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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    VeriSign, Euro Registires Want ICANN Scaled Back | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 42 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: VeriSign, Euro Registires Want ICANN Scaled Ba
    by Anonymous on Thursday August 01 2002, @07:43PM (#8288)
    At the recent CATO conference, Milton Mueller pegged the DNS industry at about $2B, about the size of the leather mocassin industry as he put it (not a real big pie, so to speak). Nonetheless, ICANN has found itself with about a slice the size as that of an average domain name registrar, or something less than 1% of the total $ changing hands on an annual basis. In other words, others are making money while they are not getting their "fair share". The very detailed registry agreements point to a motivation where ICANN wants to influence how the specific registry runs its day-to-day business. This points to a motivation of desiring more of a vested interest in how the new registries are performing - financially - without actually physcially operating it. ICANN has further influenced this evolution by often inferring that the sponsored registry model poses less stability risk and such a formal announcement regarding the next round should come as no surprise. The sponsored model provides ICANN greater assurance the TLD string will be run day-to-day the way ICANN management believes it should be (i.e. the sponsor is in line with what ICANN believes the string should be for and thus granted the delegation). ICANN has made no secret it needs additional funding. It has offered a tax per domain name as a fundng mechanism. Well, what good is a per unit tax towards stable long term funding (including some unkown reserve amount no less) if the TLD string is not being run on a day-to-day basis the way ICANN management believes it should be? Oh, and a tax never goes down, only up. Everything ICANN is manipulating is all about obtaining a vested interest in each of the registries towards increasing and securing its slice of the current $2B pie...something, as they say themselves, was never made part of their existence and is in need of reform. If there is a monopoly issue here, this is it because then but a single entity in the world will have a vested influence in each TLD registry by way of its 1) detailed agreements and business reporting compliance, 2) TLD sponsorships that fit its business model beliefs for the string, and 3) a per unit tax on every domain name sold. If I am Verisign, I look in my crystal ball and see a big shift of market share $ to total $ in this space and not caused by the result of competition but a shift in $ to a single entity that has maneuvered a vested interest in each without a dime outlay or risk. The best Verisign can do is hope to buy a minority interest into every new registry with limited influence over day-to-day operations. ICANN just wants to take it and have direct influence over how each and every one is operated day-to-day where the actual owners and management team of each registry are nothing more than puppets that report to them. Not even the highly regulatory FCC tries - or desires - to obtain such influence in the radio and TV licensing spectrums. But, then again, the FCC is not a private corporation. And, compare this to what Jon Postel was doing with little assistance or compared to his vision of expansion. Quite a difference.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: VeriSign, Euro Registires Want ICANN Scaled Ba by Anonymous
    Re: VeriSign, Euro Registires Want ICANN Scaled Ba
    by Anonymous on Friday August 02 2002, @03:13AM (#8295)
    Academic question: Unregulated monopoly versus regulated monopoly...what would you choose?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: VeriSign, Euro Registires Want ICANN Scaled Ba
    by ross (rossattucowsdatcam) on Friday August 02 2002, @03:39AM (#8297)
    User #3098 Info
    The very detailed registry agreements point to a motivation where ICANN wants to influence how the specific registry runs its day-to-day business.

    Which is *precisely* what we asked it to do not all that long ago.

    As far as your "tax" statements go. There's a huge difference between the $15 (plus "tax" as you say) that registrants are paying today and the $70+ that they were paying not too long ago.

    Regarding Postel - I have to question what leads you to your perception of his vision. I suspect that its about as accurate as most others that quote him in support of their position.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: VeriSign, Euro Registires Want ICANN Scaled Ba
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday August 02 2002, @08:31AM (#8314)
    User #2810 Info
    Good points. However the comparison to the radio or TV spectrums is a bit misleading. They are finite resources, though there have been technical successes in narrowing the amount of resourses needed for a given application. So, at some astronomical level, is the namespace resource finite, but it is probably for all practical purposes infinite. Therefore, to be able to control who gets what, and why and when and how and for how much and what they can then do with it, ICANN has to throttle a very wide spectrum down into a very narrow range and say that that is all there is available. -g
    [ 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