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    This discussion has been archived.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 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, @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