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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Telecordia Responds to (Some) Critics | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 20 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.
    Who Made Up the Rules ? Not the .NET Owners
    by Anonymous on Wednesday May 04 2005, @08:27AM (#15076)
    Who Made Up the Rules ? Not the .NET Owners

    What is amazing is that ICANN and Verisign made
    up the rules and of course the outcome would
    be as they wish. It would have been better if
    ZERO other bidders had played. Unfortunately,
    there are always some greedy fools who take the

    If the .NET owners had made up the rules, they
    would have likely suggested a very low barrier
    to entry to enter the contest. Then, a simple
    drawing from a fish-bowl would have selected
    the winner (or winners). Another approach would
    have been to boil it down to 10 or 12 candidates
    and let ALL .NET owners vote. Nope, that sounds
    too much like a democracy, ICANN can not tolerate
    elections unless they have one candidate and
    that pre-selected person wins.

    Given that Telcordia confirms that all five
    could have done the job, it is amazing that a
    drawing was not used to select the winner (or
    winners). Verisign and ICANN could not risk
    that, they made the rules prevent that. No

    Another approach would be for ALL five to run .NET. That was the approach used by the U.S.
    Government's (more fair) National Science
    Foundation when .COM and .NET started. They
    select THREE groups to collectively run them.
    Network Solutions at the time lobbied for ONE
    company. The NSF said NO. Network Solutions then
    proceeded to discredit the other two and had
    them removed. Verisign then bought Network
    Solutions, but the people are largely the same.

    What is amazing is that ICANN and Verisign
    make the rules and people are surprised at the
    out-come. People were warned. They did not listen.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Contract with Verisign as adopted Apr 2001
    by KarlAuerbach on Wednesday May 04 2005, @11:56AM (#15081)
    User #3243 Info | http://www.cavebear.com/
    When the board of directors adopted the new contract with Verisign - the contract that gave verisign .org in perpetuity (in practice) in exchange for the relinquishment of .org and .net I do not believe that anyone considered that contract language as saying anything other that at some time soon Verisign would *not* have those other TLDs.

    In other words, it may well be argued that the contract that the board adopted in April 2001 can be read to contain a prohibition against Versign rebidding-on or retaining those TLDs that it promised to give up in exhchange for a permanant lock on .com.

    (I voted against the contract. [cavebear.com])

    Of course, given the performance of those legal minds of Jones Day who privately negotiated that contact and rammed it through even over the objections of the then DNSO, coupled with the mindless acceptance by ICANN's board of all things that staff and Jones Day put before it, it is not surprising that this ambiguity, one that has created yet another gift of historical proportions to Verisign, arose.

    This situation is not one made by Telecordia; rather it is a situation created by the way ICANN's board and its members have abandoned their duties and have become little more than mindless rubber stamps.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Corruption in the .ORG Operations Viewed as Noise?
    by Anonymous on Wednesday May 04 2005, @07:43PM (#15096)
    http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg07687. html
    # From: Rodney Joffe
    # Date: Wed May 04 12:54:56 2005
    "But this incessant noise complete with repetition of the noise is *not*
    appropriate for the list by any sane definition. If it is now considered
    appropriate, then NANOG is no longer an operational mailing list, and I'm
    going to look for - or start - another one."
    [ 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