M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains
Date: Friday January 11 2002, @05:53AM
Topic: gTLDs hoping to enter the legacy root

fnord writes "So he tells Reuters, covered by Yahoo and similarily, CNET. Karl Auerbach disagrees."

Bret Fausett reminds us that there are a few days left to provide our own input on the new TLD evaluation process, even if Lynn has already made up his mind. The public responses to date via the ICANN forum have been few and far between. Rather strange considering that ICANN's new TLD rollout has been savaged repeatedly by just about everyone, just about everywhere else. Or is it such an obvious waste of time, with most assuming the Sims Toutonic army of bobblehead dolls (AKA the ICANN BoD) is already on the nod. -g

This discussion has been archived.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 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 / RF
by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Saturday January 12 2002, @06:27AM (#4569)
User #2810 Info
Rick, your additional comments link didn't work, I found it in maillog directory here. Good rant. :) -g
[ 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 ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 17 replies beneath your current threshold.




  • This article comes from ICANNWatch
    http://www.icannwatch.org/

    The URL for this story is:
    http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/11/095341