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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    ICANN Will Demand Registry Contract From .eu | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 13 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: ICANN Will Demand Registry Contract From .eu
    by Anonymous on Thursday March 28 2002, @05:44AM (#5612)
    I believe I predicted part of this earlier this week:

    ICANN meets out of the US and does not hold a US annual meeting. ICANN distances itself from US control and uses its renovation to get more governments involved. Enough, in fact, that ICANN says that it no longer needs the US. The EU, fresh from the new .eu TLD, backs ICANN and warns the US not to exert nationalistic control over the Internet's root servers. ICANN continues to operate as if it were in charge of the roots, but chooses not to have another TLD round, so as to avoid the potentially deadly confrontation of asking DoC to add new TLDs to the root. In its new form, ICANN needs no funding from the US, nor does it need DoC to do anything.

    Standoff.

    This will last for just over 4 more years, at which time the DNS will become irrelevant due to a shift to a new architecture. Verisign will buy the company that invented and coordinates this new architecture, transition all .COM holders to it, and begin selling it.

    By this time, ICANN will have the numbering under its control, which, as we all know, is where the real money is. ICANN will be happy to get out of the naming business.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • RIRs by fnord Thursday March 28 2002, @06:45AM
      • Re: RIRs by Anonymous Thursday March 28 2002, @06:50AM
    Re: ICANN Will Demand Registry Contract From .eu
    by rforno (rforno@infowarrior.org) on Thursday March 28 2002, @06:06AM (#5613)
    User #2832 Info | www.infowarrior.org
    Sounds like this is the first step toward the Balkanization of the Internet - what's to stop the EU from standing up their own .EU root and then talking to the major ISPs and such to include that root in their lookup tables?

    Yet another ICANN play to keep that all-important single root, and damn-the-consequences if folks decide they don't want to play by ICANN's rules, even though the EU has a hell of a lot more influence over peoples' lives than ICANN.

    Attaboy, Louis - keep rearranging those deckchairs, the foredeck's already awash.....

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: ICANN Will Demand Registry Contract From .eu
    by Anonymous on Thursday March 28 2002, @06:14AM (#5615)
    Read the last para.


    Delegation of ccTLDs

    Whereas, the participants in the ICANN process have for many months been engaged in discussions regarding the appropriate relationships among organizations operating ccTLDs, the relevant governments or public authorities, and ICANN, this topic having been discussed in detail in connection with the ICANN meetings in March 2000 in Cairo and in July 2000 in Yokohama;

    Whereas, at the Cairo meeting the Board authorized (in Resolution 00.13) the President and staff to work with the ccTLD organizations, Governmental Advisory Committee, and other interested parties to prepare draft language for contracts, policy statements, and/or communications embodying these relationships;

    Whereas, although the exact terms of the relationships are still under discussion, some progress has been made, and it is clear that ICANN and the ccTLD organizations should enter into agreements with each other describing their roles and responsibilities;

    Whereas, ICANN has committed in its second status report under its Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Government and in Amendment 2 to that Memorandum of Understanding to continue its efforts to achieve stable agreements with the ccTLD organizations;

    Whereas, the United States Government has indicated that completion of the transition of responsibilities for technical coordination of certain Internet functions from the United States to the private sector requires achievement of stable and appropriate agreements between ICANN and the ccTLD organizations;

    Whereas, completion of the transition is a high priority and all reasonable efforts should therefore be devoted toward finalizing and entering appropriate and stable agreements with organizations operating ccTLDs;

    Whereas, the IANA has received various applications for establishment of ccTLDs involving alpha-2 codes not on the ISO 3166-1 list but on the reserved list published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency;

    Whereas, the IANA's practice on the delegability of such codes has varied from time to time in the past;

    Whereas, the IANA staff has requested guidance as to the appropriate practice to follow regarding such codes;

    It is therefore RESOLVED [00.74] that the IANA staff is advised that alpha-2 codes not on the ISO 3166-1 list are delegable as ccTLDs only in cases where the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency, on its exceptional reservation list, has issued a reservation of the code that covers any application of ISO 3166-1 that needs a coded representation in the name of the country, territory, or area involved;

    It is further RESOLVED [00.75] that in view of the state of ongoing discussions directed toward reaching stable and appropriate agreements between ICANN and the ccTLD organizations, delegation of additional ccTLDs should be finalized only upon achievement of stable and appropriate agreements between ICANN and the ccTLD organization, in a form approved by the Board
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: ICANN Will Demand Registry Contract From .eu
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Thursday March 28 2002, @06:27AM (#5619)
    User #2810 Info
    I thought the earlier coverage by ICANNWatch (with its dark prediction with which I concur) was based on knowledge of this special meeting of the BoD, at which the motion was passed that seems to be the underpinning for Louis Touton's stance:
    It is further RESOLVED [00.75] that in view of the state of ongoing discussions directed toward reaching stable and appropriate agreements between ICANN and the ccTLD organizations, delegation of additional ccTLDs should be finalized only upon achievement of stable and appropriate agreements between ICANN and the ccTLD organization, in a form approved by the Board.
    This was passed after the .ps delegation, so ICANN dodged the political hot potato of having its third ccTLD contract signed with the Occupied Palestine Territory, and instead (barring someone else signing in the meantime) will have .eu to add to its trophy case. BTW, .ps was on the same ISO 3166-1 restricted list as .eu but was denied delegation because of that until it made the main list. .eu was treated differently. What, you expect consistency from ICANN? They clearly make things up as they go along.

    I don't foresee .eu as being an opponent. I'll provide some links later on some of their thinking regarding policy, but it is even more restrictive than ICANN has been to date on a number of issues. The two will fit well together as ubergovernment, taking turns being the velvet glove on the iron fist.

    To have the prophecy come true, .eu need only put legal pressure within its bailiwick on the various CENTR ccTLDs to rationalize and harmonize themselves with .eu, or else. Then expect similar regional uTLDs (uberTLDs), perhaps everywhere except North America (or that one last). ccTLDs threatened the nuclear option of going away, now ICANN is getting itself into position to say: go ahead, make my day. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: ICANN Will Demand Registry Contract From .eu
    by Anonymous on Thursday March 28 2002, @07:34AM (#5623)
    Is the decision to put .eu into the root an IANA or ICANN function?

    This lack of clarity is a good reason why ICAN and ICANN should be separated from one another.
    [ 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