Joi Ito's Web

Joi Ito's conversation with the living web.

The Internet Multicasting Service and the Internet Software Consortium are two well respected non-profit public engineering organizations on the Internet. I recently talked to Carl Malamud since he's in Japan for IETF doing his thing. He is one of principles of IMS and according to the IMS web page "created the first Internet radio station and put the SEC's EDGAR database on-line. A serial social entrepreneur, he's helped run a number of nonprofit organizations and committed two Silicon Valley startups. Carl is the author of 8 books, numerous articles, a few RFCs, and takes up way too much space in Google."

I first met Carl through Jun Murai when we worked on the Internet 1996 World Expo together.

Anyway, he asked for my support for their bid and talked me through it. I think it's great and am very supportive. I think it's by far the best bid and the best structure and I think could be come a model for many other TLD's.

From: Carl Malamud To: Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:43:42 -0400 (EDT)

Our proposal for .org is not only the only pure non-profit bid, it is the only one that treats the .org registry as a public trust. We're proposing a fully-open, transparent operation: all statistics, finances, and source code will be published. We consider .org to be a public trust, not a public trough: that means that all revenues will be devoted to the .org domain and to public infrastructure.

We'll also make some real changes to how this crucial piece of public infrastructure runs. For example: our performance specifications meet or exceed each of the other bids. (E.g., zone files for the DNS will be published in 5 minutes or less in contrast to the current 24 hours.) We'll be deploying secure DNS. We've got some advanced development work already published that shows how small namespaces (e.g., personal namespaces like Whois) can be changed.

Our team has been doing this for 10 years+. In contrast to the other bids, ours is about people. We're personally signing up to run .org, not promising that some newly-formed organization or some opaque MIS staff will do this.

Bottom line: a rock-solid public infrastructure based on our extensive experience doing this. Most importantly: the first truly open and transparent registry. It doesn't matter if you think there should be a million TLD's or ICANN should be abolished or whatever: the first step is to create a reference implementation so everybody knows how registries should operate. We're proposing to run and then document a best current practices registry.

Their proposal
Their "show your support page"
News and information about the .org bid
ICANN .org Reassignment: Request for Proposals


Wow, this is one of the best ideas I've found in this area ... This plan is great. I only wish that some TLDs would be introduced and managed in this way which are about the 'free information revolution', eg TLDs .gnu and such ... Well ...
A blog about ICANN and an entry about this bid. Funny but sad POV.

spotted on David Farber's List

Comments of Internet Mail Service and Internet Mail Consortium on .org
Preliminary Evaluation Report
(Received 29 August 2002)


The IMS/ISC team applauds ICANN and the three teams that participated in the process for generating a preliminary evaluation. The analysis was an impressive display of committee logistics and resulted in three different rating algorithms, which fed a staff meta-algorithm, which in turn produced a summary result. Unfortunately, your code didn't compile on our systems:

* There was no technical due diligence conducted as part of the evaluation. Past performance claims are not documented and no examination of
code, logs, or configurations was conducted.

* The evaluation was all theory and no practice. Since the distance between theory and practice is so much smaller in theory than in practice, it is no surprise that the evaluations were able to boil complex problems down to simple metrics.

The IMS/ISC team also applauds ICANN for the open and methodical .org bid process. There have been several opportunities scripted for comment and open dialogue. Unfortunately, the next step in the process is based on a moderated bulletin board system at which does not allow allow on-line discussion and comment. Rather than engage in a detailed point-by-point analysis and refutation of the evaluations and their methodologies, it seems appropriate to pull up to 50,000 feet and explain why there is a fundamental difference of opinion about how to do what we call in the trade "technical due diligence." We have thus posted an open letter at and invite your comments as well as those of our fellow .organisms.

/The IMS/ISC Team/

The IMS/ISC Team
August 19, 2002

Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site
should be sent to

Page updated 30-Aug-2002
ゥ2002 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. All rights