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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    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
    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 rforno (rforno@infowarrior.org) on Thursday March 28 2002, @07:06AM (#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 fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Thursday March 28 2002, @07:27AM (#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 ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Thursday March 28 2002, @07:45AM (#5620)
    User #2810 Info
    The numbering is controlled regionally. That's handy. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    .us redelegation
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday March 29 2002, @06:00AM (#5631)
    User #2810 Info
    M. Stuart Lynn was asked that by ccTLD managers at Accra [See 4.2]. The relevant questions and answers are reproduced below. -g


    Q: In your proposal, there is only a place for the ccTLDs in ICANN, who have a contract with ICANN. The ccTLDs have worked hard on a draft contract but got a response with an unacceptable contract from ICANN. That is also a problem.
    A: Each ccTLD is different and has different reasons why an agreement cannot be reached. I am just laying out the consequences of not reaching an agreement.

    Q: Why did the USG not enter an agreement with the dot US domain name with ICANN?
    A: That's a very good question. It's an in-process discussion and you should ask them that.

    Q: Why was the dot US domain re-delegated before entering into a contract?
    A: The US had the authority to do it and there was an emergency re-delegation as a result. The reality is that ICANN does not have control over the root server. There was a lot of ICANN dialogue in the process.

    Q: What is the official definition of 'emergency re-delegation'?
    A: The IANA encounters a situation where some change of name server is necessary. For some reason, the trustees of a domain name are not able to act, or not willing to act and re-delegation needs to be made in order to obtain interoperability.

    Without an agreement, re-delegation is always a risk. Some of the concerns you have may happen whether there is an agreement or not.

    I'd like to urge the ccTLDs, let this be addressed to the Board. There is some communication problem that the Board does not see some of your concerns.

    Q: The 'contracts' in the proposal is a critical issue. Currently there is no re-delegation done without a contract. Is there any process in place if we would like to raise this issue and change this principle, how could we do it?
    A: If you do not care about the transfer of the root from the USG, you'll have to make that known very clearly. I'm willing to look at different solutions for the problems we have and may take it to the board if we need to.


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 3 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