Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    WLS Approved, With Amendments | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 21 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    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: WLS Approved, With Amendments
    by RFassett on Saturday August 24 2002, @07:57PM (#8690)
    User #3226 Info | http://www.enum.info
    Peter, to be honest, I feel it runs a little deeper than the point you are making. It is about ICANN's ability to continue to enforce regulatory measures upon the market place by registry contract. As a private entity, ICANN has no authority as a regulatory body. It can only achieve regulatory controls - such as wholesale price capping - by "mutually agreed" contract.

    So, what is .INFO going to do, not sign the contract stating it will abide by UDRP? Or .AERO that it will not operate a sponsored TLD? What if .BIZ decided to raise their wholesale price tomorrow to $10....what's stopping this? Oh, their contract....the one they HAD to sign to gain entry. My guess is that .PRO challenged ICANN's ability to regulate price but have sat on the sidelines as a result. It is reasonable to say that the hold-up of .PRO has nothing to do with their qualifications to run a registry.

    Now, say ICANN actually devises a well outlined system to foster competition at the top level, do you think their authority to regulate the market place (by way of contract) will come into question by applicants at a far greater rate than 1 out of 7? You bet.

    Notice ICANN never made "$6 or less" a requirement in the first round. What a coincidence that all 7 that were chosen applied at "$6 or less". Why did ICANN not just make this is an upfront requirement? Because they can't...as a private entity, it is a regulatory measure outside of their scope and jurisdiction. They can only achieve this by "mutually agreed" contract. Well, if ICANN opens up the top level to competition, it won't be able to pick just 7 cooperative parties ensuring certain regulatory measures for the market place (that it sees as best for us) by way of "mutually agreed" contract.

    There is more than a reasonable chance that a court may rule that a registry does not have to sign a contract abiding by UDRP in order to gain entry on the grounds ICANN, as a private entity, has no authority to impose this unilaterally across borders. Same for price controls. Same for sponsored-restricted, etc. These are things applicants would question upon ICANN devising a clearly defined system of entry and the reason they have continued to avoid doing so, regardless of their mandate. Notice how ccTLD registries have avoided such regulation by contract and there is really nothing ICANN can do about it because it is not - by inherent design - a global, regulatory body. Recognizing this, does ICANN want to bring on more of the same?

    ICANN's actions show it to believe that DNS addressing should be absolved of decentralized decision making based upon prior precedent. Opening up the TLD space brings this way of thinking into a direct collision course with such decentralized mechanisms that would challenge it. The (many) applicants that would meet ICANN's admittance guidelines should they devise such a thing would be the ones doing the challenging...not just signing contracts - or else.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: WLS Approved, With Amendments by RFassett
    Re: WLS Approved, With Amendments
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Sunday August 25 2002, @01:25AM (#8693)
    User #2810 Info
    I don't know if I'm directly addressing your point Ray, but the way I see it is we've had a monopoly (VeriSign) replaced with a trust (ICANN) of three major players, with VeriSign still penultimate. At this rate we may have true competition sometime around 2050. The only answer I see to this is the courts, and if the disaffected can't get their act together to sue, then I guess we might as well hold our breath for a few decades until it shakes itself out. Frankly, I'm disgusted that no-one has stepped up to the plate and challenged this, but if they're that wimpy I guess they're not worthy of running a registry. -g
    [ 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