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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Same Old Shell Game All Over Again | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 12 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.
    New sTLD's
    by Anonymous on Tuesday March 25 2003, @09:35PM (#11375)
    i apologize if mistake in using the new acronyms refers instead to diseases of passion......

    I agree with Michael the strategic positioning of request for comments in the "March" section, and not in the "NEW" section, the seems like the same old game......also public forum on criteria is not part of agenda.... maybe new CEO can set blackout of new posting to ICANN site for public commnet in the 48 hours before a meeting.

    I have submitted the follwing comments to the ICANN thread and will submit it here also in case it doesnt get published by ICANN due to time contraints, which they brought upon themselves.

    The welcome date on the public thread is March 21, as if anyone knew about the darn thing until it was published... yet it still seems like it was open before people left for Rio... which is wasnt.

    anyway, enough whinning. heres my comments on fairer fees and staff access

    In an effort to more equitable apply the fees collected to the cost of evaluating the new sponsored TLD's, i beleive the community can learn from the first "Lottery" in 2000.

    The Lottery aspects occurred when the costs of evaluating, negotiating and "examining after the fact" were lumped together an charged to the application fees of all applicants.

    In this manner, the fees of those rejected were used to pay the expenses of the select few that were approved...creating a subsidy for the winners.

    I propose the board examine a possibly fairer treatment where the cost of evaluating alone is covered by the initial fee and only accepted applicants pay the total costs of negotiating final agreements, pre relaease ICANN allocated expenses, and the costs of a continual evaluation of this second stage process.

    In essence, there would be a separate allocation of post selection expenses paid by those groups who are to receive the new STLD's. Those accepted will already have to start paying their fixed allocations of the ICANN budget before launch. The additional costs ICANN incurs to reach final agreements should be paid by those who directly benefit.

    Secondly, I would ask the board to consider a partial refund of fees, to those groups whose applications are denied "at first glance" because of a failure, possibly in the minds of the evaluation teams based on interpretation, to reach a minimum aspects of the criteria.

    Perhaps, if this automatically rejected applicants fee refund does not take place, the ICANN or evaluation staff should be available for a sort of pre-review where groups could gain a clearer understanding of the possible prima facie rejections of applications before spending time and money to never make it pass the first day's evaluation.

    I submit these two additions to the criteria in an effort to provide a more equitable and less contest/lottery process. Page Howe

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    comment period
    by lextext on Wednesday March 26 2003, @06:05AM (#11377)
    User #6 Info | http://www.lextext.com
    The usually well-informed ICANN Blog says, "The discussion starts tomorrow at the public forum and should extend for a few weeks after."

    I expressed concern over the apparent short time between publication of the paper and the public forum and was assured that the public forum is only the start of the conversation. Comments will be taken for a few more weeks. I understand this will be clarified on the ICANN site in the coming days.

    -- Bret

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      No notice
      by KarlAuerbach on Wednesday March 26 2003, @06:56AM (#11379)
      User #3243 Info | http://www.cavebear.com/
      Your note caused me to look at my the e-mail that I have received on icann's board[*]'s mailing list.

      There is *NO* notice that this paper exists or that it was posted.

      The full board meeting starts in less than 19 hours. Yet I have not seen anything more than a cursory agenda - with no detail, no proposed resolutions, no nothing.

      Once again, ICANN's staff does not properly subordinate itself to its board or directors.
      And the board, rather than objecting, sits silently and lets itself be abused and thus condemms itself to being nothing more than a rubber stamp, and failing in its job of serving the public interest.

      As for the proposed new TLD evaluations - during the last round, ICANN spent over $300,000 on an outside review firm. And as far as I can tell that firm merely sat in on meetings and gave oral comments. That's a lot of money for unverifiable hot air. And we saw the awful job that was done by Gartner in .org. (And in at least one other case ICANN paid a large sum for a study by a high-priced law firm, a study that the public has not seen. That study team was knowingly or recklessly fed false information by ICANN staff in a way that I believe was designed to induce a predetermined desired outcome.)

      ICANN likes expensive studies. They make pretty bullets on presentations. But as far as useful value? So far the only competency that ICANN has shown is the ability to pay large sums for very little result.

      [*] ICANN's board's mailing list has an unknown number of non-board members, including Joe Sims, who routinely participate in board e-mail discussions as if they were principals rather than hired servants.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Wishful thinking?
    by KonstantinosKomaitis on Wednesday March 26 2003, @06:28AM (#11378)
    User #3552 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    It looks as if ICANN is trying to achieve something and prove that there is always room for change. The evaluation team that will be created seems as a good beginning and a process that may result to more transparency. No way though, ICANN's dictionary doesn't know what transparence stands for. "The Board would not intrude in the evaluation process itself; its options would be to accept or to reject the results of the evaluation." So if the Board is in the position to reject the results of the evaluation, why should there be an evaluation in the first place?If the evaluation is to be rejected, its outcomes will never be known and will never be posted on ICANN's site. And why should they? The last thing that ICANN wants is another polemic to its functions and to the way they operate the DNS.
    However and to make another point, what is really strange in my opinion is why in every meeting of ICANN - and there are a lot - nothing is discussed about the UDRP? Do they think that the system works? Well, if they do they are obviously blind; but most probably it is not that they are unaware of the whole situation, it is just that they don't want to dissapoint those for whose the system was created, trademark holders.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Wishful thinking?
      by KarlAuerbach on Wednesday March 26 2003, @08:57AM (#11380)
      User #3243 Info | http://www.cavebear.com/
      Under applicable law the Board of Directors, as a collective body, has ultimate control over ICANN's acts.

      Under applicable law, ICANN's Board of Directors is free to override any recommendation, any evaluation. In fact, Directors are obligated to exercise their independent judgement and not simply be mindless marionettes.

      ICANN's Board, through its history of continued rejections of Requests for Reconsideration, its history of ignoring recommendations from the DNSO, and its interpretation of its own bylaws, has made it clear that the Board will not be bound even by its own by-laws.

      I saw the report of the IP Address RIRs - I hope they recognize that if one admits that ICANN has a role in IP address allocations via any of its agreements with the US gov't that ICANN's board has the ultimate authority to allocate and revoke IP addresses no matter what the RIRs might think.

      ICANN's history is one of arbitrary and capricious behaviour, unguided and unlimited by principles or rules.

      Is ICANN likely to change its spots? Is the moon made of green cheese? Do pigs fly?
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Great News!
    by Anonymous on Wednesday March 26 2003, @01:13PM (#11381)
    God bless ICANN! Without any new unrestricted or barely restricted gTLDs, my .info, .biz, .us, and of course .com registrations will continue to be worth more and more each day, 'cause the supply will remain finite. Hallelujah Mammy! Speculators kick up your heels!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Scumbags
    by Anonymous on Thursday March 27 2003, @05:14AM (#11386)
    Just remember who is responsible for screwing the unsuccessful November 2000 applicants: Esther Dyson, Mike Roberts, Hans Kraaijenbrink *(extra points for storm-trooping over Reconsideration Requests), Vint (asleep-at-the-wheel) Cerf. Now, we know Abril i Abril lurks in this forum to look for incorrect spelling of his name, but where is that gutless asshole when it comes to speaking up for the "applicants" from November 2000 who weren't "rejected", but again denied now? You suck Abril i Abril, and you never deserved your position as an ICANN Director. Hans and Mike Roberts must have been laughing at you all the while ... thanks again for nothing.
    [ 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