More on .US
Date: Tuesday July 31 2001, @05:11PM
Topic: Country-Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs)

According to a story by Dugie Standeford in today's Washington Internet Daily, the applicants for the .US contract included Telcordia (Verisign's partner in ENUM, with Verisign providing technical services) and eNIC (the registry for .cc, with Verisign again providing technical services). In addition, a group of nonprofits including the League of Women Voters has sought an extension of time to file an application, in which Verisign would provide. . . you got it.

Correction posted inside . . .

Neustar was another applicant. eNIC, the article continues, has signed the CDT coalition's memorandum of understanding, and CDT has identified and Tucows as other signers. On the other hand, the Washington Internet Daily article quotes Tucows's Ross Rader as denying that Tucows filed a proposal. Go figure.

(Washington Internet News articles aren't normally linkable, but Warren Communications News, 800-771-9202,, has granted us permission to post and link to this one issue.)

Speaking of the CDT coalition, a second look at the CDT Memorandum of Understanding (inspired by Anonymous's comments yesterday) does raise some additional issues. Is the coalition's organizational work really worth $450,000? How much of that sum will go to the coalition's legal counsel -- Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue? (Yes, that Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue.) [Correction: Joe Sims has written me to explain that while he did some personal pro bono work in drafting some of the coalition documents, at the request of Mike Roberts, neither he nor Jones, Day is counsel for the coalition, and neither he nor Jones, Day is receiving any money from the relationship. -- jon]

And is it a little disturbing that, under the Memorandum of Understanding, a nonprofit to be created by the coalition will control policy for the .US domain (with the registry required to give it advance notice of all "proposed actions that have or could have policy implications"), but the memorandum doesn't actually say very much about what this new nonprofit would look like, or how it would be run? After all, the last time we saw the formation of a new nonprofit to set Internet governance policy, we got . . . ICANN.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
More on .US | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 10 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
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: More on .US
by fnord ( on Wednesday August 01 2001, @06:12PM (#1567)
User #2810 Info
Is the Correction from that Joe Sims who did pro bono work for Jon Postel? And how much has JDRP since billed ICANN for (that's not entirely rhetorical, does anyone have the figure)? Regardless, sure looks like deja vu all over again. -g
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: More on .US
by Buckshot6 on Thursday August 02 2001, @03:36PM (#1574)
User #2948 Info
As an unknown bidder of the .us doamin. We were not asked to agree to anything outside of the bid RFQ. In our bid, we did include a provsion for reasonable agreements. We have set up a US domain Trust and Foundation.

We have provided a Performance Bond of USD$5,000.000.00 (USD$5MM) CASH !

We welcome the idea to enter into agreements with outside enities who share our open vievpoints.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re: More on .US
by Jon_Weinberg on Wednesday August 01 2001, @06:34AM (#1554)
User #16 Info |
It's the fourth word ("story") of the ICANNWatch item. For your convenience, though, here's another link. -- jon
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • This article comes from ICANNWatch

    The URL for this story is: