ICANN Bucharest meetings: GAC communiqu??; webcasts.

Some more material on the Bucharest meetings has become available: The GAC has made its agenda, a Media Communiqu??, and its statement on ICANN Reform available. The statement is the communiqu?? read during the public forum. Still, you should really…

Some more material on the Bucharest meetings has become available: The GAC has made its agenda, a Media Communiqué, and its statement on ICANN Reform available. The statement is the communiqué read during the public forum. Still, you should really read the original version: The GAC is, for instance, suggesting a number of subtle, but important changes to ICANN’s proposed mission statement I didn’t catch during the public forum session.

Also, some more archived webcasts are available from the official remote participation page: the press event on Tuesday, and the board meeting wrap-up on Friday. It’s, of course, also all linked from the Bucharest summary page.

ILAW, again.

I’m continuing to make an attempt at following the Berkman center’s ILAW event, as far as that’s possible through the excellent notes in the Copyfight blog and by Dan Gillmor. Must be a fascinating event. Yesterday’s session included talks by Less…

I’m continuing to make an attempt at following the Berkman center’s ILAW event, as far as that’s possible through the excellent notes in the Copyfight blog and by Dan Gillmor. Must be a fascinating event.

Yesterday’s session included talks by Lessig on architecture as regulation [exercise for the reader: apply this to whois policy, privacy protection, and the architectural question of thin vs. thick registries], and by Zittrain on ICANN: What brought us to the point where ICANNwatch is a site you might need to watch? One note I found particularly interesting was a dialogue during the final discussion, as reported in the Copyfight blog: Charlie [Nesson] asks JZ [Zittrain]: “Jonathan, you follow Larry [Lessig] and tell story of ICANN. The message is that the effort was all miscast from the beginning. Stuart Lynn says the government must come in. So are you as pessimistic about the Net as Larry?” JZ: “No, definitely not. But I remember that we threw a meeting here, about ICANN membership; we were looking for a good, fair system, as disinterested academics. We had [inaudible] come in, from Common Cause. He said ‘We tried membership; it failed.’ I think the board runs it, now. And this is Common Cause. There’s sort of a lesson in that.”

Today, things focus on the evolution of copyright law in the US.

Reminder: Conference with Vint Cerf.

ISOC.lu has sent out a reminder about their July 4 conference with Vint Cerf. They are at 250 booked attendees, now. The conference will also be webcast, at 14:30 CEST. (The message translates that as 13:30 GMT, but I suppose they just got the day…

ISOC.lu has sent out a reminder about their July 4 conference with Vint Cerf. They are at 250 booked attendees, now. The conference will also be webcast, at 14:30 CEST. (The message translates that as 13:30 GMT, but I suppose they just got the daylight saving time wrong.)

Another Edelman study: DNS as a directory?

Ben Edelman has done another study: This time, he has taken names (100 each, from the following categories: top brand names, random brand names, Boston Yellow Page entries, and selective and random colleges and universities in the US), and investi…

Ben Edelman has done another study: This time, he has taken names (100 each, from the following categories: top brand names, random brand names, Boston Yellow Page entries, and selective and random colleges and universities in the US), and investigated how successful (1) domain name guessing, (2) Google’s I’m feeling lucky button, (3) RealNames were as strategies to find the web sites in question. The objective of the study was to help to understand the extent to which DNS is already used as or already functions as a directory. I find the first part of this a bit misleading, by the way: The study can at most show how usable the DNS is as a directory. It cannot demonstrate whether users actually use it as one – to quantify that, you’d have to actually observe user behavior.

The study’s results: Google is best across all categories in matching Ben’s hypothetical user expectation. Ben further writes on the DNSO’s GA list: I first find that DNS is nearly as accurate as Google among a sample of the world’s largest brands. However, for smaller brands, smaller companies, and less selective educational institutions, DNS’s accuracy is substantially worse than Google’s. These results suggest that while DNS well serves the needs of the largest companies, it is less successful in providing intuitive naming services to small businesses and other smaller organizations.

William Walsh responded to Ben’s statement, and suggested that just because something CAN be used for some in a fashion, does not mean that it is, was, or should be intended to work that way, or that it should work that way for all people. Search engines and other directory services are the way to go for that.