Re: not an accurate conclusion to draw (was) Re: Network Solutions is OUT!

Michael Dillon ( )
Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:53:34 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Geoff Mulligan wrote:

> said:
> > The cooperative agreement will end and they will in all liklihood
> > still be issuing .com, etc....they will not fold their tents
> > and go away....not hardly.
> And this is what must be resolved before NSI is given the keys to the Cadillac.
> First some determination should be made to why NSI should be GIVEN this >$50
> million monopoly by the US government. Maybe it should instead be open for
> bidding.

When this whole discussion about NSI started about two years ago, someone
pointed out that federal government contractors are regulated somehow and
there are very strict rules about what you can and cannot do at the end of
the contract. One of those rules prohibits the contractor from retaining
possession of stuff that was developped during the contract with
government funds.

I'm curious why NSI would be exempt from those sorts of rules.

It seems to me that if NSI does *NOT* join the IAHC, then they could
possibly be charged for misappropriation of government property. The only
reason that joining the IAHC would make a difference is that if they do
join the IAHC/CORE then they are no longer owners of .COM, .NET and .ORG
even though they can still continue to register names in those TLD's. And
I can't really see the U.S. government complaining about .COM, .NET and
..ORG becoming public resources, especially not when there will be several
more U.S. companies entering the registry business, i.e. the registry
business will become a registry industry.

Any ISP that wants to have a say in how the DNS registries operate should
consider signing the Memorandum of Agreement. Info is available at

Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 - E-mail: