Bidding for .org
For the first time in the Internet’s history, control of a major generic top-level domain (GTLD) is about to change hands. VeriSign Inc. (www.verisign.com), which oversees the three best-known GTLDs (.org, .com, and .net), agreed in March 2002 to give up the .org domain — nearly 3 million strong — for competitive bidding. The .org ...
For the first time in the Internet's history, control of a major generic top-level domain (GTLD) is about to change hands. VeriSign Inc. (www.verisign.com), which oversees the three best-known GTLDs (.org, .com, and .net), agreed in March 2002 to give up the .org domain -- nearly 3 million strong -- for competitive bidding.
For the first time in the Internet’s history, control of a major generic top-level domain (GTLD) is about to change hands. VeriSign Inc. (www.verisign.com), which oversees the three best-known GTLDs (.org, .com, and .net), agreed in March 2002 to give up the .org domain — nearly 3 million strong — for competitive bidding.
The .org transition, due to be completed by January 1, 2003, has raised critical questions about whether the domain should return to its original intent: serving the nonprofit community. During the nearly 10 years VeriSign has operated the registry, no authentication process has been in place for the domain, which has meant that almost anyone could get a .org domain name. Even a VeriSign spokesperson admits that .org has strayed from serving its intended constituency. The already controversial Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) (www.icann.org), which will choose VeriSign’s successor, believes that weakness should be addressed. ICANN, asserts its president and CEO, M. Stuart Lynn, is concerned about how to better engage the noncommercial community .org is supposed to serve.
Eleven groups are vying for control of .org. The winning bidder stands to make roughly $16 million in revenue a year. Understandably, the bidding process is political. A row has developed between nonprofit and for-profit bidders. Nonprofits tout their disconnect with the bottom line, while their for-profit competitors disagree. “There’s no better way to focus a registry’s attention on the needs of registrants than… the profit motive,” says Steve Dyer, director of .org bidder Organic Names (www.organicnames.com).
The final decision may actually hinge on whether the bidder is from the United States or not. Five of the 11 bids hail from non-U.S. organizations. Lynn stresses that an organization’s geographic locale will not play a role in choosing .org’s new operator, but other ICANN board members don’t feel the same way. Dutch board member Hans Kraaijenbrink says if he has to break a tie between a U.S. and a non-U.S. bidder, the non-U.S. bidder wins.
Critics, however, charge that the decision is probably a fait accompli. Just check out ICANN’s public message board at forum.icann.org/org.
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.