The proposed contract has attracted considerable opposition from the Internet community, spearheaded by the Coalition for ICANN Transparency (cfit.info), since it was revealed earlier this year.

CFIT opponents of the deal say it would give VeriSign almost complete control of the Internet's largest domain database, the .com registry, as well as allow price hikes and reduce oversight of the monopoly expansion of services into adjacent, competitive markets.

"I think that anyone who has been paying attention [recognizes] that there are significant differences between the proposal and the current deal," says CFIT spokesperson John Berard, "because if there weren?t, there wouldn?t be any objections."

Kicking off the side opposing the deal was Network Solutions CEO Champ Mitchell, who said that the .com deal "shocks the conscience." He added that there was no need to rush to bad judgment as ICANN and the Department of Commerce are already undergoing discussions on the future of the memorandum of understanding and the current .com contract is not scheduled to end until next Fall.

Former Member of Congress Rick White, now a member of VeriSign's Internet Advisory Board, represented the other side of the dispute, defending the .com deal. He cited reasons of stability and security in support of VeriSign?s case, and said that the proposed deal had "no major differences" from the current contract.

Mitchell later said, as did ICANN, that there was no objection to VeriSign having a contract to run the .com registry, but rather objections to the specific terms and conditions of the contract.

"Perpetual renewal is a sideshow," said Becky Burr, former NTIA official turned lawyer in private practice. "No one objects to VeriSign's role; the real issue is whether the dominant position can be misused. Do we want to make VeriSign the substitute Justice Department?"

In the question-and-answer period, congresswoman Sue Kelly asked, "What's wrong with making VeriSign compete for such a dominant market position?" White said the deal was an arm's length negotiation between private parties. Mitchell disagreed, labeling it as more of a deal between the regulated and the regulator.

ICANN General Counsel John Jeffrey said the deal had been thoroughly considered from all angles and that even though it allows VeriSign to raise prices it doesn?t necessarily mean it will.

The House Committee on Small Business will accept public comments on the deal for the next two weeks.