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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 48 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.
    Re: Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede?
    by Anonymous on Saturday October 05 2002, @07:32PM (#9562)
    New blood: give ISOC the nod but let ImageOnline replace Afilias.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede?
    by Anonymous on Sunday October 06 2002, @02:12AM (#9563)
    Are you crazy? IOD did not go through the bid process. If you don't give it to ISOC, it goes to NeuStar. End of story.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Why Rush It?
    by Anonymous on Sunday October 06 2002, @03:02AM (#9564)
    Wait until Karl Auerbach has reviewed the books and reported on his findings. It couldn't hurt. One might think Afilias took money earmarked for marketing and lined pockets with it instead ... the price for .org. One could rationally come to that conclusion, base on ICANN's and Afilias's proclivities to flout rules.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede?
    by Anonymous on Sunday October 06 2002, @05:28AM (#9566)
    "ICANN's real problem is that it is weak...but that is because of the financial and legal weakness of ICANN..."

    This underlying train of thought is completely on the mark. It is the key to the card house ICANN has built. And, if one wants to beat it, they should simply join it. How? Easy...join Verisign's team. They are lobbying hard for removal of the wholesale price cap under the grounds this is 1) outside of ICANN's scope and qualifications to regulate and 2) since ICANN has proclaimed competition as an accomplishment, the need to price fix the market place no longer exists. ICANN's stance is that Verisign should simply live up to its contract (which is the same as saying that ICANN believes it has the right to centrally regulate the market place - you and me - via its few contracts).

    Two things are very clear in the ICANN House of Cards it calls a competitive market place: 1) The value of a .com domain remains artificially inflated and Verisign could easily double its wholesale price without suffering major attrition as a result of. ICANN itself says the average price of a domain is $10 or 67% higher than the current wholesale price. Verisign wants this and probably to the extent to where it can close the spread between what it charges for .com at the retail level and what it charges at the wholesale level. 2) If Verisign accomplishes this it will send shockwaves through ICANN's competitive - and completely artificial - registrar retail channel. Suddenly, all these cheap models just fall apart and the average price of a .com domain name shoots back up closer to $35 than $10. Why? because .com remains artificially inflated in the market place and Verisign knows this at a time its stockholders do not view their position too favorably. ICANN's definition of market place competition is regulation by contract...something it cannot defend.

    When the ridiculously invented registrar channel begins to have to pay the artificially inflated "value" of .com to its wholesaler is when the ICANN House of Cards will begin to come crashing down. Sure, this will help the publicly traded VRSN meet short term quarterly objectives (something it has a fiduciary responsibility to do for its stockholders).

    But the right questions will then get asked...the registrar channel will crumble to where it must demand new domains to sell in order to survive (anybody else find this noticeably missing from this "constituency"?) ICANN will be challenged to open the market place from the very parties it has contracts with...something that does not exist now and a position it cannot defend.

    If one wants to see the ICANN Card House exposed for what it is then simply join Verisign in its quest to remove ICANN from regulating the wholesale price cap....everything else will then follow. A system for entry will be demanded in true bottom-up fashion (the community) and in time the price of domains will drop, with greater choice, and improved service - which is what the "experiment" was supposed to be all about. None of these exist today (one party can renew business.com for $10 but a different party cannot acquire it for anywhere near this price...and this is part of the big charade ICANN calls "a competitive market place").

    Advocating removal of the .com wholesale price cap is the closest opportunity I have seen towards an environment where ICANN carries out its mission where "competition" is concerned as it was created to do. In today's landscape, this makes Verisign the first "stakeholder" that is a friend to the cause. And they are a big one.

    Ray Fassett


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede?
    by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Sunday October 06 2002, @01:28PM (#9571)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/

    And we must start by defining a stable, regular procedure for adding TLDs, so that artificial scarcity and its attendant evils, so clearly demonstrated by the .org reassignment, are ended forever.


    What he said.

    ++Peter
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede?
    by Anonymous on Monday October 07 2002, @04:09AM (#9578)
    Dr. Mueller,

    After I read your posting as well as your other message
    on the NCDNHC board, I can understand your emotion towards NeuStar's critisim on the NCDNHC report, as your (as well as NCDNHC's) credential and reputation are on the line.

    Personally I would like to have an organization such as IMS/ISC to run .org (as I have known Paul Vixie/Rick Adams' work for a very long time). However, after I have read all 11 bids, I have to
    rank NeuStar as #1 purely based on the proposal. I would hate to say that the NCDNHC team did not perform a decent job, at least it should not leave the door open for someone to attack the methods and results shown in the report. For example, your blatant rejection of NeuStar's claim of 5 additional support letters in the final supplemental report would show that you guys did not bother to double check again as all of them were posted on June 25, along with another one posted on July 11, with some of them endorsing NeuStar's proposal explicitly.

    Also, I did a review of all 522 ISOC/Afilias support letters posted before Aug 5, the cut-off date you announced on the NCDNHC board. About 70 contained references to .org domain names from non-ISOC members and around 30 were from .org registrants.

    I am afraid to say that you may fall in a trap so that someone could be put the blame on you and NCDNHC. I hope this will not be the case.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    The Facts
    by Ken on Monday October 07 2002, @11:26AM (#9591)
    User #3509 Info
    Milton,

    I will let the facts speak for themselves.

    - The NCC evaluation team awarded points for "good works" which was a criteria specifically rejected by the Board in Accra

    - The NCC awarded points to those who offered financial support to the NCC. Again, this was not a criteria in the ICANN RFP.

    - The NCC evalutation team awarded points for relationship with the noncommercial community. This also was not a criteria in the ICANN RFP.

    - The NCC evluation awarded points for those applicants that conducted "pre-bid surveys". This was not requested by the ICANN RFP and was not one of the ICANN RFP specified criteria.

    - The NCC awarded points for "post-bid responsiveness" to the NCC. Again, this is not in
    the ICANN RFP criteria. The evalution also, "took account of the relationship the bidder proposes with the NCDNHC after winning the bid..." Again...not in the ICANN RFP criteria.

    - By its own admission, the NCC's added new criteria from outside the ICANN RFP. Specifically, the NCC included new criteria to the process which were derived from a DNSO policy recommendation document and not the ICANN RFP. This is clear from the following statement which appeared in the NCC comments:

    "Overall our evaluation criteria were directly derived from the Request for Proposals (RFP) and the DNSO Policy consensus."

    - The additional criteria added by the NCC evaluation team tilted the playing field in the favor of applicants who were non-profits or had noncommercial affiliations. This is particularly true of criteria like 'good works" and "relationship with the community".

    - Your comments make a number of subjective and speculative comments that are not grounded in fact or supported by the evaluation reports (e.g. you know what we were thinking about our chances of being selected or what our motives are).

    - As the chairperson of the "Usage" evaluation team, your comments about the technical evaluations are not appropriate and further demonstration of bias.

    Ken Hansen, NeuStar
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede?
    by Anonymous on Monday October 07 2002, @12:00PM (#9597)
    A lot of people on this board think ISOC was a "preordained" victor in the .org process.

    Can anybody link to discussions about this inevitable selection that were posted online PRIOR to the first staff evaluation report?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede?
    by Anonymous on Monday October 07 2002, @08:52PM (#9618)
    No unanswered questions remain about the well done .info rollout. Bliss is having a short memory. Any nominations for Martha to the BOD of Money Magazine?
    [ 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