[ncdnhc-discuss] Who will run .us?

[Jonathan Weinberg]

         Hold on; this is confusing.  The .US domain was created in 1985; 
NSI wasn't around yet.  NSI signed its cooperative agreement with NSF in 
1993, but I don't see anything in that document relating to the 
administration of .US (which is unsurprising, since afaik administration of 
the domain continued seamlessly at ISI during that period).  So when does 
Joe say NSI became the delegee of .US, and can he point to a document 
setting that out?  (Have I missed something in the cooperative-agreement 
materials?)

         (Apologies to all of you outside the United States for whom this 
is a less than fascinating issue . . . )

Jon


At 02:32 PM 10/21/2001 -0400, Harold Feld wrote:
>While I have heard nothing from the Commerce department, Joe Sims has 
>opined that the delegee was NSI, not Commerce.  NSI subcontracted to ISI. 
>When that subcontract lapsed, NSI assumed direct operational control.  No 
>redelegation was necessary.  However, transfer to a new contractor would 
>require redelegation.
>
>Commerce has not, tot he best of my knowledge, taken any official position 
>on redelegation.  I cannot imagine that ICANN (which has subsumed IANA) 
>(wake up already!  There is No More IANA!  It is gone, kiss it off, it's 
>run up the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This insistence on the 
>continued existence of IANA would be merely a humorous illusion if it were 
>not such a pernicious pallitive for the those who might otherewise oppose 
>ICANN's exercise of authority), a contractor dependent on the Commerce 
>department, will fail  to do Commerce's bidding.  In this area in 
>particular, in light of the previous political fights this summer.  Any 
>appearance by Commerce that it will sacrifice U.S. sovereign interests in 
>.us will be viewed with extreme disfavor by Congress.
>
>Harold Feld
>
>Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>
>>I suspect that DoC answer would be that it remains the .us delegee and the
>>firm hired is merely its subcontractor.  I don't see anything in IANA
>>rules that prevents subcontracting.  Do you?
>>
>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Milton Mueller wrote:
>>
>>>Chun:
>>>This message made me laugh, but it contains
>>>a very serious point. You are asking the US Commerce Department to abide 
>>>by the procedures set up by its own little creature
>>>(ICANN). This is very clever. You should
>>>send this message to Karen Rose and a few
>>>US Congress people.
>>>Let me know when you get an answer ;-)
>>>
>>>--MM
>>>
>>>>>>Chun Eung Hwi <ehchun at peacenet.or.kr> 10/19/01 21:59 PM >>>
>>>Dear Chris Chiu and others,
>>>
>>>I have some questions regarding the redelegation of .us.
>>>
>>>First, in my understanding, .us is also one ccTLD that is included in IANA
>>>database - http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm Therefore, it is very
>>>natural for the redelegation to abide by RFC1591 and ICP-1. For the
>>>redelegation of one specific ccTLD, we have very clear documented
>>>procedure.
>>>
>>>Second, according to that procedure, IANA should make a report for
>>>redelegation and get the authorization of ICANN board like all other
>>>redelegation cases up to now. Moreover, the operator of .us like all other
>>>ccTLD cases should make a formal contract with ICANN. Those contract
>>>drafts has already been posted on ICANN website for public comment.
>>>
>>>Third, I heard that CDT have tried to make an MoU with new operator
>>>together with other public interest groups. This activity could be
>>>justified as follwing statements of ICP-1.
>>>
>>>"(a) ... The IANA will make them a major consideration in any TLD
>>>delegation/transfer discussions. Significantly interested parties in the
>>>domain should agree that the proposed TLD manager is the appropriate
>>>party. ...
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>(e) ... It is also very helpful for the IANA to receive communications
>>>from other parties that may be concernedor affected by the transfer. In
>>>the event of a conflict over designation of a TLD manager, the IANA tries
>>>to have conflicting parties reach agreement among themselves and generally
>>>takes no action unless all contending parties agree. ..."
>>>(Excerpts from http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm)
>>>
>>>Then, still I have never look at IANA report for the redelegation of .us.
>>>And I want to know what CDT and other public interest groups would respond
>>>to the DoC's plan.
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Chun Eung Hwi
>>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Chun Eung Hwi
>>>General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2- 583-3033
>>>Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667 Seoul, 
>>>158-600, Korea       | eMail:   ehchun at peacenet.or.kr
>>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Chris Chiu wrote:
>>>
>>>>The United States Commerce Department still plans to pick the future
>>>>operator of the .us country-code top-level domain by the end of October
>>>>2001.
>>>>See
>>>>http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/#highlights
>>>>
>>>>Sincerely,
>>>>Christopher Chiu
>>>>Global Internet Liberty Campaign Organizer
>>>>American Civil Liberties Union
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Discuss mailing list
>>>>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>>>>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Discuss mailing list
>>>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>>>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Discuss mailing list
>>>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>>>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss