ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    ICANN Staff and Structure Catch 22? Reconsideration Committee Says Stay of .aero Denied
    posted by michael on Monday December 17 2001, @04:03AM

    ICANN's reconsideration committee yesterday denied Edward Hasbrouck's request for a stay of the .aero agreement pending his reconsideration request. The Committee's message, signed by Board Squatter and Reconsideration Committee Chair Hans Kraaijenbrink, states that Mr. Hasbrouck's petition contains "no new material grounds for Mr. Hasbrouck's objections that were not already addressed in his original two messages and that were not available to and considered by Board members during the seven-day last-call procedure." In the next paragraph, the statement says that no member of the committee though he was entitled to a stay.

    Although the two statements are not explicitly linked, no other reason is given and the implication is clear: Because the ICANN Reconsideration Policy says that the committee is free to ignore arguments people failed to make before the decision under appeal was taken was taken, and the committee now says merely repeating old arguments isn't grounds for a stay, there now appears to be a Catch-22 situation for reconsideration requests under which NO argument is EVER eligible for a stay!



    Meanwhile, although the Committee routinely throws out applications that are not filed within the 30-day period for appeals, it routinely fails to meet its own 30-day deadline for ruling on them. Currently, the oldest pending application appears to be from March 10, 2000 (although it also appears to be moot, which may be why there's no decision listed on the Reconsideration Committee Page), followed by one dated May 20, 2000 (the one that ICANN mysteriously lost for over a year). Jonathan Weinberg and I have been waiting since August 8, 2001.

    A Board that cared more about its relations with the public might at least explain the source of this routine delay.

    If you don't file on time, you lose automatically. If ICANN doesn't decide on time, nothing happens-- except that eventually even if you won (not that you would) it would be too late to matter. Meanwhile, what ever happened to the Independent Review Board? So much for checks and balances.

    Click here to comment on this article.

     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
      Related Links  
  • ICANNWatch.org
  • March 10, 2000
  • Reconsideration Committee Page
  • May 20, 2000
  • August 8, 2001
  • you lose automatically
  • Independent Review Board
  • here
  • denied
  • reconsideration request
  • Board Squatter
  • ICANN Reconsideration Policy
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Catch 22? Reconsideration Committee Says Stay of .aero Denied | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 9 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: Catch 22? Reconsideration Committee Says Stay
    by ehasbrouck on Monday December 17 2001, @05:32AM (#4086)
    User #3130 Info | http://hasbrouck.org
    In addition to Micahel Froomkin's well-taken points, it's worth noting that I *did* submit specific reasons for a stay, and that the reasons and standards for granting a stay would normally be somewhat different from the reasons and standards for acting on the underlying request.

    FWIW, the statement posted yesterday (which Mr. Touton was kind enough to advise me of) doesn't appear to be, strictly speaking, a denial of my request for a stay pending reconsideration (although it is likely to have the same effect). It appears, from Mr. Touton's message to me, that he interprets yesterday's statement that way as well. I'm pleased to find that we agree on at least this much.

    In parallel with my request for a stay, I had asked Mr. Lynn as ICANN President not to sign the draft agreement while the request for a stay was pending. According to the statement, "Dr. Lynn has requested the Committee's guidance on how to proceed in view of Mr. Hasbrouck's request that he refrain from signing the .aero agreement.... no member of the Committee has expressed the view that it is appropriate to stay the completion of the agreement with the .aero Sponsor. I have therefore advised Dr. Lynn that there is no reason to delay moving forward with the agreement. --Hans Kraaijenbrink, Chair, Reconsideration Committee."

    I understand this statement to be merely nonbinding advice to Mr. Lynn as to how to exercise his discretionary authority while the request for a stay is pending, *not* a decision on the request for a stay. According to Mr. Touton's e-mail message to advise me of this statement, "This does not constitute the Reconsideration Committee's recommendation to the Board in this matter; the Committee is still considering the request."

    It's not clear to me whether a stay could be granted by the Reconsideration Committee alone, or if a stay would require a vote of the full Board. Since the Committee has never recommended a stay, the question has never arisen. We shall see what (if anything) happens, and when (if ever).

    Edward Hasbrouck
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Re: Catch 22? Reconsideration Committee Says Stay
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Monday December 17 2001, @11:02PM (#4104)
    User #2810 Info
    The .aero listing here on the icann tld page has gone to green and the lower listing for it (as with .pro on this date) is gone. I assume that means it's a done deal. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Re: Catch 22? Reconsideration Committee Says Stay
    by ehasbrouck on Tuesday December 18 2001, @07:38AM (#4115)
    User #3130 Info | http://hasbrouck.org
    The .aero agreement has been signed:

    ".aero TLD Sponsorship Agreement (Signed 17 December 2001)"

    "On 17 December 2001, ICANN and Societe Internationale de
    Telecommunications Aeronautiques SC (SITA) entered into a TLD Sponsorship
    Agreement under which SITA sponsors the .aero top-level domain."

    http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/aero/

    Interestingly, several sections of the agreement were revised after the
    draft was posted for comment and approval. The revisions were only posted
    as part of the signed agreement; they were never subject to any review,
    approval, or comment by the Board of Directors or the public. See:

    http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/aero/sponsorship-agmt-att8-
    17dec01.htm

    http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/aero/sponsorship-agmt-att15-
    17dec01.htm

    http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/aero/sponsorship-agmt-att21-
    17dec01.htm

    The changes appear minor, but no indication was posted of who made the
    changes, or how they are supposed to have been authorized or approved.

    Edward Hasbrouck
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Re: Catch 22? Reconsideration Committee Says Stay
    by Anonymous on Monday December 17 2001, @05:15AM (#4084)
    What kind of message does that send to children growing up in the U.S. ?
    "Elections matter"?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com