Court would have granted Petitioners a stay of removal, but was informed that Petitioners were removed earlier today. The government is hereby ordered to use its best efforts to intercept Petitioners when they land tonight in Guatemala City and to return Petitioners to the United States immediately. If the government is unable to intercept Petitioners at the airport, they must locate Petitioners in Guatemala and return them to the United States as quickly as possible. Upon their return, Petitioners are granted a stay of removal pending disposition of their petition for review. If, upon contact, Petitioners inform the government that they do not want to return to the United States, the government shall secure a written memorialization to that effect — even if that writing is in Spanish.

Too often, spiriting the petitioner out of the country is held to moot the case. I like this outcome better. Full text of Chief Judge Theodore McKee’s order for the Third Circuit.)

(spotted via SDFLA Blog)

Posted in Law: Everything Else | Comments Off on Take That!

Only Disconnect

As a public service,
This QR code will invite your Android phone to install Disconnect, a privacy app that Google has banned from its ‘play store’. (More info here.)

To install the app you will need to navigate to your device’s Settings, select Security or Applications (depending on device) and check the Unknown Sources box.

There is also an iOS version.

Posted in Android | 1 Comment

Sums Up the Case for Pseudonyms

Posted in ID Cards and Identification | Comments Off on Sums Up the Case for Pseudonyms

Should I Surrender?

There’s this company that calls my office over and over. And over. And leaves messages asking me to go on their site and ‘claim my profile” that they have already concocted for me. It’s been going on for weeks, always at times I happened to be out. Note that it never sounded like robo-calling, but rather like call-center humans.

Finally, I happened to be in the office recently and answered a call from them (it was a human). I asked, begged, pleaded, to be put on their Do Not Call list. 1

Begging didn’t work. There’s a message from them on my voice mail again today.

So far, I’m standing strong, not giving in, not registering on their web site. Even if would shut them up. But I’m also a bit afraid to name them here, because it seems to me that that given their less-than-perfect authentication methods–which include linking to social media on which I do not have accounts–there is a substantial impersonation risk.

Should I just give in and ‘claim my profile’?

  1. This leaves aside the question whether the calls violate state or federal ‘do not call’ rules; I’m signed up for both, but since they are not actually selling anything or asking for money, they might be off the hook?[]
Posted in ID Cards and Identification, Internet | 1 Comment