| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
ICANN to Give .org to ISOC: Insiders Win Again?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 32 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Michael writes:
"Which leads me to conclude that if ICANN and its advisors had been asked to rate the PC and internet as ideas 20 years ago, we'd be using timeshare slices on Honeywell, Burroughs and IBM mainframes and communicating by telegrams e-mailed to the local post office and then delivered by the local mail carrier."
This is a great comment but ICANN is in the "stability" business not the "innovation" business. In this case, it clearly defined - and heavily weighted - technical stability relative to .org as previous experience in operating a TLD registry. The evaluators then drilled down from there.
Whether this was proper "stability criteria" for ICANN to instruct its evaluators is a different subject all together, mostly as this relates to such criteria being a moving target rather than a well documented list of minimum technical specifications (that would largely remove subjectivity).
In this case, the fact .org already existed with a material registration base was used as its "reason of the month" to justify its stability criteria. Again, ICANN avoids setting precedent. For example, if a new player could prove to operate .org based upon a set of technical criteria it adheres to, then why could a new player not operate a brand new TLD registry based upon the very same technical criteria? ICANN wanted no part of this precedent and actually called it a stability risk to .org as justification.
This is the same as saying that ICANN admits it is incapable - or not qualified - to produce the technical specification criteria that would reasonably ensure for the community the ongoing functionality of the .org registry. Instead, it picked "prior experience" that makes sense on the surface but severely limited the viable candidates for re-delegation. This was the best ICANN was able to do as a technical coordination body....I think anyone could have done that.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stability? In Afilias? This, the company that was down more than it was up in their first 2 weeks of operation? Who has had what can only be described as a complete fiasco in its sunrise and landrush periods?
Using Afilias as a model of a stable and technically competent registry is beyond believable.
++Peter
|
|
|
|
[ 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
|
