Comments on: ICANN, VeriSign make strange bedfellows

Tucows exec Ross Rader says proposal to end ICANN-VeriSign dispute could mean end of Net community's role in determining its future.

[peterb]

sweetheart contract

the body of contract language is laced with lawyer
terminology, but what comes thru clearly in Article 4, term of agreement, is that it "shall be renewed...on expiration...and each later term".
Thats a perpetual contract.
Article 6, Termination Provisions, Section 6.1, spells out that ICANN may terminate the contract "if and only if" RO fails to cure etc. Any way you cut it this contract benefits only VeriSign. The internet community is not provided any benefit of competition, forever.
Maybe giving control to the UN might be in everyone's best interest after all. At least you know the pirates would try to cut each others throats instead of just the users.

[JBerard]

ICANN drawing broad fire

Ross's comments are only the tip of a very large iceberg of criticism tracking ICANN. The scope is reflected in the demands, now met, to extend the public comment period and use next week's ICANN meeting in Vancouver as a public forum on the .com deal. The reaction is captured best at the Coaliton for ICANN Transparency's site (www.cfit.info).

But if I had to pick one ICANN sin among them all as the worst, I would say it is ignoring the bottom-up, consensus-driven, out-in-the-open decision-making that has been key to the growth of the internet.

[jatos]

ICANN drawing broad fire

Yep...

[BleedEdge005]

ICANN/VERISIGN deal only a start of CORRUPT attempt to control internet

There were other attempts to monopolise Internet market. Starting from Netscape's FAILED monopoly attempt on browser market. Claiming (too soon) that Microsoft is dead Netscape planned to charge the WHOLE WORLD $50 and up for EACH BROWSER. Netscape fell victim of not-dead-yet bigger monopolist Microsoft, when Bill Gates announced (was he scared sh*tless?) that browser will be 'free forever'. Then MSFT integrated browser into Windows OS.

In it's current version ICANN/VERISIGN deal - if approved - may become a signal to create new 'internet-monopoly-tolls'. Let's carge $50 for each static IP address, why not? Scheming maybe more complicated, but danger of abuse of monopoly is absolutely most serious.

Please send more comments like this to ICANN:

Verisign Settlement
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Verisign Settlement

Similar to other concerned parties- I join the strong opposition campain against the proposal that is in it's spirit and long term effect CORRUPT.

I'm writing to lodge strong opposition against the approval of the agreement between ICANN and Verisign.

We feel that:

* The ICANN Board of Directors, should not approve the agreement
between ICANN and Versign in its current form.
* The proposed .com renewal contract should be reworked to reflect
the Internet community's concerns.
* The gTLD namespaces are a public trust; no registry operator
should be given indefinite control over them, especially one as
important as .com.
* Any price increases by VeriSign's or any other registry should
be cost-based and subject to approval.
* All ICANN fees should continue to be approved by the Internet
community.
* Internet users should not have to pay an unreasonable "ICANN Tax" or pay more for domain names just to increase a single registry's
profits.

[jatos]

ICANN

Right I just read this on the ICANN's website.

"Pending public comment and full approval by the ICANN board, the proposed agreement settles many long standing points of tension between VeriSign and ICANN which have adversely affected the broader Internet community. It eliminates all pending litigation between the two parties, and - importantly for the community - more ICANN staff and resources can be devoted to ICANN's core functions, rather than to litigation with VeriSign over the terms of the .com registry agreement. In the future, in the event of a disagreement relating to the .com registry agreement, both sides will be able to make use of binding arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce."

One of ICANNS core function is .com, and reducing competition. This agreement goes right against ICANN's core functions.

[jatos]

ICANN/Verisign

Agreed...

[208774626618253979477959487856]

ICANN is evil

http://www.analogstereo.com/canadian_satellite_radio.htm