|
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.
|
|
 |
|
ICANN should primarily pick a few qualified applicants, and then draw a winner by lottery! That is the way it should go.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Did you really expect any other outcome?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Did every applicant for .org have an inside representative on the ICANN BoD? It's beginning to appear that way.
I mean, doesn't DoC consider this shifty, sleazy, and unethical?
Guess not.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
I do so hate to say that I told you all so.
++Peter
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
It is the new TLD evaluation all over again. ICANN decides on the result that they want, and then instructs the evaluators to produce that result. Where are the original materials from the new TLD evaluation? All we ever saw was the staff summary. Where are the original documents from the technical evaluators and ICANN's accounting firm, Arthur Andersen?
If this isn't the strongest argument that ICANN is, in a word, corrupt, I don't know what is.
ICANN has now defrauded over 50 applicants, between the new TLDs and .ORG application processes. They accepted $50000 and $35000 application fees, knowing ahead of time who would be chosen.
It's time that ICANN be held accountable for these acts. Is anyone listening?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
I have a crazy conspiracy theory for you all.
ICANN did not disclose who the technical evaluators were when they paid them so much money.
It is my theory that ICANN actually commissioned more than 1 evaluation, and used the one that best fit the result that they wanted.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
The link to an essay on ISOC by Randy Wright presently points only to icannwatch.org. The hyperlink is empty. I don't know if you meant this by Randy Wright regarding ISOC elections, but it is worth reading anyway. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
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
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
WTF? What role did the ICANN board have in preparing the report? None! I fail to see the incest here.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Both Bret Fausett here and Thomas Roessler here call additional aspects of the evaluation into question. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
I am enraged that - yet again - those who seem closest to ICANN look like creaming off the contracts for the re-delegated .org
As I have explained here
Afilias and ICANN enjoy a close symbiotic relationship which can reasonably be viewed with scepticism, and their track record together includes the farcical .info fiasco
ISOC has long had close connections with various ICANN Directors.
More frustratingly still, the UNITY application - and I should explain that I have no links with them at all - was clearly very strong indeed and would have added much-needed diversity. The strength of their case was clearly identified by the independent assessment of the NCDNHC.
It also saddens me, in an industry rife with rogue registrars and registry cartels who have acted with dubious propriety - that for the .org registry, which deals perhaps more than any other with the non-commercial organisations of the world could have been benevolently governed by UNITY (whose Poptel group was built up on co-operative societies which worked for the community) -
Once again, ICANN has done exactly what most people predicted.
I am amazed at this decision.
Richard Henderson
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
There is a long history of the inside clique seeing domain name registries as useful revenue sources for thier pet projects. My question is: as .org is now to be run to support ISOC, where does that leave the concept of 'non-profit'? Surely it is now in the interests of ISOC to cream off as much 'tax' as possible, with no interest in keeping the end user price down?
Ivan Pope
ex Nominet and NetNames
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Sotiris Sotiropoulos raises an interesting point on the GA list. How can ISOC be a registry and also be heavily involved with the At Large (at least ICANN's version of it)? And why does the report give an email address for comments, and not ICANN's own forum? So that the comments aren't open and transparent to all? Thomas Roessler's blog, link to the left on this page, points to additional press coverage. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
