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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Old Delusions and New TLDs | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 35 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.
    Well Done
    by Anonymous on Wednesday November 13 2002, @09:54AM (#10136)
    Short, sweet and on the point. Following through with Stuart's plan, altough well intentioned is just another Wrong Turn in Cyberspace.

    Anyone that had to sit through the in the shopping cart out of the shopping cart comedy of Nov 2000 knows that this is NOT the way forward.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Old Delusions and New TLDs
    by Anonymous on Wednesday November 13 2002, @10:25AM (#10137)
    This doesn't help at all. Lynn's plan is the best way of moving forward with the addition of new tlds for the DNS.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Old Delusions and New TLDs
    by Anonymous on Wednesday November 13 2002, @12:38PM (#10140)
    It is interesting to me how Stuart Lynn's is a document of purely personal opinion (i.e. no market research or studies, or other type of normal due diligence) that then proceeds to make formal recommendations to the Board, including a recommendation to authorize funds, to carry out much of the personal opinion that is contained.

    Now, a CEO is allowed to make personal recommendations to the Board for it to act. Most CEO's of private businesses (whether for-profit or non-profit) do not ask for public feedback when stating personal views that request Board action. So, the fact that Dr. Lynn has requested public comment would actually seem like an odd procedure to implement here. I mean, it's not like Dr. Lynn put out a personal document stating his views about TLD expansion and then asked for public comment towards THEN determining recommendations to the Board. No, this document has already made the recommendations but goes ahead and asks for public comment anyway. Odd, to me. Is anyone filtering these comments coming back from the public? Surely, no one thinks the Board is reviewing them to assist in basing their decision of the personal recommendations as Dr. Lynn has requested. For one thing, Dr. Lynn does not state that comments received from the public will be reviewed by the Board as a tool to assist in their upcoming decision. We do not know if comments being sent from the public are even being read other than if Dr. Lynn or staff just says they are (which they have not yet said either way). Who knows? Why should we believe that they are not at least being read?

    The reconciling factor to consider might be in Paragraph II.C 8 of the new MoU as follows:

    8. Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which process shall include consideration and evaluation of:

    a. The potential impact of new TLDs on the Internet root server system and Internet stability.

    b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions.

    c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive environment for TLD registries.

    d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or organizations regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues.

    It appears that Dr. Lynn's approach in making his recommendations to the Board - based purely upon personal opinion - is fairly within the wording (if not loosely interpreted) of a, b, and c above. But what about d? I do not see how expansion of TLD's can take place - such as the awarding of 3 new ones for DoC to sign off - can take place without d above somehow being addressed - even if loosely. And this may indeed be the reason the document completely of personal opinion - as fully admitted - carries formal recommendations to the Board AND requests public comment. It is odd to me that both of these exist as part of this process of extension of the "7 - 10"

    A more logical approach would be 1) produce the document laden with personal opinion 2) request public comment and then 3) formulate recommendations to the Board for consideration. I think any reasonable person would find this a more logical approach (given public comment is indeed desired - otherwise the CEO just makes the recommendations and moves on without any public comment). It is an odd approach to me but part d of Paragraph II.C 8 could not just be ignored, right? If the Board approves the recommendations would it be in line with the above cited language of the MoU where the expansion of new TLD's are concerned? I guess so which is pretty remarkable for a document that clearly states it is but one persons opinion and absent of any sort of normal research and due diligence.

    Ray










    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    The Easy Way Out Again
    by PageHowe on Wednesday November 13 2002, @12:47PM (#10141)
    User #3551 Info
    Its been two years since the rushed, forced and inneffective gTLD rollout of 2000.

    I see the process as being the same here, still no bottom up approach - just a personal letter from the CEO of ICANN that is then allowed to take status as a rough action plan..... posted a month after it was written. And allowed to serve as an unaccountable, non-Board statement on new TLD's.


    then the public gets to comment on this "plan", and all decisions are reached just before an ICANN meeting in less than 30 days....after certain Board members terms are allowed to expire.

    In addition, we already see the seeds of a .travel being awarded........

    ...then theres still $350,000 from the original applicants, about $8,000 per applicant, that Mr. Lynn wants to spend to evaluate something that happened two years ago. Mind you this evaluation from outside experts process produced a weak group of successful applicants the first time... so why not hire in the same fashion a group that can churn out $350,000 in billable hours again, to produce a shallow review of the process.

    Thank you to David, Susan and others who continue to trust in the process of trying to reveal to ICANN its possible weaknessess in the spirit of getting a better process for the future.

    Page Howe
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Only 3? How pathetic...
    by Anonymous on Thursday November 14 2002, @06:49AM (#10149)
    ... for ICANN to admit that ICANN cannot effectively administrate more than 3 new restricted TLDs.

    If .aero, .coop, and .pro are indicators of restricted TLDs, it's safe to say the reg numbers are minimal. As a matter of fact, restricted TLDs are stealthy ... with so few registrations they fly under the radar.

    So ICANN is screaming: CLOSE THE FLOODGATES, WE CANNOT HANDLE ANY MORE, which is pathetic. Some ICANN Directors are highly touted for their roles in tech. It's lame to think they cannot effectively manage the machinations of more than a few small boutique registries, with super-low reg numbers. This is really a village mentality for a wordwide resource.

    The DoC (hello Nancy Victory) should not be proud that ICANN is mediocre and not up to the task.

    ICANN is polluted from within, and the only cleaning solution is one that bleaches from the inside.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Turn The Speculators Upside Down, Shake Briskl
    by Anonymous on Friday November 15 2002, @05:34AM (#10154)
    Sales of .info and .biz are lackluster, well below expectations dreamed in 2000. Verisign loses .org, and .com/.net reg numbers fall every day, and will continue to fall until the only remaining reg's include generic and easily-brandable names.

    The registries Afilias, Verisign, and Neulevel have been bitching to ICANN about lack of money. 3 new TLDs = initial cash injection, which all registries sorely need.

    Look for any "sponsored" TLD to remain slaved to one of the existing players.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Old Delusions and New TLDs
    by Anonymous on Sunday November 17 2002, @06:06PM (#10167)
    Let's see what's in my bag: .Health, .Travel, and .Kids Ho Ho Ho -$anta
    [ 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