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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    ICANN's Creation of more sponsored TLDs | 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
    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: Please, No More TLDs...
    by IcannWatcher on Friday December 06 2002, @09:28PM (#10452)
    User #3568 Info
    There're probably going to be new tlds but they most probably are not going to be unrestricted gTlds; the time for this baby has run out. They're already talking about taxonomic models for DNS. Also, a new gTLD like .WEB would just be a repeat of .NET, which is not that successful even though run by the same registry as .com. So an argument that a better run registry would somehow make such a tld successful does not make sense. And, if this .WEB thing ever get its way into the official ICANN root system, one of the conditions will/should be that ALL the names be available to anyone who qualifies; the public/businesses will/should not be deprived of the prime names registered by .WEB speculators before the fact (it becoming an official tld). How would that be for fairness and open market competition?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Please, No More TLDs... by IcannWatcher
    Re: Please, No More TLDs...
    by Anonymous on Saturday December 07 2002, @04:30AM (#10453)
    "a new gTLD like .WEB would just be a repeat of .NET"

    Verisign has no motivation to influence or promote participation with .NET, especially away from .COM. It's a lame duck contract. They would only be assisting today some future competitor tomorrow....not a real wise allocation of resources.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Please, No More TLDs...
    by Anonymous on Saturday December 07 2002, @06:53AM (#10457)
    Thankfully, you're not in charge of competition laws. You're obviously also not an economist.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Yours is that specious argument, yet again.
    by Anonymous on Saturday December 07 2002, @07:36AM (#10459)

    Another nonsensical call for the deletion of current .WEB registrations. If IOD is approved as the .WEB registry for the Legacy root, and the .WEB registrations currently in existence are cancelled, that would be a breach of contract between IOD and its registrants. Quite illegal.

    Furthermore, ICANN cannot demand such an erasure of the databases for ICANN is not the vendor. IOD is. They simply do not function as the wholesaler. They function merely as the so-called technical gatekeeper.

    Additionally, your claim that .WEB registrants have registered their .WEB domains for resale is unsubstantiated. You have no evidence, except for two or three registrants that have put up a for sale sign in the whois. This represents an insignificant number if you've ever gone through the databases, and not exactly the most coveted names.

    Which registrants are speculating? Which are not? Do you delete everyone from the registry because a percentage are speculators? Are you willing to do that with .COM, .NET, .ORG, .TV, .CC, .INFO, .BIZ, .US, etc?

    Furthermore, even if every IOD registrant is indeed a speculator, there is no law or policy against such activity either in the gTLD industry or in others. So any database wipe done on the grounds of the preemption of speculation would be, again, quite illegal.

    Do you really think that .WEB WON'T be a TLD with speculators if the database as it currently stands is deleted? At least the original registrants registered with the awareness that there was not a 100 percent guarantee that IOD would be approved. If a clean .WEB registry was opened up, there would be far more speculators jumping on board than had jumped on board in 1996.

    When .WEB was opened up in 1996, speculators, as such, were not really an issue in the domain market. Hence, the original .WEB registrants are less likely to be speculators than any registrants that come along hereafter. Business.COM didn't sell until 1999. Prior to that, speculation wasn't much of a concept.

    Seems to me there is a greater collection of legitimate registrations in existence right now than would be represented by any new nameholders for the already-registered .WEB domains.

    But what do you care of any of this? You want to get your hands on your choice .WEB domains so you can sell them yourself.

    Incidentally, your notion of "an official TLD" is flawed. Is a TLD any less legitimate just because it is not in the Legacy root? Is a private business less legitimate than one sponsored by the government? .WEB already exists in a root. The infrastructure of the registry exists. The domains of that registry are available in an existing root system. Now it's simply a matter of enabling the Legacy root to resolve those names as well.






    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re: Yours is that specious argument, yet again.
      by Anonymous on Saturday December 07 2002, @08:04AM (#10460)
      Someone also pointed out that IOD doesn't allow transfers. How can there be speculators if the registry won't allow them to sell the domain?

      So much for that argument.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re: Yours is that specious argument, yet again.
        by Anonymous on Saturday December 07 2002, @08:35AM (#10461)

        I generally hear a lot of noise from those who oppose current .WEB registrations; and yet they never offer up legal, historical or ethical precedent for a registration wipe.

        Zero, zip, nada.

        At most, they offer up ambiguous, amorphous platitudes based upon theory, supposition, rumor and emotionalism. Nothing more. They propose an aggressive and unjustifiable take-over, as such, through corruption and abusive control. And their rationality is founded upon immoral justification disquised as moral justification.

        Simply put, they want .WEB registrants to take it up their respective asses because -- well -- just because.

        Remarkable dialectic, isn't it?

        No, it's not. It's nothing but rank, meaningless spew.



        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Yep
          by Anonymous on Saturday December 07 2002, @09:21PM (#10470)

          Yep, the burden of proof would seem to be on the accusers.

          1) Prove that .web registrants are speculators.
          2) State chapter and verse that explains that speculating is illegal, in the event that a given .web registrant IS speculating.
          3) Provide a legitimate reason to void current registrations.
          4) Provide legal precedent for a database erasure.
          5) Provide precedent in policy for a database erasure.
          6) Find within ICANN's bylaws the chapter and verse that explains that ICANN reserves the right to nullify registrations, en masse, of another party's (i.e. registry's) client base -- particularly as relates to good faith registrations of generic domains.

          Indeed, the burden of proof is upon those demanding a database erasure. The burden is not upon registrants to explain their registrations.

          Given that the respective .web domains were registered in good faith and in accordance with the registry's Terms of Agreement, who will compensate registrants for the voidance of their domains?

          ICANN and IOD can expect to be held liable for invalid deletions of registrations.
          Furthermore, given the fact that XYZ.web was legitimately registered and the domain was comandeered by a NEW registrant, the NEW registrant might very well be open to a lawsuit for possessing something illegitimately and illegally.

          Additionally, anyone who goes on the record to accuse another of speculating in the aftermarket with his .webs, is open to liable and slander charges in the absence of evidence.

          Erase the database? Just try.




          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re: Yep
            by Anonymous on Saturday December 07 2002, @09:26PM (#10471)

            Not to mention that IOD took registrations under the direct sanction and direction of IANA in 1996 as part of the first TLD application process, ultimately abandoned.

            That would seem authority enough, if IOD actually HAS TO have the authority of another entity simply to open up shop -- which, of course, it does not.

            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            wow...
            by Anonymous on Sunday December 08 2002, @10:58AM (#10485)
            it's simply amazing to find that people are stupid enough to complain about others registering their desired domains before them, and protest that the database should, therefore, be erased...

            ever go to a store to find that what you wanted was sold out? does that mean that everyone who got there before you and bought one should be stripped of it so that you can have an equal chance?

            you've got a nice car there. i want it. you have to forfeit it so that we have an equal chance at obtaining ownership.

            how about message boards like this one? should i have the database erased so that i can get your user name? and if i can, what's to stop me from having you erased so that i can have an equal shot at your name, or, better yet, your entire life?

            and who's to stop someone else from following in my footsteps and erasing everything for their purposes? face the facts: if .web database is erased, everything else in recorded history becomes free game, too. and if that's the case, i get first dibs on inventing the light bulb... or is that unfair, as well, because you want to invent it and i spoke up first?
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re: Yours is that specious argument, yet again.
      by Anonymous on Sunday December 08 2002, @12:50AM (#10474)
      The .web deletion argument is bizarre.


      Its like saying that speculators who wait until its a sure thing should somehow be granted a time machine and those that supported it in the formative stages should lose out because thats "fair".

      fair seems to be a position relative to ones own.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re: Yours is that specious argument, yet again.
        by Anonymous on Sunday December 08 2002, @06:49AM (#10479)
        Correct.

        Should we clear out .com, now that there are some new people on the Internet?

        Those who support clearing .web are making an argument for sunrise, in effect: giving special treatment.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Sunrise is not the same as a .web database wipe.
          by Anonymous on Sunday December 08 2002, @08:15AM (#10480)

          It's beyond Sunrise.

          Sunrise is preferential treatment, but it still involves an empty database.

          Clearing out the .web registry is nothing short of a take-over of already existing registrations. The .web database is still relatively virginal when compared to .com, etc., but it does include occupied space.

          The Sunrise process is relatively benign compared to a wipe of the .web database. In the case of the wipe, there are tangible victims, actual people who are damaged.

          It's time for ICANN to act positively. It's time for their clear vested interests, intertwined with corruption and deceipt, to be abandoned in favor of what is right, fair and just.

          You are a bought man, Mr. Stuart Lynn. The whole lot on the Board are bought men and women. November 2000 proved that beyond question.

          Kraaijenbrink and Fitzsimmons are the worst of the worst, not even bothering to hide their prejudices.

          They talk about IOD not having any rights, and yet they are themselves illegal Board squatters.

          Except that IOD DOES have rights, both moral and legal; whereas, Kraaijenbrink is acting counter to ICANN's bylaws.









          [ 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