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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    How to get a new top-level domain approved by ICANN | 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:®LAW®.net may be a better selection
    by Anonymous on Wednesday May 05 2004, @06:46AM (#13493)
    ®LAW®.net

    0.12.1.23.0

    0.192.220.0
    64.192.22 0.0
    128.192.220.0
    192.192.220.0

    000/8   Sep 81   IANA - Reserved
    064/8   Jul 99   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
    128/8   May 93   Various Registries
    192/8   May 93   Various Registries

    0.192.220.0 is not in use.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:®LAW®.net may be a better selection by Anonymous
    Item 5: Re-assignment of .net
    by Anonymous on Wednesday May 05 2004, @10:43AM (#13501)
    Item 5: Re-assignment of .net
    - recommend establish a subcommittee of the Council
    - establish list of issues to consider and terms of reference (via ICANN
    staff manager)
    - review Namescouncil recommendations with respect to .org
    - collect constituency statements

    Bruce Tonkin reported that Paul Verhoef, in a letter, had formally requested
    the GNSO Council to consider the .net reassignment.
    Kurt Pritz stated that there were weekly meetings at ICANN in Marina del Rey
    to discuss the .net succession plan. The goal was to publish the process for
    selecting a registry operator by June 30, 2004 and it would include the GNSO
    effort which would have to be accomplished rapidly but could be after June
    30, 2004. The scope of the GNSO was to develop criteria for independent
    evaluators to use in deciding who the registry operator should be.
    Bruce Tonkin stated that the .org statement made by the DNSO Names Council
    on 17 January 2002 could be a useful starting point but the focus of .dot
    org would be slightly different from that of .net.

    Council had 3 options how to handle the situation:
    1. Council committee as a whole
    2. Council sub committee formed by one representative per constituency on
    the GNSO council
    3. Initiate a policy development process and form a task force

    Grant Forsyth asked how the GNSO Council contribution would it be considered
    if it was delivered after June 30, 2004.
    Dan Halloran explained that on day X the draft proposal, which would include
    mention of criteria proposed by the GNSO, would be published but in fact the
    criteria could be submitted at a later date.
    Marc Schneiders commented that as price was important, any process should
    take criteria for offering services at a lower price into consideration.
    Kurt Pritz, responding to the tender date, said that at least 9 months was
    foreseen which would include the GNSO process, 3 months solicitation, 3
    months evaluation, 3 months negotiations and awards and transition period.

    Christopher Wilkinson excused himself and dropped off the call

    Suzanne Sene, for the Government Advisory Committee, (GAC) commented that
    the GAC had recently created a new GNSO working group which combined the
    gTLD and Whois working groups and she would convey the .net reassignment
    question to the group for their input.

    Bruce Tonkin proposed forming a sub committee of the GNSO Council, with 1
    representative per constituency of the Council, to review the .org material,
    draft a set of terms/conditions and criteria for .net consistent with the
    ICANN mission and core values, seeking constituency input via the mailing
    lists and having a draft report for consideration by the Council at its May
    6 meeting with the final report to meet the June 30, 2004 deadline.
    By April 9, 2004, Council members should have notified the GNSO secretariat
    of the constituency representatives and a meeting would take place in the
    week beginning April 12, 2004.

    There was general support for a sub-committee of the GNSO Council with the
    possible inclusion of experts on the committee.
    [ 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