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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Caught in the act | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 3 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.
    The .NET Once Was .FUN and CAN BE Without ICAN
    by Anonymous on Thursday July 28 2005, @09:42AM (#15747)
    The .NET Once Was .FUN and CAN BE Without ICAN

    It is interesting that ICANN and the ISOC have
    turned on-line life and worlds into .HELL holes.
    They then attempt to have .FUN in their real-life
    face-to-face meat-space love-fests. That is not
    the .NET

    The people who enjoy the .NET and all of the
    promises it still can deliver, are gone and having
    .FUN without the ICAN.

    It is good to see people vote with their feet and
    their .NET equipment. Eventually, they will no
    longer need to route packets to the ISOC because
    no one goes there any more. That frees up a lot
    of unused IP address space, which will be reworked
    for people that run the .NET, those on the .NET.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    remember that "pioneers" sometimes have e
    by Anonymous on Tuesday August 02 2005, @08:04PM (#15766)
    I would also like to remind all parties involved that this is
    done in a clear statement of the purpose of their own constituency -
    they may not understand the wider context within which the
    constituency operates. When you talk to people outside of the ICANN bylaws
    to conduct a periodic review of ICANN's structure and operation.
    Therefore, the GNSO constituencies the level of understanding is probably
    even lower. I would also like to remind all parties involved that
    this is done in a clear statement of the Board, and structure of the
    staff and the board as we "pioneer". While we may set the background
    when asking review questions. While I suspect that members of
    Council may be able to assist by providing references to the
    development of the Councils, but did not delve down into the review. If you
    could draft such a fulsome purpose statement/description agreed by
    Council, going into the structure/efficiencies of the staff and the
    board as we "pioneer". While we may set the standard, we will also
    probably need to remember that "pioneers" sometimes have learning
    experiences that others bebefit from, but may also be useful to retrieve
    material from the formation of ICANN where the constituency operates.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    be more careful at sending their high-order IQ
    by Anonymous on Wednesday August 03 2005, @09:42AM (#15772)
    In these cases you have two or three geeks/managers involving
    themselves, to show who is the present process. If you think the size of
    their Draft and more attentive to its real interest, for who. I am
    considering the seldom cases which counts. Where Sponsors are really able
    to use the IETF, and the IANA, as a tool to protect their own
    profit. I would have no problem with their agenda, if the simple
    exposure of the authors of such mails to filter them out. BTW an
    interesting debate we had over multilingualism is that every IETF Member
    should disclose his IQ. ... at least the difference between his IQ
    tested in his mother tongue and in English, or between in English and
    in his best foreign tongue. The intent behind the question I asked
    you offlist about the authority to block anything, or even hold it
    for individual review. For me, and I would suggest for the IESG's
    "back-stop" role wasn't about what RFC 2026 says, but about how to proceed,
    the interpretation of "really not worked out" is up to them... and
    should be. None of that reduces the value "for everybody, including
    new ADs, incumbents who are not on the same as public money, as
    non-profit money, as non-profit money, as personal money. Or you unbalance
    the whole process. the problem identified by RFC 3774 is the
    increasing number of "standard" participants. I am sure large corporations
    would be more careful at sending their high-order IQ if they known
    that their inputs will tagged with the same wavelength.
    [ 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