[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-279419-105":53,"doc-detail-279419-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","net-registry-operator-selection-letter",".net Registry Operator Selection - Letter","","Letter dated 18 June 2004 from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers addressing James M. Ulam and Kevin C. Golden at VeriSign. It confirms receipt and consideration of Golden’s May 13 letter about electing a successor operator for the .net registry following expiration of the existing Registry Agreement. ICANN acknowledges their suggestions while noting differences in interpretation, states it will continue reviewing comments during RFP development, and shares the letter with the GNSO “.net Council Subcommittee” for a consensus statement.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/net-registry-operator-selection-letter/279419/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/net-registry-operator-selection-letter/279419.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Stanford","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-19","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",9,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What is the purpose of ICANN’s letter dated 18 June 2004?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"ICANN confirms it has received and considered Golden’s May 13 letter concerning selection of the .net registry operator after the current Registry Agreement expires.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"How does ICANN treat VeriSign’s provided criteria and process concerns?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"ICANN states it fully considers the information provided on evaluation, selection criteria, and the RFP development, and it notes it does not fully agree with VeriSign’s interpretation of some issues.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What happens next in the operator selection process according to the letter?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"ICANN will continue considering suggestions and comments as the RFP is developed and amended, and the letter is also provided to the GNSO “.net Council Subcommittee” to support a consensus statement on selection criteria and conditions.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},279419,1789973787,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":73,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":9},2336477552062,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","Internet Corporation for  \nAssigned Names and Numbers  \n18 June 2004  \nVia Facsimile and Email  \nJames M. Ulam  \nSenior Vice President, General Counsel VeriSign, Inc.  \n487 E. Middlefield Road Mountain View, CA 94043  \nKevin C. Golden  \nVice President, Associate General Counsel VeriSign, Inc.  \n21355 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA 20166  \nRe: .net Registry Operator Selection  \nDear Mr. Ulam and Mr. Golden,  \nThe purpose of this letter is to confirm that we have received and considered Mr. Golden’s letter of May 13, [2004 regarding electing the .net](2004 regarding electing the .net) registry operator upon the scheduled expiration of the existing Registry Agreement between VeriSign and ICANN set to occur next year. The [information that you have provided regarding the .net](information that you have provided regarding the .net) registry operator evaluation and selection process and the related criteria for development of the Request for Proposals (“RFP”) is being fully considered relating to this endeavor.  \nWe thank you for your suggestions and acknowledge that in developing the procedures that have been posted for public comment, we have taken into account your concerns and positions relating to the development of the process. We are not in full agreement with you on your interpretation of some issues relating to the process, as you will note from the manner in which the publicly-posted process differs from your letter.  \nICANN will continue to consider your suggestions and comments as the RFP is fully developed within this or such amended process as is approved by ICANN’s Board. We will continue to consider this or any other information that you provide relating to the RFP. In addition, beyond public posting this letter, ICANN has provided this letter to the GNSO’s “.net Council Subcommittee” which has been tasked with providing ICANN with a “consensus statement defining criteria and conditions to be applied in the selection of a successor registry operator”.  \n4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330, Marina del Rey, California 90292-6601 USA voice +1/310/823-9358 • fax +1/310/823-8649 • [http://www.icann.org](http://www.icann.org)  \nLetter to James M. Ulam and Kevin C. Golden Re: . net Registry Operator Selection  \n22 June 2004 Page 2 of 2  \nLastly, we are pleased that you are participating fully in the process for the selection of the operator for [the .net](the .net) registry, and understand and acknowledge that is balanced against your announced intention to compete for the award of the .net Registry Agreement.  \nIf you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please feel free to contact me.  \nSincerely,  \nJohn O. Jeffrey  \nGeneral Counsel and Secretary  \nInternet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers","cbCaioIHAkf5JlTy","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaioIHAkf5JlTy","pdf",103095,"English","# Re: .net Registry Operator Selection\n## Confirmation of receipt and evaluation\n## Consideration during RFP development\n## Communication with the GNSO subcommittee","[{\"question\":\"What is the purpose of ICANN’s letter dated 18 June 2004?\",\"answer\":\"ICANN confirms it has received and considered Golden’s May 13 letter concerning selection of the .net registry operator after the current Registry Agreement expires.\"},{\"question\":\"How does ICANN treat VeriSign’s provided criteria and process concerns?\",\"answer\":\"ICANN states it fully considers the information provided on evaluation, selection criteria, and the RFP development, and it notes it does not fully agree with VeriSign’s interpretation of some issues.\"},{\"question\":\"What happens next in the operator selection process according to the letter?\",\"answer\":\"ICANN will continue considering suggestions and comments as the RFP is developed and amended, and the letter is also provided to the GNSO “.net Council Subcommittee” to support a consensus statement on selection criteria and conditions.\"}]",".net Registry Operator Selection - Letter | PDF",1789520460]