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)


     
    The Big Picture ISOC to Bid on .org
    posted by tbyfield on Sunday June 02 2002, @02:23AM

    Jamie Love has forwarded a mail to CPT's "Random-bits" mailing list, from Internet Society (ISOC) President and CEO Lynn St. Amour. In it, St. Amour announces that ISOC is teaming up with Afilias to bid on the .org redelegation.



    This is both legitimate and, as Jamie noted in his mail, predictable. But the thicket of connections between ICANN, ISOC, and Afilias is so topologically dense that ICANN had better hurry up and appoint one of its Upstanding Citizens to its Conflicts of Interest committee Real Soon Now. (We hear they're working on that anyway, since the departure of Phil Davidson from the three-person "committee" leaves Karl Auerbach with way too much power.)

    Alternatively, maybe ICANN should just fess up and fold up that committee, because just about everyone who has anything to do with ICANN (with the possible exception of Andy Müller-Maguhn) has ties to ISOC like Gulliver has ties to Lilliputians. Either way, it's hard to imagine a more incestuous reductio ad nauseam of "industry self-regulation" than ICANN "taking" .org from VeriSign and "giving" it -- along with $5-18 million per year -- to ISOC and Afilias.

     
      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
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Karl
  • Auerbach
  • power
  • announces
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    ISOC to Bid on .org | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 35 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.
    Great Opportunity? Join ISOC now. It is FREE
    by isquat on Sunday June 02 2002, @04:01AM (#6728)
    User #3363 Info | http://i.squ.at/
    Since I guess this is a done deal, I would like to suggest to all and every reader of ICANNWATCH to join ISOC and do it now. Individual membership is FREE, since a little while.


    Or do individual members have no vote in ISOC? Anyone who has read all the changes in election processes care to elucidate? After 15 minutes I still could not make out.

    Join anyway :-)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: ISOC to Bid on .org
    by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Sunday June 02 2002, @05:55AM (#6731)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    Let's see, Afilias couldn't steal .WEB, and they're making a complete joke out of .INFO, so they see the free $5,000,000 and another cash cow and decide to grab for it?

    I think Afilias's technical abilities, and nothing else, disqualify them immediately. Their registry is a shambles, they sacked their back end provider and haven't done a single thing to repair the problems, they've missed all of their service level guarantees, and haven't lived up to their application or contract with ICANN since the first day of operation.

    If ICANN gives .ORG to Afilias, it would just prove what we already know: ability counts for nothing, it's all about being in the game.

    ++Peter
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re: ISOC to Bid on .org
      by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Sunday June 02 2002, @09:51AM (#6743)
      User #2810 Info
      Well, it is wrong that they sacked their backend provider. Their backend provider sacked them. -g
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Demonstrated capability?
        by isquat on Sunday June 02 2002, @07:06PM (#6764)
        User #3363 Info | http://i.squ.at/
        Any ccTLD registry with a couple of hundred thousand domains that runs well, can also run .ORG. A database is a database. The rest of the argument is about running the ICANN cartel.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re: Demonstrated capability?
          by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Sunday June 02 2002, @07:54PM (#6767)
          User #2810 Info
          Agreed. This idea that one can manage a TLD with 300,000 names, but that the world will suddenly magically go to hell in a handbasket if you try to push it to 10x that is way wonky. Any registry incapable of scaling like that isn't likely to apply. If they do, they won't be accepted, unless the BoD is even more clueless than has already become painfully apparent, or unless the fix is in. -g
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re: Demonstrated capability?
            by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Monday June 03 2002, @07:25AM (#6790)
            User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
            ICANN accepted the word of Afilias, on their application, that they could handle a huge TLD. Afilias has flubbed it from day one.

            Why is this .ORG bid any different?

            If ICANN plays by the same rules, than any incompetant applicant can get in. If they've learned their lesson, than Afilias is excluded.

            But, when all is said and done, this is just an excuse for ICANN to collect a pile of $35,000 checks.

            ++Peter
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re: Demonstrated capability?
              by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Monday June 03 2002, @09:33AM (#6791)
              User #2810 Info
              The .org bid is differet because .org will miss the sunrise problems, which was a major part of Afilias's problems. The bidder will also get $5mill from Verisign so shouldn't have serious cashflow problems, or have to do as many questionable things to bring in revenue. -g
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
                Re: Demonstrated capability?
                by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Monday June 03 2002, @09:51AM (#6792)
                User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
                I'm not taking about any of those issues, although Afilias's terrible record in them should be a clue to even the most dense ICANN choice-maker that there is a problem with Afilias.

                What I'm talking about is the fact that Afilias was down more often than it was up in its first week of operation. They've not met any of their service level guarantees since. They've not implemented anything close to what they promised in their application for .INFO.

                In other words, Afilias is not to be trusted and clearly cannot live up to any promises they make. Let them flounder with .INFO, as you can't put that djinn back in the bottle, but don't make the same mistake twice!

                ++Peter
                [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      Re: Sacked their back-end provider? No--they boug
      by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Monday June 03 2002, @03:36AM (#6787)
      User #2810 Info
      I didn't say Afilias sacked their backend provider, I said their backend provider sacked them. I stand by that. As for 'most basic facts', just about everyone else knows that you don't go looking for those in an Afilias press release. From the release:
      “This agreement is a win for both Afilias and Tucows“ said Elliot Noss, CEO of Tucows. “Not only does the acquisition help Afilias with its strategic goals, but it enables Tucows to meet our goal of returning to profitability sooner.”
      To see that without the spin, you can read what I wrote here. Tucows had a two year agreement. They told Afilias they wanted out early because .info wasn't doing as well as anticipated. That is, they were sacked by their backend provider. Afilias then bought Liberty, what else could they do? I imagine there must have been other options, presumably this seemed the best of a bad lot. But to spin this as Afilias acting wisely or proactively is a real stretch. They were forced into it by circumstance. -g
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
    Re: ISOC to Bid on .org
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Sunday June 02 2002, @03:48AM (#6727)
    User #2810 Info
    That's not the point. One point I think ted is making is that if those BoD members with ties to ISOC recuse themselves, there may be trouble achieving quorum. If they don't, who's to watch over them? FWIW, ISOC organization members are listed here. As for conspiracy, mebbe not, but one does not enhance competition much by awarding .org to ISOC/Afilias.

    The link above to Jamie Love's post is malformed, it can be found here. -g, ISOC member #1349877

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Afilias' good job
    by isquat on Sunday June 02 2002, @07:02PM (#6763)
    User #3363 Info | http://i.squ.at/
    "Afilias has done a good job since the Sunrise ended." Sure, they changed the rules so that they could themselves challenge registrations, after first telling everyone that they were not going to check. And now they are selling 17,000 names again for which they already cashed a 5 year registration fee. Clever, very clever.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 3 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