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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    U.S. Legislator Goes After ICANN's WLS Decision | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 14 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.
    Hilarious
    by jberryhill on Thursday June 19 2003, @01:47PM (#11816)
    User #3013 Info

    Okay, so let's make sure we understand this. These registrars want a WLS moratorium, so that VRSN cannot implement a WLS under which they would sell wholesale to the registrars, who could then resell the service.


    Then, the pending patent applications will issue, and these regsistrars will be shut down by patent litigation, and have no share of the pie at all.


    Brilliant strategy. I can just hear the screams of "Don't throw me in the briar patch" coming from Herndon now...

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Exactly, where was Congress five years ago?
    by dmehus on Thursday June 19 2003, @02:03PM (#11817)
    User #3626 Info | http://doug.mehus.info/
    It would seem to me that Congressman Brian Baird, a Democrat from Washington state, is doing this because of increasing pressure from two Washington-based domain name registrars. Both Dotster and eNom, well known opponents to the WLS, are headquarted in Washington state. No offence to lobbyists, but this absolutely reaks of political lobbying or, at the very least, whining.

    I should state that I support the idea of a Wait Listing Service ("WLS") on principle because it's the only fair way to do it; however, I think people should be given refunds if their back-order registration is unsuccessful. Really though, it's definitely fairer and more stable to have one system at the registry for back-orders than a hodge podge of systems at various registrars. Case in point: "thick" registry WHOIS has proved consistently to be better than VeriSign's "thin" system for .com and net.

    Best,
    Doug
    Doug Mehus http://doug.mehus.info/ [mehus.info]
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Washington Post Picks Up Story
    by GeorgeK on Thursday June 19 2003, @04:34PM (#11820)
    User #3191 Info | http://www.kirikos.com/
    See:

    Dot-COM Waiting List Under Fire [washingtonpost.com]

    Of course, Mary Hewitt failed to mention that in the public discussions, there was CONSENSUS opposition to it, and that ICANN's Board decision was not reflective of the public discussions. I'm glad to see folks are beginning to notice that ICANN has crossed a line, and that unless they shape up, they will no longer be put in a position to make those poor decisions again.

    There was more misinformation in that article re: "load" being an issue, which is incorrect. See my posts here [dnso.org] and here [dnso.org] which use Verisign's own data and words, to refute the "load" issue.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    News.com picks up the story
    by GeorgeK on Thursday June 19 2003, @06:35PM (#11821)
    User #3191 Info | http://www.kirikos.com/
    Bill challenges ICANN, VeriSign [com.com]

    "An ICANN spokeswoman said the wait-list change would not become effective until after an October board meeting in Carthage, Tunisia. "We welcome any kind of interest in ICANN because we are a transparent and accountable organization," ICANN spokeswoman Mary Hewitt said. "Whether it's the U.S. government or Belgium that wants to look at us, we welcome the interest. We post everything on our Web site."

    If that's truly the case, perhaps Mary Hewitt can explain why ICANN continues to refuse to provide the Independent Review Panel, which was formally requested on September 9, 2002:

    First Dotster Letter [icann.org]
    Second Dotster letter [icann.org]
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Support for this Legislation
    by dmehus on Thursday June 19 2003, @08:39PM (#11823)
    User #3626 Info | http://doug.mehus.info/
    After reading the entire bill, and a mighty short one at that, I have decided to support the legislation in its entirety. While I question the timing or motives behind it, on principle, this legislation is a long time coming. It's time that the independent investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, the General Accounting Office, do a complete, thorough, and transparent audit of both ICANN's business practices and its compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding that it signed in 1998.

    ICANN must be held accountable.

    Let's take a consensus. Will it pass? An "aye" or "nay" will suffice (though, more commentary is always appreciated). :)

    Best,
    Doug
    Doug Mehus http://doug.mehus.info/ [mehus.info]
    [ 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