Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    OECD supports TLD auctions | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 22 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    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.
    More on Competitive Bidding for gTLDs
    by Anonymous on Tuesday July 13 2004, @09:21AM (#13938)
    CircleID had also published a three part article based on a paper discussing competitive bidding of gTLDs:

    An Economic Analysis of Domain Name Policy - Part III [circleid.com]

    "Competitive Bidding for new gTLDs" is the focus of part three of a three-part series based on a study prepared by Karl M. Manheim, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School and Lawrence B. Solum, Professor of Law at University of San Diego. Special thanks and credit to Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 25, p. 317, 2004."

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Tender, not auction
    by GeorgeK on Tuesday July 13 2004, @09:58AM (#13939)
    User #3191 Info | http://www.kirikos.com/
    The authors of the report are working against consumer's interests, and I totally reject their position.

    They should be advocating a TENDER process, whereby the prospective registry operators compete on the basis of who will deliver a FIXED set of services for the LOWEST prices (subject to minimum performance guarantees). This ensures that the "surplus" is captured by consumers, not the registry operator.

    Under an auction scenario, where prospective registry operators bid against each other, with the highest bidder getting to run the registry willy-nilly, the incentives will be for the registries to jack up prices for consumers, in order to maximize the registry operator's profits. This is fundamentally against the interests of consumers (and registrars, by the way). A registry in this scheme would want to introduce "services" like Sitefinder, etc., to maximize its income. There will also be incentives for discriminatory pricing, to further maximize income -- for example, the owner of sex.com could be charged $3 million per year, whereas the owner of gskjdhglkjfhgflds.com could be charged $1 per year.

    To see the effect of auction-based pricing, we need not look any further than the existing example of .tv, which is run by VeriSign. The island of Tuvalu essentially allows the highest bidder (in this case VeriSign, although there had been prior registry operators) to run the registry any way they choose. Of course, VeriSign wildcards this TLD, see www.glskgkjlhgkjhglgjhf.tv [glskgkjlhgkjhglgjhf.tv], and price discriminates (the above domain is $50/yr, whereas Games.tv is available for $100,000 per year.

    The case of .net is NOT the perfect economic case for an auction, as there has already been allocations of .net domains. This would be like auctioning off the land in Manhattan, and allowing the "winners" to subsequently rent the land to anyone who already has a building on that land, and seizing the building if they didn't cough up the cash. We don't need it to be turned into another .tv, where suddenly Games.net or Music.net costs $100,000/yr. It would be a disaster for consumers.

    If ICANN's Board made the mistake of going down the auction route for existing TLDs, they might as well pack their bags and head to Tuvalu, as the uproar would be even worse than that experienced over Sitefinder, with massive consensus against auctions. Breaking it down by constituency:

    a) Registrars would oppose it (discriminatory pricing would eliminate registrar profits, making registrars redundant, esp. as the registry adds "services");

    b) Commercial and Business Constituency would oppose it, as it would mean higher registration costs (e.g. att.net might suddenly cost $1 million/yr to renew);

    c) ISPs are for lower prices, so they'd oppose it;

    d) Non-commercial are for lower prices, so would also oppose it;

    e) Intellectual Property folks would oppose it vehemently, as they wouldn't want IBM.net and Pepsi.net to suddenly cost more than gksjhgkjshgskjhsg.net to renew; and

    f) Registries would love it, since they'd be making massive profits out of the scheme (although, they'd be splitting it with ICANN, via the tender price paid).

    Thus, in conclusion, TENDERS are the optimal scheme, whoever can run the FIXED set of services at the least price for consumers (with set performance standards). AUCTIONS would eliminate the consumer surplus, and shift it instead to the Registry operator (and to the ICANN entity itself, who would squander the dough on travel junkets).
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Opening Bid for .NET - $1 U.S. Dollar
    by Anonymous on Tuesday July 13 2004, @09:59AM (#13940)
    Opening Bid for .NET - $1 U.S. Dollar

    Do we hear $2 ?

    Going once, twice

    Hold On - Message from Verisign and Microsoft
    "They have decided not to sell .NET"

    So sorry.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    .COM and .NET Eventually Converge into TLDs
    by Anonymous on Tuesday July 13 2004, @10:06AM (#13941)
    If one takes all of the companies that own
    BOTH the .COM and .NET names for their brand
    then you have the list of converged TLDs.

    That list is smaller than 29,000,000 (the
    current size of .COM) and likely smaller
    than 5,000,000 (the current size of .NET).

    Estimates show it is about 5,000 major "brands".

    Those are the strong Trademarks for planet Earth.

    Those 5,000 lucky "auction" winners are not
    likely to want their TLDs auctioned.

    As one example, .SUN paid the Internet Society
    a lot of money to make sure their TLD was not
    part of any process.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Limiting TLDs Based on Joe Sim's Workload
    by Anonymous on Tuesday July 13 2004, @02:49PM (#13945)
    ICANN has made it clear that the "number" of
    new TLDs was based on the workload of their
    star attorney, Joe Sims (and his side-kick

    ICANN said they could not negotiate very many
    contracts, so the number of new TLDs would be
    small. The .COM and .NET trademark owners, like
    ATT.COM, IBM.COM and SUN.COM are very happy.

    Now that ICANN (i.e. Joe Sims) is filling their
    play with 2-letter TLD contracts, there will be
    no resources for other new TLDs. This is like
    the U.S. courts where the case-load for a judge
    determines how fast things move.

    Once .NET is retained by Verisign, ICANN will
    be able to spend the next few years working
    the ccTLD queue. That will get Paul Tooney
    thru his contract and on to his next gig.
    Eventually, ICANN will be absorbed by the ITU
    and/or WIPO and fade away.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    IHT Article
    by Rossa (r.mcmahonNO@SPAModron.org) on Wednesday July 14 2004, @01:42AM (#13955)
    User #3430 Info | http://www.odron.org/
    Debate over auctions for Internet addresses [iht.com]
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Esther's Army is Now Wearing WSIS Uniforms
    by Anonymous on Wednesday July 14 2004, @05:59AM (#13957)
    Esther's Army is Now Wearing WSIS Uniforms

    The WSIS Workshop Planning Group:

    Vittorio Bertola, At-Large Advisory Committee

    Izumi Aizu, At-Large Advisory Committee

    Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency

    David Fares, BusinessConstituency/USCIB

    Tony Holmes, Internet Service & Connectivity Providers

    Elana Broitman, Registrars

    Jeff Neuman, Registries

    Peter Dengate Thrush, InternetNZ

    Theresa Swinehart, ICANN

    Denise Michel, ICANN
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    ICANN / IANA - 512 Byte UDP Packets Are Big Enough
    by Anonymous on Wednesday July 14 2004, @06:16AM (#13958)

    http://www.iana.org/procedures/delegation-data.htm l

    "If the number of name servers or IP addresses in the delegation exceeds eight (8), the size of responses to reasonable queries with the intended delegation will be checked to ensure that such responses fit into a 512 byte UDP packet. This is the standard size limitation for UDP response packets for most resolving name server software on the Internet today.

    In one year the IANA staff will undertake a re-evaluation of the 512 byte limit."
    [ 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