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    This discussion has been archived.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, VeriSign and the Future of .Net | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 19 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.
    .NET registrants deserve/need stability
    by GideonsLastSon on Thursday September 30 2004, @04:25PM (#14248)
    User #3824 Info | http://icannwatch.jothan.at/start.php
    I have a great deal of fear that a subsequent .NET operator who cannot at very least match the current stable operation of the TLD might get selected due to what I percieve as a selection process that might show principle bias towards:

    1] A company that a stakeholder themselves or friend is involved with (you know who you folks are)

    2] ANY company as long as it is not encumbent operator.

    The impact of a transition to another operator will unavoidably cause a (hopefully) brief disruption to registration (if not resolution) systems if we learned anything from the .ORG transition.

    I hope that, whatever the outcome of the RFP process, that dispassionate and rational minds prevail in selecting the .NET operator.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:.NET registrants deserve/need stability
    by Anonymous on Thursday September 30 2004, @06:50PM (#14249)
    Note, .NET owners were never asked if they want
    a new Registry operator. The ICANN Board was not
    even involved. Joe Simms orchestrated the
    horse-trade for .COM with the U.S. DOJ and the
    U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Joe Simms is Jon Postel's
    attorney that Vinton Cerf helped to select.

    One would think that .NET owners would be given
    a chance to voice their opinion in a poll or
    election. It is ironic that the U.S. Government
    claims to promote democracy and self-determination
    of the people, by the people and for the people,
    yet, a simple choice like this is not made by
    the .NET owners.

    ICANN has to move .NET and .COM from Verisign.
    That shows the world that the ISOC is boss.
    The ISOC Taliban clerics have to display their
    ability to be in collusion while lieing about
    that and claiming consensus and bottom-up
    processes. That is what Jon Postel did his
    entire life. The ISOC has to carry on that
    tradition. It is a religious thing with them.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:.NET registrants deserve/need stability
    by Anonymous on Thursday September 30 2004, @07:15PM (#14250)
    Last Time ICANN Selected Arthur Andersen,
    people see where that ended up.

    http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm? id=1324&wit_id=2470
    Given at a Communications Hearing:
    ICANN Oversight and Security of Internet Root Servers and the Domain Name System (DNS)
    Thursday, September 30 2004 - 2:30 PM - SR - 253

    Designation of .NET Successor Registry Operator

    The current Registry Agreement between ICANN and VeriSign, Inc. which was signed in May 2001 will expire on June 30, 2005. The agreement provides that ICANN, must adopt an open and transparent procedure for designating a “successor” Registry Operator. In June of this year the ICANN’s Board adopted a procedure for the designation of a “successor” registry, which is currently underway. ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization, has adopted recommendations regarding criteria for ICANN in the selection of the “successor” .NET registry operator.

    Those criteria have been submitted for public comment and ICANN has received extensive comments including comments from some of the potential .NET bidders, including the incumbent .NET registry operator, VeriSign. ICANN is seriously considering those comments with all due diligence and regard, and is obtaining professional and expert advice relating to how those comments might impact the final version of an RFP. Accordingly ICANN has extended the initially proposed deadline for issuance of an RFP to insure that the most appropriate RFP be issued. The overall timeline for the award of .NET to the incumbent VeriSign or to a successor has not been changed (with the exception of the issuance date for the RFP), and a new agreement or transfer of the current registry will occur by the date of the registry contract expiration in June 2005.

    ICANN is also seeking an independent third-party professional firm, (which will most likely be a well regarded global accountancy firm) to manage the .NET “Successor” Registry Operator Process. ICANN believes that this will best insure a fair and independent process and will avoid any perceptions of possible bias or impropriety on the part of ICANN, particularly as ICANN continues defending litigation brought against it by the current .NET registry operator, VeriSign. An announcement regarding the identity of the third-party firm will follow shortly.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    CIA Operative Esther Dyson Re-Enters the Scene
    by Anonymous on Thursday September 30 2004, @07:34PM (#14252)
    Realizing that ICANN will never make it in the
    U.S. and North American telecom markets, Dyson
    re-enters the scene to send ICANN off-shore
    where she can help to manipulate it easier
    and use it to manipulate economies of third-world
    countries.

    http://weblog.edventure.com/blog/_archives/2004/9/ 29/151369.html

    ICANN hearings Thursday/today
    by Esther Dyson | September 29, 2004 09:22PM (EDT) | #
    So the US Government is holding hearings on ICANN again.

    One thing that seems clear is that it needs to figure out how to give up control of ICANN entirely. That's a hard thing to do, but I think it's necessary. When I was chairman - and after - I didn't think the USG role mattered that much. It certainly wasn't telling us what to do...and I somewhat callously dismissed the "perception problem." Despite its putative control, the USG never interfered in specific decisions, and to some extent it failed most by *failing* to hold us to our promises. No delegation of control was ever stopped by the USG, it didn't provide our budget, and so forth.
    [ 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