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
  • MŁller-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)


     
    .net VeriSign Claims ICANN Prejudiced in .Net Operator
    posted by michael on Monday August 30 2004, @08:01PM

    Steven Forrest writes "The battle for .net is heating up, as VeriSign is accusing ICANN of showing prejudice in the selection process. Kevin C. Golden, vice president and associate general counsel for VeriSign, has sent a lengthy letter (10-page PDF) to ICANN's general counsel, John Jeffrey, outlining a series of objections to ICANN's criteria for selecting the next .net registry operator. Here are the opening paragraphs, with a few links added by me."



    "
    Mr. Jeffrey: I write to express our objections to and continuing concerns about the process employed to date to choose a registry operator for the .net registry, including the Final Report , "Designating a Successor Operator for the .net Registry," published by the GNSO, as well as past actions of ICANN. The process and criteria outlined in the Final Report, as well as the process followed by ICANN leading up to the publication of the Final Report, fail to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of the existing .net Registry Agreement , with the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Department of Commerce (the "MOU"), and with ICANN's own Bylaws . VeriSign previously set forth procedural and substantive deficiencies in the ICANN process for selecting a .net registry operator in VeriSign's June 18, 2004 formal comments in response to the GNSO .net subcommittee's request for comments. Further, in a letter to ICANN dated June 24, 2004, VeriSign objected to steps in the process taken by ICANN and set forth requirements for the process based on the .net Registry Agreement, the MOU, and ICANN's Bylaws. In each instance, VeriSign's objections have been largely ignored, and ICANN has made no attempt to remedy the prejudice to the selection process that already has occurred.
    As of today, that June 24 letter is not posted on ICANN's correspondence index web page, although ICANN has had more than a month to post it. I'd bet on seeing the rest of the memo repeated in a future legal filing if ICANN doesn't follow procedure to the letter and assigns the .net registry contract to someone other than VeriSign."

     
      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  
    · VeriSign/NSI
    · ICANN
    · Final Report
    · .net Registry Agreement
    · Memorandum of Understanding
    · Bylaws
    · comments
    · correspondence index
    · Steven Forrest
    · letter
    · More .net stories
    · Also by michael
     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    VeriSign Claims ICANN Prejudiced in .Net Operator | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 7 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.
    Duh!
    by BarkerJr on Tuesday August 31 2004, @08:08AM (#14091)
    User #4017 Info | http://barkerjr.net/
    So, the vendor (VeriSign) sues the customer (ICANN), and then gets complains because the customer doesn't like them anymore?

    Am I missing something here?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Spite or Security?
    by BC Brown on Wednesday September 08 2004, @06:30AM (#14111)
    User #4013 Info
    The legal battle over VeriSignís ability to innovate and ICANNís authority to regulate will now continue in state court. At the same time VeriSignís current contract to operate the .Net Registry expires in June 2005. ICANN has therefore had to put forth a process to select an entity to operate that registry when the current agreement expires. To any observer there has to be a question about ICANNís ability to be objective given the current litigation.

    In the national security environment as it exists today the capabilities of the operator of the .Net Registry have far reaching implications. That fact has to be a key focus of this process. Yet the current litigation that exists between the parties begs the question: How are citizens and the federal government to assured that ICANN can look beyond litigation and other widespread criticism to make a fair judgment? This is a critical decision. Under the best of circumstances ICANNís ability to make reasoned judgments has been questioned. Now in a wartime setting with serious national security issues we have left it to ICANN to decide the future of the operation of the.Net Registry. That is a very troubling scenario and it is made even more troubling by the overlay of the existing litigation and the potential for that litigation to poison the process.

    The issues that surround ICANN have not gone away. They continue to be a commercial concern to the business community. In addition, however in the current national security environment, we need to be sure that the .Net registry is secure and that we are prepared to adapt to make sure that it continues to operate under whatever circumstances we may face.

    [ 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