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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Thoughts on those Empty Seats | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 18 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: Thoughts on those Empty Seats
    by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Tuesday November 05 2002, @04:15AM (#9991)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    Your arguments imply that most applicants should have known that the odds were long. But not that they should have been certain that they would not win.

    I call your attention to the applications turned down because the board didn't like the way the name sounded, because the facts were deliberately misrepresented, because board members admitted prejudice towards the applicant, or because the board admitted after the fact that it wouldn't consider telephony applications.

    These applicants were turned down for reasons that one might argue are actionable.

    They certainly should not have expected a fair process to turn out as it did.

    ++Peter
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Thoughts on those Empty Seats by PeterBarron
    Re: Thoughts on those Empty Seats
    by Anonymous on Tuesday November 05 2002, @05:53AM (#9994)
    "They (first round applicants) certainly should not have expected a fair process to turn out as it did."

    We are mostly saying the same thing, I believe. But evaluation subjectivity - which certainly is a double edged sword - was clearly a determinable parameter upfront. Some interested parties chose to participate under these conditions and some did not (and we do not know how many the latter group consists of). To put another way, I do not know how a first round applicant could possibly have known with any degree of certainty that they would "get one". It was literally a crapshoot with a window of about 60 days to make pivotal decisions within the completed app. When you factor in time for legal, accounting, market research, multiple entities formiing JV's, I do not know how 44 applicants were able to accomplish the feat by the filiing deadline. It had to be a round-the-clock affair for each.

    Conspiracy theories aside for a minute, it was impossible for a first round applicant to determine that their application would gain entry (or Board consensus) and this was a determinable condition for the very existence of the first round. Without this condition, the first round would not have existed at all and is indeed the compromise for the fact that it did. To me, this is the same as saying an applicant had, upfront, more reason than not to believe their application would be unsuccessful. The primary unknown variable was how many parties would apply. It is reasonable to say that each applicant formally filed because they made the "guess" that their would be far less than 43 others and likely closer to the "7 - 10" mandate.

    In the end, 44 applicants produced the "much needed" reserves ICANN can claim today but resulted in subjectivity being the primary tool of evaluation of the first round applicants. Whatever hope there was for "objectivity" - given such objective criteria was never provided upfront - went completely out the window when 44 showed up to the party. It is reasonable to suggest that some parties were able to predict this outcome and accordingly chose to pass - we just do not know how many interested parties this is and we won't until clear, concise criteria is provided by ICANN along with a measured process of entry rather than the "7 - 10", all or nothing approach. Just my opinion.

    Ray
    [ 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