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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    The Register: ICANN Skewed .net process for VeriSign | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 29 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.
    "silence would have had the same effect as comment
    by Anonymous on Wednesday May 04 2005, @10:09PM (#15103)
    "silence would have had the same effect
    as comment, and taken a great deal less of my time and attention."

    http://forum.icann.org/lists/dotnet-criteria/msg00 006.html
    Howdy folks,

    An invitation for "public comments" on some proposed policy or implementation
    plan by some policy making or policy implementing body, if not a fiction for
    some undisclosed purpose, such as maintaining the facades of seeking comments,
    and being having no covert purposes which make the invited comments moot prior
    to their receipt by the inviting body, must have an observable outcome.

    It is my experience, when submitting information in support of ICANN's very
    first reconsideration (RC 99-1), and when submitting information on the .ORG redelegation application evaluator Gartner, Inc., and when submitting
    information of the WLS issue, that silence would have had the same effect
    as comment, and taken a great deal less of my time and attention.

    The central issue in my mind is not idle recitation of contractual continuity
    phrases, which forms the totality of the initial draft report from the GNSO
    subcommittee. The central issue is which well-qualified existing or potential
    registry operators will risk the bid preperation cost and compeat for the
    NET registry.

    There were several qualified proposals in the set of applications for the
    ORG redelegation, SWITCH, Paul Vixie's group, and Afilias (the winner, due
    to sponsor affiliation). In addition, there are several qualified operators
    of exsiting (actual, not fictive) ccTLDs. Each member of either pool could
    implement the recitation of contractual continuity phrases, or any variation
    that could rationally arise from them.

    However, even though the terms of the existing contract, in particular its
    period of expiry, are publically known, not one of these qualified parties
    have even bothered to comment, or sought to participate in the subcommittee
    charged with authoring

                    [a] consensus statement defining criteria and conditions
                    to be applied in the selection of a registry operator.

    The most important criteria and condition is that the selection PROCESS
    not be corrupt, and the ORG application technical criteria evaluation by
    the Gartner Group was corrupt. The Staff evalution wasn't much better.

    The next most important criteria and condition is that the SELECTION process
    have a range of competing proposals to from which to select. If ICANN is
    unable to elicit no more than two token bids, the criteria, the process,
    and the selection of an operator to undertake operations from mid-2005 is
    really uninteresting.

    Assuming that ICANN's intent is not malign, an assumption that is very,
    very difficult to maintain, even with the alternative choice of very, very
    incompetant to select from, it needs to drastically simplify the bid
    response pro forma. I made this comment at the Rome meeting to Miriam
    Shapiro and the BoD -- The new gTLD pro forma and the ORG pro forma and
    the 2nd-round new gTLD pro forma impose very high production costs for
    a bid respondant, and require outright lies by the respondant. This in
    turn forces very high evaluation costs for the bid evaluator, and requires
    them to believe, or pass in silence on, outright lies by applicants.

    If nothing more than a few book-length obscurantist texts are submitted
    by VGRS and NeuStar and some new speculative party that has retained bid
    preperation authors, then there is no selection or process.

    ICANN has qualified, well written bids in its possession, from SWITCH and
    the Vixie group, and Afilias, which simply require a TLA substition to make
    current to the NET operator selection. ICANN can solicit bids from the
    operators of leading ccTLDs as well.

    Prior qualified bids for equivalent contracts must be considered on their
    merits. The criteria and conditions should result in interesting bids, not
    a charade.

    All spelling errors are mine. Errors by others referenced here are still
    the property of those others, whether admitted or still submerged in the
    river de Nile.

    I bring the following experience to writing this note: technical author
    of portions of the NeuStar BIZ and US bids, portions of the SWITCH and
    RCOM ORG bids, portions of the EPP protocol specification, and so on.

    [ 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