Eleven bids were submitted. Ten of those bids follow the same formula: a worthy non-profit leads
the bid and a "solid commercial operator" handles those pesky stability issues of keeping the trains
running on time. For example, the so-called "Unity" bid is led by the Red Cross, which gets
to keep 10% of profits. They are joined by two up-and-coming members of the .com "domain name
industry." Their spokesman, "lead consultant" David Johnson, argues in the Post that only
a commercial operator would possibly have the expertise to do this and that
"a for-profit model provided a more stable environment for dot-org."
This "commercial MIS knows how to run computers better" argument runs through all the proposals.
In one of the more opportunistic bids, Registry (.com!) has created a new non-profit dubbed
the "DotOrg Foundation" and stacked it with an incredibly impressive board that has no
Internet experience. This new foundation gets to play around with $.80/name and Registry
keeps $5.20/name. The foundation president, Marshall Strauss, a real pro from the
foundation management world, told the Washington Post that
"no not-for-profit truly has the capacity
to make this work, and the important thing is to ensure that the transition goes smoothly."
<flame>
I beg your pardon?! Let me just say this about that!
I'm not sure how an under-funded, over-extended .com in search of a business model provides
a more stable operating environment than a team of engineers that has worked together for over
a decade and has built some of the largest public infrastructure projects on the net. IMS and ISC don't
have "lead consultants" promising to hire some soon-to-be-recruited MIS staff. Our leaders
aren't banking on .com stock options to retire. We do these kinds of projects for a living.
The .org is a public trust not a public trough. It's a real shame that a crucial piece of
public infrastructure is viewed as an opportunity to enhance shareholder value and leave a
few table scraps for vaguely-specified good works. The most specific the DotOrg Foundation
gets, for example, is "develop authentication tools that groups could use to identify themselves
as nonprofit organizations." And, those tools aren't even available for free. They'll
"make those tools available to retail address sellers who could
market them as add-ons to dot-org names."
This is public infrastructure. Our bid says everything is open. No hidden charges. Everything
is open source with no restrictions. Operations are fully public including statistics and finance.
All funds are devoted to keeping .org running properly and developing public infrastructure
around .org. A hard-hitting board that knows business and the Internet and a fully public
process enforce accountability and transparency. Instead of promising to put up some new
corporate shell and filing for 501(c)(3) status, we're doing this on top of established
infrastructure with an existing institutional framework that submitted tax returns for 9 years,
3-year audits, and published the financial model underlying our bid.
This "not-for-profits don't know how to run a business or a solid engineering operation" is
a desperate elevator pitch. "Trust me because I'll take your money and put it my pocket"
is perhaps another formulation. This decision needs to be based on solid technology
evaluation, not VC-style marketing pitches. Read our
proposal, examine the
financials,
look at our
track record, and then
decide for yourself.
</flame>
One of the frustrating things about the .org bidding process is explaining to people
why this decision is one of the most crucial ICANN will ever make. And, it's the
next item on their agenda.
ICANN reform has been in the spotlight, and this distributed constitutional convention is certainly an important process, but in the meantime
the .org bid is looming and this is the decision that will decide if the DNS is going
to be run as some .com profit opportunity or as a solid engineering operation in
the public interest.