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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Republican Senators Express Concern Over Renewall of ICANN Contracts With DoC | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 27 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: My own take
    by michael (froomkin@lawUNSPAM.tm) on Friday August 02 2002, @09:51AM (#8323)
    User #4 Info | http://www.discourse.net/
    I agree that letting VRSN do things like WLS in the current climate will be harmful to competition in the registrar market. But let's not lose sight of why that is: because competition in the registry market is stifled by ICANN. There's something wrong with a body like ICANN exercising price regulatory powers at all -- it has no economic expertise, and even less legitimacy, relevant to the task. And justifying this great error as being necessary due to ICANN's earlier and continuing errors just won't cut it.

    This is the classic case of 'two wrongs do not make a right'. And let's not forget the lack of economic expertise. This is a key pragmatic point as well as one of principle.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: My own take by michael
    Re: My own take
    by lextext on Friday August 02 2002, @10:16AM (#8325)
    User #6 Info | http://www.lextext.com
    I don't disagree. But the Senators would put the cart before the horse. If the goal is to remove ICANN from having a role in registry-level pricing, then the first step is to open the market widely for increased registry-level competition. Verisign would push this in a different direction though: artificially constrain the number of registry operators and allow those few who are allowed to enter the market to do whatever they will. You've got to undo the first wrong before you undo the second.

    -- Bret
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: My own take
    by fnord (reversethis-{moc.oohay} {ta} {k2yorg}) on Saturday August 03 2002, @04:36PM (#8352)
    User #2810 Info
    Good points, but...

    1. I don't think some in the USG wanted to get a grip on their contractor.

    2. While you make compelling arguments, I don't think that the assertion that more TLDs, more registries, and more entries in the root zone file are the answer is demonstrably false. What if there had been no Sunrise for example? What if the widespread fraud that went on in both .biz and .info hadn't happened. If I pay close attention and can't understand what .biz 2b and .info LR2 are, how can the average registrant? What if there had been no Smiley .biz lawsuit? What if there had been no widespread and still ongoing gaming of both .info and .biz, or if it hadn't been widely publicized? I've played a role in that one and it's troubling that one thing that does is benefit VeriSign, it's almost enough to make me shut up. What if ICANN had given IOD's .web the OK? Or other applicants, either instead of, or in addition to, current ones? What if ICANN hadn't taken so long to act? Or micro-managed the process? What if ICANN had acted when it was clear that some registrars were (and still are) warehousing many of the most desirable names?

    Well, with all these questions and more, I think the only thing that is demonstrably false is that ICANN was competent to be picked as manager of this process. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: My own take
    by RFassett on Saturday August 03 2002, @05:41PM (#8353)
    User #3226 Info | http://www.enum.info
    these are good comments. I think the first fallacy is that launching a new registry is a race to 25 million registrations that, if one goes back and looks at the flavor of both the biz and info application projections, was something they each were banking upon happening in short order, or certainly faster than what has occurred.

    This is different than saying that a great many TLD's entered into the market place will not have a material effect upon current .com market share and its overall dominance. Not that this has to happen in year 1 or year 2, or even by year 5. It is not logical to expect, in a couple of years, for one or two TLD's to overcome the vast headstart .com has had in the market place. But 150 TLD's times just 100,000 registrations each is roughly 70% of current .com market share. And, this assumes a one for one trade where, in all likelihood, a fair percentage will come from new users that have not registered in any of the existing TLD's.

    It is reasonable to say that just 150 TLD's over 10 years would have quite a material effect upon .com dominance even with very conservative second level projections of 100,000 each (with varying wholesale pricing models). Even with the conservative projections calling for the number of people with Internet access to double from today to 1 billion over the next 10 years, it is unlikely that there will ever be a repeat of the .com phenomenon for obvious reasons. This has always been the fallacy (to me) but is not the same as saying that numerous TLD's - building niche purposes in the market place - would not have the same effect. That is the idea, I believe, and I do not think biz and info have disproved this.

    Lastly, there is always the thought that the operators of the .com registry will continually look to improve their service offerings to retain market share and that all these other new registry operators will do the same. How many people remember the arcane process of updating name servers for a domain prior to competition at the registRAR level? Would Verisign have upgraded this service without competition? And this is really an insignificant example...we really do not know what has been artificially restrained in terms of service and innovation at the TLD addressing level. I think, if given the chance, there is far greater opportunity for market penetration than just putting together a string and turning on the lights. Only .com, for the foreseeable future, will be absolved of having to "build" a market need. This is not the same as saying that market needs do not exist, will increase to exist in the future, and that these cannot be identified and served. The only thing stopping this are restraints completely artificial in nature.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply 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