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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Reform Plans | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 23 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: Fausett
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Sunday June 23 2002, @07:35PM (#7410)
    User #2810 Info
    Perceptive points Ray. However, there is a distinction I think is being missed between a not-for-profit org running a registry as was suggested by the DNSO, and an org or a for-profit company running a registry that chooses to donate a portion of its income to 'good works'. As near as I can tell, what is being proposed now by some of the applicants is the latter.

    The Board, helped along by the filibuster of the normally silent Rob Blokzijl, decided that a not-for-profit might lead to instability (no matter how defined). I think to some small extent they have a case here, one doesn't want an org that knows nothing about running a registry being given .org, simply on the grounds that it is a not-for-profit. IOW, one doesn't want an org to run .org primarily to fund good works and only secondarily, if that, to run .org properly.

    However, that is what the application process is for, to weed out any such potential applicants. Did the BoD really think that they would receive no credible bids if they didn't open it up to for-profit entities? I doubt that very much. Or were they perhaps worried that a not-for-profit would put sufficient of its funds into good works that it would fail financially? If that is the case, then they should have been (and should remain) as concerned about for-profits like Afilias and NeuLevel putting sufficient of their funds into questionable areas that they could fail financially.

    Regardless, now that ICANN has stated that it would also allow for-profit companies to bid, the successful bidder can presumably choose to do as they wish with the funds, to the extent that it isn't explicitly disallowed by ICANN. And I can't see ICANN explicitly disallowing donations (as I say, if so, why allow Veri$ign and others to donate to political campaigns?). As Vint Cerf himself said, as quoted by Bret here:

    I would point out to you that any organization is free, for profit or not, to execute good works.
    Exactly. Vint goes on to say that requiring the funding of good works should not be an explicit requirement (and receives no dissent). This is a long way from suggesting the BoD reject some bids solely because they explicitly state they intend to make donations. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Fausett by fnord
    Re: Fausett
    by RFassett on Monday June 24 2002, @07:58AM (#7417)
    User #3226 Info | http://www.enum.info
    "This is a long way from suggesting the BoD reject some bids solely because they explicitly state they intend to make donations."

    Agreed. But, given the Board did make the comments that it did, then some applicants may have been influenced to "cut-out" Good Works as part of their application (I can see how an applicant might reason to do so). When these applicants now see that others are going down this path with their applications, the ones that did not must feel obligated to bring it to light so as not to evolve into a competitive disadvantage. So, Bret Fausett says "DOA". Otherwise, should an entity that proposed Good Works become the eventual winner, is there any way of removing the idea that the Good Works entered into the decision? Would applicants that "cut-out" Good Works (based upon sound reasoning of what was said by the Board)want to go back and change their application? This what I mean by ICANN making the same mistakes again by allowing subjectivity into the equation unless they do Bret's "DOA" or pick an application that did not include Good Works (making the point moot). I can see ICANN stating that it will not consider "Good Works" in making its determination but they said (or perhaps inferred) that measures of Good Works might lead to placing the stability of the .org registry at risk vs. otherwise. In looking at the statements made by the Board in this light (the stability card) I can see why an applicant would completely exclude these kind of measures and, if others did, make sure everyone else understood the point.
    [ 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