<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Who will run
.us?</title></head><body>
<div>Chun,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The notion for future redelegations (and AFAIK no redelegations
have actually implemented this yet) is that trilateral contracts will
be signed between ICANN/IANA, the ccTLD operator, and the relevant
government. That's what we expect to happen. Discussion about who is
the actual current delegee (USG or NSI/VeriSign) is interesting one
but I will leave that to some of the lawyers on this list. Harold's
description of the current situation matches my understanding, though.
I don't believe USG currently has any relationship with IANA (contract
or otherwise) regarding ".us", and its silence for the last
16 years has been taken as assent.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>As far as what CDT (and MAP, and other U.S. groups) have been
doing: When the Department of Commerce issued its solicitation for a
new .us operator, it did two important things:</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote>* It effectively guaranteed that the new .us operator
would be a for-profit company (not an NGO or other public-interest
organization)</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>* It required that the operator undertake some significant
policy responsibilities regarding the domain's operation--things like
outreach to domain name holders, policies for expansion of the space,
dispute resolution, etc.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<div>Speaking for CDT, we were disappointed by this approach. Many in
the US user community wanted to make sure that policy-making in
".us" was fair and representative, and since that's oustide
the core competencies of the companies that would be bidding on
".us", a coalition arose to put together a policy-making
structure that would be open, transparent, and inclusive of broader
stakeholder interests. The coalition includes CDT, the American
Library Association, Media Access Project, and other stakeholder &
business groups.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The group signed a Memorandum of Understanding with three of the
companies bidding for ".us" (Redwood Registries (a
subsidiary of Register.com), Liberty RMS (a subsidiary of Tucows), and
eNIC). The MOU states that if one of those companies wins the
contract, they will work to help establish this new policy-making body
and will begin using it to resolve policy questions.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Now we are waiting to see which bidder the Department of Commerce
will choose. When that choice is made, our coalition will have to
hustle to bring the .usPDC (.us Policy Development Council) online as
soon as we can.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>When the time comes to submit a redelegation request to
ICANN/IANA, and assuming that the usPDC is operational and has a
relationship with the registry operator, we hope that usPDC will be
involved in that discussion. Ultimately, though, the contracts would
be between the registry operator, ICANN/IANA, and USG.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>All this is a second-best solution; we would have preferred that
the DOC mandate a better policy process for ".us". But the
coalition is hopeful that it can work with the cards it has been dealt
to improve stakeholder participation.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>r</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>P.S. If you want some more details on this feel free to e-mail me
off-list or check out:</div>
<div>- The Memorandum of Understanding between usPDC and the
bidders:</div>
<div>http://www.cdt.org/dns/010727dotus-mou.shtml</div>
<div>- Our coalition's statement of policy for ".us":</div>
<div>http://www.cdt.org/dns/010727dotus-policy.shtml</div>
<div>- The members of our coalition (part of a press release):</div>
<div>http://www.cdt.org/press/010727press.shtml</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>At 10:57 AM +0900 10/20/01, Chun Eung Hwi
wrote:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Dear Chris Chiu and others,<br>
<br>
I have some questions regarding the redelegation of .us.<br>
<br>
First, in my understanding, .us is also one ccTLD that is included in
IANA<br>
database - http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm Therefore, it is
very<br>
natural for the redelegation to abide by RFC1591 and ICP-1. For
the<br>
redelegation of one specific ccTLD, we have very clear documented<br>
procedure.<br>
<br>
Second, according to that procedure, IANA should make a report for<br>
redelegation and get the authorization of ICANN board like all
other<br>
redelegation cases up to now. Moreover, the operator of .us like all
other</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>ccTLD cases should make a formal contract
with ICANN. Those contract<br>
drafts has already been posted on ICANN website for public
comment.<br>
<br>
Third, I heard that CDT have tried to make an MoU with new
operator<br>
together with other public interest groups. This activity could be<br>
justified as follwing statements of ICP-1.<br>
<br>
"(a) ... The IANA will make them a major consideration in any
TLD<br>
delegation/transfer discussions. Significantly interested parties in
the<br>
domain should agree that the proposed TLD manager is the
appropriate<br>
party. ... <br>
<br>
(snip)<br>
<br>
(e) ... It is also very helpful for the IANA to receive
communications<br>
from other parties that may be concerned or affected by the transfer.
In<br>
the event of a conflict over designation of a TLD manager, the IANA
tries<br>
to have conflicting parties reach agreement among themselves and
generally<br>
takes no action unless all contending parties agree. ..."<br>
(Excerpts from http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm)<br>
<br>
Then, still I have never look at IANA report for the redelegation of
.us.<br>
And I want to know what CDT and other public interest groups would
respond<br>
to the DoC's plan.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Chun Eung Hwi<br>
------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Chun Eung Hwi<br>
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2-
583-3033<br>
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 |
pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667<br>
Seoul, 158-600, Korea |
eMail: ehchun@peacenet.or.kr <br>
------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Chris Chiu wrote:<br>
<br>
> The United States Commerce Department still plans to pick the
future</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> operator of the .us country-code
top-level domain by the end of October</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> 2001.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> See</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>>
http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/#highlights<br>
><br>
> Sincerely,<br>
> Christopher Chiu<br>
> Global Internet Liberty Campaign Organizer<br>
> American Civil Liberties Union<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Discuss mailing list<br>
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org<br>
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss<br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
Discuss@icann-ncc.org<br>
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>