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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 68 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: M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains
    by Anonymous on Friday January 11 2002, @06:14AM (#4531)
    This sounds like the best way to introduce new TLDs. It will lessen the fear that a new TLD will be overrun by squatters and speculators (.info), or will falter at the start because of failed IP protection plans (.biz). .museum appears to be working really well, and due to the restricted nature of the TLD, should have less problems with cybersquatting.

    I think the only way new tlds will be approved is under a restricted model like .museum, .coop, .aero. Too many problems on all sides with wide open tlds like .info & .biz. Restricted TLDs reduce the chances of squatters, and make trademark owners happy.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re: M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains
      by Anonymous on Friday January 11 2002, @06:38AM (#4533)
      Gosh, as long as trademark owners are happy...

      Silly me, I thought the Internet was for all of us. Looks like the next big business will be registering trademarks...you won't be able to get a decent domain name without one.

      Shelby Hudgens
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re: M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains
      by Anonymous on Friday January 11 2002, @08:31AM (#4537)
      Who says .museum is doing well? I'm betting that it turns into nothing but a front for museum shops and catalogs.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re: Have you even looked at index.museum?
        by Anonymous on Friday January 11 2002, @10:43AM (#4539)
        Take a look at the .museum site. There are many museums (not museum shops) using the domain. It looks like it will be a popular TLD for museums. This is a good model for how new TLDs should be introduced. Congrats to the .museum people.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re: Have you even looked at index.museum?
          by Anonymous on Saturday January 12 2002, @09:24AM (#4574)
          There is already at least one commercial store under .museum: http://metropolitan.art.museum/store/index.asp

          In other words we are already seeing evidence that the .museum TLD is just a high-class wrapper and facade for retail sales outlets.

          And what has this to do with "technical coordination" or the "stability" of the Internet?
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re: Have you even looked at index.museum?
          by Anonymous on Sunday January 13 2002, @01:53AM (#4577)
          The store that mention is on a valid website for the MET in New York. The difference that you see with that these sites is they are used by museums and not squatters and speculators like in .biz and .info. .museum is already a success, and naysayers like you will always find something to belittle or gripe about. .museum= real websites & no squatters, .info= few real websites, lots of squatting.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday January 11 2002, @06:24AM (#4532)
    User #2810 Info
    I was perhaps too intemperate in my comment about the ICANN BoD. I couldn't help it. Everyone from rock stars to athletes to professional wrestlers to, for all I know, the Royal Family, or for that matter, porn queens, has their own bobblehead dolls. It seems a perfect fit. Jonathan Cohen nodding off, other Board members agreeing to minutes they haven't read, or wide-ranging proposals like those regarding new TLDs that, at best, they've only scanned as the staff has provided them at the last minute. Perhaps this is a niche market for some speculator to sell via their khjrto87udsf2.org domain until someone meets their minimum asking bid of $75,000. OTOH, action figures are probably a non-starter. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains
    by Anonymous on Friday January 11 2002, @07:08AM (#4534)
    Yes, let's do just restricted TLDs. It makes sense, after all, we have to protect the market for .com and .info and .biz, as the owners of those registries were ICANN's biggest contributors. We can't allow any more competition for them!

    Can anyone say antitrust?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re: M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains
      by Anonymous on Friday January 11 2002, @10:45AM (#4541)
      there is plenty of competition in cctLDs. We don't need new avenues for squatters to run rampant.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re: M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains
        by Anonymous on Friday January 11 2002, @12:56PM (#4543)
        There are plenty of opportunities for local free presses. We don't need any more newspapers or television or radio stations for people who hold opinions that I don't like to run rampant.

        Right?
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re: New TLDs
          by Anonymous on Saturday January 12 2002, @02:01AM (#4562)
          There plenty of domain names available under the current system, we don't need to have lots of open, universal TLDs. .com, .net, .org, .info look to be enough. If ICANN introduces new TLDs, they should be limited to specific groups.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re: New TLDs
            by Anonymous on Saturday January 12 2002, @08:57AM (#4571)
            Except for the fact that if ICANN makes such a limit, they're restricting what legally should be a free market. That's against the law in the United States, and that's where ICANN is.

            Philosophically, you may be right. But it's too late for philosophy. Once ICANN allowed Afilias and Neulevel in to the market, they had to allow more in. If there's a problem, they'd have to remove .info and .biz (and most likely .com as well).

            They can't do that.
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re: No requirement to let everyone in
              by Anonymous on Sunday January 13 2002, @01:58AM (#4578)
              If ICANN & DoC say that they shouldn't add new unrestricted TLDs, then that is not being anticompetitive, they are regulating. Just because some new TLDs are added, does not mean that they have to add one for every group that bids. Decisions have to be made, which was add 7 new TLDs, see how they work, and maybe add more. ICANN hasn't said they won't add new TLDs, just that any new TLDs will likely be restricted to groups so that we can all avoid the conflicts that have appeared with .info & .biz. If you don't like it, there are plenty of ccTLDs selling domains.
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
                ICANN spin
                by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Sunday January 13 2002, @01:23PM (#4582)
                User #2810 Info
                Anon writes:

                ...any new TLDs will likely be restricted to groups so that we can all avoid the conflicts that have appeared with .info & .biz. That's the line that ICANN seems to be spinning, but it doesn't necessarily follow for a number of reasons. First, .biz and .info are just two ways of doing it, surely there are other models and methods that could/should be tried. Second, .biz and .info were restricted in some ways, and continue to be in others. Third, using sunrise and using a lottery were problematic from the get-go, it isn't surprising to some that they were/are beset by problems. ICANN, or at least Mr. Cerf and Mr. Lynn, would have us believe that they gave open gTLDs their best shot and it didn't work. If the .biz and .info fiascos were ICANN's best shots, this isn't an argument for not allowing more new open gTLDs so much as an argument for allowing someone else to create new open TLDs properly.

                ICANN holding a monopoly gifted by the USG means either that that won't happen, or that those opposing the ICANN/USG monopoly will route around it. I don't see the latter happening over this issue alone, but add it up with others past, present, and future, and the rest of the world may well eventually have to build their own sandbox.

                If you don't like it, there are plenty of ccTLDs selling domains.
                Quite so. I've said that ICANN's unwillingness and/or inability to scale the gTLD namespace properly provides an incentive to ccTLDs, both open and restricted, to grow into the vacuum and we are already seeing signs of that. Veri$ign can be called many things, but stupid isn't one of them. They bought .tv and .cc for a reason. Ditto for 'alt roots' or various DNS overlays. Veri$ign has a stake in RealNames, for example, and I suspect that that will increase to complete control real soon now.

                ICANN is monopolistic, so is Veri$ign, where their interests overlap they either make deals or fight it out using various methods, often underhanded. Neither party cares one whit for the end-consumer. Where their interests don't overlap or interfere they are left to run free with little control, again benefitting themselves at the end-consumer's expense. This false dichotomy is a great racket for both of them. We are led to believe they keep each other honest, with the USG there as a backup to watch both of them. That is all an illusion. The principal powers in both monopolies continue to make gobs of money, and the USG powers get campaign contributions and maintain, even increase, control of the net. A very cozy relationship that all the talk in the world won't change. -g

                [ Reply to This | Parent ]
                  Re: No requirement to let everyone in
                  by Anonymous on Sunday January 13 2002, @01:40PM (#4583)
                  Actually, there now is such a requirement. ICANN and DoC have created this market in such a way that they're responsible to the law governing markets.

                  The day will come that they're forced to either open it up or shut it all down.

                  And, once again, ICANN is not a regulator. ICANN is specifically not a regulator, in fact.
                  [ Reply to This | Parent ]
                    Yes !!! People are making lots of money doing very
                    by Anonymous on Sunday January 13 2002, @03:45PM (#4599)
                    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
                    The day is coming when people will ignore it all
                    by Anonymous on Sunday January 13 2002, @03:46PM (#4600)
                    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
                    Re: ICANN is a regulator
                    by Anonymous on Monday January 14 2002, @03:04AM (#4605)
                    Technical coordination is the same as regulation, and whether they are "technically" a regulator, ICANN decisions have the effect of regulation of the Internet.
                    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
                      Re: ICANN is a regulator
                      by Anonymous on Monday January 14 2002, @04:49AM (#4607)
                      You obviously don't grasp the implications of being found a market regulator as it relates to unfair competition.
                      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
                        Re: ICANN is a regulator
                        by Anonymous on Monday January 14 2002, @07:42AM (#4617)
                        ICANN has nothing to worry about since the competition is not unfair.
                        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
                          Re: ICANN is a regulator
                          by Anonymous on Monday January 14 2002, @07:45AM (#4618)
                          There are applicants for unrestricted TLDs that were denied access to the market based on false information.

                          That's unfair. It's also illegal. Give it time.
                          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
                ICANN is covered - They just recommend - The roots
                by Anonymous on Sunday January 13 2002, @03:47PM (#4601)
                [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re: M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains
              by Anonymous on Friday January 11 2002, @07:28AM (#4536)
              ICANN has over 20 applications for generic TLDs still pending, for which the applicants paid $50,000 each. ICANN has said many times that these applications have not been turned down, but were simply not approved in the first round.

              Now ICANN says no more rounds for them.

              Do they get their $50,000 back? If not, isn't that a breach of the contract that they signed?

              ICANN needs to be sued, I agree.
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re: M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains
              by Anonymous on Friday January 11 2002, @09:12AM (#4538)

              Technical oversight? It's more like market making and that makes them liable in my book!

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re: M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains
              by Anonymous on Friday January 11 2002, @11:50AM (#4542)
              This is fantastic! After I got a bunch of good .INFO names, Lynn puts the kabash on future rounds of unrestricted TLDs. Muaahahahahahaaaa! This is great for the value of my .INFO names. Thanks Stu! The resale value of unrestricted domains just skyrocketed. Yippee! Hey, I'm not squatter, just got a few good generics ... know what I mean?
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              New.Net showed ICANN how to do it - ICANN was out-
              by Anonymous on Friday January 11 2002, @01:40PM (#4546)
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              New.Net? You've got to be kidding!
              by Anonymous on Friday January 11 2002, @01:48PM (#4549)
              New.net is nothing more than a database of opportunistic squatters.

              Until they have the vast majority of the Internet able to see their domains, they're worthless.
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              http://www.mox1.com << FREE - ICANN can not compe
              by Anonymous on Friday January 11 2002, @01:50PM (#4550)

              http://www.mox1.com << FREE - ICANN can not compete
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              .WEB is restricted - ICANN censors it really well
              by Anonymous on Friday January 11 2002, @05:36PM (#4557)
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re: M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains
              by Anonymous on Saturday January 12 2002, @02:24AM (#4567)
              Ha! All you suckers who plopped down good money on New.net. Ha! Can't wait 'till New.net goes under and leave those chumps who run their forum holding their dicks in their hands.
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re: M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains / RF
              by Anonymous on Saturday January 12 2002, @05:10AM (#4568)
              From this article it's clear that ICANN's honchos should refrain from making public statements on radical policy ideas before consulting the Board first.

              Some additional comments regarding the original NEWS.COM article can be found here.

              ICANN deserves watching, and definately requires adult supervision.

              rick
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              It's typical ICANN policy
              by Anonymous on Saturday January 12 2002, @09:03AM (#4573)
              ICANN has done this so many times, it's a wonder everyone doesn't recognize it for what it is!

              ICANN wants to do "A"

              They publish an interview or something where someone says, "Well, it sure looks like we should do 'A' and there's lots of consensus for it!" Never mind that there isn't. Remember, that's just what ICANN wants to do.

              If they get good feedback, they then do "A" and say, "See, we told you there was consensus! That's all we do!"

              If they get bad feedback, they first say, "Hey, look, we're just exploring "A," it's not for sure. We need more dialog with stakeholders."

              Then, weeks or months later, they say, "See, we told you there was consensus! Sure, there was a lot of dissent at first, but we've talked to everyone, and there's broad consensus for "A!" Now, don't listen to the malcontents and the troublemakers like Karl Auerbach, as they're just trying to tear down the process we've created. Everyone is happy about "A," just ask these trademark lawyers over here, and the entrenched players over there, and look, even Verisign is happy about "A," after we renegotiated with them and gave them more of what they want. What's the controversy? Next issue!"

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Follow the Money ~~~~~~ ICANN Does
              by Anonymous on Sunday January 13 2002, @01:18PM (#4581)

              Mike Roberts once said that ICANN listens to 5 or 6
              sources to develop their consensus. It should not
              be too hard to figure out who those 5 or 6 are and
              why they will keep ICANN going for as long as there
              are people willing to pay for domain names.

              http://www.icann.org/financials/gtld-contribution-chart-01-02.htm

              Network Solutions, Inc. Registrar
              $269,179.28

              register.com, Inc.
              $66,172.13

              Tucows, Inc.
              $49,632.26

              BulkRegister.com, Inc.
              $30,951.65

              Melbourne IT, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide
              $25,688.83
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

              ICANN views this as competition. Stuart Lynn
              banks his $250,000 per year salary for doing what?
              Keep in mind that Stuart said that Mike Roberts
              said that to prepare for an ICANN Meeting, he
              needs to make sure he has one controversial
              topic raised. Three or four times a year, Stuart
              Lynn has to toss out something for people to
              discuss. It all gives people the impression that
              ICANN is doing something and people are
              participating.

              The pattern is clear, people are just being used.

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Pulling Strings
              by Anonymous on Sunday January 13 2002, @08:13PM (#4603)
              Stuart wants this, Stuart wants that. It's all want "Stuart" wants, actually it's more like what those who pull Stuart's strings want!

              All what Stuart wants. Remember Stuart's bullshit discussion paper that all of sudden becomes ICANN policy? Invented mind you!

              What ever happened to the August 8, 2001 Reconsideration Request of Michael Froomkin and Jonathan Weinberg?
              It's been more than 30 days!
              Typical ICANN, so much for the rules

              No matter though we know the request will be denied like all others.
              Hans and company will see to that!


              "ICANN be Bought and Paid For"


              It wouldn't surprise me if someday they discovered a little something tucked away in an offshore haven considering the way these people have conducted themselves throughout.

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Can anyone answer: What does the ICANN Staff DO ea
              by Anonymous on Monday January 14 2002, @05:51AM (#4610)

              Can anyone answer: What does the ICANN Staff DO each day ???

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Arthur Anderson
              by Anonymous on Monday January 14 2002, @07:46AM (#4619)
              Didn't AA do ICANN's application workup? Didn't they fail to give any source material? Rumor had it that ICANN had it destroyed after writing the staff summary. In light of what's going on with Enron, this is very easy to believe.
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              The world would be a better place IF
              by Anonymous on Tuesday January 15 2002, @06:06AM (#4638)

              The world would be a better place IF

              IF ICANN would just step forward and say,
              "We are a small closed society of people who have
              become very accomplished at controlling the critical
              resources of the Internet for our own financial gain.
              We are also very accomplished at using the
              U.S. Government as a tool to promote our views,
              to give us funding on demand, to protect us from
              any detractors, and to take our word as gospel
              when it comes to operating the Internet. Anyone
              that joins our closed clique will prosper financially.
              Anyone who opposes us will be systematically
              black-balled in any way we can, to ruin the person
              financially, socially, etc. We have gotten away
              with this since time began and will get away with
              it forever. You have three choices. 1. Quietly
              accept this reality and pay us money. 2. Oppose
              us and face our wrath which is boundless and
              ruthless. 3. Leave our Internet. Do not try to
              join us, membership is very exclusive and is by
              invitation only. Our society views most humans
              as animals and not worthy of being in our club.
              Thank you for playing, have a nice day."
              [ 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