| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
[ 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. ]
|
|
| | |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.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
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
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, 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
]
|
|
|
|
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
]
|
|
|
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
|
GNSO Asked to Develop Procedure to Rule on New Registry Services