IMS Logo -->
TRACK
   THE INTERNET MULTICASTING SERVICE

MEMES
Image



SIGNAL POSTED BY carl | 07.29.02 @ 06:53 AM

FAQ.4: Since you're a nonprofit, doesn't that mean you'll run an unstable service?
 [ FILED UNDER: Answers » ISC » Public Trust » ]

The Washington Post just published an analysis of the bidders to take the .org registry away from VeriSign. ICANN has indicated that it thinks .org should be run in the public interest. A $5 million endowment has been wrung out of VeriSign in case a nonprofit happens to win the bidding.

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.


 Comments
Subject: Just look at the voices of support!
Posted by Aaron Swartz at 08.09.02 @ 09.08 AM
If you're worried about IMS and IMC being able to do a good job, look no further than everyone who's pledged their support including many websites and some of the key people in building the Internet infrastructure.

- Aaron Swartz




   Building Public Parks for the Global Village Since 1993.