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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Mueller speaks out on WLS (Warning: here be heresy) | 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
    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: Right on target
    by Anonymous on Wednesday August 28 2002, @03:00PM (#8758)
    Except for one little detail. Let's not forget that ICANN cited a "conservative and controlled' approach towards maintaining "technical stability" under the recommendation of the IAB/IETF. It followed this advice, as testified by Vint Cerf to Congress, where it would hold a first round of expansion of no more than 7 to 10 new TLD's. ICANN continues to use this recommendation by the IETF to restrict entry (if not, then what else?) I have been of the opinion that the IETF - because of its recommendation - is as much responsible as anyone for ICANN having the ability to regulate the global DNS (that continues to this day) by way of restricting entry. Afterall, it was - and remains - the IETF recommendation that ICANN uses as its foundation to restrict entry. Or is it?

    After Bret Fausett posted a few days ago to his blog site that Fred Baker was being named the new chair of the ISOC (which manages the IETF), I decided to pose this very line of questioning to Mr. Baker. I am posting his response in its entirety below - with Mr. Baker's full permission with the understanding that these are his personal opinions and NOT to be considered that of the ISOC, IETF, IAB or any other person or entity....his personal opinion. I found his response quite enlightening and certainly different than ICANN has portrayed. You decide:

    Subject: Re: 7 to 10 TLD's?
    From: Fred Baker
    Date: Mon, August 26, 2002 4:10 pm
    To: ray@fassett.org


    RF: It would seem to me of great importance to know whether the Internet has remained technically stable as a result of the new registry additions. I would reason that the IETF would want to know this given the gravity of
    the "first ever" DNS expansion to the root servers. This was the primary reason the IETF made its very conservative recommendation to ICANN...it
    was not sure of the effects.

    FB: I think I would restate a number of points there.

    FB: First, this is not the first time that the root servers have been changed. ccTLDs change from time to time, being added, deleted, or retargetted
    according to the changing political distribution of land. The IAB felt that adding "a few" gTLDs would make no more perturbance than the changing
    ccTLDs, and in fact that has been true.

    FB: What the IAB took exception to was the concept of putting all names at essentially the TLD level, which was and is advocated by some. The level of change in, for example, the .com domain, and the number of names there, is truly large. To take all of the names in the .com zone and essentially make them into gTLDs was seen as an unnecessary instability, as limiting IPR issues regarding names, and as removing both the ability for governments to assign names (ccTLDs) and removing the hooks necessary to provide different kinds of registries.

    RF: Does the IETF not feel an obligation to the community that accepted its answer 2 years ago? I would rather have seen the IETF remain silent than pull "the cut and run" that it seems to have done...where community members (not ICANN) is left with the baggage.

    FB: The IETF remains in the same place it has been for the past decade on this subject. One could probably add 100 TLDs if there was a business model to support them; it is not obvious just now that there is a business model for the seven that were added. But placing every name at the gTLD level remains technically foolish.

    FB: It also has not been asked this question again, by ICANN or anyone else. It has not been asked by you in this email, either; you should ask the IETF
    list, or the IAB.

    Mr. Baker mentioned he would be open to reply to relevant comments posted here.

    Ray Fassett
    [ 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