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)


    		 
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Sensible (and Tactical) Thoughts on New TLDs from the Business Constituency | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 16 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.
    Re:Seperating Names and Registries
    by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @01:01PM (#10910)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    I'm afraid I don't see how this could be done fairly. You have encumbants who will receive an advantage that no new applicant would receive. You have applicants already in line, who have paid a considerable sum, who would have to disqualify themselves as not meeting this new criteria. I fail to see how this could be implemented in a fair and legal manner.

    ++Peter
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Seperating Names and Registries
    by RFassett on Wednesday January 08 2003, @05:47AM (#10919)
    User #3226 Info | http://www.enum.info
    actually, this raises a point I am a bit consfused about: Which party actually signed the contract with DoC, ISOC or PIR...or both? Is it fair to describe the role of ISOC as that of a sponsor? If it is PIR that has the contract with DoC, can they pick a new "sponsor" just like they can, in theory, choose a new back-end registry operator? Or is the "sponsor entity" required to be a signed party to the contract with DoC? Was ISOC required to sign with DoC for .ORG or just PIR? I know that PIR was created for the purposes of the .ORG redelegation but is their relationship with ISOC some sort of lifetime marriage that can never ever be broken? Or is it simply that it is ISOC that is the principle party to the contract with DoC, and not PIR?
    [ 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