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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Internet and US National Security? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 5 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:Something's screwy here
    by Mueller ({mueller} {at} {syr.edu}) on Tuesday December 21 2004, @12:38PM (#14597)
    User #2901 Info | http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
    I would be surprised if ALL of your submissions have been posted. But regardless of that factual issue, YES, almost all *substantive* and *original* submissions to ICW are posted, regardless of their political position. So if most of your submissions have been posted it's because you've made informed, substantive contributions. And that is, prima facie, a refutation of your statement:

    "it is chilling to believe that, should I write something you consider uninteresting, wrong, silly, [...or...] dangerous it will be rejected."

    Can we get real? First, as you yourself demonstrate, almost everything you post has been given air time. Now if you choose to be "chilled" by my open recognition of the editorial responsibility to maintain an interesting, accurate, constructive and well-informed web site, and by the need to avoid letting ICW become a shill for people with hidden agendas, then so be it. Name a SINGLE useful web site that posts anything and everything submitted to it.

    Let me assure you that it's not disagreement per se with me or other editors that leads to rejection. I post a lot of stuff I don't agree with. But I also delete stuff that is blatantly self-serving (e.g., barely disguised advertisements, or repeated opinion pieces that have obviously been paid for by specific interests), stuff that is full of false assertions or contains highly consequential assertions that cannot be verified, stuff that is redundant (on any major development we may get three or four submissions saying the same thing), stuff that is way off topic, and stuff that is illiterate (you'd be surprised at some of the typo-laden, ungrammatical stuff we get) etc.

    You can disagree with my personal editorial policy all you like, just please spare me the cant about it being censorship or about us being "no different from ICANN." You know better, I know better, and every reasonable reader knows better. And note well that any editor who gets to a ICW submission before me applies their own personal editorial policy, and there's surprisingly little coordination or discussion. It's about as free an environment as you can expect.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Something's screwy here by Mueller
    Re:Something's screwy here
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Wednesday December 22 2004, @12:25AM (#14602)
    User #2810 Info
    I believe I was the first to respond to Bruce Levinson's first article on ICANNWatch last February and queried whether the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness for whom he works was a front for deep pocket right wing interests (I did research CRE as best as Google allows). This led to an interesting exchange of private correspondence with Bruce which led me to believe I was wrong with my initial impression. I don't think I have ever publicly apologized for that, so let me do so here and now. Regardless, I would far rather see something posted that can be critiqued than have it preemtively disappeared.

    As it happens I was writing an article for ICANNWatch regarding another aspect of George Tenet's statements when Bruce Levinson's piece appeared. I could have written a similar article and, indeed, wouldn't have written it much differently, so I fail to see how there is something about it that apparently barely evaded your filters. As editors you of course have to make choices about what to publish, but I don't see anything about the submission in question being 'uninteresting, wrong, silly, [...or...] dangerous'.

    I will hopefully eventually get to submitting my article regarding George Tenet, it is a work in progress and related events are continuing to unfold, and yes, if rejected, it would be only the second time that has happened to me here, the other being self-inflicted. I am at least as surprised by that as you seem to be sceptical. -g

    [ 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