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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Restrictions | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 185 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: More great research
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday May 31 2002, @10:26AM (#6617)
    User #2810 Info
    First, I don't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Ben. What little research I did on Adrian could be done by anyone.

    Second, I find it interesting that most of the research being done on the gaming of ICANN's new TLDs is being done by outsiders (in the sense that they aren't, SFAIK, part of any formal ICANN process like the NTEPPTF), and on a volunteer basis.

    I am thinking here of Ben Edelman, Richard Henderson, Bob Connor, and to a much smaller degree my own efforts (though, inspired by these others, I have done some deeper research on a couple of parts of the rollout that I have yet to submit to ICANNWatch, hopefully I will be able to publish at least one of them in the next few days, both remain unfolding stories).

    However, I would also like to mention the work of some of the posters on the ICANN NTEPPTF and earlier fora. While many of them are given to colorful language and are admitted speculators, I see little evidence that most of them would fit even a broad definition of cybersquatters. Their reasons for researching the gaming of names may be more self-serving (EG: why did that ***hole get that name ahead of me?), but it is nonetheless often good and valid research, and still done for free.

    Finally, I will mention the research (the link is to his just released work, he has done earlier research as well) done by ICANN registrar Directi CEO Bhavin Turakhia. While again he may have been doing this for self-serving reasons, he was doing it for free (he says due to insomnia and boredom). He is also largely an outsider to the process, being rather controversial even amongst his fellow registrars.

    The point I want to make is that ICANN's own NTEPPTF committee, a year old next week, is well overdue on analyzing, or apparently even seeking, such useful data. This underlines one of the major ways in which ICANN has gone so terribly wrong. The idealistic view on ICANN's formation was that the largely volunteer effort that brought us the internet would continue along, with ICANN acting as facilitator. Instead, at every turn, volunteer efforts, including by those with no conceivable financial interest to look out for with regard to their work, have been shunned, ignored, devalued. Instead we have top-down appointed committees of those with vested financial interest in the outcome, meeting in secret, or not meeting at all, but in any case producing no useful data, nor coming to useful conclusions (all the while continuing to make money off a thoroughly gamed system).

    I would also like to stress that not only has the data been ignored, to the extent that the above outside volunteer parties have also suggested changes, I have found them to be, almost entirely, eminently sensible and workable. Again as near as anyone can tell, these suggested changes have been, and will probably continue to be, studiously ignored.

    Third, and following from the above, I am not yet willing to accept that human screening of domain names for veracity cannot be done. Ben has (SFAIK) singlehandedly, and without pay, written software which can flag many suspicious registrations for possible human intervention (and .name already has software in place, they just want to make a buck off it). Why could a new TLD, let's take .name for example, not say:

    Here's the deal. Do the research however you want. Turn in x number of names [let's say 10] that don't meet our criteria and have improperly passed through our own screening procedures, and we'll give you a free domain name registration. We will also make those names re-available at our earliest opportunity. If you do meet the criteria for any of the names you turned in, you will be given first choice to register them at normal cost. If you choose not to do so within x period of time they will go back into the general pool.
    Not only would this do a lot to clean up the drek, I don't think it would mean much of a negative hit to the TLD bottom line (how much of a negative hit has .info taken due to its self-challenges, to say nothing of the loss of goodwill amongst all the new open gTLDs?). It would also mean that all but the explicit gamers and cybersquatters would be pulling in the same direction. I could go on, but I gots work to do. :) -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: More great research by fnord
    Re: More great research
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Friday May 31 2002, @10:34AM (#6620)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    Well, if registrars / registries had done that sort of thing with regard to registrations fitting the intended purpose of all TLDs, from the beginning, then maybe we wouldn't have as much of a mess with domain names in general... like, if Network Solutions actually checked that all .com registrations were going to commercial entities, all .org registrations to noncommercial entities, all .net registrations to network infrastructure providers... and somebody ensured that all .tv registrants actually had a presence on the island of Tuvalu... :)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: More great research
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31 2002, @12:14PM (#6637)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    "...many of them are given to colorful language and are admitted speculators, I see little evidence that most of them would fit even a broad definition of cybersquatters..."

    Yep. I hope you're including me in that. I don't break either UDRP rules, nor ACPA law for that matter, not that it applies to UK Citizens anyway. In fact, I am genuinely doing the internet community a service - at a big psychological, social and financial loss to myself to date too... (*sigh*)... Hopefully, that will change very soon.
    [ 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