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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    DotOrg PR push on Validation | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 11 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: Who speaks for .org registrants?
    by lextext on Monday August 26 2002, @09:22AM (#8715)
    User #6 Info | http://www.lextext.com
    Milton,

    I'm not speaking here for the DotOrg Foundation. My personal complaint with the argument you're making above is that it doesn't take the Foundation at its word, but instead supposes a hidden motive (the desire to restrict .org in the future) and then criticizes the proposal on that basis. The DotOrg Foundation expressly says that it does not seek to restrict entry into the .org TLD. You can rest assured that if DotOrg Foundation were indeed awarded the contract, ICANN would insist on a provision in the accreditation agreement holding it to that promise.

    It's certainly true that anyone can offer any set of services outside the operation of a registry. You'll recall that the ICANN Board used this same argument against the approval of new TLDs in 2000. (Why do you need .geo when you can offer the same services under *.geo.com?) Where I feel you and the evaluation team erred though was in discounting DotOrg Foundation's suggestion that it was trying to solve a real world problem experienced by many non-commercial organizations and, instead, crediting some hidden motive that was in fact expressly disclaimed in the application.

    The fact that the evaluation team didn't recognize that this was a real problem to be solved -- and instead looked to another motive -- may well be because the evaluation team was not sufficiently reflective of the .org community.

    -- Bret
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Who speaks for .org registrants? by lextext
    Re: Who speaks for .org registrants?
    by Mueller ({mueller} {at} {syr.edu}) on Monday August 26 2002, @11:18AM (#8717)
    User #2901 Info | http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
    There is no assertion of a "hidden motive" in the report. I don't think the argument the team report made relies upon the existence of such a motive in any way.

    The point is simply that any economic and administrative linkage between validation and registry operation is unnecessary. To build one's case for registry operation upon that linkage is potentially dangerous, not because of DotOrg's motives now, but because of what might evolve in the future, and for competition reasons. Just as we separate registrar and registry to prevent control of a registry from advantaging the operator in the supply of registrar services, why should we allow the registry operator to dictate the standards for validation?

    If there were some tremendous advantage to the nonprofit community that would accrue from linking those two completely unrelated functions, then the risks might be worth it. But there are no advantages. What are they? If you want to sell validations, go ahead and do it. You don't need to run the .org registry to do so. You don't even need to link the process to domain names at all. Linking the two raises the potential for danger without any corresponding advantage.

    --M
    [ 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