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 GNSO Asked to Develop Procedure to Rule on New Registry Services
    posted by Mueller on Friday October 10 2003, @06:05AM

    ICANN President Paul Twomey took another step toward making ICANN an economic regulator of the domain name industry, issuing an advisory asking the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) to "formulate a proposal for a timely, transparent and predictable procedure for the introduction of new registry services, including as to how a reasonable determination of the likelihood that a proposed change will have adverse effects."

    The GNSO will discuss this proposal at a Thursday October 16 teleconference.



    The push to make the GNSO, a body in which registries and registrars control half the votes, a regulator of entry into new registry services, raises serious issues about the scope and methods of ICANN's self-regulatory scheme, including potential antitrust problems that VeriSign has already flagged in its response to ICANN.

    Twomey's call is part of a hastily considered reaction to the VeriSign Sitefinder incident, and seems to be based on the assumption that had a review mechanism been in place, Sitefinder never would have happened. The President of ICANN seems to believe that this kind of review is going to clear and simple to implement, as he is calling for these sweeping changes in the mission of ICANN to be completed by January 15 - i.e., in only 3 months.

    But such a prior review of service introduction raises difficult issues, such as how a "registry service" is defined, whether the GNSO has the technical competence to decide in advance what wil have adverse effects, whether it is appropriate for business competitors to play a role in deciding what services their competitors can introduce, etc.

     
      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  
    · Dr. Paul Twomey
    · VeriSign/NSI
    · ICANN
    · flagged in its response to ICANN.
    · advisory
    · discuss this proposal
    · More The Big Picture stories
    · Also by Mueller
     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    GNSO Asked to Develop Procedure to Rule on New Registry Services | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 6 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.
    The GNSO is asked to *design* the process.....
    by tlr (reversethis-{gro.tsixe-ton-seod} {ta} {relsseor}) on Friday October 10 2003, @07:07AM (#12435)
    User #34 Info | http://log.does-not-exist.org/
    It's not clear at all who would administer such a process, even when it's designed by the GNSO.

    Could be ICANN staff + SECSAC + IAB, for instance.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    We already have a process...
    by GeorgeK on Saturday October 11 2003, @05:23AM (#12439)
    User #3191 Info | http://www.kirikos.com/
    We already have a process, that worked fine for RGP, ConsoliDate, and other registry services. It worked fine for WLS, too, in the sense that it got quickly rejected by the consensus. VeriSign is only bemoaning processes where there's a *chance* that their proposals can face rejection!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    And WLS?
    by cambler (chris@ambler.net) on Monday October 13 2003, @09:07AM (#12448)
    User #36 Info | http://onthenet.ambler.net/
    This being the case, wouldn't it make sense for ICANN to tell Verisign that it may not move forward with WLS, such that SiteFinder and WLS can be the first offerings put through this new procedure?

    Considering that WLS had such an overwhelming consenus against it, this would be an ideal test case for the new process.

    --
    Ambler On The Net [ambler.net]

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    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