08-17-97 Electronic Filings on Internet Domain Names
###
Number: 314
From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 5:44pm
Subject: DNS
I write as a former member of the CERN Web development team. I am currently
active both in the IETF and the World Wide Web Consortium.
Comments:
A. Appropriate Principles
1. While accepting the general desirability of avoiding unnecessary
government involvement it should be noted that there is in fact a set of
national domains. Should the US government wish to take an interest in
domain name issues beyond the orderly withdrawal from its current
involvement it should confine its interest to the .us domain and the .gov
and .mil domains.
2. For historical reasons the US government currently has a privileged role
in DNS administration. During the period in which the NSF subsidized much
of the Internet infrastructure it funded the registration of domain names.
2a) The manner in which this funding was withdrawn was extremely
unsatisfactory. Insufficient notice of the change meant that there was no
opportunity to consider any solution other than administration by a single
registrar. The only party in a position to undertake the contract on that
basis was the existing contractor. In effect the contractor was awarded an
undeserved license to print money.
2b) The actions of the NSF in relation to this contract were and are
unacceptable to the Internet community. At a meeting of the IETF
immediately after the contract was announced there was not a single speaker
that defended the NSF actions. The NSF actions in this regard were in
effect Force Majeure, there being no opportunity to propose an alternative
approach.
2c) Further involvement by the US government in the administration of the
.com and .org domains is not acceptable to the Internet developer
community. The IAHC was charged with the task of proposing an alternative
means of administering DNS registration and has reported to the appropriate
Internet authorities. The IAHC proposal contains no role for the US
government.
3) The logical interpretation of the existence of .com and .org domains in
addition to the national domains is that these are international in scope.
B1:
4) The logistics of domain name registration are demanding requiring
considerable technical expertise, clerical and legal resources. The current
charge of $50 made by Network Solutions Inc. is unrealistically high
however for what is a mature market in which a majority of registrations
may be performed entirely automatically. The anticipated cost of litigation
in connection with disputed domain names have not in fact arisen. Indeed
the majority of Network Solutions costs in this area appear to be directed
at finding ways to cause the gravy train to continue.
B3
5) The appropriate entity to administer the Internet are the IAB, the IETF
and IANA. IANA is the entity specifically charged with the allocation of
reserved names and numbers and is recognized by the Internet community as
the root DNS registrar. The decision to delegate this registration is
entirely for IANA to decide.
B5
6) Asking whether the .com and other gtlds be retired says much about the
questioner. It is absolutely impossible to retire these domains. US firms
have invested over a billion dollars in 1996 promoting websites using .com
domains. The US government is not recognized as the owner of the 'dot',
root domain under which the .com domain falls.
7) Any attempt to retire the domains would result in an endless series of
litigation. The US government is not recognized as the owner of the .com
domain.
B7
8) The question of achieving scalability in future DNS implementations is
not a question the US government is qualified to decide. The technical
specification of the Internet is set by the IAB and IETF and not the US
government.
9) The current DNS protocol is adequate for anticipated needs for at least
the next five years. A transition to a new, authenticated version of the
protocol is currently in progress. The total volume of data is not large by
the standards of the Internet, A hundred thousand DNS entries can be
recorded on a standard floppy disk. The total number of domain
registrations remains of the order of a million. The task of exchanging ten
disks worth of information is not insurmountable.
B8
10)The IAHC has already discussed these issues in depth at the request of
the Internet Society and the IETF. The scheme proposed is not perfect but
no US government agency is in a position to propose a more satisfactory
one. The time constraints alone mean that any US proposal could not be
finalized until long after the current NSI contract had expired.
C10
12) The current DNS architecture assumes a limited number of gtlds. The
protocols could be adapted to permit an unlimited number of domains if this
was desirable.
13) The proliferation of top level domains is undesirable however. If
registration of top level domains was unrestricted the administration of
the top level domain would immediately become as problematic as that of the
.com domain. Any non-punitive charge would be considered reasonable by
large numbers of corporations. Disney would not think long before paying
$10,000 to become disney in place of disney.com.
C11
14) Additional top level domains are required for a number of purposes.
First there are many uses of the Web which do not fit within the
traditional groups. In addition to the seven new domains proposed by the
IAHC current usage suggests a demand for .film and .book categories since
goldeneye.com is not appropriate. It may be appropriate to establish
additional criteria for registration in certain domains. Registration in
.film might reasonably require that a film be in production for example.
15) The pornography industry would welcome the creation of an xxx toplevel
domain. But a separate namespace for pornographic material should not be
seen as a solution to the pornography issue. The administrations previous
attempts to regulate pornography having been found unconstitutional the
administration now has very little influence in this area in the Internet
community. Very few part of the world share the US view of sexual morality.
Indeed it is doubtful such a view could be defined since there is great
variation within the US as to what constitutes "unsuitable" material for
minors. Should the Christian Coalitions message of hatred of gays be
similarly identified? Many find their material offensive and regard it as
damaging to children. It was considerations such as these that gave rise to
the PICS scheme.
C13
16) The use of ISO country codes are reserved for use by the countries
concerned. In addition the UK uses the .uk domain instead of the ISO
designated .gb.
D15
17) No, registrars should not have complete control over any domain. For
registrants to have confidence in their ownership of their brand they must
know that it is not subject to arbitrary revocation by the registrar. A
party that invests $10million promoting a brand must know that they will
not be subject to extortionate renewal fees in the future.
D16
18) Registrars must have sufficient financial and technical resources to
ensure that they do not prove to be a menace to the Internet
infrastructure. These should be determined by the existing Internet
Architecture Board in consultation with the directors of the IETF.
Phillip M Hallam-Baker
Visiting Scientist
MIT AI Lab
###
Number: 315
From: "Stephen T. Kean Jr." <skean@halcyon.com>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/17/97 4:22pm
Subject: Management of Domain Name Server Names
To whom it may concern,
Here are some concerns and possible solutions to the numbering system and
other ancillary problems.
1. At one point in the Unix business, the design was for trading
information. As the networking infrastructure became more popular and
grew, the advent of visual enhancements passed the size of our ability to
pipe it to the user efficiently. Unfortunately, the visual enhancement is
not data. We have conned ourselves into believing that pictures are more
relevant than the data we are seeking. Unfortunately, and like most
people, I like a pleasing background and driving visual effects. Thus it
is here to stay. To combat this problem, We should standardize graphics as
much as possible and place as much of the graphic (gif or whatever) at the
user machine.
2. One of the most popular features from a business perspective is the
ability to knock down the traditional demographic/proximity barriers to
marketing. A small businessman can now market a flower box in just about
any country. If I do a search for flower boxes, I may very well end up
with 10,000 relevant returns. This means I will spend more time looking
through the returns to find exactly what I want. If I look through 200
items before I find what I want, the ratio of RETURNS:SITES VIEWED:TO
ACTUAL FIND is 10,000:200:1. This curve represents a very bad investment
of time spent; either mine or the equipment used to get what I want. My
suggestions below may allow for a more discriminate search.
3. The issue of how to name all of these sites is actually very small by
itself. For a long time, we have allowed a computer to assign names. The
fundamental concept of developing a program for Unix was to create small
programs which had but a single purpose. Because we wanted to keep up with
growth, our programs became larger and encompassed a bigger pool of
requirements. To mow a lawn, a traditional Unix programmer would cut each
blade of grass, whereby a business man would use a lawn mower. Sorry for
the gibberish. My point is to ensure you get the programmers in on this
name problem. Not to slow you down with their "we can't do that's, but to
ensure we don't kill the present system or outdate what we already have.
4. One way to set up a system of naming is to build a system similar to a
Balanced Heap. At the Top of the heap is the center mass of a categories
of use. In present terms, the category of use is .gov, .edu, .com,...
Instead of the traditional .com, catagorize the type of business. For
instance, the business which makes the flower pot would be under the
category of GARDENING. As we convert, to this system, the first number
could represent a category, the second number a server which contains the
data, The third number an actual business number, and the last number
could be anything you want it to be.
5. One of the biggest problems we have in numbering is the static nature of
its system. An example is 255.255.255.1. It is pretty apparent we will run
out of numbers. We cannot use this in what I propose. With each present
set of numbers, we can only discus 256 possibilities. That is a bound we
have to break right now. Consider my numbering system above. It would
look something like this: 43.61743.987.4.
6. My Heap is dynamic in nature. The length of the number in each segment
of the whole number is immaterial. As technology grows or changes, new
categories may be entered without regard to the limiting factors of our
present numbering system. Because the numbers are entered into the heap
based on categories and a parent child relationship (Don't confuse this
with my machine is bigger than yours. It's only a number) , searches can be
made across boundaries, without going to through the top of the heap to get
to the other side.
I realize the Heap is not something we all know about. A truly schooled
programmer should be consulted prior to jumping into this. A mathematician
should be consulted so we do not place static restrictions on the possible
number of names which could be used (so we don't get stuck on 256 again.
Last of all, an open mind is what is required here. Heaping-up,
Heaping-down, Binary Search Trees and the like are not that difficult.
Setting up a system whereby the changes can be affected are, however, very
difficult
Stephen T. Kean Jr.
skean@halcyon.com
###
Number: 316
From: Herb Weiner <herbw@wiskit.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 11:19am
Subject: Comments on Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names
Response to Question D 20 (Policies for Registries: Are there any other issues
that should be addressed in this area?)
PROPOSED REQUIREMENT:
The Registrar MUST provide a mechanism for handling written (postal mail,
electronic mail, or FAX) disputes and inquiries regarding domain name
registration and billing, and MUST respond in writing to such disputes and
inquiries in a timely fashion. The Registrar must NOT cancel any Domain
Name Registration while such disputes and/or inquiries are pending.
(This is similar to the protection provided by the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
I FAXed my credit card payment for my wiskit.com domain name registration
(dated 19-February-1997) on February 22, 1997, and have PROOF of payment
in the form of my MasterCard statement showing that $50.00 was charged to
my account on February 26, 1997.
On April 7, 1997, I received an email message indicating that payment had
not yet been received. On April 8, I phoned Network Solutions, and after
waiting on hold for over 15 minutes, I finally spoke to Darryl, who promised
to relay the information to the billing department. He promised that the
billing department would investigate, and call me back with with the status
of my account.
Since I still had received no response by April 10, I sent a followup email
message reporting the error, and requesting a response. We received no
response to this email message.
On April 18, the president of the company received an invoice postmarked
April 11, warning him that our domain name service would be terminated
if payment was not received by April 19 (15 days after the April 4 invoice
date, and one day following the receipt of the invoice). We FAXed our
response that same day, and followed up by postal mail the following day.
In each case, we requested a written response confirming that the error
had been corrected.
To date, although we have made four requests (one each by phone, email,
FAX, and postal mail) we have received no response indicating that the
error has been corrected. Although our domain name service has fortunately
not been cancelled, we have been unable to determine whether this is
because the error has been corrected, or whether Network Solutions still
has us on a list of domain names to be removed.
Such poor customer service is simply unacceptable. In any non-monopoly
situation, we would take our business elsewhere.
Herb Weiner
Kitchen Wisdom Publishing
10032 SE Linwood Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97222
(503) 771-1402
FAX: 771-1401
email:herbw@wiskit.com
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("chrisc@netsol.com")
###
Number: 317
From: Lou Poppler <lwp@mail.msen.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 7:23pm
Subject: Internet Domain Names
There is no role for the US government in the administration of internet
domain names. The current monopoly created by the USG in the
administration of certain TLDs is harmful. The pending revisions to this
system, developed by the network community, represent the correct approach
for future enhancement -- both in the specific measures already nearing
adoption and in the philosophical model of administration of the
borderless internet by our own knowledgable and trustworthy constituents.
I will respond briefly to the following individual points in your outline:
A.b, A.c, B.6.
A.b & A.c: I strongly agree with these statements. Experience has shown
that the best response to virtually any network issue arises through the
consensus of the thousands of individual network administrators. This
mechanism is nimble, knowledgable, and fair.
B.6: I would expect the root servers to become somewhat more numerous,
and for their relationships with both TLD registries and with client
resolvers to become predicated on issues of reliability and reputation.
This should more closely resemble a free-market selection system as
opposed to the current top-down approach.
CC: Lou Poppler <lwp@mail.msen.com>
###
Number: 318
From: Bob Crispen <crispen@hiwaay.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 11:32am
Subject: Re: Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration
of Internet Domain Names
The current movement toward domain name expansion has been
polluted by a number of leaders whose basic motivation seems
to be to force some authority to take money away from NSI
and give it to them.
What evidence do we have that they will manage this
resource responsibly should they get their desires? Their
track record is so short that it contains but one item:
the recent hacking of DNS, which is the strongest possible
evidence that they will *not* exercise responsible
management.
I don't know whether the mechanism set up by NSI is the
best for the long term. I suspect a technological solution
will emerge which will satisfy all the critics of NSI who
are not merely seeking to line their own pockets. But that
solution has not been demonstrated yet. I do know that
doing business with the IAHC is akin to surrendering our
wallets to muggers.
###
Number: 319
From: <lemmon@NOSPAMpanix.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 9:40pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
I believe the issues of domain names for the Internet is an important one.
Far too important to allow one entity - Network Solutions - to monopolize.
I believe what is needed is a system whereby those registered domains in
.com, .net & .org domains will get transferred to whatever entity the NSF
decides upon. I also believe that new top-level domain names should be
introduced, such as those proposed by IAHC, including additional categories
such as .rel for religious organizations, etc.
Thanks for soliciting comments.
Marcia H. Lemmon
marcia@cybersynergy.com
###
Number: 320
From: Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 8:59pm
Subject: REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF INTERNET DOMAIN
NAMES
Filing Instructions
Mail comments in paper form to Patrice Washington, Office of Public
Affairs, National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), Room 4898, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,
DC 20230,
or
Mail comments in electronic form is dns@ntia.doc.gov. Comments
submitted in electronic form should be in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word,
or ASCII format. Detailed information about electronic filing is
available on the NTIA website, http://www.ntia.doc.gov.
Paper submissions should include three paper copies and a version on
diskette in the formats specified above. To assist reviewers, comments
should be numbered and organized in response to questions in
accordance with the five sections of this notice (Appropriate Principles,
General/Organizational Framework Issues, Creation of New gTLDs,
Policies for Registries, and Trademark Issues). Commenters should
address each section on a separate page and should indicate at the
beginning of their submission to which questions they are responding.
Horzontal lines below represent page breaks.
NB. The filing deadline is 1700 hrs EDT (UTC-4), 18 Aug 1997.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Simon Higgs
Simon Higgs
Simon Higgs
P.O. Box 3083
Van Nuys
CA 91407-3083
Self
18 Aug 1997
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary
A. Appropriate Principles
Principles a-f
Other principles
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Questions 1-9
C. Creation of New gTLDs
Questions 10-14
D. Policies for Registries
Questions 15-20
E. Trademark Issues
Questions 21-28
F. Other Issues
Existing TLD Applications
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
SUMMARY
This document provides some information on the structure of the
names in the Domain Name System (DNS), specifically the top-level
domain names; and on the administration of those domains.
The day-to-day responsibility for the assignment of IP Addresses,
Autonomous System Numbers, and most top and second level Domain
Names are handled by Internet Registries (IR).
The Internet is partly being driven by commercial market forces
using domain names to identify corporate business units which are
known to the public as "brand names"). This document covers some of
the framework necessary to define the purpose, function, delegation,
and use of new top level domains.
Several factors need to be addressed such as why the TLD exists in
the first place, who accepts registrations for the TLD, and what
special purpose (if any) the TLD serves.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Simon Higgs
1. Simon Higgs respectfully submits comments in this proceeding. Simon
Higgs is actively involved in top level domain name issues. Simon
Higgs is the first applicant to request a new international top level
domain from IANA, and has extensively written various internet drafts on
the subject, as well as being a featured speaker at the Internet
Engineering Task Force.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
A. APPROPRIATE PRINCIPLES
a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name
registration system should be encouraged. Conflicting
domains, systems, and registries should not be permitted to
jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet, however. The
addressing scheme should not prevent any user from
connecting to any other site.
A.a.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
b. The private sector, with input from governments, should
develop stable, consensus-based self-governing mechanisms for
domain name registration and management that adequately
defines responsibilities and maintains accountability.
A.b.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the
inherently global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve
as necessary over time.
A.c.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition
should be open, robust, efficient, and fair.
A.d.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
e. The overall policy framework as well as name allocation and
management mechanisms should promote prompt, fair, and
efficient resolution of conflicts, including conflicts over
proprietary rights.
A.e.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent
consideration of these issues permits.
A.f.1. No. Consensus is more appropriate than speed.
Other principles
A.Other.1. None of the above principles address the fundamental key
issues as to how the namespace should be administered. They are symptoms
of the consequences of failing to address the most important issues.
A.Other.2. There are two principles that must be regarded higher than
any others:
A.Other.2.a. Use of the the top level domain
Use is generally defined as the purpose or function that
the top level domain serves to the internet community. In the past this
has been to distinguish the coutry of origin of the domain name (using
the ISO3166 classifications), or whether the domain is educational
(.EDU), commercial (.COM), governmental (.GOV) or another
classification. Each new TLD must be created with an identifiable
purpose. A written charter will identify and explain the function and
purpose of each TLD. In the case of the Specialized and Private TLD
classes (described below), the corporation or organization acting as the
registry will be responsible for creating the TLD's charter. This will
be part of the TLD application process. Guidelines for charter creation
will be made publically available by IANA. The following items must be
identified in the charter:
A.Other.2.a.1 Registration procedure, documenting all steps
A.Other.2.a.2 Service guarantees required in the operation of that TLD
A.Other.2.a.3 Error resolution policy (including any refund policy)
A.Other.2.a.4 Dispute policy (including any refund policy)
A.Other.2.a.5 Procedure for dealing with domain name and trademark
conflicts.
A.Other.2.b. Delegation
Once the use and purpose of the TLD is discovered, the appropriateness
of the type of delegation will become apparent. Top level domains can be
divided into three groups. There are those which are Shared
(non-exclusive), and which can be served by multiple competing
registries. There are those that may need to be served by a single
registry that has the necessary expertise to address specific industry
issues, and there are a very small number of private TLDs which are
required to serve single large organizations:
A.Other.2.b.1. Shared TLD Class
The Shared TLD Class contains TLD's in which all second level domain
name registrations are performed by multiple competing registries.
Unless specifically documented otherwise in the TLD's charter, it is
expected that all newly delegated TLDs will be in this class. Existing
TLDs may be delegated by IANA into this class as well.
A.Other.2.b.2. Specialized TLD Class
The Specialized TLD Class describes TLDs that are industry-specific, or
where a high-level of domain name control is needed. These TLD's are
operated by a single registry. Registration is only open to
organizations within the specific areas defined in the TLDs charter.
These TLDs could represent specific industries, other closely defined
market niches, or top level country domains. A registry must beable to
constructively address industry specific issues in the context of
running a TLD registry. An example of an existing TLD in this class is
.INT which is closely controlled and is only open to International
Treaty Organizations. Registry duties are handled by the ITU in
accordance with a policy authorized by IANA.
A.Other.2.b.3. Private TLD
In certain rare instances, it may be possible for a qualifying
internationally known organization to be identified on the Internet by
its own exclusive TLD. All second and third level domain name
registrations are performed within the organization. The organization is
the sole trustee of the TLD, and all disputes arising from domain name
delegation are the organizations responsibility. An example of an
existing TLD in this class is .MIL., which is exclusively operated by,
and for, the United States military.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
B. GENERAL/ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK ISSUES
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current
domain name registration systems?
B.1.1. In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a
hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of
what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are identified
either by ISO-3166 two letter country codes, or generic TLDs, whose
naming indicates the category of organization that is found there.
B.1.2. Under each TLD may be created a hierarchy of names. Generally,
under the generic TLDs the structure is very flat. That is, many
organizations are registered directly under the TLD, and any further
structure is up to the individual organizations.
B.1.3. The domain name space is a tree structure:
. (un-named root)
|
---------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | |
.COM .EDU .NET .ORG .GOV .US .UK [other TLDs]
|
USPTO
|
WWW
B.1.4. The above example describes the internet host <www>.<uspto>.<gov>
where GOV is the US government top level domain, USPTO is the domain
used by the US Patent and Trademark office, and the WWW identifies that
organization's host (computer) that functions as their web server.
B.1.5. In the country TLDs, there is a wide variation in the structure,
in some countries the structure is very flat, in others there is
substantial structural organization. In some country domains the second
levels are generic categories (such as, AC, CO, GO, and RE), in others
they are based on political geography, and in still others, organization
names are listed directly under the country code. The organization for
the US country domain is described in RFC 1480.
B.1.6. As an example of a country domain, the US domain provides for the
registration of all kinds of entities in the United States on the basis
of political geography, that is, a hierarchy of
<entity-name>.<locality>.<state-code>.US. For example,
"IBM.Armonk.NY.US". In addition, branches of the US domain are provided
within each state for schools (K12), community colleges (CC), technical
schools (TEC), state government agencies (STATE), councils of
governments (COG), libraries (LIB), museums (MUS), and several other
generic types of entities (see RFC 1480 for details).
B.1.7. The country code domains (for example, FR, NL, KR, US) are each
organized by an administrator for that country. These administrators may
further delegate the management of portions of the naming tree. These
administrators are performing a public service on behalf of the Internet
community.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
B.2.1. By the introduction of TLDs identified by appropriate business
and social categories.
3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should current
domain name systems be administered? What should the
makeup of such an entity be?
B.3.1. An organization with sufficient network infrastructure, email and
telephone support to fullfill the needs of the delegated TLD.
4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as
models for deciding on domain name registration systems (e.g.,
network numbering plan, standard-setting processes, spectrum
allocation)? Are there private/public sector administered
models or regimes that can be used for domain name
registration (e.g., network numbering plan, standard setting
processes, or spectrum allocation processes)? What is the
proper role of national or international governmental/non-
governmental organizations, if any, in national and
international domain name registration systems?
B.4.1. No.
5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be
retired from circulation? Should geographic or country codes
(e.g., .US) be required? If so, what should happen to the .com
registry? Are gTLD management issues separable from
questions about International Standards Organization (ISO)
country code domains?
B.5.1. It may be appropriate to move (not retire) the .COM under the .US
domain. In any case, the .COM or .COM.US domain must be expanded by some
catorgorization scheme (i.e. the introduction of International Schedule
Of Goods And Services-type domains) to relieve the pressure.
6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain
name registration issues? Are there any issues concerning the
relationship of registrars and gTLDs with root servers?
B.6.1. No.
7. How can we ensure the scalability of the domain name
system name and address spaces as well as ensure that root
servers continue to interoperate and coordinate?
B.7.1. The two are independant. Scalability follows Moore's Law.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be
accomplished?
B.8.1. Very carefully.
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
B.9.1. No.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
C. CREATION OF NEW gTLDs
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations
that constrain the total number of different gTLDs that can be
created?
C.10.1. No.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
C.11.1. No. "Generic" TLDs with overlapping meanings must not be
created. iTLDs with specific non-overlapping meanings can be created.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated with
increasing the number of gTLDs?
C.12.1. No.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions
about ISO country code domains?
C.13.1. No. The management issues are integral all across the namespace.
There are localized areas of speciality which will varies in how TLDs
are administered but the basic principles are consistant throughout the
name space.
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
C.14.1. No.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
D. POLICIES FOR REGISTRIES
15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a
particular gTLD? Are there any technical limitations on using
shared registries for some or all gTLDs? Can exclusive and
non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?
D.15.1. gTLD registrars may not have exclusive control of a particular
gTLD. iTLDs are similar in that they address an international name
space, but may be exclusively administered.
D.15.2. There are no technical limitations for shared registries.
D.15.3. It is highly recommended that both exclusive iTLDs and
non-exclusive gTLDs coexist together.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name
registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars
have? Who will determine these and how?
D.16.1. Yes. The function of the registry is to support and maintain the
TLD(s) that it is responsible for, by meeting the TLD's charter. It is
important to understand that the registries serve the TLD's, and not the
other way around. Therefore registries must be selected to meet the
needs of each TLD.
D.16.2. The minimum requirements are determined by the acceptable
response time to delegation requests and other issues. Obviously this is
entirely scalable and is directly determined by the number of domains
within the TLDs delegated to the registry.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of
domain name registrars?
D.17.1. No. There may be more registries/registrars than TLDs if TLDs
are shared. Obviously, there may be many registries/registrars
administering a particular TLD, or a particular registry administering
many TLDs.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the
name space raised by increasing the number of domain name
registrars?
D.18.1. Yes. These are mostly business issues. The Central Database will
need one or two million per year to run. Using the InterNIC figures we
can see that 3 TLDs = approximately 1,000,000 domains. If there are 7
TLDs introduced, this is 7/3 x 1,000,000 = 2,333,333 domains. At $10 per
domain per year income is $23,333,333. Assuming a one dollar "royalty"
for each domain name that is registered ($2,333,333) goes to the Central
Database, the net income is $21,000,000. With only 100 registrars the
resulting income will be $21,000,000/100 = $210,000 per registry per
year. No registry could profit from selling domain names with this type
of income, and it's not possible to preset prices between registries
(price fixing is very much illegal). The market must decide what the end
price point is for a domain name - even if it's given away for free.
Look how easy it is for an existing business to absorb that dollar and
give away the domain name as part of a promotion or VAR bundle.
19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a
given registrar can administer? Does this depend on whether
the registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the
gTLD?
D.19.1. Yes. Limitations must be in-line with natural market forces. If
a TLD is exclusive, then only one registry can administer it. This a
natural limitation. Registries within certain geographic regions may not
wish to administer certain TLDs (such as Muslim registries not wishing
to administer TLDs specializing in pornography). This is another example
of a natural limitation.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
D.20.1. No.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
E. TRADEMARK ISSUES
21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks,
common law trademarks, geographic indications, etc.), if any,
should be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names?
E.21.1. The use of the domain name space has changed since it was first
introduced. This change was not brought about by conscious choice or any
one person, but the change in the demographics of the internet
population as a whole.
E.21.2. As the internet population increases, and the demographic changes
from an academic to a consumer population, more importance is placed on
the identity of the source of goods or services on the internet. There
is no trademark status attached to a domain name when it is issued, but,
through its use, a domain name can aquire secondary meaning in the eyes
of the internet consumer. As such, the legal status of a domain name,
taken on a domain by domain basis, may include the form of a trademark.
E.21.3. Many of the problems regarding domain names as trademarks arise
because they incorporate terms that have already aquired secondary
meaning outside the internet. Certain words or phrases already have
associations with products or services in the minds of consumers. One of
the questions this poses is whether an existing trademark gives any
entitlement to a domain name. The answer is not clear, and probably will
never be entirely clear. New businesses started on the net with a
similar domain name but that do not compete with an existing trademark
holder have already faced litigation. Others in the same position have
not.
E.21.4. The namespace (as a whole - the "root" or ".") exists to serve
the consumer, not to serve the interests of the domain name owner. The
primary operating principle of it is that the consumer is not supposed
to be confused by a plethora of hosts with vastly different content all
bearing what appear to be similar domain names.
E.21.5. The simplest way to understand what a domain name is, is to
regard it as a dba (Doing Business As). The dba is simply a name that
someone is using to do business under with no immediate trademark
implcations. The domain name simply says "Bill Smith is doing business
under bill.com on the internet", and if this is recognized sufficiently
to distinguish Bill Smith's goods and services on the internet from
someone elses it *MAY* become a trademark in the same way Bill Smith's
name *MAY* become a trademark by it's use in trade.
E.21.6. Two points must be kept in mind when understanding trademark
issues on the internet: (a) domain names are and must be unique, and (b)
trademarked names are not necessarily unique (and there are many
examples of non-unique trademarks).
E.21.7. There are no international trademarks. There is no official
international registry of world wide trademarks. Trademarks may be
registered per country or per State/Province/Territory (for example, the
United States offers trademark regisstrations on a per state basis).
The World Intellectual Property Organization offers an international
arbitration service on such matters.
22. Should some process of preliminary review of an
application for registration of a domain name be required,
before allocation, to determine if it conflicts with a trademark,
a trade name, a geographic indication, etc.? If so, what
standards should be used? Who should conduct the
preliminary review? If a conflict is found, what should be
done, e.g., domain name applicant and/or trademark owner
notified of the conflict? Automatic referral to dispute
settlement?
E.22.1. Since a domain name carries the identical weight as a "doing
business as" thereb is no requirement for any review of the application.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should
trademark rights be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain
names? What entity(ies), if any, should resolve disputes? Are
national courts the only appropriate forum for such disputes?
Specifically, is there a role for national/international
governmental/nongovernmental organizations?
E.23.1. Disputes must be resolved in a manner agreeable to both parties
as in any other area of intellectual property. It seems inevitable that
a trademark holder will want a domain name that reflects the name of the
trademark held.
E.23.2. There are "strong" trademarks that are registered in many
countries and are vigorously defended. These may come close to being
unique.
E.23.3. There are many "not so strong" trademarks that may be regional
or business sector specific (for example, United Air Lines and United
Van Lines, or the Acme Brick Company and the Acme Electric Corporation).
E.23.4. There are two conflicting goals of different trademark holders
with respect to domain names: (a) to protect their trademarks against
infringement, and (2) to have access to the domain name system to use
their trademarks in a domain name.
E.23.5. Trademark infringement is the use of a trademarked name in a way
that may confuse the consumer about the source or quality of a product
or service. For strong trademarks there may also be infringement if the
use of a trademarked name dilutes the value of the trademark.
E.23.6. Holders of not so strong trademarks want the ability to use
their trademarked name in a domain name while some other holder of the
same mark for a different purpose also can use their trademarked name in
a domain name. These people would say it is essential to create
additional top-level domains to permit fair access to domain names by
holders of not so strong trademarks.
E.23.7. The number of not so strong trademarks far exceeds the number of
strong trademarks and that the domain name system should provide for the
needs of the many rather than protecting the privileges of the few. It
is because of this need that the top level domain space must be expanded
beyond the currently used TLDs.
E.23.8. It may be prudent, in the case of the Specialized TLD Class,
that they implement a very restrictive TLD charter. For example, it may
be a requirement that the domain applicant is in possesion of an
internationally recognized mark in a particular area (such as
International Treaty Organizations registered under .INT).
E.23.9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to be sure he is not
violating anyone else's trademark. Each IR must include a statement to
this effect in any registration template.
E.23.10. In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the
rights to a particular domain name, the registration authority shall
have no role or responsibility other than to provide the contact
information to both parties. In any dispute where the IR is named in any
lawsuit, the IR should file an "Interpleader"** before the appropriate
court, agreeing to abide by the ruling of that court. If the dispute is
between parties in different countries, the World Intellectual Property
Organization international arbitration service should be used to settle
such matters. Until such a time, the IR is obligated to provide
uninterrupted service of the domain in the root database.
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented?
What information resources (e.g. databases of registered
domain names, registered trademarks, trade names) could help
reduce potential conflicts? If there should be a database(s),
who should create the database(s)? How should such a
database(s) be used?
E.24.1. The primary solution to preventing conflicts is to ensure that
the name space is divided in a way that distinguishes business and
social categories adequately. Schemes similar to the International
Schedule Of Goods And Services make steps in this direction, though it
may be necessary to create a new set of categories to serve this
purpose.
E.24.2. The top level namespace is already divided up by category. These
categories contain either the geographical location (by country), or a
brief description of the type of entity registering a domain name.
E.24.3. In order to expand the top level, and lighten the load on the
existing TLDs (most notably .COM), a category naming scheme is needed to
avoid, or at the very least, limit the number of potential disputes in
the domain name space. By allowing organizations to obtain and use
domain names within their specific area of business, two companies with
the same business name can operate domain names on the internet without
causing confusion to the consumer in exactly the same way they would
outside the internet. By placing each company under a top level domain
that describes its business category, it will be easier to determine
that <smith>.<meat>, the hamburger company, is not <smith>.<oil>, the
gas station chain. The mapping scheme is primarily designed to protect
the consumer from fraud by describing the area of business and to
establish an identity of the source of goods and services provided over
the internet. It does not provide any trademark recognition or status.
E.25.4. Failure to adequately divide the namespace will guarantee
extensive and complicated beauraucracies, as well as increase conflicts
that will impede the progress and growth of the internet.
25. Should domain name applicants be required to
demonstrate that they have a basis for requesting a particular
domain name? If so, what information should be supplied?
Who should evaluate the information? On the basis of what
criteria?
E.25.1. The purpose of the TLD determines the necessary qualifications
of the applicant, and also provides a guide as to whether the TLD can be
delegated to the applicant.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number
of registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark
disputes?
E.26.1. Increasing the number of parties involved in a dispute increases
the cost of resolution.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for
a single domain name, are there any technological solutions?
E.27.1. No.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
E.28.1. No.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
F. OTHER ISSUES
Existing New Top Level Domain Applications
The application process is documented in [RFC 1591], which describes
the delegation and use of the existing top level domains COM. EDU, NET,
ORG, INT, GOV, MIL, and the ISO-3166 two letter country code domains.
It also describes the role of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA), which is responsible for the overall coordination and
management of the Domain Name System (DNS), and especially the
delegation of portions of the name space called top-level domains.
[RFC 1591] states "all requests for new top-level domains must be sent
to the Internic (at hostmaster@internic.net)". If approved, these top
level domains are added to the root.zone file which is carried by the
root DNS servers. The latest root.zone can be found at:
[ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/root.zone.gz]
What has caused confusion is the scope in which [RFC 1591] accepts new
top level domain name applications. Some have argued that historically
only new ISO-3166 TLDs have been granted and that is the entire scope
of this RFC. The actual paragraph that is in question is quoted here:
2. The Top Level Structure of the Domain Names
In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a
hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set
of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the
generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two
letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that
any other TLDs will be created.
Expectation and reality aren't always the same thing, just like
financial projections and earnings aren't the same. Does this paragraph
mean that:
a) No new TLDs of any sort will be delegated in the future?
b) Only new ISO-3166 domains will be delegated in the future?
c) There is no perceived need for additonal TLDs at this time?
It is quite apparent that any two letter country codes identified by
ISO-3166 could be added at the request of that country's government at
any time. It does not say other TLDs will not be created, just that it
is unlikely that they will. It was, presumably, left open like this in
case there was a future need for other types of TLDs. It certainly
does not say that new TLD applications outside of ISO-3166 (such as
the majority of new TLD applications currently submitted to IANA), are
not valid applications. [RFC 1591] is quite clear on the issue of
processing applications for new TLDs:
3) The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the
domain that request domain names.
This means that the same rules are applied to all requests, all
requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion, and
academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal
basis. No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come
from customers of some other business related to the manager --
e.g., no preferential service for customers of a particular data
network provider. There can be no requirement that a particular
mail system (or other application), protocol, or product be used.
There are no requirements on subdomains of top-level domains
beyond the requirements on higher-level domains themselves. That
is, the requirements in this memo are applied recursively. In
particular, all subdomains shall be allowed to operate their own
domain name servers, providing in them whatever information the
subdomain manager sees fit (as long as it is true and correct).
It quite clearly states that the same rules are applied to all TLD
requests. This means that the assumption by some that only ISO-3166
TLDs should be processed is incorrect.
It also says that all requests must be processed in a
non-discriminatory fashion, and academic and commercial (and other)
users are treated on an equal basis. It is quite clear that every
application received by IANA must be processed, and that this (because
the requirements are applied recursively), includes all the existing
TLD applications received by IANA.
No word has come from IANA as to why these new TLD applications
have not been processed. It has however, in conjunction with the
Internet Society (ISOC), International Telecommunication Union (ITU),
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), International
Trademark Association (INTA), and the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB), created the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) which was
supposed to address the legal, administrative, technical and operational
concerns, with particular attention to the questions of fairness and
functional stability of the domain name space. Unfortunately, the IAHC
have not succeeded in this matter.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
Best Regards,
Simon
###
Number: 321
From: Scott Persons <golden@uslink.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 2:12pm
Subject: Domain Names
My comments:
There's no question we need more domain names to handle internet
growth. As for who should manage them, I recommend one group be
in charge, but allow many others to offer them in order to foster
competition. We shouldn't have to pay $50/year to a monopoly.
Also, why hasn't anyone thought of adding the domain name ".biz"?
It sounds a lot better than ".firm" or ".store"
Thanks!
Scott Persons
golden@uslink.net
A Golden Opportunity! Scott & Bozena Persons
http://www.uslink.net/~golden golden@uslink.net
---------------------------------------------------------------~
"You can design your own future!"
We'll help you make your dreams come true!
---------------------------------------------------------------~
###
Number: 322
From: "Alex Gigante" <algigan@ix.netcom.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 2:49pm
Subject: DNS
I respectfully submit my comments regarding the domain-name system, annexed
as a document in Word Perfect format. These comments briefly address
issues that I discuss more fully in the following articles:
Blackhole in Cyberspace: the Legal Void in the Internet, 15 John Marshall
Journal of Computer and Information Law 413 (Spring 1997)
Ice Patch on the Information Superhighway: Foreign Liability For
Domestically Created Content, 14 Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal
523 (1996)
"Domain-ia": The Growing Tension Between the DNS and Trademark Law,
reprinted in Coordinating the Internet (MIT Press 1997)
Alex Gigante
Business Hours:
agigante@putnam.com, and
agigante@penguin.com
All Other Times:
algigan@ix.netcom.com
Comments of Alexander Gigante
The issues surrounding the domain-name system are interrelated with
the organization and structure of the Internet. The so-called Internet
Community is comprised of dozens of organizations and ad hoc groups that
came into existence when the Internet was the province of DARPA and NSF.
So long as these governmental agencies assumed responsibility for the
Internet, no one questioned the authority of the Community acting under
federal auspices
to make decisions regarding the name space. However, the withdrawal
of the governmental agencies from day-to-day Internet activities leaves
the Community without legal basis for its actions.
No statute gives IANA the power it wields. IAHC's authority is
self-proclaimed. And so is the case with every group that currently
participates in Internet governance. Thus, not surprisingly, the
Community's credibility now seems to be slipping away, as exemplified by
the domestic and international opposition to IAHC's proposal to create new
gTLDs accompanied by a Council of IAHC-selected registrars.
The current situation reflects the notion that the Internet should be
allow to evolve in an unregulated environment. This idealistic view is a
mistake. The lack of top-down structure will not mean an unregulated
environment. To the contrary, it will result in an over- regulated and
worse inconsistently regulated Internet. Absent some comprehensive
international agreement regarding the applicable rules, each jurisdiction
will go its separate way to enforce its own laws consistent with its
national policies. A few years ago, a German court enforced German
trademark law against an American Web site. A few months ago, a UK court
assumed jurisdiction over a German company on an unfair-competition
complaint filed by a US corporation. About six months ago, Mattel sued
Hasbro in California federal court, claiming that Hasbro's Scrabble Web
site violated Mattel's rights in the name under a variety of international
and foreign trade laws. (Hasbro, which owns the SCRABBLE name only in the
US and Canada could not, of course, deny access to surfers in Mattel's
exclusive SCRABBLE territory, which encompasses everywhere else in the
world.)
Moreover, even assuming that the Community were permitted to govern
the Internet free of conflict with real-world jurisdictions, its clubby,
elitist approach reflective of the days when the Internet was the
plaything of a select group of engineers has not generated wise
decision-making. IAHC is forging ahead with its gTLD plan, despite
credible evidence that it will not resolve any of the issues plaguing the
current TLD system. Representatives of major intellectual property
interests have already gone on record to state that the conflict between
the domain-name system and real-world trademark law will continue under
the new gTLDs. IAHC's presumptuous division of the world market for
Internet registries does not even pay lip service to possible antitrust
problems under US and foreign law. And what power will IAHC have to wrest
the .com database from NSI if the latter, which asserts a proprietary
right in the database, refuses to make it freely available on expiration
of its cooperative agreement with NSF?
The Internet generally, and the domain-name system in particular,
need the following:
1.
Regulation by a federal agency to establish basic, consistent rules
for the
allocation and registration of domain names;
2.
Amendment of federal trademark law to eliminate conflicts between
trademarks
and domain names (specifically, by providing that one party's use of
a domain
name will not dilute or otherwise affect the goodwill attaching to
another's
trademark in the same name, thereby eliminating the primary reason
for most
domain-name litigation);
3.
Clarify by legislation the legal status (including ownership) of the
name space
(the Internet Community's pious designation of the name space as a
"public trust"
resolves nothing: what are the self-appointed trustees' obligations?
what laws
define the trustees' duties and responsibilities?);
4.
An international agreement addressing points 1, 2 and 3 on an
international scale,
including specifically establishing an international regulatory
organization with
defined, legally based powers, and removing authority from
self-appointed
Internet governors;
5.
In addition, an international agreement to avoid inconsistent,
conflicting
regulation that will result from the application of dozens of laws to
each Internet
transmission (specifically, by applying exclusively the law of the
country of
origin: see my article at 14 Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law
Journal 523
[1996] for an example of such an approach)
###
Number: 323
From: Michael Schneider <sastre@Anwalt.DE>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 3:33pm
Subject: FYI: Electronic Filing of Comments on Internet Domain Names
Dear Sirs and Madams,
with reference to the above-stated request for public comment, we transmit
the following statement of position by
eco - Electronic Commerce Forum e.V., Germany.
With respect,
- on behalf of eco e.V. -
Michael Schneider
(Chairman)
Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names
Department of Commerce - request for public comment
[Docket No. 970613137-7137-01]
Dear Sirs and Madams, With reference to the above-stated request for
public comment, we transmit the following statement of position by
eco - Electronic Commerce Forum e.V.
As a result of the limited time available to us, we have not been able to
answer all of the questions, or have only been able to provide cursory
answer to some.
With respect,
signed Michael Schneider
- Chairman -
I. Background of
eco The German non-profit association Electronic Commerce Forum e.V. (eco)
was established by Internet service providers and enterprises which use
the Internet and services based on the Internet for commercial purposes at
the beginning of 1995. More than 60 members have now joined Eco - most of
them enterprises.
The association concentrates on two areas:
(1) Services and interest representation for Internet service providers
The association represents the political and economic interests of the
leading German
Internet service providers (ISPs). Eco views itself to be a "lobby"
working on behalf of the
ISPs and in this capacity it communicates with legislators and business
associations; in
addition, Eco is also involved in representing the interests of
providers in numerous national
and international projects. In this context, Eco is - together with
others - preparing, for
example, to found a pan-European ISP-Trade-Association (EuroISPA). Eco
continues to be
member in a worldwide platform of Internet-Trade-Associations which have
recently formed
in order to enable a global exchange of opinion regarding the interests
and needs of the
Internet industry.
On behalf of the German ISPs Eco also performs technical, legal and
content-related
services. These in particular include the German ISP's exchange point
"DE-CIX" and
projects with regard to voluntary self-regulation.
1. Electronic Commerce
The second point of concentration for Eco is the promotion and
propagation of
electronic commerce. Eco views itself in this context to be a platform
for interested business
groups jointly developing markets and solutions for electronic commerce.
In the
international arena Eco promotes the interests of its members within the
framework of the
Electronic-Commerce-Europe-Association (ECE), of which Eco is a founding
member.
II. STATEMENT OF POSITION
A. Appropriate Principles
Eco expressly supports the principles set out in Section A. We are of the
opinion, however, that the following statements should in addition be
considered:
1. The global nature of the Internet" should not only be taken into
account in the
technical respect. Rather, the Internet has in the meantime become a
communications
platform which from an economic point of view has become indispensable
for many
enterprises. For example, the German telecommunications market in
general as well as the
Internet market in particular, is - both with respect to revenues which
are generated here
and with respect to the number of subscribers - one of the biggest in
the world. Internet has
been playing an increasingly more important role here for years.
2. Accordingly, the interests of the German Internet industry must
also be taken into
account in all decisions which are of importance to the continued
development of the
network. This has not been successfully done within the framework of the
IAHC process.
3. The composition of self-regulating bodies in the Internet must
take regional factors
into account. Only then it can be assured that regulations, which are to
have worldwide
effect, meet the requirements of national economies outside the USA: If
this is not provided
for, the development of Internet into a platform for global electronic
commerce will be put
in question. In this respect as well, neither the IAHC or the iPOC have
yet been able to gain
the confidence of business sectors lying outside the USA. Members of the
iPOC moreover
have been making the sustained impression - most recently at a meeting
of various Internet
trade associations (including CIX, CAIP, UK-ISPA, LINX and Eco) - that
no satisfactory
membership for this body can or shall be obtained for the time being.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems? One of the most significant disadvantages of the
current domain name registration systems is above all to be found in its
history:
All registries which administer the TLDs traditionally derive
their right to do so from the
IANA. This is not based on written law, but rather on historically
evolved agreements which
continue to be accepted throughout the entire Internet. Such traditions
have increasingly
been criticized, however. The IANA is not a legal person, but rather a
construct which is for
the most part embodied in one single person.
The administration of TLDs is predominantly organized along
monopolistic lines,
thus allowing individual organizations to dictate the conditions and
prices at which they
assign domains - a situation which in part still exists today. The
administrators of the TLDs
are not subject to any effective supervision.
No adequate policies have been developed to extend the domain
name space by
structuring it beyond the top level. Moreover, action against the
improper use of the name
space was taken too late. Both has led to a shortage in the name space
which was avoidable.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
The solution to the current problem is not to be found in the further
development of the DNS, but rather in the implementation of a directory
system. As soon as technologies are available which lead Internet
subscribers to find resources in another manner than by using canonical
domain names, the rush for domains - in particular for Com-domains will
decline significantly. As attractive domains are - within the additional
name space which the IAHC as well as Alternic and others want to create -
only available to a limited extent, a further impovement of the DNS by
establishing additional gTLDS would only be helpful as a transitional
solution.
3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should current domain
name systems be administered? What should the makeup of such an entity be?
The DNS should be administered by a non-profit organization which is
subject to the supervision of a self-regulating body, whose membership is
balanced in terms of competencies and regions. In particular, the most
important Internet "stakeholders" - above all the Internet service
providers - should have a seat and vote in the self-regulating body.
Government agencies should not have any role, or only an observational
role, in the self-regulating body.
4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as models for
deciding on domain name registration systems (e.g., network numbering
plan, standard-setting processes, spectrum allocation)? Are there
private/public sector administered models or regimes that can be used for
domain name registration (e.g., network numbering plan, standard setting
processes, or spectrum allocation processes)? What is the proper role of
national or international governmental/non-governmental organizations, if
any, in national and international domain name registration systems?
./.
5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be retired from
circulation? Should geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) be required?
If so, what should happen to the .com registry? Are gTLD management issues
separable from questions about International Standards Organization (ISO)
country code domains?
From our perspective, there is no reason to retire the gTLDs, which are
presently in use, from circulation.
6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain name
registration issues? Are there any issues concerning the relationship of
registrars and gTLDs with root servers?
./.
7. How can we ensure the scalability of the domain name system name and
address spaces as well as ensure that root servers continue to
interoperate and coordinate?
In this context we refer to the proposal made above, according to which a
directory system should be implemented and it should be ensured that the
existing name space can be efficiently used.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
The transition should not be made until worldwide consensus prevails with
respect to the new system. It continues to be absolutely necessary for the
new system to be developed and tested in accordance with recognized
principles of project management. Here those organizations should be
involved which are especially familiar with the technical development of
the Internet (IETF, IAB, ISPs).
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
./.
C. Creation of New gTLDs
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations that
constrain the total number of different gTLDs that can be created?
From a technical perspective, the number of conceivable gTLDs and country
TLDs is theoretically infinite. The technical expense which must be borne
in order to create a larger number of new TLDs could be significant,
however. Beyond this, the establishment of numerous new TLDs may confuse
enterprises and subscribers which use the Internet as a platform for their
business activities.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
The simplest and at the first glance most efficient strategy in order to
prevent a shortage in name domains is to introduce new generic top-level
domains (gTLDs). The technical and administrative efforts involved in
doing this are relatively low and an almost infinite number of additional
name space can be easily created by means of alternative DNS extensions.
It is not surprising, then, that all approaches to revise the DNS which
were discussed in the past few years have also always included the
implementation of new gTLDs. Nevertheless, we are of the view that this
measure is not suitable for avoiding conflicts over name rights. They will
instead cause many enterprises and organizations to see themselves forced
to register their names under several gTLDs - which means in all
categories of relevance to them. Should this prediction turn out to be
true, the extension in the name space at the TLD level will have proven to
be counter-productive.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing
the scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of
gTLDs?
./.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
code domains?
From a technical point of view there is no reason to make a distinction
between gTLDs and country TLDs. However, the sovereignty over country TLDs
should be assigned to the self- regulating bodies in the respective
countries.
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
./.
D. Policies for Registries
15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a particular gTLD?
Are there any technical limitations on using shared registries for some or
all gTLDs? Can exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?
A registrar should only have exclusive control over a particular gTLD if
it is subject to the direct and unrestricted supervision of one of the
above-described self-regulating bodies. The technical implications of
sharing a registry have thus far not been sufficiently examined. Some
experts doubt whether the model developed by the IAHC is technically
feasible. Given this background, we urgently recommend that a technical
analysis and suitable beta test be conducted before the model is
implemented.
Exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs may easily coexist.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and
what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine
these and how?
Threshold requirements for domain name registrars are desirable from our
perspective in order to guarantee a high quality of service, adherence to
minimum standards in the areas of data protection as well as data security
and the economic stability of the registrar. It is scarcely possible,
however, to define requirements for registrars which prevent abuse and
still meet anti- trust requirements.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name registrars?
./.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name
space raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
We assume that with a large number of competing registrars competition
will be significant and perhaps even more than is being aimed. This could
lead to rapid economic destabilization of those registrars which receive
their main revenues from the domain business. Such a destabilization could
limit the viability of the future DNS strategy as well as confidence in
the stability of the Internet.
19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a given
registrar can administer? Does this depend on whether the registrar has
exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the gTLD?
In our opinion this question can currently not be answered. It should be
raised again after the first experience has been gained with a limited
number of new gTLDs - to which all registrars should receive equal access.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
./.
E. Trademark Issues
21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks, common law
trademarks, geographic indications, etc.), if any, should be protected on
the Internet vis-a-vis domain names?
We are of the opinion that an efficient protection of trademarks and of
trademark owners is not possible vis-a-vis domain names.
In practice, the use of identical trademarks happens again and again, for
example as they are registered for different classes. Furthermore the
registration can - following the principle of territoriality - be applied
for in different countries. Although there were various attempts to
overcome territoriality by supranational treaties in the past - such as
the Madrid Treaty - this has still not been entirely achieved.
In addition, in some legal systems conflicts over names can also arise at
a national level. In many cases, there is provision that although the
holder of a prior right enjoys priority, he must consent to the use of
this mark by a third party. This can, for instance, occur if the
registration of an identical mark is not opposed in good time or if the
earlier mark has not been used over a longer period of time. A legal
solution in such cases of conflict does not exist; the disputed marks must
exist alongside one another and their owners are compelled to compromise.
On the Internet domain names have to be assigned in an unambiguous manner
and therefore it is not conceivable to apply the legal rules dealing with
trademark conflicts to the assignment of domains. In addition, trademark
rights can not completely be protected in the Domain name area.
22. Should some process of preliminary review of an application for
registration of a domain name be required, before allocation, to determine
if it conflicts with a trademark, a trade name, a geographic indication,
etc.? If so, what standards should be used? Who should conduct the
preliminary review? If a conflict is found, what should be done, e.g.,
domain name applicant and/or trademark owner notified of the conflict?
Automatic referral to dispute settlement?
The following model should be taken into consideration (details in
http://www.anwalt.de/publicat/inet_idx.htm). It is based on the joint use
of a domain in case several applicants raise a claim to the related name:
1. Domains are assigned to the user on a first come, first served
basis (following the
principle of priority).
2. Should a further applicant raise a claim to a domain, this will be
placed under joint
administration ( sequestration").
3. If after examination, the claim of the new user is unjustified,
the domain will be
assigned to the original user. If the original user's claim is invalid,
then the name will be
assigned to the new claimant. If both have a justified right to the use
of a name, then the
domain will be placed under permanent joint administration. In the case
of the name being
assigned to exactly one user, the defeated party will bear the costs of
the examination and
alteration.
4. Should further applicants wish to lay claim in the case of a
permanent joint
administration then the procedure as mentioned in (1) and (2) will be
repeated analogously.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark rights
be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names? What entity(ies), if
any, should resolve disputes? Are national courts the only appropriate
forum for such disputes? Specifically, is there a role for
national/international governmental/nongovernmental organizations?
Disputes can only be decided in litigations presided over by national
courts at present as a result of the varying regulations applying to
trademark rights throughout the world. In this context, we have
recommended the following to the German Ministry of Economics and the
Ministry of Justice:
TLD administration by a self-regulating bodies
The administration of TLDs and the assignment of name space at
the SLD level
should continue to be performed by self-regulating bodies. It must be
ensured by means of a
suitable legal framework (by act of law or a public-law agreement
between the government
and the self-regulating body) that this task is performed lawfully, at a
reasonable price and
according to the principle of equal rights.
Integration of the jurisdiction into the federal patent office
The activity of the organization which is administering the name
space should be
closely tied to the tasks of the federal patent office (which in Germany
is also responsible for
the registration of trademarks). However, this should not apply to the
assignment and
technical administration of the name space as such, but rather for the
issue of jurisdiction.
To solve name conflicts, it appears to suggest itself - especially when
taking into account the
proximity of the issue with trademark rights - to set up judicial bodies
at the federal patent
office which have the final word in conflicts relating to domains.
As far as the IAHC intends to solve domain disputes by setting up
so-called "Administrative Challenge Panels" (ACPs) and by mediation and
arbitration, their approach may basically be welcomed, but it does not
ultimately lead to a satisfactory result for the following reasons:
Mediation can only be successful if the parties involved in a
dispute voluntarily adhere to the
ruling of the mediator. Especially in an area of such economic
importance as that
represented by name rights, however, it is to be expected that the
losing party will still act to
initiate litigation even after the conclusion of the mediation.
The establishment of a special jurisdiction and/or arbitration
only makes sense if
these are effectively agreed upon before any cause for legal dispute
arises. This is extremely
difficult, however, in the area of domain name administration. On the
one hand, very
different requirements are placed on arbitration agreements world-wide,
which means that
the effectiveness of this approach can be easily undermined simply by
virtue of formal
mistakes. On the other hand, an arbitration agreement can only lead to
reasonable results if
it must be mandatorily accepted by all parties involved - this is,
however, delicate in an area
in which an authority holds a dominant position in the market and may
accordingly be
subject to anti-trust regulations.
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented? What
information resources (e.g. databases of registered domain names,
registered trademarks, trade names) could help reduce potential conflicts?
If there should be a database(s), who should create the database(s)? How
should such a database(s) be used?
Conflicts over trademarks can be prevented or reduced by either
1. replacing the directory function of the DNS by introducing an
adequate directory
system, or
2. introducing the above-described model of sequestration" to solve
disputes.
25. Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate that they
have a basis for requesting a particular domain name? If so, what
information should be supplied? Who should evaluate the information? On
the basis of what criteria?
Name rights should basically not be reviewed by registrars, as these may
not have the necessary legal knowledge and, beyond this, may be subject to
liability for significant compensation as a result of their rulings.
A pre-review by government agencies - for instance the trademark offices -
does not make sense either, as the review procedure would constrain the
efficient assignment of domains, which is indispensable for electronic
trade in Internet.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars
affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
./.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single
domain name, are there any technological solutions?
An alternative solution which should be taken into consideration is based
on the joint use of a domain in case several applicants raise a claim to a
related name.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
./.
###
Number: 324
From: "j.poeppelmann@plateaux.com" <Jens@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 5:27pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Jens do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel Internet
namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s name.space(tm)
service, located on the internet at http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or
http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Sunday, August 17, 1997 17:25:56 EDT
Jens
###
Number: 325
From: "rushkoff@interport.net" <Douglas.Rushkoff@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 5:34pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Douglas Rushkoff do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Sunday, August 17, 1997 17:33:22 EDT
Douglas Rushkoff
288 West 12th St.
NY NY 10014
###
Number: 326
From: "may@hiregun.com" <May.S.Young@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 10:58pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I May S. Young do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Sunday, August 17, 1997 22:57:18 EDT
May S. Young