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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    ICANN Doesn't Listen--Official | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 7 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.
    Section 4.2
    by GeorgeK on Tuesday December 09 2003, @10:07PM (#12732)
    User #3191 Info | http://www.kirikos.com/
    Section 4.2 will be very useful in the WLS case (or unhelpful, if one shills for Jones Day).
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Interesting study, but.....
    by Anonymous on Wednesday December 10 2003, @06:03PM (#12737)
    I've only read the abstract, but I think something to factor into the analysis on point 1 is how representative the most vocal ICANN critics (including those on the public forum boards, sites like this one, and the various listservs) are of general attitudes towards ICANN's decision-making.

    The abstract reflects this, I think. They say that the postings on the various public fora do not correlate with the ultimate decisions by the Board. Rather, the Board seems to look more to the staff and to the SOs. What conclusion do the authors draw from this? That the Board ignores public input? No. They conclude that ICANN has failed to draw representative public comments.

    In short if, as some (though not necessarily I) believe, the vocal critics represent a fringe element rather than a "consensus" (no pun intended), then should ICANN be faulted for not listening?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Libelous in parts
    by WIPOorgUK on Tuesday December 16 2003, @05:55AM (#12747)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    My name is mentioned in this potentially libellous paper.

    I am said to be a person whom often flames others and rarely makes substantiated comments.

    I invite John Palfrey, Clifford Chen, Sam Hwang, and Noah Eisenkraft to respond.

    I am sure several of the learned posters here will agree - most of public are ignorant of ICANN and their actions.

    Also - I am first to admit - some here know more than I about ICANN - Messieurs Byfied and Froomkin to name but two.

    But where I give supportive reasoned opinion - this paper does not - especially where it may libel some heavy posters.

    Anybody that reads my posts knows that I make substantiated comments and I never initiate flame - although have replied in kind upon occassion. The same is true of a few others named.

    Quote from the paper:

    Type: Open Bulletin Board

    Example: forum.icann.org

    Traffic: forum.icann.org supplies public forums where anybody in the world can discuss issues ICANN is facting. Most users come to the forums to make significant substantive comments and do so.

    Heavy Posters: The heavy posters are people who invested a lot of time in the forum community. They often flame one another and do not consistently make substantive comments.

    The Top Posters: Garry Anderson, Clrako the Darko, Gregory W. Kajewski, Friedrich Kister, Leon Coser, Christopher Ambler, Jim Fleming, Bryan, Rachel MacGregor, Bob Conner, Daniel R. Tobias, W, Mole, Antipodes, slicer.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Frequent poster?
    by cambler (chris@ambler.net) on Tuesday December 16 2003, @11:23AM (#12748)
    User #36 Info | http://onthenet.ambler.net/
    How amusing. I am lumped into the group of frequent posters as a flamer and someone who made no substantive comments.

    I think the authors of the paper would find, if they bothered to read the posts, that virtually all of my posts were substantive. I was one of the only TLD applicants who bothered to answer questions and be responsive on the public forum, making the presumption that it counted for something.

    So not only did my participation count for nothing, I am now damned for having participated and called unsubstantive (at best).

    I think an apology from the authors is more than in order.

    --
    Ambler On The Net [ambler.net]

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • I concur by WIPOorgUK Tuesday December 16 2003, @12:41PM
      • Re:I concur by JPalfrey Tuesday December 16 2003, @12:49PM


    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