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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    DoC will put IANA functions up for competitive bid | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 26 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.
    U.S. Government Starts to Design New .NET Via LAWS
    by Anonymous on Thursday November 10 2005, @04:18PM (#16468)
    U.S. Government Starts to Design New .NET Via LAWS

    The U.S. Government's numerous agencies and the
    U.S. Congress now see what a travesty the
    IANA-based Internet has become. It is a Wild West
    show. Consumers have no protection, and lobbyists
    from outside the U.S. dominate discussions on
    how the U.S. should run their network, to benefit
    those lobbyists.

    The U.S. Government, in concert with the 10 or
    20 major players (RBOC telcos, M$, V$, N$ and
    banking, cable and the media companies) will work
    to design a new .NET via laws. The ISOC and ICANN
    will be off chasing their dreams with the UN/ITU.
    That is a very good way to distract them.

    Small ISPs will be cut-off, and many countries.
    The FCC will step in and regulate the back-bone.
    The Wild West show will end, and U.S. consumers
    will benefit, and not have to be subjected to
    the world lobbyists that want to destroy the
    American network dominance, and replace it with
    tin cans and kite string to third world countries.

    http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/ news/11032005_Broadband.pdf

    (a) DUTIES OFPROVIDERS.—Subject to subsection
    (b), each BITS provider has the duty—
    (1) not to block, impair, or interfere with the
    offering of, access to, or the use of any lawful content, application, or service provided over the Internet;
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    BITS provider - not to block, impair, or interfere
    by Anonymous on Friday November 11 2005, @05:22AM (#16469)
    "BITS provider - not to block, impair, or interfere"

    That removes the NANOG Thugs from the picture.

    They can continue to play the game of "my bit pipe
    is bigger than your bit pipe", but it will not
    matter because their bit pipes will not be
    connected and routed. That frees up all of their
    IP address blocks.

    ATT/SBC does not care, they now have that ATT
    /8 and all of the remaining address space that
    the IANA never sold. They now just homestead it
    with the other major players that have agreed
    to do that, at the IP layer. TCP and UDP are not
    even in the picture. Comments about Ports and
    Port 25 and Port 80 are irrelevant to the big boys,
    the BITS Providers.

    Response from the Inner Circle:
    "do you want some legislation that gives the CEO of ATT/SBC the world largest dinosaur a blank check to do as he wishes with *HIS* network. This bills language is HIGHLY deceptive. I too despise government incompetence but giving Whittacre a blank check is IMHO much worse."
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    FCC will step in and regulate the back-bone.
    by Anonymous on Friday November 11 2005, @06:01AM (#16471)
    FCC will step in and regulate the back-bone.

    The regulations are mostly in the area of speed
    and performance, something the research/hobbyist
    nets never really cared about. To have a nationwide,
    reliable, secure, and consistent packet transport,
    you have to consider end-to-end performance.

    One of the major issues will be whether Hawaii,
    Alaska, and the other various islands, such as
    CUBA, are part of the .UBA from a regulated
    performance point of view. Congress can not
    legislate that a single thin fiber will carry
    more bits, it just lays there and does not care.
    [ 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