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

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
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)

    Watchdogs A European Wondering About ICANN Honesty and Reliability
    posted by michael on Friday January 31 2003, @05:16PM

    isquat writes "In the part of the world in which I happen to live, the Netherlands, contracts are contracts, and government contracts are also contracts. From my perspective it therefore looks odd, that a US government contract is apparently something else than a contract. Why do I think that?

    Well, ICANN has a contract with the US government. It was last amended in September 2002, when this was added:

    "ICANN shall submit a report to the Department no later than November 30, 2002, providing a description of the current status of the root server system. ICANN shall submit a report to the Department no later than December 31, 2002, providing a description of the proposal for enhanced architecture for root server security as set forth above, a procedural plan for the transition to such enhanced architecture, and an implementation schedule for such transition."
    As far as I know, these reports did not materialize. In itself odd, since ICANN had discovered security as a top concern last year. Odder even, since it was specifically added to the contract."

    "Most odd, since the DoC emphasized the importance of just this part in its statement on the new MoU:
    "Given the importance of this issue to Internet security and stability, Amendment 5 to the MOU refines and underscores the existing MOU task for ICANN to review the current status of the root server system and to propose and implement enhanced architecture for root server security (ICANN Task 5). The Department considers the completion of this task absolutely crucial, particularly in today's post-September 11th world. Amendment 5 sets forth a due date of November 30, 2002 for the report detailing the root server system's status, and a due date of December 31, 2002 for the enhanced architecture proposal. Additionally, the Department also strongly urges ICANN and the root server system operators to take such steps as are necessary to complete negotiation on any pending draft agreement and execute such agreement no later than December 31, 2002."
    "... absolutely crucial" (I added the emphasis) sounds to me not like something you subsequently forget about. Where I live a journalist, a politician, probably several people from both professians, would have jumped on this topic after the dates mentioned.

    Why not in the US? Is nobody interested? Or are government contracts in the US not contracts, but good intentions?

    I think it is crucial for people outside the US to understand this in order for them to find their position vis-a-vis ICANN. I always had the idea that ultimately the US government (or Congress) would make sure that nothing goes seriously wrong with the DNS. Now I wonder whether we, outside the US, should not insist more on some other arrangement than a contract with the US government to manage the worldwide DNS."

      ICANNWatch Login  


    [ 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  
  • Amend. 5 to ICANN-DoC MoU
  • US Nat'l Telecom & Info Admin.
  • its statement on the new MoU
  • isquat
  • amended in September 2002
  • More on Watchdogs
  • Also by michael
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    A European Wondering About ICANN Honesty and Reliability | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 4 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    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.
    Other examples of contract mysteries
    by Richard_Henderson on Saturday February 01 2003, @09:02AM (#11071)
    User #3269 Info | http://www.atlarge.org/

    Another example of a seemingly discarded contract element is the Registry Evaluation Report required from Afilias under Appendix U of the ICANN-Registry Agreement.

    This was meant to be a central piece of data in the NewTLDs Evaluation process, informing all constituencies of the problems faced by registries in the introduction of any further TLDs, and giving Afilias an ooportunity to account for itself, in relation to the .ifo roll-out.

    This key data, mandatory under the terms of the Agreement, has never surfaced.

    Most of it was meant to be available for publication 9 months ago... none of it has been seen.

    Stuart Lynn was asked about this last May, and again in the autumn, when he claimed that ICANN staff hadn't had time to put it up on the Internet yet.

    It's now February 2003, and it still hasn't materialized.

    ICANN makes big claims about involving all parties in the discussion process leading up to decisions.

    In the case of the NewTLDs, Stuart Lynn has made decisions on further NewTLDs, but no constituency has been able to study and draw lessons from the Registry's NewTLD Evaluation Reports.

    Where are they?

    Why are they still unavailable?

    How long does it take to FTP pages onto the ICANN website?

    The ICANN Board seems to me to be a law unto itself, following or ignoring contract elements at will.

    You only have to look at the *substance* of the NewTLD fiascos, and the way ICANN Agreements were flouted without penalty, to feel very concerned about the integrity of the processes which ICANN claims to develop for the public good and the fair distribution of the DNS.

    It is now over 265 days since I wrote to ICANN's Chief Registrar Liaison Officer about concerns I had about the abuse of ICANN's processes. 265 days, and repeated posting of some serious issues both here at ICANNWatch, on the GA list, and on ICANN's own public forums.

    But Dan Halloran has never had the courtesy (or openness?) to answer my questions or even acknowledge receipt of my mail.

    Sadly, I am left thinking that ICANN does not want to engage in real consultation and dialogue. It has its own agenda, and it uses its powers to push through that agenda, without accountability, without responsiveness, without due acknowledgement of the constraints and detail of its contracts.

    Richard Henderson

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    by Anonymous on Sunday February 02 2003, @06:28PM (#11078)
    ICANN shall submit a report to the Department no later than December 31, 2002. Who says it wasn't submitted. If it's security related repott I can imagine the US Gov sharing it with other governments but I doubt they would allow ICANN to publish it. Especially in the world of paranoia we all live. It doesn't say "publish" it says "submit".
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:Report by KarlAuerbach Monday February 03 2003, @08:36PM
    • 1 reply 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