Contracted Party House: Difference between revisions

Line 21:

== Criticism of the CPH ==

~~and plays~~ a ~~huge role in creating~~ the ~~dominance~~ of the ~~Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (~~[[ICANN]]~~) in the world of Domain Name systems.<ref>~~[~~http://www~~.~~circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against_icann_multistakeholder circleid.com]</ref>~~

In April, 2011, [[Avri Doria]], in a post on [[CircleID]], criticized the CPH for its lack of transparency and accountability, as called for by the [[ICANN Bylaws]] and its [[Multistakeholder Model]]. Registries argue that their contract is between themselves and ICANN, which should not include the medley of public opinion and comment. Their concern is that this external commentary affects their direct bargain and that it limits their say in their regulation, which will affect the Commercial as well as Non-Commercial users of the DNS in particular, and the ICANN community in general.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against_icann_multistakeholder circleid.com]</ref>

~~The CPH rejected~~ the ~~reporting and review process~~ of ~~the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names~~ and ~~Numbers (ICANN)~~. ~~It was mostly because CPH felt~~ that ~~the regulation policies of ICANN would affect~~ their direct bargain and ~~they will have a limited~~ say in their regulation, which will ~~also~~ affect the Commercial as well as Non-Commercial users of the DNS in particular and the ICANN community in general.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against_icann_multistakeholder circleid.com]</ref>

== References ==

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 == Criticism of the CPH ==
-and plays a huge role in creating the dominance of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ([[ICANN]]) in the world of Domain Name systems.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against_icann_multistakeholder circleid.com]</ref>
+In April, 2011, [[Avri Doria]], in a post on [[CircleID]], criticized the CPH for its lack of transparency and accountability, as called for by the [[ICANN Bylaws]] and its [[Multistakeholder Model]]. Registries argue that their contract is between themselves and ICANN, which should not include the medley of public opinion and comment. Their concern is that this external commentary affects their direct bargain and that it limits their say in their regulation, which will affect the Commercial as well as Non-Commercial users of the DNS in particular, and the ICANN community in general.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against_icann_multistakeholder circleid.com]</ref>
-The CPH rejected the reporting and review process of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). It was mostly because CPH felt that the regulation policies of ICANN would affect their direct bargain and they will have a limited say in their regulation, which will also affect the Commercial as well as Non-Commercial users of the DNS in particular and the ICANN community in general.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against_icann_multistakeholder circleid.com]</ref>
 == References ==