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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Chat With Esther Dyson Online | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 56 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: Chat With Esther Dyson Online
    by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Tuesday November 19 2002, @06:24AM (#10187)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    1. I fail to see how this is a failing. You are basing this on Stuart Lynn's arbitrary position of allowing sponsored only in the next round. This is a position of dubious merit at best.

    2. You make this claim, yet you provide no facts to back it up. How have IOD not proven technical ability? They have a functioning registry. Where is it deficient?

    The specific reasons cited in the 2000 evaluation were quite wrong. Andersen's evaluation was shown to be incorrect. The technical evaluation was shown to be incorrect. Compare IOD's application to Afilias's, and you will see that their underlying systems were virtually identical. Ironic, that, as Afilias chose not to implement that system and, instead, implemented a system that did not work.

    Your facts are, in short, made up.

    Please cite some real ones. I'll even start you off: Is IOD's back-end database deficient in any way? Can their system not handle anticipated load? Do they lack bandwidth? Is their TPM too low? Is their zone server plan lacking in any way?

    Come on, just one solid fact, will you?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: What Utter Bullshit ...
    by Anonymous on Tuesday November 19 2002, @10:25AM (#10196)
    The ICANN Directors fucked IOD because IOD wanted to keep the registry and registrar together. Per Hans Kraaijenbrink: "This application goes against everything we've worked for. I'm surprised it was submitted in the first place."

    It had little or nothing to do with IOD's technical side. Dyson could have gone for IOD, but she didn't give enough of a crap about the whole deal. What a cow she turned out to be.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Chat With Esther Dyson Online
    by Anonymous on Tuesday November 19 2002, @08:51PM (#10210)
    Your thesis is that IOD is losing on two counts.

    1) Count one: that IOD's .web is an unsponsored-unrestricted TLD.

    That's correct. It is. And as such, it offers the marketplace genuine competition. Though Stuart Lynn vilifies unsponsored-unrestricted domains henceforth, it is this broad, universal open namespace that offers a viable threat to the bread and butter that is .com, .info and .biz to their respective registries. If Lynn is successful, .web, as an open TLD, won't threaten the much-protected coffers.

    2) Count two: that IOD has not proven technical ability.

    It hasn't? It is an operating registry. Which other applicant had databases purchased, much less turned on, during November 2000's application period? Even Afilias didn't, and we saw the consequences of this.

    Conversely, IOD's systems have been running since 1996 and have undergone upgrades continually.

    Additionally, IOD's application was misquoted by Arthur Andersen, and, without tangible substantiation, IOD was denigrated as being technologically ill-equipped. Many of Arthur Andersen's "findings" were based on factual error, supposition, prejudice and self-interest.

    Where is the several hundred page report that Arthur Andersen was REQUIRED to present, which enumerated and detailed the bases for its findings? It has not been published anywhere, and I doubt that it exists. Any surprises here? Was it even written? I am willing to bet money that it wasn't, because their findings were determined in advance and there was no doubt little data to legitimately support those findings.

    Furthermore, IOD's application contained various positive attributes that Arthur Andersen ignored even though Arthur Andersen praised Afilias' application for containing identical attributes.

    Look, does anyone really have to question Arthur Andersen's corruption? Does anyone have to question the vested interest it had in condemning IOD's application whilst praising Afilias'? It's all rather clear, isn't it? Afilias was chosen by ICANN because of Arthur Andersen's commentary -- and immediately thereafter, Afilias named Arthur Andersen as its auditing firm.

    I can't believe that this plot detail is ignored by opponents to IOD.

    More revisionism. Is anyone really surprised.

    You may have a differing opinion regarding IOD, .web, and expanding namespace, but none of what I have said can be logically refuted. It is all a matter of the public record.

    And yet the author of the post I have just responded to thinks it's adequate to say, with absolute simplicity and without supporting evidence, that IOD lost its bid for .web because "it has not proven technical ability."

    IOD lost its bid for .web because ICANN, Arthur Andersen and Afilias all wanted it to. Nothing more, nothing less. You act as though this is unprecedented in history. The history of politics and corporate game-playing is replete with examples.












    [ 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