List of .org applicants published
Date: Wednesday June 19 2002, @03:03AM
Topic: .org

ICANN has published a list of applications for the "reassignment" of .org, but notes that they "have not yet been verified to be complete in all respects or to be in proper form." On first glance, they range -- in my opinion -- from the bitterly cynical to the hopelessly naive. Unfortunately, first glance is all we've got for now.

A few notes:

The DotOrg Foundation (Registry Advantage and Kintera -- not to be confused with the the .Org Foundation) needs to do its homework by, say, reading my writeup of ICANN's new-gTLD flea circus. If they had, they would have had a much better idea of how ICANN treats anyone well-meaning outsiders... opposed to no-so-well-meaning insiders like ISOC. Sorry, but we've heard way too much noise over the years about ISOC and ICANN trying to find some way, any way, to tie the knot (for example, bailing ISOC out by making it into an ersatz At Large).

The .Org Foundation (the eNom one -- not to be confused with the DotOrg Foundation) got caught with its pants down: a default Win2K error: "You do not currently have a default document set for this directory. To create a default document, create a file in this directory named either 'Default.asp' or 'Default.htm'." This does not bode well.

And, finally, NeuStar... We still have questions, serious questions, about the Blokzijls: one an ICANN boardmember, one a quick hire-fire by NeuLevel. ICANN has yet to respond officially to questions about this. Unofficially, though, boardmember Alejandro Pisanty has careered from leveling tremulous recriminations against anyone who dared ask about the matter to smooth assurances that ICANN is busily "repopulating" its Conflict of Interest Subcommittee -- without, of course, assuring us that it'll actually do anything once it's been repopulated. Not that Blokzijl's recusal on his own COI question or the .org decision would necessarily mean much, mind you: during the new gTLD circus, Dyson -- then chair -- didn't know he'd recused himself and he didn't restrain himself from indicating his preferences.

ICANN's board is lucky indeed that it won't have to make a public show of its slapstick incompetence in assessing these applications for .org. That's a shame, because many people would like to know just what kinds of questions are being weighed, for example:

  • Should we bail out the recipient of a failing new gTLD by giving them .org?
  • Who is most likely to pursue an aggressively pro-intellectual property agenda by limiting the use of .org for criticism of commercial ventures?
If ICANN were, as it claims, open and transparent, it would conduct this decision-making process in the open for all to see. I doubt they will, but first things first: let's see the applications themselves in a timely fashion.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
List of .org applicants published | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 22 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: List of .org applicants published
by fnord ( on Wednesday June 19 2002, @03:54AM (#7264)
User #2810 Info
The bid seems a bit underdone, see their Org Coming Soon page, along with popups, but don't download the Gator spyware. And what of the Union of International Associations bid with an Additional Partner/Provider of VeriSign, Inc. Wouldn't that sort of defeat the purpose?

BTW, the COI committee has been repopulated, with Karl Auerbach remaining, Jonathan Cohen taking the place of the retiring Philip Davidson, and Rob Blokzijl continuing to serve as chair. Note also the Organic Names Ltd. bid with an Additional Partner/Provider of CentralNic Limited, which caused Rob Blokzijl to recuse himself at MdR2k. -g

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: List of .org applicants published
by PeterBarron ( on Wednesday June 19 2002, @04:33AM (#7265)
User #3240 Info |
It's nothing more than a quick $385.000,00 for ICANN to fund more trips. The winner has already been selected.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Outside the US?
by isquat on Wednesday June 19 2002, @05:26AM (#7266)
User #3363 Info |
I am guessing: ICANN sort of has to give it to a bidder outside of the US, to keep other parts of the world happy. Esp. the EU thinks that it is all way too much in US hands. Combined with the cartel character of the whole domain name 'industry', and ICANN's efforts to make the governments a bit happy to get its 'reform' accepted, one of the 5 non-US bidders (which happen to be in Europe, all 5, though 2 outside of the EU...) must win.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: List of .org applicants published
by fnord ( on Wednesday June 19 2002, @06:25AM (#7270)
User #2810 Info
I just got the following email from ISOC, complete with wonky formatting. Here is a clickable link to the referenced -g


Dear Internet Society Member:

I am writing to inform you of a recent decision by the Internet
Society Board of Trustees to submit a bid to the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers, Inc. ("ICANN") to succeed VeriSign,
as the registry operator for the .ORG top-level domain. This bid is
being announced formally, and we wanted to be sure you were informed.
Now that the bid is being officially submitted, we can provide you
more specifics.

We’ve set up a section of our Web site (
should answer your questions about .ORG, why ISOC is making a bid,
and the
structure we envision. I hope that you will support ISOC in these
If you do, we ask that you send a letter of support to ICANN. Please
visit and use the online submission form you’ll
find there.

As one of the oldest "Internet institutions," ISOC has long led
that contribute to an open and stable Internet. Through its
initiatives in
support of education and training, Internet standards and protocol,
and public
policy, ISOC has played a critical role in ensuring that the Internet
developed in a stable and open manner and we believe that this is a
extension of those efforts.

ISOC's mission is wholly consistent with a non-commercial philosophy
and our
plans for .ORG will enable it to flourish as a truly global home
to serving the unique interests of non-commercial organizations on
the net.
In addition, ISOC expects to be able to add significant value to the
space in total, given our roots, values, and technical knowledge.

We have chosen to work with Afilias Limited, which will be our
back-end registry
services provider. Afilias successfully deployed the first EPP-based
system with the launch of .INFO, and has a proven back-office system
that can
clearly execute the policies required for a stable and effective
management of .ORG.

This is an excellent partnership for ISOC, non-commercial entities,
the .ORG
registry, and the Internet, and we thank you in advance for your

Warm regards,

Lynn St. Amour
President/CEO, ISOC

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: List of .org applicants published
by PeterBarron ( on Wednesday June 19 2002, @07:02AM (#7273)
User #3240 Info |
There is absolutely no question in my mind that, among the applicants, the ISC/IMS bid is the most technically competent and offers the best chance of an open, transparent, and fairly-run registry.

It is too bad that they have no chance to win based upon ICANN's clear bias for existing applicants.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: List of .org applicants published
by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 19 2002, @11:14PM (#7301)
User #3359 Info |
.ORG will be pretty much a dead duck in a few years

As it is, fewer and fewer people are registering .ORG domain names

$385,000 plus all the administrative and re-start-up costs?

No thanks!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: List of .org applicants published
by fnord ( on Thursday June 20 2002, @02:28AM (#7308)
User #2810 Info
ICANN has now posted 7 of the 11 applications. -g
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re: List of .org applicants published
by cmalamud on Wednesday June 19 2002, @06:52AM (#7272)
User #3410 Info
Hi -

We actually published it Monday morning. Figured the public should get to see it before it went over the wall. If we win the bid, you'll see a totally transparent, rock-solid service.


[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • This article comes from ICANNWatch

    The URL for this story is: