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    This discussion has been archived.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: Mueller speaks out on WLS (Warning: here be he
    by Anonymous on Tuesday August 27 2002, @01:17PM (#8736)
    Milton,

    I read Ruling The Root, and learned sooooooooo much. Thanks for the informative and interesting insights.

    But I must ask you: Considering that the new TLDs seem to be floundering (relatively low reg numbers), is "artificial scarcity" in .com something that can be corrected with a multitude of new TLDs? I don't think so, otherwise, .info and .biz would have more of an impact, and higher reg numbers. But the reg numbers for .info and .biz are low, and the .com frenzy still exists. If adding new TLDs was the remedy, wouldn't WLS be less of a prize than it seems to be? Why bother with WLS for .com when there are even a couple of successful new TLDs available? The fact is, it's not how many new TLDs there are, it's having one or two that can actually compete with the numbers of .com. That's not going to happen if you introduce dozens of new TLDs in the short term.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Mueller speaks out on WLS (Warning: here be he
    by Anonymous on Tuesday August 27 2002, @03:27PM (#8737)
    Remember, the reasoning behind the WLS is a farce to begin with. VRSN claims they were having problems with the existing system.

    It is simply unbelievable that a company with the resources of VRSN cannot find someone to press the delete button and clear the database of expired names. A monkey could do this!

    Also, should we trust them with the added responsibility of managing the WLS when they have trouble managing the security of the registry to begin with?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Mueller speaks out on WLS (Warning: here be he
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Tuesday August 27 2002, @10:08PM (#8739)
    User #2810 Info
    While I agree with adding numerous new TLDs. having to rely on a hypothetical or even real dyslexic Blechfrie to make your case seems rather wonky. Belchfire can register belchfire.biz, or if they're in the UK, belchfire.co.uk, or in the US, belchfire.us. Companies that have refused to be shaken down for *.com for a year or two don't have to worry about the squatter re-registering it, the extortion didn't work so they'll move on to greener pastures and let the name expire. Getting a WLS on the name, as you say, just tells them to hang onto it. Not getting a WLS means it will probably expire and not be picked up by anyone, no other squatter will try where the first one failed.

    But this is built on too many hypotheticals, there aren't a bunch of Belchfire's out there just lusting after their proper name, the WLS market is driven by those who want existing sites with existing traffic that they can then redirect (more accurately, misdirect) to pr0n and/or gambling sites. .com is already a wasteland of 404 errors and coming soon and for sale pages, institutionalizing a service that will ensure mousetrapping multiple popup sites where entirely unrelated sites used to exist will just further devalue .com. VeriSign doesn't care, they'd rather have more money now than less later, and ICANN seems to agree with that strategy. The long term effect will be that .com will be further devalued and other gTLDs and ccTLDs will become more trustworthy and thus more used. So even without more new gTLDs the worm is turning. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Mueller speaks out on WLS (Warning: here be he
    by RFassett on Wednesday August 28 2002, @03:33AM (#8743)
    User #3226 Info | http://www.enum.info
    Whether one advocates, or does not advocate, new TLD's for whatever logical and seemingly justifiable reasons, the question to me is whether ICANN is acting a regulator to the market place by restricting entry.

    ICANN, the private entity, continues to claim it is not, is not intended to be, nor has the "will" to be a market regulator for DNS addressing. By restricting entry thus limiting the number of TLD registries - some say artificially but certainly without any clear documentation as to why as pointed out by the NTEPPTF itself - is ICANN not acting as a market regulator?

    Was ICANN's role intended to be one where it would "foster" competition that in spirit would seem to remove itself as a regulator? Has ICANN not completely twisted this around to where it becomes - by its owns actions - a market regulator? Is ICANN structurally - by design - incapable of playing the role of a global DNS regulator?

    By restricting entry, does ICANN not gain precious leverage with the few registries it has contracts with whereby it can then further influence regulatory measures upon the market place, notably the user community? No "mutually agreed" contract, no entry (see .pro delay).

    If ICANN sets up a system for entry, will it not lose this leverage, or certainly more likely to be challenged on its authority to impose market place regulatory measures in its registry contracts? If so, will ICANN not lose much of its ability to centrally regulate the market place, such as imposing sponsorships, price controls, and new product service offerings?

    Whether one agrees or disagrees with TLD expansion for whatever logical reasoning, the question is to me: Is ICANN acting as a market regulator by restricting entry? ICANN claims to have no desire to regulate the market place. After 4 years, one limted expansion round, the entangled registry contracts this produced, and no documented system for further entry, what do their actions say? Is ICANN acting as a market regulator? If one answers "yes", is it supposed to be, by its own definition, design, and structure? This, to me, is the issue, not the "opinion" of whether one thinks there should or should not be new TLD's for whatever justifiable reasons one believes.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Verisign has too many problems with their regi
    by Anonymous on Wednesday August 28 2002, @03:42AM (#8744)
    Verisign has too many problems with their current registrar srvices already. Don;t cause more troubles to customers. Our clients requested a change of domain registration information, guess what? after more than a few weeks, they did not change anything.

    What a service?
    [ 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