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
  • MŁller-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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    VeriSign Claims ICANN Prejudiced in .Net Operator | 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.
    Verisign Needs to Listen to .NET Owners, not .ORG
    by Anonymous on Monday August 30 2004, @09:19PM (#14088)
    Verisign Needs to Listen to .NET Owners, not .ORG

    There are enough .NET owners to ensure that the .NET TLD servers will continue to operate at
    Verisign and are reached by the vast majority
    of users. .NET owners do not want any fees paid by them
    flowing to the .ORG community, headed by ICANN.

    Verisign can stop paying ICANN all fees, and
    focus on serving the .NET (and .COM) owners.
    ICANN can then go and tax the ccTLDs and
    continue their dog and pony shows around the
    world. Americans will then be free to move
    forward. As capitalists, they can invest in
    Verisign. .ORG will fade from the scene, with .NET and .COM as a twin-engine powerhouse. The industry
    will then [once again] be free to move forward
    and innovate. If Verisign does not step forward
    in a leadership role, then they have only
    themselves to blame for allowing the socialist
    and communist ISOC .ORG regime to continue to
    attempt to dominate America's .NET experiences.

    If Verisign were to fail in protecting .NET
    owners from ICANN, then, other companies (such
    as Microsoft) will likely be forced to step in
    to provide an open and unregulated solution.
    It would be better for Verisign shareholders
    for the company to be a leader and a partner
    with other companies that bring innovation to
    the marketplace. ICANN brings nothing but
    ill-will, friction, regulation and taxation.
    Who wants that ?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Verisign Needs to Play the Bill Gates .NET Card
    by Anonymous on Tuesday August 31 2004, @06:15AM (#14089)
    Verisign Needs to Play the Bill Gates .NET Card

    Taking a page from the IE Browser vs. Netscape Browser era.

    "What part of FREE (as in $$$s) .NET names don't you understand" ?

    What other Registry can Bid $0.00 cost for .NET names ?

    What on earth would ICANN do with a $0.00 wholesale cost bid ? ($6.00 less than .ORG)

    Note: CISCO has taken the .LAN TLD and have it in
    their WRT54G and WRT54GS routers for $0.00 per
    domain name. No need to get ICANN approval for
    that TLD.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Duh!
    by BarkerJr on Tuesday August 31 2004, @08:08AM (#14091)
    User #4017 Info | http://barkerjr.net/
    So, the vendor (VeriSign) sues the customer (ICANN), and then gets complains because the customer doesn't like them anymore?

    Am I missing something here?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Co-Conspirator Crocker on the IETF and ISOC
    by Anonymous on Saturday September 04 2004, @11:08AM (#14102)
    Now that the ISOC has the .ORG taxes it can fund
    the co-conspirators and the IETF more openly.
    They now can pay lawyers millions to defend
    their violations of U.S. anti-trust laws.

    http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current /msg31058.html

    "In my view, the relationship between the IETF and ISOC is not at all
    similar to the relationship between the IETF and CRNI. The IETF already
    has a strong management role in ISOC. The IETF has seats on the ISOC
    board, it has complete visibility into the budget, and other specific
    formal controls. That is, it's not a distant, separated relationship,
    but one where the IETF is already deep inside. To a great extent, the
    IETF has as much control over ISOC as it would have over a new
    organization it might try to establish. And speaking for myself, if the
    IETF needs greater visibility and/or representation within ISOC, I'd
    support whatever changes in ISOC governance are needed. ISOC was
    founded to be a home for the IETF and it has functioned in that role
    since its inception. And a large percentage of the ISOC members and
    board are people who have grown up in the IETF."

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Spite or Security?
    by BC Brown on Wednesday September 08 2004, @06:30AM (#14111)
    User #4013 Info
    The legal battle over VeriSignís ability to innovate and ICANNís authority to regulate will now continue in state court. At the same time VeriSignís current contract to operate the .Net Registry expires in June 2005. ICANN has therefore had to put forth a process to select an entity to operate that registry when the current agreement expires. To any observer there has to be a question about ICANNís ability to be objective given the current litigation.

    In the national security environment as it exists today the capabilities of the operator of the .Net Registry have far reaching implications. That fact has to be a key focus of this process. Yet the current litigation that exists between the parties begs the question: How are citizens and the federal government to assured that ICANN can look beyond litigation and other widespread criticism to make a fair judgment? This is a critical decision. Under the best of circumstances ICANNís ability to make reasoned judgments has been questioned. Now in a wartime setting with serious national security issues we have left it to ICANN to decide the future of the operation of the.Net Registry. That is a very troubling scenario and it is made even more troubling by the overlay of the existing litigation and the potential for that litigation to poison the process.

    The issues that surround ICANN have not gone away. They continue to be a commercial concern to the business community. In addition, however in the current national security environment, we need to be sure that the .Net registry is secure and that we are prepared to adapt to make sure that it continues to operate under whatever circumstances we may face.

    [ 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