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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    New.net demands that ICANN retract statements | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 29 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.
    and ICANN responds...
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Thursday July 26 2001, @03:57AM (#1468)
    User #2810 Info
    with their own strongly worded letter, which reads in full:

    ----
    Letter from Jeffrey A. LeVee, Esq. to Daniel Scott Schecter, Esq. (23 July 2001)

    JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
    555 WEST FIFTH STREET • SUITE 4600
    LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1025
    TELEPHONE: 213-489-3939 • FACSIMILE: 213-243-2539

    July 23, 2001 DIRECT DIAL NUMBER:
    (213) 243-2572
    jlevee@jonesday.com

    VIA FACSIMILE

    Daniel Scott Schecter, Esq.
    Latham & Watkins
    633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
    Los Angeles, CA 91007

    Re: New.net and ICANN

    Dear Mr. Schecter:

    I represent ICANN, which has received your July 16, 2001, letter written as legal counsel on behalf of New.net.

    As the consensus-based entity formed by the Internet community to coordinate the operation of the Internet's authoritative Domain Name System (DNS) in the public interest, ICANN seeks to encourage everyone, including New.net, to contribute their views on how the Internet can best serve the community. Your client, in particular, has been welcomed into the debate, with its marketing director and other representatives giving several presentations at ICANN's quarterly meeting in June. Shortly before the meeting, New.net published a "position paper" with the stated purpose of "stimulat[ing] discussion regarding the name space and help[ing to] bring all points of view to the table," and New.net's president expressed desire for an open dialog with ICANN on the topic. At the June meeting, there was extensive and open-minded discussion by members of the Internet community on the "position paper" and New.net's presentations about it. There also was extensive public discussion with respect to the draft paper (then a discussion draft) entitled "A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS."

    As you may have learned from your client, the view it advocates—that the Internet's longstanding consensus-based system of coordination should be replaced with a system under which the community would be required to embrace proprietary naming services launched by private, for-profit companies with no accountability—was rejected by most participants in the discussion. You may also have heard from your client about the broad support for the proposition, confirmed just last year by the Internet Architecture Board, that "it is not technically feasible for there to be more than one root in the public DNS." Participants in the discussion also expressed grave concerns that consumers are being misled by suggestions that New.net's "domain name extensions" should be viewed as equivalent to ".com, .net, and other existing top-level domains." Indeed, the concept of multiple roots clearly leads to the potential for conflicting top level domains and consequent Internet instability, which is directly contrary to one of ICANN's stated objectives of promoting Internet stability.

    It is unfortunate that New.net, after presenting its views to the community and inviting comment upon them, now responds to the lack of acceptance of those views by calling in its lawyers to write letters demanding that the ensuing debate be stifled. The expressions of opinion about which you complain are truthful, accurate, and honestly held. Despite its different viewpoint, New.net should accept that broadly held views in the Internet community support a universally resolvable public DNS based on open non-proprietary standards, and that proprietary naming schemes such as that promoted by New.net threaten to harm the Internet as a truly global means of communication.

    ICANN's commitment is to promote robust public discussions on how the DNS should be coordinated. My client encourages New.net to continue participating in the public debate rather than attempting to thwart open discussion by sending threatening letters to non-profit policy coordination entities such as ICANN. Your letter, and the implicit threat of legal action contained in it, appears to be an attempt to accomplish by coercion that which New.net apparently is not confident it can accomplish by public persuasion. Lawyers' demands are not likely to be appealing to the Internet community, which prides itself on free and open debate on issues of significant public importance.

    Because ICANN believes in full public discussion of important issues, we will post your letter, and this response, on ICANN's website.

    Very truly yours,

    Jeffrey A. LeVee

    cc: ICANN Board of Directors

    ----

    There is so much evidence contrary to some of these statements that one can only hope this letter winds up in court. The possibility of having their workings exposed to the light of day in a courtroom is about the only big stick ICANN seems to understand. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Its been over at new.net fo a long time
    by Anonymous on Thursday July 26 2001, @11:27AM (#1479)
    This proves it, new.net is really looking hard for acceptance and is striking while the iron is cold trying to get a little heat to that iron somehow.

    I have already boycotted idealab and its followers as I think that isp's changing my addressing system without my approval is wrong (Prodigy lost my business, bad move Prodigy).

    Look at the message board at new.net, very small member base, same 3 people posting there daily when there are supposedly 10's of thousands of registered names there. That board should have thousands of posts per week, yet it only gets a few.

    It never has looked good for new.net and the people that back them are in for a rude awakening. There offering isn't worth squat, thats the truth.

    PS Icann is not scared of those idiots, they are laughing at new.net. This behavior is not going to help new.net and Icann does not care about there names!!!!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    BindZero.Com
    by Anonymous on Saturday July 28 2001, @10:33AM (#1520)
    As I have seen that sight from an article here within the past weeks, BindZero.Com has the solution.

    Encrypted email included with every name registered and NO dilution of the namespace.

    This is how alternate domains should work, good luck to BindZero.

    No greed and overthrowing of the DNS, but they offer a choice to consumers, it will work, may take some time to get used to, but this idea has merit.

    Watch the copy cats try to get in on this one, including NEW.NET!
    [ 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