Re: [ga-roots] Is this thing on?
Is this the info you referred to? There is also the letter (petition for Rulemaking) we submitted to NTIA in December which refers to the MOU. http://www.biztld.net/ntialetter.html
Excerpts may not be in proper order, but the URLs are here also.
This Agreement promotes the stability of the Internet and allows the Parties to plan for a deliberate move from the existing structure to a private-sector structure without disruption to the functioning of the DNS. The Agreement calls for the design, development, and testing of a new management system that will not harm current functional operations.
2. Neither Party, either in the DNS Project or in any act related to the DNS Project, shall act unjustifiably or arbitrarily to injure particular persons or entities or particular categories of persons or entities.
3. Both Parties shall act in a non-arbitrary and reasonable manner with respect to design, development, and testing of the DNS Project and any other activity related to the DNS Project.
IV. MUTUAL INTEREST OF THE PARTIES
Both DOC and ICANN have a mutual interest in a transition that ensures that future technical management of the DNS adheres to the principles of stability, competition, coordination, and representation as published in the Statement of Policy. ICANN has declared its commitment to these principles in its Bylaws. This Agreement is essential for the DOC to ensure continuity and stability in the performance of technical management of the DNS now performed by, or on behalf of, the U.S. Government. Together, the Parties will collaborate on the DNS Project to achieve the transition without disruption.
9. Collaborate on the design, development and testing of a plan for creating a process that will consider the possible expansion of the number of gTLDs. The designed process should consider and take into account the following:
a. The potential impact of new gTLDs on the Internet root server system and Internet stability.
Response: The U.S. Government policy applies only to management of Internet names and addresses and does not set out a system of Internet "governance." Existing human rights and free speech protections will not be disturbed and, therefore, need not be specifically included in the core principles for DNS management. In addition, this policy is not intended to displace other legal regimes (international law, competition law, tax law and principles of international taxation, intellectual property law, etc.) that may already apply. The continued applicability of these systems as well as the principle of representation should ensure that DNS management proceeds in the interest of the Internet community as a whole. Finally, the U.S. Government believes that it would be irresponsible to withdraw from its existing management role without taking steps to ensure the stability of the Internet during its transition to private sector management. On balance, the comments did not present any consensus for amending the principles outlined in the Green Paper.
On 1 May 2001, at 12:56, Kendall Dawson wrote:
> Hi Leah,
> I've been especially struck by the text you sent me the other day about
> ICANN and the Gov't. contract. If ICANN does follow through and tries to
> assign the .BIZ TLD to NueLevel, then they will have broken their contract
> with the US Gov't. Could you post the relevant info here so that we can
> have it archived for future reference?
> Best Regards,
-- This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list. Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html