Talk:ICANN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject California / Los Angeles (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Los Angeles task force (marked as Low-importance).
 

ICANN privatization[edit]

Meanwhile, ICANN is seeking to privatize itself, withdrawing from its connections to the US Government and the US Department of Commerce. -- considering this, I keep wondering how, in lieu of this morning's news (see Slashdot), just how the United Nations would plan on taking over this organization and its tasks if the ITU gets what it wants. --69.234.232.55 04:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

Is there any reason not to move this to Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers? Most of the other related bodies IETF, IESG, IANA, etc are all at their full names. Noel (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not? I can't find any one or argument that favors the abbreviated name. True, we have heard of ICANN but also never heard of the long name, but in wikipedia I think we use an official name, right? -- Taku 22:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) for what we do in Wikipedia. Uncle G 09:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm. Good point. I guess ICANN is probably better known as "ICANN", but then I suppose one could say the same about the others. Oh well, I'm just gonna throw up my hands, and let someone else chose! :-) Noel (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move Ardenn 17:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move[edit]

There was an improperly formatted requested move on WP:RM from the current article state (ICANN) to Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

with the comment

as its the full name of the org it should be used. Currently orl redirect prevents move change by users.

Completing request here - please give your opinions below. WhiteNight T | @ | C 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. The official name is the right one for the article title. --Coolcaesar 18:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia naming conventions say the most commonly used name should be used, and that's definitely ICANN. See CNN, BBC and so forth. There's absolutely no logical reason to spellt he whole thing out. The official body uses ICANN in its own correspondence. DreamGuy 22:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the reasons DreamGuy has already given. ICANN is usually called ICANN, and refers to itself as ICANN most of the time. --Zundark 11:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency with IETF, IANA, IAB, IESG and so on --Alvestrand 21:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV regarding ICANN/WIPO politics[edit]

The second half of the section "Arguments about ICANN" contains useful information and ought not, I think, be deleted. Still, it requires significant cleanup to conform to NPOV. Note especially the reference to UDRP as "hideous", the unsubstantiated claim that "many experts" believe ICANN is a "corrupt monopoly", and the direct propounding of questionably relevant free-market principles in the last paragraph. -- 71.198.187.155 23:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried for a cleanup. The anger shown by the anti-ICANN activists is worth describing, but it's not the whole story. --Alvestrand 05:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently 65.116.201.98 (talk · contribs) didn't like my version - [1] - but Tim Starling (talk · contribs) did - [2]. I hope 65 is willing to take it to the talk page. --Alvestrand 05:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
24.148.29.239 (talk · contribs) is apparently of the same opinion as 65, and as untalkative. [3]. The original section was inserted by 68.60.152.232 (talk · contribs) on June 1 [4]; it seems likely to be one user with an unstable IP address. --Alvestrand 08:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Still no argument for the edits in response to User talk:65.116.201.98, who keeps on reverting. Suggestions for a next step? --Alvestrand 22:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
There are no more arguments to be made, dude. ICANN is a corrupt monopoly and anyone who keeps deleting the truths that have been posted in the "arguments" section is either a paid lackey for ICANN or has a vested interest in the monopoly. The information posted is FACTUAL and not a POV, therefore such a warning doesnt belong. These are FACTS, not opinions. JusticeForICANNsVictims 21:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Prove it. You should be able to dig up citations to at least a couple of high-quality sources on LexisNexis or Infotrac or ProQuest if your "facts" are so ubiquitous. Please see core Wikipedia policies at WP:NPOV and WP:V. For an example of a properly sourced Wikipedia article, see Lawyer. --Coolcaesar 21:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Proof - do I need to prove that the sun will rise every day or that gravity exists. These are ubiquitous facts - everyone knows them. Only synchophants, lackeys and people with a vested interest in ICANN would not see this. You want a fact: How about the theft of .BIZ from AtlanticRoot (Leah Gallegos)? That business property was already in use and ICANN stole it on purpose to create namespace instability. DIS-prove that one! JusticeForICANNsVictims 04:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is what's called a proof surrogate, not proof, you twit. You're inferring evil intent on the part of ICANN when you have no internal memoranda or transcripts or other smoking guns that would show such an intent. Acts standing alone are never enough for intent especially when ICANN has many legitimate explanations such as acting to protect the stability of the Internet. Please bring your editing contributions into compliance with the following policies (and you need to click on these links and READ THEM): WP:NPOV; WP:V; WP:NOT. Or else you will be banned by the admins.--Coolcaesar 05:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I just remembered what you remind me of. To make it painfully clear, WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You cannot post your conspiracy theory about ICANN on Wikipedia until it is published in a verifiable publication somewhere else. If the New York Times were to run a front-page article tomorrow on ICANN being evil and having an ulterior motive of destroying alternate roots to ensure profit for Verisign, then your crazy conspiracy theories could be posted in the article. --Coolcaesar 06:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Genesis 1:28+1/3 And God said, "Let there be ICANN"; and there was ICANN. 28+2/3 And God saw that it was kind of lol-worthy, from a certain point of view. 70.49.147.139 (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
WRT Leah Gallegos and .biz - it's not clear that the property ICANN assigned was related in any way to what Leah Gallegos was selling. The Gallegos .biz was only one of multiple claimants among the "alternate root" crowd - I see no logic under which ICANN could have acknowledged any of those claims as valid. And so far, it seems that nobody's even tried to challenge that judgment call. --Alvestrand 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

ICANN Internationalized[edit]

An article published by TheRegister (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/27/ntia_icann_meeting/) (referenced by a slashdot entry today) claims that ICANN has been internationalized. According to Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060727-7366.html) at 17:21 GMT, this is inaccurate. US control should continue for at least a year according to Ars Technica. Perhaps someone more wikipedia-knowledgeable than I am should add a comment clarifying this (such as "Contrary to some reports, control of ICANN has not been internationalized[1]->arstechnica.") --Whiteknox 17:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a single definition of "internationalized" that makes such a statement make sense. The US DoC insists on having a certain control over ICANN's actions through its "contract" - but ICANN's internal processes don't give the US any special role. So it's not easily described as "internationalized" or "not internationalized", I think. --Alvestrand 18:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It would be important to define internationalized as the word in itself is ambiguous; For your information most of the current people assigned to the Board of Directors for ICANN are not american but truly an international panel. The EU as well as the US are far from having come up with any logical alternative to the current situation. --Creationist Phil 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Many US companies have non-American on the board, but that does not mean they are not American. Many models exist for the internationalisation of ICAAN's operations, which the US DoC has oversight. These models are such organisations as the International Telecommunications Union or the IEEE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.71.55 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Internet democracy[edit]

Re the statement: "However, the attempts that ICANN made to set up an organizational structure that would allow wide input from the global Internet community did not work well;" -- this just doesn't ring true. I recall there was a claim from some official in ICANN in this respect, but it seemed to be actually in response to some in the ICANN board not wanting to deal with any actual democratic control of their decision making. They seemed to translate an election mechanism they designed not working out into there being no possibility of such a mechanism working (in other words, they inexplicably gave up). Hopefully, we can eventually improve this part of the article. —  Stevie is the man!  TalkWork 16:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's relatively clear that the mechanism they designed did not work out, and that they gave up on "direct democracy" - I don't know that we can conclude that this was either justified or unjustified. There's still the ongoing "at large community" effort - more or less ICANN saying "if you can figure out a way to do this that makes sense, we will support it". So far, there's been no effective self-organization that I know of. --Alvestrand 19:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
WARNING: INTERESTED PARTY - The issue of voting is something that I struggle with a great deal. One of the problems when having such a broad multi-stakeholder process is that the diversity and lack of borders makes it very difficult to set up a fair vote. Theortically EVERYONE in the world is a stakeholder, but giving everyone in the world to vote would be impossible. During an election many years ago, the some Japanese Internet community people urged companies to tell their employees to vote for the Japanese candidate. Other countries did just open web sites. Was it "fair" for the Japanese companies to ask their employees to vote? In Japan, corporate voting blocks are a "normal" part of the democracy. In some countries it sounds very weird.
My personal view is that voice is more important than votes. When everyone is in the room and we have the "open mic" anyone can come and make their statements. They can address the board or anyone in the room. The public dialog has more influence on people's opinions than anything that I know of. (Although I follow up by trying to track down sources and doing my own research.)
I strongly believe that we have a balanced board that represents a variety of background and people who vote based on the information available and the public dialog. I think that ICANN should be viewed more as a custodian of a consensus process of people who have interests and opinions and NOT a democracy with elected representatives. The board should serve to try to manage the consensus process and vote objectively and not as a representative of a particular interest.
This is my personal view. --Joi 07:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC) ICANN Board Member

Weasel Words[edit]

I've tried valiantly to remove some of the weasel words in this article but it's really difficult, the entire section about alternatives to ICANN was it's own article at one point which I successfully lobbied to have merged here but it still exists solely as independent research and opinion. I've tried to change "some claim" with X's website as a reference to "X claims" with X's website as a reference but it's an ongoing effort. Elomis 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I successfully removed the weasel words from the "Arguments Section"Wolface (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Internationalization[edit]

I am removing this section as it currently stands as it is plainly out-of-date. I archive it below for reference.

===Internationalization===
It has been suggested publicly that ICANN should internationalize, in that it should be seen as an international public organization and should remove historical contractual links to the U.S. Government and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
To counteract this argument, supporters note that of the 15 voting members of the ICANN Board of Directors, it currently has board members from six continents, and has only four US Directors:
  • ICANN Chairman, Vint Cerf, a noted "Father of the Internet" who was appointed by ICANN's Nominating Committee;
  • Rita Rodin, a New York attorney who was appointed by ICANN's Generic Name Supporting Organization or GNSO in 2006;
  • Steven N. Goldstein, who retired from the National Science Foundation in 2003, was selected by the 2006 Nominating Committee to serve as a Board Member.
  • Susan Crawford, Associate Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School in New York City, was appointed to the Board by the Nominating Committee in 2005.
The authority that the U.S. Government holds via contracts with ICANN and Commerce stems from the historical role of the United States in creating the Internet. Support from National Top Level Domain Internet registries has improved drastically in 2006.

Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

ICANN requests independence[edit]

I'm not sure how to work in [this bit of news], about ICANN's administrators saying they have met the requirements set by the US government to become independent of government control. I will leave that for editors with more experience on this article. TechBear (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found a very good article questioning this. Careful What You Wish For: Why ICANN "Independence" is a Bad Idea, By Jeremy Rabkin, Jun 22, 2009 6:50PM PDT CaribDigita (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Crime gets a free ride from ICANN[edit]

[...]

Fred Showker, Editor: DTG Magazine

74.194.81.237 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2008

I understand you are frustrated, Fred, but this page is intended for discussion about the article on ICANN; it is not a forum for the discussion of ICANN itself. I do not see how your post makes any suggestion or point on what should be done with the article, so I have snipped it to unclutter this page. Your text is still available here. --- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV on Governance issues[edit]

There seem to be no outstanding issues on that section, so I have removed the NPOV tag. --Duncan (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Authority of ICANN[edit]

where does ICANN derive its authority to assign names and numbers on the internet? If it is from the laws passed by US Parliament or executive orders of the US state or federal Governments then it hardly matters if it is an NGO or Private company for the purposes of considering its true nature. It would be an extension of the US govt. Another question that remains is how can some US company\NGO\DEPARtment can sit on decisions regarding domain names when internet is spread all over the world? is it like US Govt sitting and deciding as to what telephone numbers can be alloted all over the world? In normal course, telephone operators are controlled by the respective world govts in the matters of number ranges that may be alloted, license fees, spectrum that may be utilised etc. Although telephone would have been invented by some xyz with the help of funding from xyz university\state when it comes to its commercial operation globally it is a matter of policy of the respective governments. Should it not be the same in case of internet? Everyone understands that it had its origin in US defence and was developed and is largely controlled through servers in US but it cannot set policy universally which would amount to infringing on the sovereign rights of other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.79.233 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ICANN currently gets its authority from the U.S. government through its contract to operate IANA (which in turn controls the DNS root zone servers and global Internet Protocol address allocations). And IANA in turn is contracted and paid for by the U.S. federal government (through the Department of Commerce) because, well, that's who's always paid for it. After all, the U.S. started ARPANET, which became the Internet. And no one has figured out how to transition responsibility for IANA to anyone else in a workable fashion that wouldn't bring down the Internet.
I see nothing wrong with the status quo, like nearly all Americans. California nonprofit corporate law is relatively plaintiff-friendly (this is why most corporations in the U.S. are incorporated in Delaware). So there's nothing wrong with having ICANN incorporated in California since anyone who has a serious problem with ICANN can sue them if necessary. Furthermore, another advantage of having ICANN in the U.S. is that it protects free speech on the Internet because we have strong free speech protections thanks to cases like Brandenberg v. Ohio.--Coolcaesar (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, another advantage is that this state has one of the largest numbers of computer-literate judges and lawyers in the world, plus lots of computer science experts who can explain the jargon to those who don't understand it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The bottom-up theory of authority holds that ICANN has authority over the DNS because the users have chosen to abide by its decisions. In practical terms, all DNS lookups go via the servers that serve the ICANN-administered root zone file; the users' continuing to do this constitutes a vote of confidence by voting with their feet - which does not mean that they agree with any single ICANN decision, just that they, collectively, have chosen to not go with an alternative.
(One note to the above comment: The IANA contract is a zero-cost contract; no money changes hands between the USG and ICANN because of this contract, and that's been the way of the deal at least since ICANN was formed. IANA operation is financed out of ICANN's budget.) --Alvestrand (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Free speech is no legal justification for existence of ICANN. Porn which makes so much of internet traffic has its origin in US where it is constitutionally protected under the garb of "free speech". This kind of thing may be outright illegal in many muslim countries. If US likes free speech let it keep it with in its boundaries.
The bottom up theory is wrong on two grounds. ICANN cannot give rights or enter into contracts or give away licenses if the users\and the countries where the users are located do not recognize ICANN's rights under US law.
Furthermore, countries have a right to enforce policies they have chosen in their countries including the ones in connection with usage of internet. one cannot expect whole world to run to US courts which only recognize US laws which may be in contradiction to respective state policies on usage of internet. Certainly US is not the arbiter on usage of internet worldwide. Any such move indirectly is unacceptable in international law which recognizes the rights of sovereign countries.
No users have collectively made any decision. This is rather enforced upon them just like microsoft is thrust upon so many gullible customers who have so little choice when microsoft ties up all its products and swamps all markets. In this case, because of technical fesability ICANN created monopoly in adminstering internet names and numbers in matters of control of internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.79.233 (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The bottom-up theory is not a theory based on codified law. Its interaction with codified law is an interesting topic, but not in itself relevant to whether the theory is significant or not. --Alvestrand (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Codified Law or contract law is irrelevant to the authority of ICANN internationally. In International law the authority to control any matter within the territory of a state flows from the Sovereign nature of the state. Having said this it is also well known that US cannot control say "how satelites uplink and down link from colombia" by privatizing one of its department and calling it "independent and impartial organization". Networks like telecommunication, satelites etc also work internationally. However, they are subject to state laws of the country through which their physical network passes through and this ends at the border of the particular state. After all, internet does not exist if all nations pass a resolution to prohibit ISPs from connecting beyond its national boundaries. In such a case, internet exists domestically where only servers located physically within the state borders can be connected legally. Normally, control or regulation of any matter always should lie with either the Govt or semi statutory body so as to be answerable to the legislature or people in general. Govt of a state does not have the authority to delegate such power to regulate onto some private organizations. of course, Britian set a precedent in this matter when it passed a charter authorizing its Companies to wage wars and collect taxes in its colonies. When things went out of control it had to assume the delegated powers back into his hands.

No sane state in the long term would agree for a proposal to control internet through some MNC OR NGO or other similat organization situated in US and subject to US laws. Only acceptable solution out of this would lie in signing up some international treaty and creating an international body which would derive its legitimacy and authority from the treaty signed by all sovereign states of the world. 124.124.230.149 (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Country code original research[edit]

The "Notable events" section includes the phrase "The introduction of the .eu Top Level Domain to the root in violation of RFC 1591" which seems to be original research / interpretation. A "reference" is provided to a bit of unsourced reasoning that says "Specifically, RFC 1591 uses the ISO 3166 standard as the authoritative list of country codes. .eu is not a country code, but is listed among the Exceptional Reservations." While the EU may not have UN recognition as a country, the RFC referenced specifically says: "The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which entities should be and should not be on that list." If the ISO 3166 list contains EU, it can hardly be a "violation of RFC 1591" to introduce a .eu Top Level Domain. In any case, the reference given for this "violation" is original research and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.210.163 (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. I took it out. Also here. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The allocation of .eu to the European Union was actually quite controversial. It was never *obvious* that it was a violation of RFC 1591, since RFC 1591 is quite unclear on what it's actually referring to when it says "3166". Several people who were part of writing 1591 have claimed that the intent was the ISO 3166 "normal list" (with a couple of mistakes, such as "UK" for what should have been "GB"), while .eu is on the "exceptionally reserved" list - see ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 for details. I'm sure the controversy left referenceable traces on the Internet, but until such sources are quoted, it is correct to delete the categorical statement that it was in violation. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

What is with all the "citation needed" signs? This article should be about one of the most (if not just the most) open organizations on the planet. Is there so little we officially know about it? I understand that there are a lot of unofficial rumors and pieces of information about it, but why is there so little of it that is backed up by official sources? -- T

Debatable statement in History section[edit]

As of April 22nd, 2011, the History section starts with the phrase: "Before the establishment of ICANN, the Government of the United States controlled the domain name system of the internet.". So, what did IANA do? -Ignacio Agulló —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.153 (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The article summary still contains something similar to the above phrase. It says "[ICANN was created] to oversee a number of Internet-related tasks previously performed directly on behalf of the U.S. government by other organizations, notably the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)." This completely misrepresents the relationship between IANA and ICANN. ICANN didn't just assume the tasks of IANA- ICANN subsumed IANA, making it a department. IANA is a part of ICANN. 140.182.209.225 (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Responsibility[edit]

Thank you for your inquiry concerning the content of a website. Although we appreciate your concern, ICANN does not have contractual authority to address complaints about website content. ICANN is not a government agency. ICANN is a private sector, not-for-profit organization with limited technical responsibility for coordinating the unique assignment of Internet domain names and IP addresses. Therefore, ICANN cannot address consumer complaints regarding the following matters: 1. Spam complaints 2. Website content complaints 3. Failure to answer phones promptly 4. Failure to respond to e-mail messages promptly 5. Overbilling/Multiple billing 6. Computer viruses These types of consumer complaints are not addressed in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and are therefore not a violation of the RAA. Please see, http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm. If you believe the website content refers to anything illegal, your best course of action is to contact a law enforcement agency in your jurisdiction or to seek legal advice from an attorney. If you are concerned about the content of an email message or a web page, you should contact the domain name holder or the applicable Internet Service Provider. Best regards, ICANN Services 65.30.35.48 (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What's this all about? Assuming that there really is an "ICANN Services" it's hard to imagine them posting anonymously to Wikipedia discussion pages. --Futhark|Talk 14:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
It appears that someone posted an ICANN email response into a section called "Responsibility", apparently expecting the content to be refactored into the article. 38.127.208.3 (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Relationship to US Government and US Snooping agencies[edit]

In regard to the snooping and recording activities of various security agencies uncovered in 2013, notably NSA, FBI, GCHQ, etc. it would be interesting to know the relationship of ICANN to the US government and whether ICANN can block Internet domains just by a departmental memo within the US government organizations or only with a judges order or not at all. Or to put it differently - how is the US running ICANN? Would there be a difference, if ICANN relocated to Andorra? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.93 (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

On new section "Proposed Elimination of Public DNS Whois"[edit]

This section just appeared in the ICANN entry, and while I've corrected several aspects of it, it probably needs more work to achieve neutral tone. Also, it may be a fairly transitory issue, hence wondering if it warrants inclusion in the main entry at all. fyi --TcomptonMA 10:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TcomptonMA (talkcontribs)

Thanks for making the edit. IMO this raises serious issues regarding ICANN whether or not this time it is transitory or not. LookingGlass (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

ICANN and the illegal domain seizures[edit]

Why ICANN didn't speak out against ICE and DOJ domain seizures? Why is ICANN not speaking against illegal seizure by "City of London"? 85.242.16.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)