La extensión perfecta para el mundo de la construcción: .build

Blog Dominios Blog Dominios: Imagen: www.domain.build Para quienes se dediquen al negocio de la construcción se encuentra disponible la extensión .build, muy recomendable para páginas webs relacionadas con el sector de la construcción, pues se le da un plus de originalidad y distinción sobre la competencia. Los registros de esta extensión son inmediatos, y en algunas ocasiones por su especial relevancia pueden ser considerados como premium, por lo que la tarifa es superior (tanto en concepto de registro, como de renovación y traslado). Hay que destacar que este dominio soporta caracteres IDN, que van a permitir personalizar al máximo el nombre de dominio, con un intervalo que comprende desde 1 a 63, además de activar el servicio de Whois Privado (siempre que así lo oferte el correspondiente agente registrador). No dejes de construir tu página web con una base sólida; este tipo de extensiones permiten diferenciarse y aportar un toque de calidad. Independientementede que seas un profesional autónomo o una gran empresa, este dominio se ajusta perfectamente a la actividad que llevas a cabo. Permite a los internautas conocer de antemano cuál es la temática a la que se dedica el proyecto.

The post La extensión perfecta para el mundo de la construcción: .build appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

When you buy a domain, how long do you think you’ll hang onto it before you sell?

Morgan Linton Morgan Linton: It’s something many people don’t think of when they buy a domain, but more people should – when do you realistically expect to sell? This question is tied to an equally important question – what do you want to sell it for? If you look at some of the top Domain Investors, the people who […]

The post When you buy a domain, how long do you think you’ll hang onto it before you sell? appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

MERGE! 2017 : Information and photos from day 2 in Orlando, Florida

MERGE! 2017 continued today, Sunday, in Orlando, Florida, with Day 2; the multi-discipline conference attracted professionals from various realms, including domain investors, cryptocurrency technologists, marketing and branding experts, and more. The day started with the welcome message by co-founder, Jothan Frakes, the keynote speech by Jennifer Wolfe, followed by a fun game of “Domain or […]

Copyright DomainGang

Continue reading

ARIN Board Challenged to Diversify

CircleID CircleID: Before the American Registry for Internet Numbers' 40th Public Policy Meeting closed last week, members were reminded that the elections for two seats on its Board of Trustees was an opportunity for needed change.

The opening of polls last Thursday marked the end of an era. The clue was the candidates. For the first time in ARIN’s history, at least one seat on its board would not be filled by an elected white male.

Of the four vying, only Dan Alexander, principal engineer for Comcast Cable, was both white and male. Of the others, two were female: Nancy Carter, CFO of Canada’s National Research and Education Network; and Leslie Daigle, Principal, Thinking Cat Enterprises. And the third is a Jamaican-born, Afro-American Stephen Lee, CEO of Arkitechs Inc. and a co-founder of the Caribbean Network Operators Group.

By its very composition, the pool promises an unprecedented outcome.

“This is the first time that we will have elected someone who is not yet-another-white-guy,” said Bill Woodcock, who served on the Board of Trustees for 15 years before stepping down at the ARIN meeting in San Jose, California.

“It has been 20 years of only white guys. Twenty years,” he said, in an interview immediately after the San Jose meeting, adding that the coming change was not coincidental but calculated.

“I stepped down because I can’t solve the problem of diversity on the board by remaining on the board myself. I am yet another white guy.”

As Woodcock sees it, his push for greater diversity in ARIN’s top-tier leadership serves the body's best interest.

“It’s a matter of selecting from the best possible pool of candidates. If we take the entire pool of candidates and we throw out everyone who is not a white guy before we fill the available seats, we get a mediocre Board. If we could get two really good candidates this time instead of two mediocre ones, the board would improve. If we could do that again next year, the board would improve again. Then we may be at an extraordinary board, rather than an average one. That’s what I’m hoping for,” he said.
Written by Gerard Best, Development JournalistFollow CircleID on TwitterMore under: Internet Governance

The post ARIN Board Challenged to Diversify appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

The Role of the BFR in SpaceX’s Satellite Internet Service

CircleID CircleID: SpaceX started with their Falcon 1 booster followed by several versions of the Falcon 9. The Falcon Heavy will fly later this year, and the rocket that will take the first person to Mars is called, for now, the Big F***ing Rocket or BFR.

The 150-ton BFR payload will be ten times that of the Falcon 9. It will have an extra landing-guidance engine for reliable reusability and SpaceX also expects to be able to soft-land and reuse the second-stage payload rocket as well as its protective nose cone, substantially reducing cost per launch. (Note that Boeing is also planning a Mars mission so they may be planning their own BFR).

The following is speculation, but I think the BFR will play a significant role the SpaceX satellite Internet service.

SpaceX applied to launch their 4,425 satellites in two phases — an initial deployment of 1,600 satellites and a final deployment of 2,825. That is a lot of satellites, and the FCC has required licensees to deploy their full constellations within six years of their grant, but last month they relaxed that constraint, establishing milestones of launching 50% of a constellation within six years and allowing another three years to complete the constellation. The FCC has delayed licensing SpaceX's plan until spectrum sharing agreements are reached by satellite operators, so the clock has not yet started running on their six and nine-year milestones.

SpaceX plans to send a BFR to Mars in December 2022, and they won't give me any details, but they will surely be used "locally" before that. They plan to begin launching operating Internet satellites in 2019, and those will be launched by Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy rockets, but the BFR should be available to launch many of the planned 4,425 satellites before the FCC deadline.

SpaceX estimates the satellite mass as 386 kg, and the BFR can carry a 150-ton payload so, if they fit perfectly, a BFR could launch about 350 satellites at a time, but they won't fit perfectly, so let's say 300 per launch. SpaceX Senior Director Tom Ochinero says they will be capable of up to six launches per month. Using the BFR, 4,425 satellites in nine years sounds feasible and relatively cheap. (Elon Musk has estimated that future versions of the BFR may carry up to 1,000 tons).

The BFR may also play a role in debris mitigation. When they are taken out of operation, satellites are de-orbited, and they burn up in the atmosphere, but there is some risk of debris hitting the Earth. Bloomberg reported that the FCC had challenged SpaceX's assessment of risk of human casualty from falling debris and SpaceX responded the following month. Recently two Senators have also asked the FCC to investigate the risk of collisions and debris.

The BFR may render the debate moot. In a recent presentation, Elon Musk speculated that the BFR might be used to capture orbiting satellites and return them to Earth, as illustrated here:

SpaceX hopes to recapture satellites in the future (source)

I will conclude with the following image that illustrates how the BFR got its name — it is a BFR. If you are interested in the BFR and its role in Elon Musk's plan to colonize Mars, you should definitely read the post this illustration is taken from.

Still not sure how big it is? Check out this view of a BFR in Boston:


Written by Larry Press, Professor of Information Systems at California State UniversityFollow CircleID on TwitterMore under: Broadband, Wireless

The post The Role of the BFR in SpaceX’s Satellite Internet Service appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

The Darkening Web: Is there Light at the end of the Tunnel?

CircleID CircleID: In his book "The Darkening Web: The War for Cyberspace" (Penguin Books, New York 2017), Alexander Klimburg, an Austrian-American academic, gives "Internet Dreamers" a "Wake Up Call". He tells us the background-story why people start to be "anxious about the future of the Internet", as the recent ISOC Global Internet Report "Paths to Our Digital Future" has recognized. Klimburg refers to Alphabets CEO Erich Schmidt, who once said that "the Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity does not understand".

A Book of Dreams

Klimburg has labeled his book a "book of dreams." He could have called it also a "book of broken dreams." More than 20 years ago, the dream of visionaries like John Peter Barlow was, that the "promised land" of the 21st century is the cyberspace. "We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth. We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity" so Barlow in his "Davos Declaration of Cyberindependence". Already ten years later, Harvard´s Jonathan Zittrain dropped some water into the wine by sending an early warning in his book "The Future of the Internet and how to stop it." Now, the future has arrived. And Klimburg argues that we have to readjust our dreams. He is not without hope. But — viewing our planet earth from an eagle's perspective — the reality is that the road to paradise is crossed by some highways to hell.

The Evils of Cyberspace

Klimburg takes us on a tour to visit the evils of cyberspace: Cybercrime, Cyberterrorism and Cyberwar; Censorship, Mass Surveillance and Fakenews. He has collected all the "bad news" from the last 40 years and shows us the arsenal, what could happen, if the unmeasurable opportunities of the digital revolution come into the wrong hands: I Love Virus, Stuxnet, Cyberattacks against Estonia, DDoS, Ransomware, Killer Apps, Lethal Autonomous Weapons, and, and and… The good thing in his book is that he puts this dark side of the Internet not only into the historical context of the Internet development itself since the times of ARPANET, but also into the broader political context of global geo-politics and the never-ending struggle between big powers. This does not change the real threats, but it helps us to understand better what is going on and why.

He argues that a military cyberattack against the critical infrastructure of a country could have disastrous consequences, could ruin a national economy and put a democratic society into total chaos. The window of vulnerability of a network society is growing with the level of connectivity in a country. The incalculable risk with cyberwar is, that we have an imbalance between offense and defense. Such an imbalance never before existed in military scenarios. In cyberspace, it is cheap to attack but expensive to defend. This also makes the difference, if one compares cyberwar and nuclear war. In the nuclear age, there was a balance of power among the big players with a safeguard called "Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD). Such a MAD does not exist in cyberspace. A cyberwar could be a hybrid process, very decentralized and with different layers. And its target would not be primarily "death and destruction", as we know it from conventional wars. Chaos and collapse of institutions on the enemy side could create enough damage to get supremacy in such a conflict. But it could come even worse. Klimburg writes: "The worst possible cyberevent may not be, that the lights go out, but they will never go out, that we will slip into a totally controlled environment of Orwellian proportions."

This is, unfortunately, not new, but Klimburgs book summarizes all the arguments and links it to the challenges for global diplomacy. Insofar he reflects the contemporary "Zeitgeist": In 2016 the Bildt Commission on Global Internet Governance argued that "the future of the Internet hangs in the balance" and offered, among others, a "worst case scenario," very close to Klimburgs conclusions. Dan Schiller has titled his 2015 book "Digital Depression." Nathan Persifly from Stanford has asked recently in the "Washington Post": "Will Democracy Survive the Internet"? Vint Cerf told the Irish Broadcasting Corporation that basic things in human behavior have not changed since Shakespeare. All the human drama of the middle ages are reappearing in the 21st century. And Jeff Moss recognized at the BlackHat Conference in Las Vegas in July 2017 that the past is back. 25 years ago, he said, the technical people dreamed of a new world without governments. But when new business models emerged, the new big money also pulled criminals into the cyberspace, followed by the governments who wanted to get the bad guys. Welcome back to the bad old times.

"We should not be surprised that bad behaviours from the offline world are seeping into the online world" states ISOCs Global Internet Report. But ISOC adds, that the "core values and technical properties of the Intertnet remain as important as ever". And it calls for actions "to ensure that the future Internet remains user centric, that it upholds and reasserts our freedoms and rights and that it continues to work for the benefit of all."

The Dilemma of a Global Cyber Diplomacy

Klimburg's book takes us not only to the visible places were we can see the potential disasters, but also to the mainly unvisible spaces, where policy is developed and decisions are made. He analyzes governmental Internet policies in the US, in Russia and China and covers the main global Internet negotiations, where governmental and non-governmental stakeholders are trying to find balanced solutions to stabilize the cyberspace and to pave the way for future prosperous developments, for "best case scenarios".

Klimburg makes clear that today's global internet diplomacy is probably the most complicated chapter in the whole diplomatic history. Negotiators have to struggle not only with the "usual procedures" they have established for negotiations on climate change, trade pacts or arms control. In the Internet world, everything is connected with everything. Negotiations on cybersecurity cannot be isolated from negotiations on eTrade and will affect negotiations on human rights like privacy or freedom expression. All this complicates the drafting of norms for good governmental behavior in cyberspace or the clarification of the slippery issue of attribution, that is to find out, where a cyberattack comes from. The dilemma of Cyber-Negotiators is that they have to discuss liquid issues where the resources, they are fighting for, are virtual, and the future trends are undefined. The decentralization, diversity, and anonymity of the multilayered, multiplayered Internet, which is one of its strengths, is at the same time also one of its weaknesses. It offers tremendous opportunities, but it also opens the door for misuse.

Klimburg is very clear that the only way forward is to build more trust and confidence, both among governments and among all involved stakeholders. The political negotiations in organisations like the United Nations, the WSIS with its IGF, the OSCE and others and the development of technical ressources in mechanisms like IETF, ICANN, W3C, RIRs and others have created an Internet Governance Ecosystem which is much bigger than the multilateral system which emerged after World War II.

Klimburg has no "Silverbullet". It will take some time to draft workable frameworks in such a dynamic multistakeholder environment which can keep the cyberspace free and stable and get the bad guys under control. The Internet was and is a "Grand Collaboration", based on mutual trust. If this trust goes lost, the global Internet will fragment and the side effects of such a collapse will have far-reaching consequences for the economy, the culture and the whole society around the whole globe.

Moving towards a "Digital Desaster"?

An old joke defines a pessimist as a "well informed optimist". Will the "Darkening Web" pull us into a "Dark Decade"? There is indeed a growing number of pseudo-realists, which argue, that we are moving towards a big "digital disaster". The pseudo-argument is that all revolutions of the past triggered a disaster 25 years later. 25 years after the French Revolution, there was the Battle of Waterloo, followed by the Vienna Congress and a phase of relative stable decades with some prosperity. 25 years after the Russian Revolution, there was the Battle of Stalingrad followed by the creation of the United Nations and another decade of relative stability and prosperity. Wouldn't it by crazy — 25 years after the "Information Revolution" — to wait for a "Digital Hiroshima" to have the next phase of stability and prosperity?

Klimburgs book is also a book of hope. His very precise analysis shows us, there is space for a peaceful settlement of conflicts, there is space for arrangements, agreements and confidence building measures. It is true that there are different national interests, different national cultures, different historical experiences and even different value systems. But guided by the universal values of the United Nations, its Charter, and the Human Rights Declaration, there are a lot of opportunities to build bridges as long as there is a political will.

In the 20th century, governments were nearly the only players in global policymaking. But in the 21st century, the political ecosystem has changed and next to governments there is now a broad variety of global players active in this space: from business and civil society to the technical and academic community. All they have a "stake", are participating in global policy making and call for a multistakeholder approach.

It is interesting to note that a G7 Ministerial Meeting in Torino recently reiterated "the commitment to support the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance, consistent with the Internet Governance Principles resulting from the NETmundial Multistakeholder meeting held in Sao Paulo in 2014". And even the five leaders of the BRICS countries did recognize in their "Xiamen Declaration" from September 5, 2017: "We believe that all states should participate on an equal footing in the evolution and functioning of the Internet and its governance, bearing in mind the need to involve relevant stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities". There are certainly more than nuances between the G7 — and the BRICS — approaches to Internet Governance. However, there are some "bit and bytes" where both sides could find common language.

To promote the multistakeholder approach and to build bridges among adversaries is also the mission of the new Global Commission on Stability in Cyberspace (GCSC) which was created in spring 2017 under the chairwomanship of Marina Kaljarund, a former Foreign Minister of Estonia. Klimburg was one of the main drivers behind the making of the Commission and he functions now as its Co-Secretary. It is a good opportunity for an author of such a caliber to test how his vision can be translated into real action. So let's hope that the light at the end of the tunnel is not the laser pistol of a killing robot.
Written by Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor Emeritus at the University of AarhusFollow CircleID on TwitterMore under: Cyberattack, Cybercrime, Cybersecurity, Internet Governance, Policy & Regulation, Privacy, Web

The post The Darkening Web: Is there Light at the end of the Tunnel? appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading