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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Ask Vint Cerf | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 19 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.
    How to Submit Comments
    by michael (froomkin@lawUNSPAM.tm) on Friday March 02 2001, @09:36AM (#351)
    User #4 Info | http://www.discourse.net/
    Several readers have written asking how they get a new comment thread started. The answer, alas, is not as obvious as it should be: you click on the "Send your comment" button in the yellow box you will find above this comment in the right-hand column of this screen.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by Anonymous on Friday March 02 2001, @10:28AM (#352)
    Dr. Cerf,

    In your recent Congressional testimony, you said that ICANN had received many more TLD applications than were anticipated. You also said that the TLD application process was run on a cost-recovery basis, and that "about half" of the roughly 2 million dollars had been spent, with the remaining portion to be spent on finalizing agreements with the selected TLD applicants. These two statements taken together seem to indicate that (a) ICANN was remarkably lucky that it recieved more TLD applications than anticipated, or else it would be out of money to finalize anything, or (b) the cost of the job is growing to meet the supply of money available. Which one should I believe?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by Anonymous on Friday March 02 2001, @11:48AM (#353)
    Dr. Cerf:
    You (correctly, IMO) stated that Image Online Design's .Web application showed significant pioneering work over the past 5 years to justify not giving .Web to any other applicant. Since that time, it has been shown quite conclusively that the major objections of the ICANN staff were in serious error, and that Image Online Design meets and in most cases exceeds those criteria that other, approved applicants meet.

    My question is twofold: first, is there any expectation of Image Online Design's request for reconsideration being granted, in the face of such overwhelming evidence? If not, doesn't this send a clear message that the pioneering phase of the Internet is over, and that it's a waste of time to chart new courses, since ICANN will only be dealing with large groups of established players and huge corporations from now on?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by Anonymous on Friday March 02 2001, @12:26PM (#354)
    My question concerns the Afilias TLD assignment.

    As documented by The Roving Reporter, three boardmembers (Triana, Capdeboscq, Conrades) were truant during ICANN's decision making in MDR. The three absences, in conjunction with the four recusals (Blokzijl, Abril i Abril, Davidson, Crew) left only 12 out of 19 boardmembers voting on the new TLDs. ICANN's bylaws state that any action "that substantially affect[s] the operation of the Internet or third parties require[s] a majority of sitting Board members" (IV.1.iii.3b) -- that is, ten votes. Andrew McLaughlin, obviously aware of the discrepancy, intervened during the vote on the Afilias proposal (which fell short with only 8 votes) to say that the board was really only taking a "straw poll," not establishing consensus (RealFnord @ 2:56).

    In light of this contravention of ICANN's bylaws, why was Afilias assigned .info?

    Given that the vote fell short of the required ten Board members needed to approve Afilias, why is ICANN in contract negotiations with Afilias?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by Jon_Weinberg on Monday March 05 2001, @04:25AM (#357)
    User #16 Info | www.threecats.net
    The proposed "unsponsored TLD agreements" recently posted by ICANN staff bind the new TLD registries in detail, on matters including the UDRP; a "sunrise" preference for trademark holders (with a detailed dispute resolution process of its own); fees levied by ICANN; fees paid by registrants; the registry-registrar relationship; functional and performance specifications for registry services; bulk access to zone files; whois (with ICANN control over availability, data elements, response format, query types, etc.); extensive reporting requirements; and much, much more. This regulatory regime is quite different from anything historically imposed by IANA. (Indeed, it's quite different from anything in the ICANN-ccTLD relationship today; a majority of the ccTLDs don't even run whois.) Is this sort of centralized control consistent with your vision of ICANN as a body restricted to "technical coordination"?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by Anonymous on Monday March 05 2001, @04:58AM (#358)
    Boxers or briefs?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Policy v. Implementation
    by lextext on Monday March 05 2001, @05:26AM (#360)
    User #6 Info | http://www.lextext.com
    What are the proper roles for the Supporting Organizations in creating policy, the Board in recognizing consensus policies, and the Staff in implementing those policies? At what point does an implementation detail become a policy issue that itself should be referred back to the relevant Supporting Organization for review or approval?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by DavidP on Monday March 05 2001, @06:25AM (#361)
    User #25 Info | http://www.davidpost.com/
    This is sort of a followup regarding the selection of new TLDs. Has ICANN stated anywhere exactly what criteria it used to pick winners and losers in the competition for new TLDs? Shouldn't it use iron-clad, explicit criteria that admit of no ambiguity, so that charges of favoritism and corruption can be easily dismissed?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by DavidP on Monday March 05 2001, @06:34AM (#363)
    User #25 Info | http://www.davidpost.com/
    I would very much like to know what 'consensus' means in ICANN's terminology. Is ICANN seriously attempting to 'govern by consensus'? There's lots of talk to that effect, but really -- is ICANN trying to develop consensus about, say, the Verisign deal? How can that possibly happen in the 10 days or so before the ICANN meeting in Melbourne? In general, do you think that ICANN gives anywhere near enough time for consensus to be devoloped on important policy questions, and, if not, shouldn't we conclude that it is not serious about the consensus model?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by Anonymous on Monday March 05 2001, @10:40AM (#366)
    What about the pioneer registries? Is it possible to find a formula that will bring these non-ICANN TLDs into the ICANN framework?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by Anonymous on Monday March 05 2001, @12:03PM (#367)
    Have you used the ORSC DNS settings, and experienced the rest of the internet?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by tbyfield (reversethis-{moc.xinap} {ta} {dleifybt}) on Monday March 05 2001, @08:01PM (#369)
    User #44 Info
    If the introduction of new TLDs is a "proof of concept," what concept is being proven?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by tbyfield (reversethis-{moc.xinap} {ta} {dleifybt}) on Monday March 05 2001, @08:10PM (#370)
    User #44 Info
    ICANN describes itself as a "technical coordination body"; it has now been operating for close to two and a half years. In that time, what has ICANN accomplished that is actually technical? And -- out of the total human-hours ICANN's staff, officers, and board of directors have expended thus far -- please give a rough guesstimate of the percentage occupied by enacting those technical accomplishments.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by tbyfield (reversethis-{moc.xinap} {ta} {dleifybt}) on Monday March 05 2001, @08:14PM (#371)
    User #44 Info
    What are the three biggest mistakes ICANN has made to date? Why and how were they mistakes?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by tbyfield (reversethis-{moc.xinap} {ta} {dleifybt}) on Monday March 05 2001, @08:29PM (#372)
    User #44 Info
    ICANN CEO Mike Roberts described the Internet Democracy Project (composed in part of CPSR, the ACLU, and EPIC) as "bitter" and accused them of "throwing rocks" and "wide-eyed utopianism." At the Pacific Telecommunications Council conference, he said, "every citizen on the Net feels they have been empowered to challenge what [ICANN does], and I think we should be able to get on with our jobs without organized undermining of what we're doing." Other such examples abound. ICANN's "Senior Policy Officer" Andrew McLaughlin recently described those who were concerned with the disposition of the .org gTLD as "hyperventilating"; he, too, has made many other remarks that would lead a reasonable person to think that he takes a dim view of those who question ICANN's actions. Can you think of any examples in which ICANN's staff or officers have used similar language to describe advocates of strong intellectual property provisions for the DNS? Do you feel that these remarks are evenly applied? If not -- and as an attentive follower of ICANN I don't believe you can -- why should anyone believe that ICANN's staff and officers are impartial?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by singe (singe no@spam outer.net) on Tuesday March 06 2001, @04:40AM (#375)
    User #48 Info | http://www.caffeine.net/singe
    I may be painfully stupid, but it seems to me that DNS itself needs an overhaul. hostname.domain.TLD is just not human enough for the needs of the general populace. Why not invest all this time, effort and money in coming up with a truly novel "proof of concept," i.e. natural language addressing on the Internet. There have been some feeble stabs at it by various search engines and directories, but for it to really work would take the kind of orchestrated research effort that a body like ICANN could sponsor and help along. Wouldn't the Internet be a lot better off without the squabbling over gTLDs and trademarks and the like, and with the ability for the user to type "The Wall Street Journal" or "Grameen Bank" or "Yahoo!" into their browser and get a web page in return?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by Anonymous on Tuesday March 06 2001, @10:29PM (#378)
    The .name registry seems to promote a non-hierarchical system which would preclude zoning
    e.g vint.cerf.1.name ; vint.cerf.2.name could be anywhere in the world.
    Apart from the banality of their proposal, wouldn't you agree that implementation of this plan would be impratical and cause "the Internet" to grind to a halt ?
    Does ICANN have any intention to direct Registries to meaningful solutions ?
    regards, etc.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ask Vint Cerf
    by Anonymous on Wednesday March 14 2001, @10:02AM (#416)
    You have stated repeatedly that "The net is for everyone".
    That is an admirable concept. But, as we all know, the devil is in the details.
    Suppose that the "clean sheet" study committee recommends the elimination of direct elections for the At Large seats, or even the elimination of some or all of the At Large seats.
    1. Would you personally be willing to support the elimination of direct elections?
    2. Would you personally be willing to support the elimination of some or all of the At Large seats on the Board?
    3. If democratic elections were to be eliminated, how do you propose to involve the users of the Internet in ICANN's decision making process?
    [ 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