[ncdnhc-discuss] U.S. Senate subcommittee holds .kids.us hearing

[Harold J. Feld]

Whereas my intent was to raise a point relevant to THIS consticuency, as 
opposed to management of .us, which is utterly irrelevant to this 
consticuency.

Harold

DannyYounger at cs.com wrote:

> Harold,
> 
> I've got two young kids in my household, so this situation affects me 
> personally.  In view of the fact that NeuStar recently went through a series 
> of layoffs and closed two of their offices (Chicago and DC), I am concerned 
> about their ability to manage a number of operations simultaneously.  The 
> capital and human resources that they will need to commit to do a proper job 
> of namespace management for kids.us (in view of Congressional requirements) 
> seems to argue against their bid to also manage the .org namespace, as they 
> will not enjoy the benefit of obtaining the VeriSign endowment.  I question 
> whether their financial condition is sufficiently sound.  Unfortunately, full 
> financial disclosure was not required in the .org sponsorship bid, so I guess 
> we'll never know how bad their situation really is other than by reading the 
> posts to fuckedcompany.com which don't present that firm's financial position 
> in a positive light.
> 
> My intent was not to slam NeuStar but rather to draw attention to the 
> non-performance of this voluntary body that they have convened, the .us 
> Policy Council.  I don't like having policy decisions legislated to the ccTLD 
> manager owing primarily to the fact that a Policy Council hasn't done the job 
> that they accepted to do.  This establishes a horrible precedent.  Whenever 
> possible, governments should be kept at an arm's length away from the 
> namespace.  I was counting on the Policy Council to make such legislation 
> potentially unnecessary.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>