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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    'Let Competition, Not ICANN, Rule' | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 46 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.
    Open entry is a requirement for a free market
    by Mueller ({mueller} {at} {syr.edu}) on Wednesday September 11 2002, @04:58AM (#9148)
    User #2901 Info | http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
    I haven't read the report yet, but looking at summaries I suspect PFF is being a bit disingenuous, and perhaps may be arguing to a brief from VeriSign.

    OF COURSE they are right that ICANN is a regulator, and that it isn't qualified to be a regulator, and that a competitive market doesn't need a global regulator. However, they seem to say nothing to press ICANN and Commerce to establish a method for routine authorization of new TLDs, and establishing the basic technical parameters (e.g., how many per year?) for doing so.

    Until free entry is established the system is a government-sanctioned cartel, and the problems associated with restricted entry will continue to be used by whining registrars as excuses for continued regulation.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Re: 'Let Competition, Not ICANN, Rule'
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Wednesday September 11 2002, @06:08AM (#9155)
    User #2810 Info
    Also via the icann.blog, global regulator?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: 'Let Competition, Not ICANN, Rule'
    by GeorgeK on Wednesday September 11 2002, @07:05AM (#9158)
    User #3191 Info | http://www.kirikos.com/
    It's all about WLS, for sure (they give that as one of the examples). Their idea that the registries are competitive is laughable. They're monopolies, and the only true competition exists at the registrar layer.

    For those who didn't notice, the author of the paper, William F. Adkinson, Jr., used to work at Wilmer (see here, the same Washington law firm where Becky Burr, counsel to SnapNames works. Coincidence? You decide.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    PFF is coopted
    by Mueller ({mueller} {at} {syr.edu}) on Wednesday September 11 2002, @07:14AM (#9160)
    User #2901 Info | http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
    OK, I've read the paper now and it is as I feared. PFF probably got a grant from VeriSign to write that paper. They argue, contrary to all reason and fact, that the REGISTRY market is "competitive", and imply that new entry is needed. The analysis follows closely that of Cochetti's testimony in June.
    While I agree that the registrar market is quite competitive, this is simply not true of the registry market.

    How many "competitive markets" do you know that DON'T ALLOW ANY NEWCOMERS TO ENTER? How many markets with closed entry have 60% of the registrations concentrated in one supplier would a real economist define as "competitive"?

    Of course, these entry restrictions do NOT justify ICANN regulation - they justify the definition of a routine procedure for adding new TLDs.

    It's "wonderful" to see so-called "free market" advocates get co-opted so easily. Thanks, PFF.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: 'Let Competition, Not ICANN, Rule'
    by RFassett on Wednesday September 11 2002, @08:59AM (#9162)
    User #3226 Info | http://www.enum.info
    I would like to draw attention here to this reponse I made to Kent Crispen on the GA list. I am still awaiting any type of response (note Mr. Crispen's remarks are in quotations...the silence is deafening):

    Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion
    From: "Ray Fassett"
    Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 19:52:08 -0400 (EDT)
    Reply-To: ray@fassett.org
    Sender: owner-ga-full@dnso.org

    At 8:47 AM -0700 8/24/02, kent@songbird.com wrote:

    "But if you operate from the premise that ICANN has *never* been in the position of regulator, then it has done quite well."

    ICANN continues to regulate the number of TLD registries.

    "ICANN was never intended to be a regulator, and, contrary to popular delusion, it has *never* had the will to be one."

    ICANN accomplishes, by contract, regulatory measures that include: wholesale price capping, the type of registry (i.e. unsponsored-
    unrestricted, unsponsored-restricted, sponsored-restricted), and UDRP compliance. ICANN "intends" to do this (by contract) by way of regulating
    the number of TLD registries and indeed does - by its own actions - have such "will" to do so.

    I will agree that ICANN "was never intended to be a regulator". Artificially limiting the number of TLD registries - as ICANN continues to do - is the act of a regulatory body. There is no question about this.

    "In concrete terms, it doesn't matter what policies ICANN comes up with -- if a large registry doesn't sign the resulting contract, the policy is meaningless."

    ICANN uses the regulatory action of artificially limiting the number of TLD registries to impose additional regulatory measures that you claim are
    merely by way of contract agreement. Again, ICANN's actions have shown it has the "will" to be a regulatory body.


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Wrong
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Wednesday September 11 2002, @05:43AM (#9153)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    Sounds like what you're saying is that ICANN needs to keep new flakes and scumbags from entering the domain registrar or registry business in order to protect the market of the existing pirates, gamers, and fraudsters... is that right?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re: Wrong by PeterBarron Wednesday September 11 2002, @07:11AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Re: Wrong
    by RFassett on Wednesday September 11 2002, @11:25AM (#9170)
    User #3226 Info | http://www.enum.info
    "That is to say, in my opinion, New.net cannot be trusted...."

    Then do not buy their products.

    "If all alternative registries were fashioned after IOD, I would be more inclined to yank the power away from ICANN."

    It's really not about yanking power away. ICANN is the entity that has been empowered to "fashion" technical compliance in a way that can "foster" competition at the top level. It is not about yanking away this power, but everything about ICANN acting upon a core function for its very existence. Understanding its motivations for NOT doing so is the issue.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Wrong
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Thursday September 12 2002, @08:24AM (#9204)
    User #2810 Info
    Well, in fact the ICANN USG DNS root is actually smaller than many complementary roots. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re: Wrong by Hendrik Saturday September 14 2002, @10:50AM
      • Re: Wrong by fnord Saturday September 14 2002, @12:33PM
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • 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