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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    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
    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 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.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    The Facts
    by Ken on Monday October 07 2002, @11:26AM (#9591)
    User #3509 Info

    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 Hendrik on Sunday October 06 2002, @04:52PM (#9572)
    User #2856 Info


    When you do want to dismiss the registrar-registry split as ridiculously invented, you are required to explain first why this approach works quite well in a lot of ccTLD's and why it fails in its current setup for gTLD's. Then you might not dismiss it but propose to change the flaws that cause the problems.

    I cannot find convincing arguments to dismiss the registry-registrar model as such as I am quite able to provide the working counter-examples based on a comparative study of registries, in specific those of European ccTLD's.

    The registry-registrar institutional arrangement has worked quite well in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark. It produced a higher number of domain names per capita for those countries than the US based companies and citizens have registered under the .us ccTLD's and the generic TLD's.

    Therefore it is better to define what outcomes in the domain name industry you consider as a succes and then assure yourself that the registry-registrar model is indeed bad performing to reach that goal.

    The main difference between European ccTLD's and the gTLD's as far as I am able to perceive is the far weaker position of the registry operator, who typically is a subcontractor to the not-for-profit registry. The non-profit registry is also heavily pushed by the registrar community to drive down registry prices per name as they are the registrars main input cost. As a consequence there is no serious need for regulatory style wholesale price-fixing.

    The large variety in type, size and approach of registrars and the low entrance barrier to become one (.uk and .nl have more than 1000 registrars each), has provided a registrar community that takes care quite well of their domain name registrants interests. E.g. there are for-profit and not-for-profit registrars that have themselves specialised in individual users and various non-commercial sectors of society (f.i. churches and religious organisations).
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Re: Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede?
    by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Monday October 07 2002, @07:06PM (#9611)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    I would feel more comfortable if trolls like you would both substantiate your points and not post anonymously.

    As a result, you are hardly taken seriously.

    At least I am not taken seriously due to my opinions, which is a step up.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 7 replies 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