Domain Name Comments Received After the August 18, 1997 Deadline

Number: 407
From: Neil Hoener <neil.hoener@fatalerr.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/19/97 12:44am
Subject: Registration of Domain Names


Hello Dns@ntia.doc.gov!


I run a 2 line Bbs in Colorado Springs, Colorado and have for more than six
years. I also hold a class C internet domain for the bbs through my ISP and
use an UUCP connection for email for my users. My Bbs, Fatal Error Bbs
(Fatalerr.com), is non-profit and I run it because I enjoy the hobby and the
interaction with the users.


The current arrangement used to register InterNIC domain names is rediculous.
I pay the current InterNIC registar $50 per year for what? To maintain a
server that keeps track of my domain name for the few people that send email
to my very simple operation?


If I am going to register my domain name with someone, let it be a government
agency that has the power to grant a licence and have some sense of public
benefit rather than a private monopoly. Current InterNIC operation is
indicitive of the money-grubbing mind thought that is strangling the Internet
today. Don't just regulate the upper level ISPs, help the smaller domain
names against those that gouge us.


Neil Hoener
Fatal Error Bbs
Colorado Springs, CO
Fido 1:128/103
nhoener@fatalerr.com


* WCE 2.0/2399 * In a VERY weak moment, I started a BBS.


###

Number: 408
From: "Gordon F. B. Johnson" <gjohnson@sysnet.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/19/97 7:33pm
Subject: DNS names


The new TLDs seem like a great idea. Things could get a little sticky
if the same host name is available in all the TLDs. And wouldn't a huge
number of places to register names lead to unneccesary trouble from
different people and companies all trying to register the same name at
the same time? Once a name is submitted and online the issue is
settled, but what about a situation where a company is in the process of
getting up and going and its procedure to register its name with one
registrar is delayed long enough for a name bandit (for lack of a
known/better term) to register the name with another registrar and
ransom the name. In general it seems a bit peculiar that a company's
registered trademark name is open to anyone's taking in the internet
naming game.




###

Number: 409
From: Nick Marcou <nick@reston.ans.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/19/97 10:39am
Subject: DNS opinion


Make sure it supports 128-bit addressing, for future expansion, but it
should stay with the
x.x.x.x format for IPs, and as small a number as possible of top-level
domains.


Nick Marcou
nick@ans.net




###

Number: 410
From: "Joseph H. Alhadeff" <uscib24@pop.interport.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/19/97 4:30pm
Subject: Response to Request for Comments on DNS




August 18, 1997


Via E-Mail
Ms. Patrice Washington
Office of Public Affairs,
National Telecommunications Information Administration
dns@ntia.doc.gov


Dear Ms. Washington:


Please find attached the preliminary comments of the US Council for
International Business (USCIB) in response to the Department of
Commerce's Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration
of Internet Domain Names. These comments are submitted in response to
Domain Name issues which have come to the fore as a result of the
decision not to renew NSI's contract. While commentators have
recognized problems with the current administration of the Internet
Domain Name and Registration system, we are not yet convinced that the
technology underlying alternate proposals has been sufficiently tested
to justify implementation by mid-1998.


In reviewing alternate proposals, our comments focus on the IAHC
proposal which is cited by many commentators as the most likely
alternative to the current system of domain name registration and
administration. In focusing on the issues related to the most
topical proposed Domain Name System solution, we do not address
issues related to alternative solutions based on enhanced numbering
or directory schemes and do not attempt to establish benchmarks for
what constitutes adequate or appropriate protection for trademarks
and tradenames on the Internet.


The USCIB is the American member of the Business and Industry Advisory
Committee to the OECD and the American affiliate of the International
Chamber of Commerce. The USCIB will be preparing further comments on
the Domain Name administration and registration system as part of the
OECD's review of this issue. The USCIB looks forward to continued
work with NTIA and the US Delegation to the OECD on this issue.


Sincerely,




Joseph H. Alhadeff
Director, Electronic Commerce


Attachment USCIBDNS.doc is a Word 6.0 document.


Joseph H. Alhadeff
Director, Electronic Commerce
U.S. Council for International Business
jalhadeff@uscib.org


CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("Information.Policy.Ad.Hoc.Group@y...

USCIB COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES

1. There is no critical impending deadline for the fragmentation of the Internet; getting the right solution is more important than getting a quick solution.

In March of 1998 the NSF's cooperative agreement with NSI to administer three Top Level Domains (.com, .org, .net) will expire. There has been a presumption that the solution to the Domain Name issue must be in place by that date, or shortly thereafter, to avoid some calamity. While we agree that a solution by that date is preferable, we do not believe that the system is likely to stop operating or degrade in any significant manner. The Root Servers and Domain Name Server infrastructure will remain intact on April 1, 1998 and ISP's and companies will continue to follow current usage until such time as an internationally agreed upon solution is adopted and properly implemented.

There is at present both a political and philosophical debate as to the nature of the Internet. Is it an international resource, controlled by none, but accessible to all? Does the US have any special role in light of its founding sponsorship and current dominance? There are also questions of what parties need to be joined in a debate whose results will have far reaching impacts on the administration and operation of the Internet. While an important sociological discussion, this debate clouds the issue of whether a solution needs to be in place by mid-1998.

2. The Concerns of Business.

The USCIB believes that preventing fragmentation of the Internet and maintaining a coherent and interoperable infrastructure are the main concerns of business and should also be the main and immediate concerns of government. The USCIB also recognizes the equally important concerns created by the intellectual property value which has been associated with URLs in the .com domain. Problems of piracy, or cybersquatting, coupled with the lack of effective dispute resolution mechanisms have increased the overhead costs of commerce on the Internet. Lastly, the USCIB recognizes that the inability of two companies with similar names, but substantially dissimilar products, to both operate a "company name".com website has lead to claims of a scarcity of Domain Names, but is also cognizant that this may be an unavoidable technological limitation of the medium.

3. USCIB supports open and interoperable electronic commerce solutions

The USCIB has been a strong proponent of industry-led initiatives to support an open and interoperable electronic commerce marketplace. The USCIB recognizes the benefits of competition in the marketplace as the best way to spur innovation, moderate prices and empower entrepreneurship. Many of the concepts inherent in the IAHC proposal are consistent with these principles.

4. Proposals and potential problems.

The current NSI system has been criticized by some in the US for inadequate dispute resolution mechanisms and is suspect in some international jurisdictions because it is "monopolistic" or "too American". Many proposals concerning the future of the Internet's Domain Name Administration and Registration System have suggested ways of supplementing, improving or replacing the NSI system. NSI itself has proposed a solution which would create competition by allowing the creation of many exclusive domains.

Other proposals include alternative registration schemes, numeric addressing solutions and enhanced directory services, or combinations of these approaches. While a number of these solutions may have merit, most have neither been sufficiently publicized nor vetted to be credible alternatives to the current system of registration and administration. Among the possible solutions which have been more broadly discussed, the IAHC proposal has gained the most attention and may be the current leading contender among the alternatives to the present NSI system.

On its face the IAHC proposal provides a seeming solution to many of the concerns of business in this area, but some of the technological solutions may require further review or testing and the policies may need to be more fleshed out. Many of the other proposed solutions have similar, if not greater, technological and policy issues which need to be addressed. The IAHC proposal is highlighted because of the greater international attention it has received and higher level of momentum it has gained.

The IAHC proposal would end the de facto monopoly on Domain Name Registration and replace it with an unlimited number of registrars. The proposal is based on technological solutions which create secure and scaleable systems with necessary redundancy to provide for a much larger number of technologically less sophisticated players to act as registrars without substantially increasing the risk of technological problems.

The IAHC proposal and initial implementation originally called for 28 registrars. Presumably the original plan foresaw the implementation of technology that would serve 28 registrars with the potential for a gradual increase of registrars over time. This would permit time for implementation, further development and a learning curve for both users and developers to determine how best to proceed. Many members of the USCIB are concerned that the increase of complexity from one to an unlimited number of registrars, with little time for learning curve benefits to be factored in, may increase the risk of technological problems. The concern is not that the technology cannot be built; the software and computer resources already exist to accomplish this task. The concern centers around the need for more time. Time to properly develop, implement and test the system and time to resolve legal and organizational issues which may only arise once the system begins operation.

The roster of IAHC members and supporters reads much like a who's who of the Internet. Their collective reputation provides credibility that entitles their proposal to a hearing - not a presumption of adoption, but a fair hearing. Before a true hearing of the proposal can be had, however, many members of the USCIB are of the opinion that the technology must be completed and tested (for scaleability and interoperability) with results made generally available for review. To our knowledge, no functional testbed has been completed on a small scale, much less a scale that would approximate the number of registrars and volume of registrations contemplated. It should also be pointed out that a few companies have already been formed and are taking orders for registration of company names in the new subdomains at the first possible opportunity. Since many of the piracy problems are obviated by first-in-time registration, there is a possibility that many of the new subdomains will be swamped when first available for registration. The system may be near critical mass from the start; providing little or no ramp up period.

If a large number of companies register across multiple subdomains, the potential benefit of increasing available Domain Names may not materialize. The registration across all available domains would represent an effort to prevent possible piracy and to prevent any potential threat of trademark or tradename dilution. Smaller companies, with more limited resources, may be less able to accomplish these wholesale registrations across subdomains. This inability to register across all domains by smaller companies may create new available names, but may also create some opportunities for piracy.

The USCIB suggests that a cost/benefit analysis should be undertaken to try to quantify the potential benefit that new subdomains could create and compare that to the increased overhead which companies might face in registering, monitoring and enforcing their trade names and marks across new domains. To our knowledge, no such study has been undertaken. While members agree that such a study would be desirable, a few members are concerned that such a study might needlessly delay the evaluation and possible implementation of the IAHC proposal.

The IAHC has set forth the most comprehensive dispute resolution policy and mechanism of any proposal to date, but questions still remain as to whether the WIPO arbitration procedures will provide adequate enforcement and remedies for companies whose trademarks are infringed. The USCIB would request more specifics on the operation and guidelines of the system. The USCIB is concerned that many businesses have not focused on this dispute resolution issue in sufficient detail.

While the IAHC process has been open for comment, it has progressed at a fast pace and has covered an issue which many businesses did not track closely. The Domain Name issue is now gaining more prominence and is being given higher level review by many businesses. The USCIB believes that it is important for as many details as possible concerning this and other proposals to be made available.

5. A Possible Solution

While we have raised potential problems with the IAHC proposal, and understand that other proposals may raise similar or greater concerns, we presume that the de facto monopoly of NSI is not internationally acceptable in the long run. Any alternative solution must recognize the experience and expertise which NSI has gained through their investments of time and effort. The USCIB would urge collaboration between NSI and the IAHC (or whatever proposal gains international acceptance) to provide the best possible solution. NSI's experience would be useful in developing scaleable registration systems and it can provide access to the necessary registration database information to provide for true interoperability. Obviously, a solution of this nature rests on the desire of both parties to work constructively with each other for the benefit of the Internet community. While both NSI and IAHC/CORE seem dedicated to minimizing any chance of fragmentation, many members believe that a collaborative solution provides the best alternative to avoiding the potential for fragmentation which might result if competing Domain Name Systems were deployed. Thus, over time and with proven systems from IAHC/CORE, NSI will cede its de facto monopoly over .com, .org and .net and take its place among the international registrars.

###

Number: 411
From: "Michael Garretson" <eti@teleport.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/19/97 4:17pm
Subject: Top Level Domain changes


I support the addition of the seven new top level domains. I also support
the opening of several options for domain registration, instead of just
InterNIC, so long as they are well coordinated and have an international
arbitration methodology.


I would also like to suggest that the registration of multiple "flavors" of
a given domain type be discouraged. This would be one entity registering
"fred.com," "fred.net," "fred.org," "fred.web" and so on through the
top-level domains.


Any search through the phone book is going to find Broadway Books, Broadway
Flowers, Broadway Guitars, etc. -- So much as possible, the domains should
be split between the different companies. While I know some will say
keeping them with one company will reduce misidentification, I hope the
case above will be presented against that, as well.

Thank You,

Michael Garretson
Portland, Oregon, USA

###

Number: 412

From: "David Nash" <5NASHD@stu.jmls.edu>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/19/97 10:58am
Subject: Response to Domain Name Comments

* This message contains the file 'doc_resp.doc', which has been
* uuencoded. If you are using Pegasus Mail, then you can use
* the browser's eXtract function to lift the original contents
* out to a file, otherwise you will have to extract the message
* and uudecode it manually.

Response to Request for Comments on the Registration

and Administration of Internet Domain Names

David B. Nash, III⁽¹⁾

Terminology:

The Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names did not define the term "generic top-level domain" ("gTLD"). In the following responses, I use the definition adopted by the International Ad Hoc Committee.⁽²⁾

Generic top-level domains are referred to as generic because any organization from any country can register a name under them (i.e., .com, .org., and .net).⁽³⁾

In addition, I use "trademark" or "mark" to mean both trademarks and service marks, whether registered or not. Finally, although it may seem a bit jingoistic, I only use English in our examples of possible new TLDs. This is not because I think that English will be or should be the exclusive language of the gTLDs, but rather because it is the language with which I am most familiar.

Introduction:

It should be made clear at the outset: a domain name can be a trademark and a domain name can infringe a trademark. No amount of wishing, posturing, or denying will change that. The United States Patent and Trademark Office will register a domain name like "obesity.com" as a trademark. In Comp Examiner Agency v. Juris, 1996 WL 37660 (C.D. Cal. 1996), the court granted a preliminary injunction because there was a strong probability that the second-level domain name "juris" infringed the registered trademark JURIS. In Hasbro v. Internet Entertainment Group, 40 USPQ2d 1479 (W.D. Wa. 1996), the court also granted a preliminary injunction because there was a strong possibility that the second-level domain name "candyland" diluted the famous mark CANDYLAND. Both of these cases were decided in early 1996. By late 1996, two courts had decided that domain names could infringe trademarks. In both Intermatic v. Toeppen, 947 F. Supp. 1227 (N.D. Ill. 1996), and Panavision v. Toeppen, 945 F. Supp. 1296 (C.D. Cal. 1996), the court held that registering the name of a famous trademark with the intent of selling the domain name to the trademark's owner is infringement of the trademark. Although the precise boundaries of protection for trademarks with respect to Internet domain names is not yet decided, it is clear that some measure of protection exists.

It is unwise to discuss possible solutions to the conflict between the domain name system and trademarks in a vacuum as though the issue has not been pondered before. The IAHC report and its critics, "renegade" TLDs and roots (sometimes referred to as "confederations"), and others have all considered the problem. The IAHC has spent much time and effort in crafting a possible solution to the problem. Although there are many concerns with the IAHC report's approach, it has some useful themes. The first is that the creation of new TLDs should not occur chaotically, but in a controlled manner. The second is the creation of an administrative organization for the Internet to complement the technical ones. Engineers have been able to gather together in the past to keep the Internet running with "rough consensus and running code." However, the future of the Internet depends on a robust administrative organization. The IAHC report has made the important recognition that the administrative and technical needs of the Internet must be met by different organizations. Administrators should set policy. Engineers should implement policy.

A second group of people have set up "renegade" TLDs and roots. The current DNS system depends on about ten root servers that only point to IANA approved top-level domains.⁽⁴⁾

This has not prevented people from attempting to set up their own set of root servers and top-level domains. These "renegade" top-level domains are not accessible to the vast majority of the users on the Internet. This is because the IANA approved root servers are part of the "rough consensus and running code" and the "renegade" servers are not. This is a problem for the future. Whether the solution will be to only allow the government approved roots or to only provide government protection for registrants in government approved top-level domains, is an argument for another day. The important thing to keep in mind is that anyone can set up a group of root servers and TLDs and try to convince the world's ISPs to use them. As long as these "renegade" TLDs and roots receive only a tiny fraction of Internet traffic, they can be safely ignored by trademark owners and governments. That may change in the future.

Other proposals fall into three categories. The first category proposes the creation of a .tm top-level domain or even top-level domains that are specific trademarks. This will not solve the trademark problem, it will just move the trademark conflicts to another level in the DNS hierarchy. The second category proposes completely replacing meaningful domain names with IP numbers or gibberish. This destroys any usefulness the DNS has in organizing the Internet. The third category proposes eliminating gTLDs and having only two-letter national TLDs. Again, this just moves trademark conflicts to another level in the DNS hierarchy. However, it also creates the possibility that an organization with domain names in more than one national TLD will have to conform to many different registration and dispute policies.

An ideal domain name registration system must solve five problems. The first two, concurrent use and dilution, are problems of trademark law. The other three, conglomerates and holding companies, the registration of company names versus trademarks, and generic terms are special cases in name registration.

Concurrent use of trademarks means that more than one organization can use the same mark. This can happen because the marks are used on different types of products, or in different geographic areas, or both. One of the widely used examples is the mark UNITED which is simultaneously used by United Airlines, United Van Lines, and an innumerable number of smaller businesses. All of these business can use this mark, even register it with the federal government, without legal conflict. An ideal domain name registration system will allow all of these businesses the opportunity to incorporate their mark into their domain name.

"Famous" trademarks are protected from trademark dilution under federal law. Trademark dilution is the legal theory that the holder of a famous trademark is injured if that mark is used by any other company in any geographic area. This is because when the famous mark is seen, more than one product or service will come to mind. This means that for certain trademarks (the legislative history of the federal law lists KODAK and BUICK as examples of famous trademarks) only one organization can use the mark. An ideal domain name registration system would allow only the rightful owner of the famous mark and no other to register a domain name incorporating the mark.

The first special case in name registration is the problem of conglomerates and holding companies. These organizations have divisions in different, and often completely unrelated, lines of business. Often, the name of the conglomerate never appears on the products of its divisions and consumers are often never aware of which products or services are ultimately owned by a conglomerate. Therefore, a conglomerate and each of its divisions is likely to be thought of as completely separate entities by the public. An ideal domain name registration system would allow each conglomerate to register a domain name incorporating its company name as well as domain names for each of the companies that it owns.

The second special case in name registration is the problem of the registration of company names versus the company's trademarks. This is very similar to the problem of conglomerates. It is much easier to remember the name of a product or service than to remember the name of the company that provides it. An ideal domain name registration system would allow each company to register a domain name incorporating its company name as well as domain names for each of the marks it uses on its products.

The third special case in name registration is generic terms. Generic terms should be reserved for use only at the gTLD level or to organize domain names. An ideal domain name registration system would prohibit the registration of generic terms as domain names. An example of an ideal use would be .television as a top-level domain. An example of prohibited use would be "television" as a domain name.

The reformation of the domain name registration system should move toward this ideal system. This reformation should not limited to just the top-level of the domain name system. An entire organizational structure should be created. For the example name "chicago-cubs.baseball.professional.teams.sports," the name granting authority should create the structure .baseball.professional.teams.sports, and then organizations that are professional baseball teams would be allowed to register their name under this structure. In addition, tight control would be kept over what name would be registered. Just registering "cubs" under the structure will not be enough because there is a more specific name available "chicago-cubs."

B.1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name registration systems?

There is one advantage to the current gTLD registration system: with the InterNIC⁽⁵⁾

being the only registrar of domain names under the gTLDs, there is a consistent registration and dispute policy for all of the gTLDs. A person with domain names in more than one gTLD does not have to keep track of different policies and requirements for the different gTLDs.

There are at least three disadvantages to the current gTLD registration system. The first disadvantage is it is not clear where authority resides to create and allocate domain names. Given the current tension between NSF and NSI, a definitive statement about the ownership of the gTLDs must be made by the U.S. government. I recommend that the U.S. government agree with the IAHC report when it states that the top-level domain name space "is a public resource and subject to the public trust." Then the U.S. government, in conjunction with other governments, should create an administrative organization to manage that public resource. The second disadvantage is that there is no competition between registrars. Even though I am recommending that the registrars should not have exclusive control over a gTLD, competition should create better services at better prices. The third disadvantage is the small number of gTLDs and the requirement that each second-level domain name under each gTLD be unique means that, at most, only three organizations can have the same second-level domain name in the gTLDs (e.g., acme.com, acme.org, and acme.net).

B.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.4. . . . . What is the proper role of national or international governmental/non-governmental organizations, if any, in national and international domain name registration systems?

Policy administration of the domain name registration system needs to be separated from the technical administration of the system. For purposes of this response, the policy administration organization will be called the name granting authority, and the technical administration will reside in the registrars. The name granting authority should be an international, governmental organization with administrative, legal, political, and economic expertise at its disposal. (The registrars will be fully discussed in the answer to D.15.)

The name granting authority would have two major functions. The first would be to create new gTLDs with the purpose of organizing the domain name space in a useful way. (What those new gTLDs should be is further discussed in the response to C.11.). The second is to avoid trademark conflicts. This would be accomplished by evaluating applications for domain names to determine what domain name should be granted, and under which gTLD it should be placed. This is a different approach to registering domain names than under the current system. The idea is to avoid trademark conflicts before they occur, rather than having names registered first-come, first-served followed by administrative hearings and lawsuits.

This approach has two layers to help avoid trademark conflicts. The first layer is to examine the domain name itself. The domain name should not be granted if it is a famous trademark owned by someone else. This prevents possible trademark dilution problems. In addition, the domain name should be as specific as possible. For instance, the Chicago Sun-Times should only get approval for the name "chicago-sun-times" (or something similar like "chicagosuntimes"). Any domain name that is less specific can cause a conflict with another paper whose name also is "Sun-Times." The second layer is to determine where the name can be registered in the domain name organization. In the previous example, the name "chicago-sun-times" should only be allowed to be registered under .newspapers or something similar. To enforce its decisions, the name granting authority would issue a certificate, with the name and location(s) where the name can be registered. The registrars would only be allowed to put a name into the DNS database that had a current certificate.

B.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?

The ideal would be to close the current gTLDs to future applicants. However, even if they are not, as .com, .org, and .net get more crowded and crazy and litigious, many organizations will be looking for shelter in the form of a TLD to register under that has a very low probability of resulting in trademark conflict litigation. In addition, people already are used to the idea of looking for a particular organization under a particular top-level domain name--they look for businesses under .com. It is a small step to get used to the idea of top-level domains that differentiate between businesses.

If the current gTLDs are closed to future applicants, they should not be deleted from the domain name system immediately, if at all. Many organizations have spent a great deal of money cultivating awareness of a particular domain name. However, if the current gTLDs are to be deleted from the domain name system, then there should be a period of time to allow a transition to the new gTLDs.

The worst idea in this whole debate is to force the current gTLDs under the .US top-level domain or to eliminate gTLDs entirely and require domain names to only be registered under the two-letter national top-level domains. This, without more, would provide absolutely no relief to the problem of trademark conflicts. It would just change the disputed domain name from xyzcompany.com to xyzcompany.com.us. If both companies in the dispute are U.S. companies or if the trademark is famous, then a conflict still exists. In addition, registration under the current organization of the .US top-level domain would require national companies to choose one city, county, and state to register their name in even though they have operations nationwide.

C.10. Are their technical, practical, and/or policy considerations that constrain the total number of different gTLDs that can be created?

As a general matter, much thought and planning should occur before new gTLDs are created. The ultimate, though unhelpful, answer is that no more gTLDs should be created than are necessary to enhance the usability of the Internet. Only those gTLDs that provide structure for the domain name system should be created. However, there are two types of gTLDs that must be avoided. The first type is the trademark specific gTLD. The second type is any .com clone.

It is a bad idea to allow trademark specific top-level domains for several reasons.⁽⁶⁾

First, just like the misguided proposal to move the current gTLDs under .US, this just moves the trademark disputes to a different level in the domain name hierarchy. Any trademark disputes that would have occurred under .com would occur instead directly under the root. Second, this destroys any type of organizational merit that the domain name system has. The current system has the benefit or organizing domain names into specific categories. Allowing trademark holders to create their own top-level domains creates two classes of businesses on the Internet: those with a vanity TLD and those that are left under .com. Third, it clutters up the top-level name space with names that are more logically and efficiently placed elsewhere.

Another type of gTLDs that should be avoided is hundreds of new gTLDs that are .com clones. One can easily imagine a never ending string of .com, .biz, .firm, .store, .corp, .inc, .shop, .retail, and even something like .businessincorporatedintheunitedstates.⁽⁷⁾

For purposes of U.S. trademark law, however, there is very little distinction between xyzcompany.com and xyzcompany.biz. If each company is in the same line of business, there is a strong likelihood of confusion that leads to infringement of the trademark. Therefore, creating .com clones does not actually increase the number of organizations that can use the same domain name. Even if a new rule is implemented that limits an organization to one domain name (in an attempt to prevent a trademark holder from registering the mark as a domain name in each new .com clone), no one else may get to use the name because of trademark infringement implications.

C.11. Should additional gTLDs be created?

Yes. The creation of new gTLDs should begin immediately. However, they cannot just be created without any organization or forethought. The new gTLDs should create an organizational structure that describes lines of business. For instance, there could be an xyzcompany.recorded.music and an xyzcompany.hardware.computer. These two names are very different and is not likely to cause likelihood of confusion trademark problems.

An argument has been made that line of business categories are not the way to go for several reasons. One reason is that companies change lines of business. Another is that the categories do not accurately reflect modern business. A third is that the categories are so broad that even within each category there might be overlapping marks. The company should have to show on a regular basis that they continue to operate in a particular line of business. The traditional classification systems used for trademarks are too broad to eliminate trademark conflicts. However, any good sized yellow pages has a much narrower classification system. Some of the categories in the yellow pages are so specific that they only contain two or three listings. To prevent the change in business problems, there should be a reexamination part of the renewal process. Of course, some marks will have to be excluded entirely from the gTLDs. Strictly regional marks should be registered under the national TLDs.

Another way to prevent trademark conflicts is to control which top-level domains an individual can register a name in for personal use. Many trademarks are also family names. Keeping the two separate will reduce conflict. The IAHC's proposed .nom takes a step in this direction, although it will probably have to be geographically segmented to be truly useful.

D.15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a particular gTLD?

No. There should be shared registries. The company, once it has received a certificate from the name granting authority, should be able to choose between competing registries. Since the company cannot choose where in the hierarchy the domain name will go, having registries with exclusive control over certain top-level domains would force the company to use the registry that had exclusive control over the top-level domain into which they were assigned. Any meaningful level of competition would allow all registries to accept all possible domain names in any gTLD.

E.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?

All trademark rights should be protected. The question is by whom and how to minimize the conflicts. Trademark rights must be protected by the court system of the nation in which the mark is registered or used. The way to minimize conflicts is to have the DNS mimic the way marks are used in the physical world by only allowing marks to be registered in lines of business in which they are used. For example, United Airlines should only be allowed to register something like "united.passenger.airlines." This limits the extent of the mark on the Internet the same way a court or other observer would limit it in the physical world.

E.22. Should some process of preliminary review of an application for registration of a domain name be required, before allocation, to determine it if conflicts with a trademark, 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 only preliminary review should be made concerning into which category the mark should be placed. Once that is determined, the name should be granted on a first-come first-served bases. If there is a conflict, the some mediation process should be available through the name granting authority. However, national courts should always be available as a last resort.

E.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?

National courts are the only legitimate fora for ultimately resolving trademark conflicts. Trademark law is not international law yet, although it has been suggested that the domain name trademark conflicts will spur the development of an international trademark law. Since trademark rights are defined by national law, national courts need to be used to protect those rights.

Preferably an international governmental organization will be the name granting authority. This would solidify the legal authority for the creation and allocation of domain names. The authority should be international in scope to take the Internet's global nature into account. It should be governmental to be legitimate. This authority would create the classifications to determine under which classification a particular applicant fell. An appeals process is needed for the determination of which classifications under which the applicant will be allowed to register a name. If an applicant's mark legitimately can be placed in more than one category, then the applicant should receive a certificate for each category under which the name can be registered.

E.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 what basis of criteria?

In order for a company to register a domain name, it should have to supply the name granting organization with the requested domain name, why it wants the name (e.g., it is a trademark), and some evidence that would help the name granting authority determine where it belongs in the domain name hierarchy. The name should have to be re-registered regularly. When re-registering, the organization should have to show that the name is still a name or mark used in the line of business that corresponds to the part of the hierarchy it is registered under. There has to be a way to keep track of the organizations registered in each top-level domain. If someone wants to register their personal name in .computer.consulting, they should have to show some evidence that they are in that business and continue to show current evidence every time the name is renewed.

E.27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain name, are their any technological solutions?

Although the technical details will have to be left to others, I have some ideas on what a technological solution as an extension of, or replacement to, the current domain name system, as opposed to an administrative reformation of the current domain name system, should attempt to accomplish. The most important thing is for a person or organization to be found easily in a way that does not cause confusion among users as to exactly which person or organization has been contacted. This could be done through a meta-DNS system.⁽⁸⁾

The meta-DNS system would allow a user to type in "acme" and receive a list of all the organizations that have registered that name under a particular top-level domain and a description of the organization that registered the name. Although the meta-DNS proposal was drafted as a solution to be imposed onto the .com top-level domain, I don't think that is a good idea. It would be overwhelming to have every company registered in the .com top-level domain and then, when the user enters "acme," the user gets a list a mile long of all the companies that use that mark in any manner in any line of business. I think the better solution is to divide the name space into very specific categories based on lines of business, and then use the meta-DNS as a last resort to clean up any lingering trademark conflict problems within the categories. This way, the user receives a much shorter list of the organizations using the mark and all of the organizations on the list will be in the line of business that the user sought after.

E.28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?

Domain name depth should be emphasized. For example, names should not be registered under .baseball, but under .baseball.professional.teams.sports. This provides a much more complete description of the domain name. This is a characteristic that has been a part of (the civilized portions of) Usenet for years.

1.

^* David B. Nash, III is the author of Orderly Expansion of the International Top-Level Domains: Concurrent Trademark Users Need a Way Out of the Internet Trademark Quagmire, 15 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 521.

2.

¹ IAHC, Final Report of the International Ad Hoc Committee: Recommendations for Administration and Management of gTLDs (Feb. 4, 1997) <http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html>.

3.

² There are three other types of top-level domains. National top-level domains are only defined by a ISO-3166 two-letter country code (e.g., .us, .au, .de, etc.). International top-level domains are those domains specifically reserved for international organizations (i.e., .int). Finally, special top-level domains are those that have strong, historical restrictions on their use and are used only by organizations in the United States (i.e., .edu, .gov, and .mil). See A. M. Rutkowski, Internet Domain Names and Other Identifiers: A Roadmap Among Issues and Initiatives (Nov. 20, 1996) <http://www.wia.org/pub/identifiers/issues-roadmap.html>. The IAHC report puts these special top-level domains in the national TLD category, presumably because only organizations from the United States can register under them. However, this classification ignores the fact that, unlike the two-letter national domains where any organization in the nation can register under them, only very specific organizations can register under the special TLDs.

4.

³ For an overview of the domain name system, see Neil Randall, How DNS Servers Work, PC Magazine, Sept. 24, 1996, at 217.

5.

⁴ Although there is much confusion and speculation over what will happen when the current contract between the National Science Foundation ("NSF") and Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") expires, as of this writing NSI has a contract to perform the domain name registration functions of the InterNIC. Until such time as NSF dissolves the InterNIC and completely leaves domain name registration in the hands of NSI and even though the

InterNIC performs other functions for the Internet, the authors think that it is more accurate to refer to the domain name registrar as the InterNIC.

6.

⁵ One of the "renegade" gTLD registries already claims to have created a .toyota top-level domain.

7.

⁶ "Technically, [a domain name] can have 128 characters with 64 being to the left of the dot and 63 to the right of the dot." David Holtzman, Domain Names: Will We Run Out? (June, 1997) <http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/june97/endless.html>.

8.

⁷ Cite this.

###

Number: 413

From: "Paul E. Niedermeyer" <paul@tabnet.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/20/97 12:42am
Subject: Request For Comments <Resend>

 Thank you for allowing us to resend our prior copy from yesterday. Please contact me if you have additional questions or problems.

-Paul Niedermeyer

TABNet

Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names

###

Number: 414

From: <chris@creanet.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/20/97 3:21pm

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 Christine TREGUIER 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(TM)).


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.


Paris 08-20-97

###

Number: 415

From: "Timothy Sowers" <TLSvideo@classic.msn.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 11:08pm
Subject: Domain Names

Greetings:

In regards to the Domain Name Conflict; If the Internet is to grow in an
organized manner then new domain names must eventually be added. However, the
fact that a company or organization can hold a monopoly on domain names, thus
slowing Internet growth, is idiotic.

Sincerily,
T.L. Sowers

###

Number: 416

From: Claude Potvin <cpotvin@scc.ca>
To: "'webmaster@ntia.doc.gov'" <webmaster@ntia.doc.gov...
Date: 8/22/97 10:37am
Subject: Domain names

Good morning.

Please forgive me if you are not the correct individual that should be receiving these comments. I would be very grateful if you could forward this message to the correct person.

Working within an information service department, I've seen an increase in E-mail and Internet inquiries. In addition to servicing our outside customers we also answer to other that provide funding that allows us to continue providing these services. For that reason, we maintain statistical information on who has contacted us, where the inquiries originated from (geographically) and what the inquired intailed. We depend allot on the mailing address or the area code of the telephone number for this information.

Unfortunately, with the increased E-mail and Internet communiqués it has made this type of statistical maintenance very difficult.

For this reason I would like to suggest that what ever decision is made that the following is also considered. When assigning a new domain name, the ending is designated to assist in identifying where the caller originated from i.e. xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxxx.xxx.ON.CA where as the two character representation of provinces or states and country could be used. Designation such as COM, ORG, TEL (for telecommunication industries), EDU, GOV, PROV (for provincial governments), etc..... could be assigned just before the provinces, states and country codes.

I would like to thank you in advance for allowing me this opportunity to express my opinions.

Sincerely,

Claude Potvin

###

Number: 417

From: <Michael.Hardy@ATONAT.ausgovtax.telememo.au>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/26/97 2:25am
Subject: RFC Domain Names

Dear Ms Washington,

Attached is a response from the OECD cybertax group in
relation to your RFC on Domain Names.

I apologise for this late response. However, some of they key
members of the cybertax group have not become available until
the last week and I have been having some difficulty
contacting you by e-mail.

The attached document is in a Word for Windows 2 format.

If you have any queries, or difficulties, please do not
hesitate to contact me.

Michael Hardy.

Michael Hardy
Chair
OECD Cytbertax Group
C/- Australian Taxation Office
2 Constitution Ave
Canberra ACT 2600
AUSTRALIA

25 August 1997

Ms Partrice Washington
Office of Public Affairs
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA),
Room 4898
14th St and Constitution Ave, NW
Washington DC 20230

Dear Ms Washington,

Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Domain Names

I work for the Australian Taxation Office and I am the chair of the Organisation for Economic and Cultural Development (OECD) "Cybertax" group, which is examining the implications of Internet commerce for tax administration, particularly tax evasion and tax avoidance.

I am writing to you in my OECD capacity with some comments on the registration and administration of domain names.

Generally we believe that domain name registration should be subject to appropriate, but not over-burdensome, regulation to ensure consumer and commercial protection and the integrity of national laws. In may respects domain name registration might be seen as analogous to the registration of business names in the physical commerce environment and subject to broadly comparable requirements.

Areas of general concern with the current arrangements are that their is an apparent weakness in the relationship between the country codes and the parties actually operating an Internet site and a lack of clarity as to which enterprises are appropriate under a given gTLD.

Question 1, Section B General/Organisational Framework Issues

The current domain name registration system is useful in providing both an indicator of the type of Internet presence (eg. .COM, .GOV etc) and the nominal geographic nexus (eg. .AU, .FR, .NL etc).

Some of the disadvantages, from a tax administrator's perspective, are that there is not always a strong relationship between reality and what is intimated by a domain name.

Question 5, Section B General/Organisational Framework Issues

Because of the overall usefulness of the gTLDs and country codes, we would not like to see either element retired. Should the current domain name registration system be revised which necessitates the retirement of gTLDs or country codes, we would be interested in discussing mechanisms by which this information might be available under any alternative system.

Question 11, Section C Creation of new gTLDs

While it would be technically possible to create new gTLDs, perhaps there should be an examination of the existing gTLD arrangements, particularly in the area of providing a guidance framework as to which Internet activities are appropriate under each of the existing gTLDs and some attempt to restructure revise existing enterprise and domain name pairings within such a framework.

Question 15, Section D, Policies for Registries

If the question is intended to imply that a particular domain name will not be issues on an exclusive use basis and might be used by two or more enterprises simultaneously then, as tax administrators, we would have grave concerns over the impact this would have on commercial identity on the Internet.

If however, the question is about assigning a registrar exclusive rights to issue a particular series of domain names, then we have no comment.

Question 20, Section D, Policies for Registries

Obviously domain name registrars should comply with relevant national laws and, in particular, should provide registration information to tax administrations as required by law.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me, in writing, by facsimile on +61 2 62161591 or email at Michael.Hardy@atonat.ausgovtax.telememo.au

###

Number: 418

VIA COURIER

###

Number: 419

From: scot mcphee <smcp@hotmail.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/24/00 11:58pm
Subject: Creation of New gTLDs

I have a simple suggestion for the creation of gTLDs;

For a start, the system is too US centric. The US Commerce Department
should concern itself with the .us domain only. Only international
bodies should deal with "generic" TLDs. Has it occurred to anyone that
the USA has no sole rights on the Internet anymore?

As for what to DO;

Purge .com, .org, .net etc of all trademark registrations. (IMPORTANT
and very UNPOPULAR but NECESSARY step!).

Create gTLDs for each of the International Trademark registration
categories. Trademark registrations in each of these domains would be
allowed only on production of the requisite TM registration papers and
the mark would go into the category it is registered for. Then these
registrations are also sorted into something like product categories.

.com registration would be allowed only for genuine COMPANIES,
appropriate documentation would be required to be furnished for
registration in .com to proceed, the registration name would have to
conincide some way with the actual company name.

This is the way .com.au is run. I think it works well. It also clears
"com" out of all the bullshit domains that get registered.

Perhaps, then, the .com reg would come automatically on company
registration and the TM registrations likewise.

You should also create ONE TLD with a "free-for-all" type philosophy so
people can register their stupid name registrations at will.

Also, instead of concentrating on the best interests of REGISTRANTS why
not concentrate on the best interests of USERS trying to navigate this
mess.

Lastly, DON'T RUSH CHANGES. The existing system works OK. If you rush
it, you fuck it for EVERYONE not just the US or a few companies.

###

Number: 420

COMMENTS OF DUN & BRADSTREET ON THE

###

Number: 421

From: Roger Cochetti <rogerc@us.ibm.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/28/97 4:37pm
Subject: DOCKET NO 970613137-7137-01

Attached please find in electronic form IBM's submission under the above docket.

August 25, 1997

Ms. Patrice Washington
Office of Public Affairs
National Telecommunications & Information Administration
Department of Commerce, Room 4898
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230

RE: DOCKET NO 970613137-7137-01
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES

Dear Ms. Washington:

These comments respond to the request noted above, which appeared in the
Federal Register on July 2, 1997.

IBM believes the subject of the Department's inquiry is of major importance to
the continued functioning and growth of the Internet and, as a result, we have
engaged in a significant effort to work with the Internet community to address
many of these questions. For this reason, we are pleased that the Department
has issued this request and happy to respond to it.

A. Appropriate Principles
While the Internet owes its origins to the work of governments, its dynamism
and future lie in the private sector. And nowhere is this principle more true
than in governance. We believe that the governance of the Internet, and its
domain name system, ought lie squarely in the private sector and that
governments, aside from being users of the Net, ought essentially be
facilitators of the private sector. Any private sector-based governance system
for any part of the Internet must obtain the widest possible base of support
from the Internet community worldwide in order to be successful, however. As a
result, we support and encourage structures that are as open and
inclusive as possible.

B. General Organizational Framework Issues
Domain names are a convenient tool that was developed by the Internet community
to permit Internet users to find each other rapidly and simply. While it has
been an enormous success in simplifying the process of using the Internet, it
may not be the only tool that can accomplish that objective. Indeed, Internet
search engines today facilitate Internet user-to-user contact in very important
ways. Recognizing that one of the Internet's great strengths is that it is a
voluntary network of networks, it is clear that maintaining a global, open,
network of networks requires some central management and administration. That
function is critical to the smooth functioning of essentially all
Internet-based services, and its integrity and reliability needs to be our
highest priority. As with many other areas, to the extent that it operates in
a competitive environment, we all benefit from the improved services and lower
costs that competition promotes. Thus, we strongly support the movement of any
function of central Internet management to a competitive environment that can
be done without undermining their reliability and integrity, including domain
name management and administration.

C. Creation of New GTLD's
There is nearly universal agreement that one of the reasons for pressure on the
global top level domains is the under-utilization of many of the country top
level domains, including the U.S. top level domain. While the wider use of
".US" and other country top level domains can be constructive, we see no reason
that additional, global top level domains could not also be introduced in a
very carefully-planned way.

D. Policies for Registries
Domain name registration, particularly in a multi-top level domain name
environment, is a function that should be performed competitively. The
competent performance of this function is critical, however, since anyone
registering a name will rely entirely on the competence and integrity of the
registrar. For that reason, care must be exercised in determining who may
register Internet names, and some degree of continued oversight and discipline
is essential.

E. Trademark Issues
The protection of trademark rights is critical to the functioning of our
economy, the Internet included. We recognize that because of their instantly
global character, names assigned under Internet global top level domains raise
new questions for the protection of trademark holders' rights. No system
should put at risk the rights of legitimate trademark holders, but any system
of coordination between Internet global domain name administration and
trademark protection must recognize some of the special characteristics of the
Internet and the Web. For these reasons, we are open to the careful
development of new and innovative processes in this area as long as they do not
jeopardize the vitally important investments that people and organizations put
into the creation and use of their trademarks.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process, and we again
commend the Department for taking this initiative.

Sincerely,

Christopher G. Caine

CGC:al

m

###

Number: 422

From: Ken Freed <kenfreed@media-visions.com>
To: NTIA <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/26/97 11:33pm
Subject: "Global Sense" - A Comment on DNS Governance

Dear NTIA

I understand that NTIA has extended the deadline for filing comments on the
DNS controversy, so please accept the attached essay, "Global Sense:
Calling the Question of Network Democracy" (an ASCII file created in Word
for Macintosh) as such a commentary. The essay is posted on the web at my
webzine, Media Visions (http://www.media-visions.com/globalsense). Thank
you for considering these ideas, which may help NTIA discuss the issues in
their wider social context.

As for my credentials, I am an interactive media journalist writing for TV
Technology, Cable magazine, Video Age International, Multimedia Monitor,
Internet Week, and other trades dealing with television and the Internet.

Sincerely,

Ken Freed
Media Visions
Denver

P.S. An HTML version of this comment is available upon request.

GLOBAL SENSE
Calling the Question of Network Democracy

by Ken Freed

INTRODUCTION

"PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet
sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not
thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right,
and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But tumult
soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
-- Common Sense .by Thomas Paine

AN ABUSE or misuse of power generally calls into question the right of
anyone to hold power. The allegation alone provides just cause for an
investigation. We can reject private efforts to usurp rights naturally
vested in the public domain.

The good people of our world are grievously injured by an absence of
genuine democracy governing any new mode of cultural communication
influencing our communities. Regarding the Internet, we have a natural
right to inquire into the governance of the interactive mass medium
massaging our mentalities. And now an inquiry is demanded by fiery
controversy over the competing proposals for how to manage Internet
expansion. Will autocracy or democracy rule?

Many circumstances have and will arise that appear local and yet are
universal. Interactive media networks already are producing a measurable
impact upon our world, sending out ripples like a stone tossed into a pond,
or, sending out cultural tidal waves like a boulder dropped into a bathtub.
Calling the question of Internet governance now concerns everyone to whom
nature's God has given the power of feeling alive, and the common global
sense to see the depths our interactivity here on network earth. The cause
of a democratic Internet is the cause of humankind.

In discussing this matter, for democracy's sake, may we wisely avoid
anything personal among ourselves, for compliments and censure provide
diversions. We might play personality politics, pretend being right matters
more than being real, but we're all in training, so why be distracted from
the historic issue surfaced by recent events? Questions of power remain
unanswered. What will be the nature of network government in our
interactive world? Shall our Internet be governed by a single committee, or
shall open democracy govern worldwide communication?

ON THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL

"Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness...
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state
is but a necessary evil... For were the impulses of conscience clear,
uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver."
-- Paine, vide ut supra ....

ANY human endeavor needing more than one person to get the job done
requires some vision of cooperation to complete the task. The metaphors we
work by have changed. Supplanting images of the feudal manor, in the
Industrial Revolution we began viewing organizations as "clockwork
machines." The Computer Revolution then started us looking at organizations
as integrated "systems." We shifted from talking about "organizational
structures" to discussing "organizational functions."

But dead devices can never supply a viable vocabulary for describing our
human interactions in groups. We all live, love, learn, work, play, and
vote in evolving cultures. generated by our individual and collective
"communication behaviors," things we say and do within our homes, schools,
jobs, communities, and nations. Our use of language and acts of
communication spin the web of all our relations. Relationships create our
world. Communication is the central process of life.

Our Legacy of Tyranny

Distinctive and competing people and groups may interact peacefully when
they agree upon a system of communication for mutual governance. Without a
shared social contract, society soon descends into chaos. Out of crazy
disorder appears a charismatic leader followed by true believers who impose
their new world order upon society, for a season, until the offbeat and
outcast rebels sufficiently disrupt the status quo while weary hermits hide
away in dismay. Entropy gathers speed unraveling the social fabric, then
disorder returns, a brave new leader conquers the throne, another dynasty
falls, and so the cycle replays in every generation.

Swinging between the extremes of anarchy and tyranny, we dangle above the
abyss of extinction like wild apes awaiting an alpha male racing to our
rescue (even if our savior is female). We beseech gods for heroes and
anointed kings, then slay the saints who tame the dragons. We make war, not
peace in our time.

Buttressing a penchant for pledging oaths to monarchs and messiahs, another
trait hindering us from "doing democracy" is our faith in hereditary
succession. Blind allegiance to royalty degrades and lessens ourselves, but
permitting the claiming of power as an inherited right is an imposition and
insult upon posterity.

We all are created equal with inalienable natural rights. No person nor
group, whether in a position of authority by accident of birth or by ascent
from merit, has a right to put their own family or friends in perpetual
power to the effective exclusion of all others. The benevolent despot of
the day may deserve honor, yet descendants typically turn insane from
inbreeding. Why keep on serving reckless rulers who fiddle around as our
homelands burn? Why must we fight and die for survival of the fittest in a
world not fit for living? Why be fearful of fear itself?

Despite the inroads of democracy since the American Revolution, most people
still crave royalty rule. Our organizations and government institutions
still rely on top-down methods of management. Most of us are afraid to be
our own boss. We feel safer with a leader making hard decisions for us. We
obey because we want to obey. Security matters more to us than freedom. We
are all born free, but everywhere we are enslaved in chains of our own
choosing.

Seeking Hope For Democracy

LIBERTY unbound decays into depravity, so prophesy recorded histories. We
hire governments to protect and preserve us from our own lack of self
restraint. We want governments to control us because we do not want to
control ourselves. We cling to abusive and "dysfunctional" systems of
hierarchical management like sodden alcoholics superglued to empty bottles.
We behave like tyranny junkies.

Because of our culturally and perhaps genetically perpetuated authority
addiction, we act out a compulsion from our "low self esteem" to give away
our freedom of choice to authority figures "higher" than we feel. Rather
than rule ourselves from the inside, we yearn to be ruled from the outside.
We refuse lessons on balancing liberty and responsibility. We'd rather not
know. We disdain self determination. We'd rather let our lives fall into
ruin than do anything to help ourselves thrive.

Must we always let life turn desperate before Big Brother steps in with
iron fist to save us from ourselves, again? Whenever expedience overrides
compunction, objective people may well wonder, if the sole proper role of
any government is defending us from bad guys using force or fraud to meet
their needs, what may make us refrain from utilitarian excess? Libertarian
dreams of global free trade in open markets can rouse the spirits, yet why
evade accountability and personal growth whenever public interests counter
private aspirations? Clichs about our "enlightened self interest" are
helpful, but where is our source of illumination?

In an era when cynicism often appears warranted, can we see any rational
basis for hope? In our period of "globalization," most of us feel
overwhelmed by the accelerating pace of change in society. We suffer from
"information overload," what Alvin Toffler calls "future shock." In these
hard times that test our souls, most of us feel powerless to make any real
difference in the world. Many of us think that we cannot have what we want
in life. We believe we're too worthless, clumsy, dumb, or evil to trust in
our own right use of free will. Why should we expect the worst from
ourselves? Why live a lie? Know oneself as living light.

Why escape from freedom when the truth will set us free? Given the habits
of our hearts, what will inspire us to make democracy work? What can
rekindle the fire of freedom in our bellies? What can spark us into living
with love for life itself?

Interactive Global Sense

Since communication constructs cultures as a cultures construct
communications, since the advent of the Internet evidently is having a
cultural impact already, can we identify any signs of the new media
networks generating greater democracy?

New media technology might confound us (at least, until the interface
improves), but think large. Since the "digital distributed networks" are
widely decentralized, a woven lattice more than a vertical hierarchy, this
means global media networks are innately more democratic than any previous
medium of communication, from tribal drums to analog TV. Given the
interplay between the media and our minds and our world, the more we use
the new interactive media to interact in our lives, the more we see how
much our lives are interactive within one fractal world.

Speak with anybody on the Internet who daily interacts with people around
the planet. Networkers often express an "interactive sensibility," a deep
awareness that we all can and must learn to get along because we all are
"interdependent." Their attitude is rooted in the visceral and visual
experience of being linked to people and places through open communication
networks, laser light channels.

Visualize the popular photograph of our blue earth alone in space, the
snapshot taken on the 1972 trip home from the moon. Like the thumb and
fingers of one hand working in concert, what if we know in our bones how we
do .interconnect with one another in our worldwide web of life, our "circle
of life?" Will we feel more willing to cooperate with one another in
resolving our common problems?

What we do unto others, we do to ourselves. What goes around comes around.
Growing mindful of our unity amid diversity, a powerful global sense of our
interactivity guides us toward responsible self rule, a personal choice to
heed the subtle dictates of conscience in our interactions, the promise to
be true to our souls. Evolving global sense then motivates us to practice
personal democracy, the daily effort to consider other people's realities
when making our choices.

Knowledge is power. Ignorance is bondage. We the people can enjoy freedom
and prosperity if we share responsibility for conserving the peace. What if
we implant into our cultural values a simple alertness to our global
interactivity? What if this engram of global sense gets embedded into our
cellular memories? In time, like a teenager entering adulthood, we could
mature enough in our 21st Century Age of Communication to manifest the
vision of democracy that ignited the 18th Century Age of Enlightenment. We
already hold the power to mold the media molding us. (Devout skeptics may
find therein ample reasons for optimism about democracy.)

Here, then, is the design and purpose of government, securing the blessings
of liberty. Here is the source and nature of government, a mode of
establishing social order rendered essential by an absence of any
interactive sensibility to curb our ruthless impulses. Abuse of freedom
makes government necessary. We may say otherwise, but regardless of our
creeds or doctrines or social standing, regardless of whether personal
interests cloud our judgment, the "still, small voice" within us says, this
is true. In our interactive world, responsible self rule makes global
sense.

THOUGHTS ON THE STATE OF NETWORK AFFAIRS, WITH
CONCISE REMARKS ON AN INTERNET CONSTITUTION

"...I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common
sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that
[she or] he will generously enlarge his views beyond the present day."
-- Paine, vide ut supra

MOVING from general theory to a specific application, the central problems
of democracy seem contained in the dispute over Internet expansion and the
outcry over "privatization" of our public network by the leading trade and
professional organizations. The core question is fundamental. Shall our
Internet be ruled by laws or by decrees, by network users or the network
pros? The choice is ours.

Volumes have been written about the unexpected emergence of the Internet as
a medium for interactions among "anyone, anywhere, anytime." As this
unplanned cultural phenomenon, the Internet's astounding unpredictability
is half the fun and magic behind the miraculous growth of the new medium.
Such ambiguity presents difficulties. Without one shared vision of where
we're going on the Internet, what can we do to manage the social upheaval
being produced by Internet popularity?

Someday, everyone alive could want a website, so we will need a lot of
addresses. The power to register more "generic top level domain names,"
like the proposed username.store .and username.firm,. is the power to award
turf for development. Authorizing additional kinds of Internet domains is
akin to declaring a land rush. Unlike Old West pioneers displacing duly
defensive native inhabitations, the bold voyagers into cyberspace can
settle explored territories manifested from virgin nothingness by the power
of vivid imagination -- and a willingness to make it so. Empires built from
these new electronic domains could govern our lives in the new century, as
do today's empires, so we ALL qualify as network stakeholders.

A New Understanding

Essentially, Internet affairs today are in a state of confusion. Our habit
whenever anarchy befell in the past has been to find a visionary avatar
offering salvation in trade for loyalty. Amid all the turmoil of Internet
growth, which network leaders are not. volunteering to be our masters? We
are under no obligation to accept any offer, however generous. We retain a
right to find our own solutions, as we may.

Because the Internet emerged as a free and open "public switched network,"
the right to govern the international network of networks is a sacred
public trust.

Administrative control was accorded to the current leadership by a
consensus of the Internet community as the new media evolved, and their
authority has stayed unchallenged until recent activities stirred us to
question our systems of network governance. And thus we arrive here now
with the matter on the table before us. Let us stop, breathe, do our
homework, and together choose what we want to do.

Instead of management by hierarchy, business as usual, what if we agree on
a new understanding of network democracy expressed in an Internet
constitution?

Our baseline reality is that we need to expand the Internet soon. The
urgency is real, but so long as none of the competing plans have taken
effect yet, the period of debate is not closed. Unwilling to await a
consensus, some major players have already started new domain name
registrations, and others have given start dates. Any coup d'tat .can
become a fait accompli. faster than a cable modem loads a website. Only
public protest and perhaps U.S. intervention may win a delay.

Hasty implementation of any expansion proposal could lock us into a
"solution" we may regret. Contemplate the fate of all those "early
adopters" who trapped themselves into dead-end technologies. If we tolerate
a precedent of autocratic decision-making, the autocracy may become
entrenched. Freedoms lost can be regained only after anguish and travail.
Why be a house divided against itself when Internet alchemy evokes a sense
of being linked into one global village?

Despite the market demand for new domain names, an expansion moratorium
will give us time to study proposals for Internet government, and then
let's vote!

Risking a Constitutional Convention

At this time, a public inquiry is necessary into our present and future
vision of Internet governance. Before our Internet expands, let's have a
social contract. We need an Internet Constitution, laws that can't be
changed at the whim of a committee. We need a bill of network rights.
safeguarding our natural rights to access, privacy and security, balancing
our freedom of expression with parents' right to protect children from
predatory content. Negotiations could be rigorous, but if we interact with
global sense, we can agree on a fair deal, a constitution that acknowledges
and upholds our public and private rights and responsibilities.

Why stumble into an abyss? Let us take time to meet and talk before we enact.

An open Internet Constitutional Convention is being considered for later
this year in Washington, D.C., and anyone may go. This gathering, or any
other assembly representing the broadest spectrum of Internet stakeholders,
is suited to conduct the overdue inquiry into network governance. In
addition, the assembly needs to promote and coordinate public discourse
about our constitution, and then write a far-sighted document that
institutes "participatory management" of our network. A related task is
developing and testing a trusty system of electronic voting, one person one
vote, perhaps accomplished through a secure browser form.

While the provisions of our Internet constititution is a matter best left
for any convention we may convene, if the presumption is not unseemly, here
are my recommmendations for consideration. Parliamentary governments are
prone toward instability whenever confidence falters. Let's adapt the
American model with a division of powers -- legislative, administrative and
judicial -- serving the interests of the industry and networkers alike.
Debates over term limits may be attractive, yet let us first be committed
to open and free elections.

A word of caution. Once a democratic constitution is offered for
ratification by the Internet community, indeed, by the community of
nations, the able assembly developing the proposal then must be disbanded
and replaced by a fresh Internet congress elected through a direct
democratic process. The new group must avoid committing the alleged sins of
the old group. Private citizens never have a right to claim power over
public affairs without the consent of the governed.

If we do our research intelligently, applying the basic critical thinking
skills of deep media literacy, sifting out the propaganda while realizing
the reality of our interactivity, if we're accessing the same universal
light of wisdom within us all, although this is may be a big "if," doesn't
it make sense that we would evolve a common vision of network democracy
improving our lives, all of us becoming better beings in the bargain? Why
not try practical idealism for a change?

ON THE ATTITUDE OF THE NETWORK COMMUNITY

"These proceedings may at first appear strange and difficult; but, like all
other steps which we have already passed over, [the ideas] will in a little
time become familiar and agreeable."
-- Paine, vide ut supra

WHEN Tom Paine wrote Common Sense. in 1776, his purpose was persuading the
people to support a revolution against royalty. He convinced readers the
day could be won by a determined people. Our situation now is parallel and
equally urgent, yet volatile conditions today invite a gentler response.
Paine called for freedom and independence. Today we need a declaration of
interdependence.

Deferring democracy for yet another generation is a mistake. We already are
mature enough to make democracy work if we but see our interactivity now.

Why stall until "we the people" are leaning out windows and shouting at the
network that we're mad as Beale, and we're not going to take it any more!

Before we self-destruct by demonizing our adversaries and polarizing the
online community, before we insist that others must be either a friend or a
foe, why not accept that our lives are interlaced and "do the right thing"
for civilization? Stop the war before it starts. End the rancor here and
now. Releasing residual anger from past dissensions, aware of our
connectivity, accounting for all the network stakeholders yet unborn, we
may be blessed to ordain and establish a constitution that helps us form a
more perfect union while liberating our minds to imagine...

With little more than a "what if?" attitude and a "can do" spirit, the
modern Internet has become the most powerful social force for democracy and
global

free trade in human history. Any attempts now to divert or subvert this
cultural movement may be too little too late. Rather than trying to
postpone our destined rite of passage, shall we take advantage of our
present "window of opportunity" and grow up enough, at last, to give
democracy a decent chance of working?

Being pragmatic, why not let the mind see a vision of network democracy as
a quantum leap beyond hereditary succession, our evolutionary step into
adulthood? If we can practice the interactivity we preach and agree upon a
democratic system of Internet management, we can model a mode of doing
business in the world that could push the most repressive regimes on earth
onto the high road toward honest communication and democracy. The Internet
can topple tyrannies like dominoes.

Until network democracy is declared, we will be as a procrastinator day by
day putting off an upsetting business, wishing that the chore was over,
that someone else had done the job for us, always knowing what must be
done, haunted by the necessity for action. Nobody will solve our problems
for us. If we want the job done right, we need to do the work ourselves.
Yet we can't do the labors alone. After our toil arrives rejoicing,
gratitude for a chance to do work that matters, the peace of knowing we did
what we knew inside was right for everyone.

Let us take the time now to think and act with care, but we cannot delay
too long. Many of the proposals have impending implementation dates barely
weeks away. Why wait for passing days to slam shut a door on our
generation's best chance to have a constitutional network government that
can uplift our souls? Timely and calm objections to industry and government
leaders can postpone implementation of any Internet proposal. We have a
duty today to guard freedom for tomorrow.

Each one of us matters now. Will we waive our rights for the comfort of
never getting personally involved? A revolt will not be needed if we use
our common sense to meet together in good faith and speak reasonably in
light of our shared interactivity. Only as a last resort do we appeal for
an "evolution revolution." Each of us has miles to grow, so why deny our
duty to live responsibly free?

In our interactive world, network democracy makes global sense.


We stand at a convergence of many pathways. Shall we cross the
communication bridges dividing us and pave a broadband avenue to network
democracy? Instead of eyeing one another with suspicion and doubt, why not
extend to our neighbors the sincere hand of friendship? Why not unite in
the knowledge of our universal interactivity? Freedom abides where we
practice responsible self rule.

On such grounds and in your hands, the question now rests. Will democracy
or technocracy rule the new century and the new millennium? Now is the time
for all good people with global sense to come to the aid of our network.

Ken Freed
Denver, 1997

1997 by Ken Freed. All Rights Reserved.

###

Number: 423

From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/27/97 4:54pm
Subject: Comments on Internet Domain Names

I am pleased to respond to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Notice of
Inquiry regarding the operation of the Internet's Domain Name System
(DNS).

I currently serve as one of two Area Directors for Applications in the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). IESG oversees development
of standards within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and
IETF is the primary organization for the standardization of technical
protocols for the Internet.

My IESG position has made me very familiar the the complex interaction
of technical and political issues which need to be considered in any
change to the administration of DNS. However, this response is my
personal opinion and should not be taken to represent IETF or IESG.

Keith Moore
Area Director, Applications
Internet Engineering Steering Group

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> A. Appropriate Principles

>

> The Government seeks comment on the principles by which it should
> evaluate proposals for the registration and administration of Internet
> domain names. Are the following principles appropriate? Are they
> complete? If not, how should they be revised? How might such
> principles best be fostered?
>
> 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.

As stated, this principle could be taken in several different ways,
some of which with I would agree, and others not.

I therefore propose alternative principles derived from those above:

a1. There must be several competing sources for new second-level
domain names under any global top-level domain (gTLD).

In other words, no one registry can be allowed to "own" a gTLD.

a2. There must also be several competing sources for services related
to the maintenance of information associated with any existing
second-level domain under any gTLD.

In other words, the holder of a second-level domain under a gTLD
must not be forced to obtain maintenance services from any
particular registry.

a3. There must be no single point-of-control for any gTLD.

Any single point-of-control for a gTLD, in effect, holds the entire
gTLD hostage. Theoretically, NSF and IANA have some power to oversee
the current management of certain gTLDs by Network Solutions.
However, under the current situation, exercise of such power would
potentially be very disruptive to the Internet. This situation
is primarily responsible for the current crisis in DNS administration.

a4. Neither the "addressing scheme" (e.g. Internet Protocol addresses)
nor the scheme used for naming of hosts or services (e.g. DNS) should
be used as a means to control access to particular hosts or services.

Attempts to do so would be inappropriate, largely ineffective at
achieving such goals, and generally disruptive to the operation of
the Internet.

Notes:

1. Competition for registration services alone will not alleviate most
of the problems with DNS administration, as long as there remains a
single point-of-control. Even then, there must be an adequate level
of competition, with no possibility of registry lock-in.

2. "Expansion" of the domain name system might be useful to alleviate
some of the immediate problems with DNS administration. However, this
should NOT be regarded as an "appropriate principle" for operation of
the DNS.

Limited expansion of the domain name system might be useful as part of
a plan to gradually remove the exclusive control that now exists over
some gTLDs, but it might also be possible to achieve these ends
without creating new gTLDs. Even assuming that the new gTLDs
would be used as an experimental platform to test distributed
control mechanisms, such an experiment would be of limited value
unless one of the new gTLDs became very popular during the test
period.

Creation of new gTLDs could be expected to have some disruptive
effects. Already there is considerable user confusion when the same
second-level name is registered under multiple gTLDs, e.g. XYZ.ORG
vs. XYZ.COM, even where there is no intent to confuse or mislead.
Addition of new gTLDs will only worsen this problem. (This problem
will not be solved until "directory" services -- which can search for
network services using human-friendly names, and return multiple
possible matches from which the user can choose -- are widely deployed
and used.)

Creation of new gTLDs would increase the number of trademark
infringement lawsuits against holders of second-level domains. This
would decrease the stability of DNS names, causing further user
confusion and disruption of existing links, and in general doing harm
to the usability of the Internet.

Creation of new gTLDs would increase the number of second-level
domains registered by the same entity, under different gTLDs. The
contradicts the very purpose of the hierarchical naming system used by
DNS, which is to allow distributed assignment of names without
collisions.

New gTLDs are unlikely to resolve trademark disputes, even if there is
an attempt to organize gTLDs along service or product categories.
Neither would new gTLDs, if based on the English language, address the
needs of the increasing number of non-English speakers on the
Internet.

There is no justification whatsoever for creating a large number of
new gTLDs.

> 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.
> c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently
> global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over
> time.
> d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open,
> robust, efficient, and fair.
> 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.

I agree with principles "b" through "e".

> f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration
> of these issues permits.

The framework for governance of gTLDs needs to be agreed on, as
quickly as prudent consideration of these issues permits. However, it
may be desirable to effect a gradual transition to the actual
operation of the gTLDs according to this framework.

> B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
>
> 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
> registration systems?

Advantages:

1. The existence of multiple gTLDs, and the ability to create a new
sub-domain at any point of the DNS tree, means that anyone can get a
domain name for low cost. Thus, anyone can potentially have a visible
presence on the Internet.

2. The ability to change the binding between domain names and service
addresses (e.g. IP addresses) means that ability to maintain this
presence is not dependent on any particular physical location or
Internet service provider (ISP). Any user wishing to change locations
or ISPs can simply change the IP addresses in his DNS records, and
Internet applications will quickly begin to use those new addresses.

Disadvantages:

1. Because of several cases where domain names have been "taken" from
their original registrants, there is little confidence that DNS names
are stable, and a resulting reluctance to use DNS names for any
application requiring a long-term stable name.

For example, Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) based on DNS names are
generally considered to be unsuitable as references to archived works,
because there's no assurance that the DNS name of the archive will not
need to change.

2. The current registration system is cumbersome, failure-prone, and
vulnerable to attack due to poor authentication. (it's relatively
easy to change someone else's DNS record.)

3. There is currently no perceived control over the cost of DNS
registration services. For example, there is apparently nothing to
prevent Network Solutions from charging exorbitant fees, or providing
an unacceptably poor level of service.

4. Neither Internet users nor the holders of domain names are
represented in the current administration of DNS.

5. There are no controls over the use of DNS registration data --
neither to prevent unreasonable or abusive use of that data (e.g. mass
unsolicited mailings to DNS registrants), nor to prevent such data
from being controlled by a registration service (e.g. to prevent
competition among several registration services which need to share
that data). Some DNS data needs to be publically available -- e.g. to
allow the public to find out who is allocated a particular DNS name,
in order to complain about a service using that name. At the same
time, there need to be controls on the use of such information to
alleviate privacy and other concerns.

> 2. How might current domain name systems be improved?

1. There needs to be international legal support for stable domain
names.

There should be a limit on the amount of time after a new DNS name is
registered, that the registration can be revoked on intellectual
property grounds.

There should also be international agreement on the principle that
use of a trademarked name as a component of a domain name, does not
infringe on that trademark, unless (a) the trademark is registered
in a great many countries and NOT considered to be specific to a
particular market or product category, or (b) the use of the
domain is intended to mislead.

2. There should a standard network protocol, with strong cryptographic
authentication, to be used by all domain name registration services,
for maintenance of domain name system data.

3. There must be limitations on the use of DNS registration data, to
ensure reasonable privacy, discourage and punish abuse, allow the
development of competing DNS registration services, and perhaps to
encourage the deployment of directory services.

> 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?

Ideally, any portion of DNS should be controlled by the stakeholders
in that portion of DNS. More specifically, the holders of DNS names
under any particular gTLD should have some control over some aspects
of the administration of names in that gTLD -- for instance to specify
the level of service needed by that gTLD's domain name services, and
how such services are paid for; or to specify how disputes about the
use of names within that gTLD are resolved. And because the entire
Internet community is a stakeholder in the domain name system, any
decisions which affect the overall administration, stability, or
quality of the global DNS service need to be vetted by the Internet
community as a whole.

The specific entity that administers a gTLD -- as opposed to either
the stakeholders from which the entity takes its direction, or the
competing registration services for that gTLD -- should be organized
in such a way as to be responsible to those stakeholders, protected
from political interference, and with a clearly defined arbitration
path for all unresolved disputes over names within that gTLD. The
stakeholders of a gTLD should be able, through a well-known decision
procedure, to govern and/or replace the entity that administers that
gTLD.

> 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?

There are decision-making processes that can serve as models for
decisions related to domain name registration systems, but none of the
examples cited above is generally appropriate. Network numbering and
spectrum allocation procedures are each based on the notion that the
numbers and spectra are scarce resources, but this is not the case for
DNS names within a gTLD. And although gTLDs are perhaps a scarce
resource (at least given the limitations of current DNS query
protocols and the current lack of any widely-used directory service),
both the current network numbering procedure -- in which large
portions of numbering space are only delegated to major Internet
Service Providers -- and the means of spectrum allocation within the
United States have failed to produce adequate competition.

Consensus-based standards-setting processes -- such as that used by
the Internet Engineering Task Force -- might serve as useful models
for the allocation of new gTLDs. Standards-setting processes based on
voting tend to favor major stakeholders (large companies, governments)
over minor ones (small companies, individuals) and would thus be less
desirable.

Another model worth considering is that of Usenet discussion group
creation. The procedure is roughly:

A. Someone submits a Request for Discussion (RFD) proposing the
creation of one or more new discussion groups, and/or to
rename existing discussion groups.
B. After submission of the RFD, there is a minimum discussion
period before such a proposal can be voted on. The discussion
takes place in a well-established forum devoted to such purposes.
C. After the minimum discussion period, the proposal can be modified
based on feedback from that discussion. The discussion can
continue, and further modifications effected, until the proposal
appears to have broad community support.
D. A "call for votes" (CFV) is broadcast over established channels.
Votes cannot be cast until the CFV is issued.
E. Votes are accepted for a predetermined period lasting several
weeks. Anyone can vote. The votes cast are published so that
anyone can see whether his vote was counted properly or
misrepresented, and so that anyone can challenge any votes that
appear to have been forged.
F. After the end of the voting period, there is a predetermined
period in which no more votes are accepted, but votes can still
be challenged.
G. At the end of the challenge period, the outcome of the proposal
(i.e. whether it is accepted or not) is determined by well-known
rules. In the case of Usenet, there must be 100 more "yes" votes
than "no" votes to create a new discussion group.

An important aspect of this decision process is the existence of an
"alt." hierarchy, in which anyone can create a discussion group
without prior consent. This not only relieves the need to police the
"organized" discussion groups (since the "alt." groups provide a safe
haven for the lunatic fringe), it also provides a way to quickly
create discussion groups of immediate interest (which can migrate to
the "organized" hierarchy if the interest is sustained).

The general characteristics of the Usenet decision model are:


A. Anyone can propose a new group, and anyone can vote. All
stakeholders are thus equally represented.

B. Nearly anyone can understand the nature of things being voted on.
(This is not an appropriate mechanism to decide complex technical
issues!)

C. The number of those who might a financial stake in the outcome
(say, to create a group to discuss a particular product) is
significantly smaller than the number of those who can vote.

D. The rules for voting and determining the result are well-known and
unambiguous.

E. The votes are globally published. Anyone can determine whether his
vote was counted correctly, examine the list of votes to look for
possible forgeries, and determine the outcome for himself; and all
sane individuals will agree on the outcome even though each determined
the outcome individually.

F. Enforcement is distributed rather than centralized. Each host in
Usenet decides what discussion groups to carry, but most hosts refuse
to carry those not approved by the voting procedure.

G. The existence of the "alt." hierarchy decreases the amount of abuse
that the organized groups would suffer, if there were no other way to
create a discussion group.

To be sure, the Usenet procedure is not used to control the "root" of
the discussion group name space; it is only used to control creation
of groups within a particular few "hierarchies", where each Usenet
"hierarchy" is analogous to a gTLD in DNS. And there are aspects
about the Usenet process that would need modification to be used as a
vetting process for gTLDs -- for instance, there would need to be
additional checks against forged votes. But the decision process used
on Usenet seems more promising than any other proposal for Internet
self-governance.

> 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?

The gTLDs serve a valuable purpose. There is no reason to retire
them. We are fast moving into a world where social, cultural, and
language differences are far more significant than geographic
differences. There is less and less correlation between social,
cultural, and language conventions and the physical location from
which one accesses the Internet. Geographic and country-based
top-level domains are therefore of diminishing utility. Both large
and small corporations are increasingly multinational in character,
and the Internet effectively gives every user, for many purposes, an
international presence. It makes no sense to arbitrarily force a
particular user or entity to choose a particular country code domain,
or to register in multiple top-level domains.

It might make some sense to restrict use of some gTLDs to truly
multinational entities, and (e.g.) thus deny individuals the ability
to register "vanity plate" names under .COM. However, there have been
many cases where a particular country or domain name registrar
attempted to limit an entity's ability to access the Internet by
denying that entity the right to register under a particular domain.
The existence of multiple domains under which anyone can register thus
helps preserve the right of free speech. No individual or entity
should be required to register under a particular domain.

> 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?

Yes, and yes. However, the technological solutions must be tailored
to fit the legal and social mechanisms devised, and the legal and
social mechanisms must be developed with due consideration to the
available technological solutions.

For example, if there are only a small number of registrars for any
gTLD (enough to create competition, but not enough to allow anyone to
be a registrar), then it may be possible for the administration of the
servers for that gTLD to be accomplished by the registrars themselves.
Each registrar would exchange authentication credentials with all
other registrars, and any registrar's root server would accept updates
(to create new domains) from any other registrar's root server.
Updates to an existing domain would be authenticated by the owner of
that domain, but the owner's authentication credentials could be
certified by any of the registrars. There would need to be a
procedure to resolve disputes among registrars, but no need for a
separate entity to administer either the root servers or the servers
for any shared gTLD. This would eliminate the single point-of-control
problem that is responsible for the current DNS crisis.

The alternative -- to create an entity to administer the servers for a
shared gTLD -- would allow a larger number of registrars, but would
leave a single point-of-control of those critical servers. Such a
scheme creates additional vulnerabilities to hostile attack --
whether externally or by an insider at the entity that administers the
gTLD's servers. And yet the implementation of this scheme might be
simpler, and more easily accomplished with off-the-shelf components,
than the "distributed control" solution.

It is also possible to utilize a hybrid of the above two approaches,
where a small number of entities cooperate to maintain the gTLD's
servers, accepting updates from a potentially larger number of
registrars.

Whatever approach is taken, it is imperative that the design give due
consideration to security issues, and provide a highly visible,
distributed, means of control.

> 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?

Some of these issues are addressed above, but there are additional
management issues:

With the current DNS protocols, for various reasons related to
performance, it is important to limit the number of branches at the
top level of the domain name tree. Efficient operation of DNS
requires that a client application, or a DNS server operating as a
proxy on behalf of the client, be able to cache intermediate lookups.
For example, a proxy server that already knows which DNS server can be
consulted to find names in .COM, need not consult a root server again
to find this out. Similarly, if the name servers for XYZ.COM are
already known, it is not necessary to ask the .COM domain servers
where to find them, in order to look up the name WWW.XYZ.COM.
However, with a very large number of top level domains, there would be
only a small chance that a proxy DNS server already knew where to find
information about of some domain ".XYZ", and would thus have to
consult one of the few root servers to determine this. This would
increase the load on the root servers, and create a demand for more
root servers. This both increases the cost of operating the DNS root
servers and decreases the reliability of any Internet application
which uses multiple domains names under different gTLDs.

It is also important to limit the number of servers for any DNS
domain: when there are too few servers, performance will suffer and
there will be no recovery from failures; and when there are too many
servers, it will be difficult to keep them all synchronized.

> 8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?

Transition should minimize impact to the user community. There should
be no immediate change to the existing DNS protocols. The existing
root servers should be retained for the immediate future, with new
root servers added as needed. The existing registration web pages at
Internic should refer inquiries for new registrations to a
randomly-ordered list of new registration services. As new
registrations are created and existing ones are updated, the
registration services should establish authentication credentials with
the name holders which can be used for further updates. However, it
will take some time to define standards for such credentials and to
deploy appropriate tools to facilitate their use.

> 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?

There is no hard constraint on the total number of different gTLDs,
however, creation of a large number of new gTLDs would seriously
hamper the efficiency and reliability of DNS. Some of these
constraints could be alleviated by changes to the DNS protocols, but
such changes would take many years to deploy.

See also my response to questions 6 and 7.

> 11. Should additional gTLDs be created?

A small number of additional gTLDs might be of some utility in
assuring a smooth transition to a competitive system.

See my response to question 2.

> 12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
> guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated with
> increasing the number of gTLDs?

Yes. See my response to questions 6 and 7.

> 13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO
> country code domains?

Yes. Country code domains should be administered by their respective
countries, or such authorities as they may designate. Many of the
social issues regarding gTLDs also apply to name assignment within a
country domain, but it is only reasonable that the rules for names
within a country domain be governed by that country's laws.

> 14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?

There needs to be a well-defined public vetting procedure, for the
creation of new TLDs, such that all stakeholders can participate and
that all stakeholders can have confidence in the result.

> 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?

None of the gTLDs should be under exclusive control.

There are certainly technical considerations for using shared
registries for gTLDs, and the technical and administrative approach
must be chosen with regard for the consequences of each on the other.

Any technical solution must allow exclusive and non-exclusive TLDs to
coexist at the root. For instance, one would certainly want the .MIL,
.INT, and .GOV domains to remain exclusive (or at least be controlled
through different mechanisms than the other TLDs) even if the .COM,
.ORG, and .NET domains are shared. The administration of the root
domain must be acceptable to all of the TLDs, while not under the
exclusive control of any of them.

However, it seems reasonable for new exclusive TLDs to be vetted by
the Internet community in the same way as for new shared gTLDs.

> 16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars,
> and what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will
> determine these and how?

There will need to be some minimum requirements for domain name
registrars. They will need to provide the ability for customers to
maintain their domain name entries and contact information, and to
propagate changes in such information to the root servers as
necessary, and perhaps to maintain their customers' directory
information and provide it (with their customers' permission) to
searchable directory services. They will need to implement adequate
security measures to protect their customers' privacy, and to
safeguard the authentication credentials issued to their customers.
Finally, the registrar may need to be insured so that its customers
needs will continue to be met even should the registrar's business
fail.

I am unable to recommend an organization which is qualified to
determine all of the minimum requirements for domain name registrars.
It might be appropriate to delegate the determination of different
portions of the requirements to different organizations, each with
expertise in a particular area.

> 17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain
> name registrars?

There is perhaps no hard technical limit, but there is a design
tradeoff. Some number of registrars is needed to ensure adequate
competition, but a large number of registrars either requires
additional complexity, or creates single point-of-control problems
similar to those that exist at present.

> 18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name
> space raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?

Yes. All current gTLDs have some policy to restrict assignment of new
domain names, e.g. to lessen the potential for conflict with
trademarks, or to restrict the use of undesirable words or characters.
If there are multiple registrars for a gTLD, they must each implement
more-or-less the same policy for that gTLD, else the policies will be
completely ineffective.

There are also several technical issues. An interface between
registrars and the root servers that is suitable a small number of
registrars, would not be suitable for a large number of registrars.
The two scenarios would need different means of authentication (both
of users to the registrars and of registrars to the root servers), and
different methods of propagating updates to root servers (to ensure
scalability of that operation).

With a large number of registrars, there is increased probability that
any registrar will fail, and it might therefore be more important to
determine procedures for maintaining the domain service for that
registrar's customers.

> 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?

I know of no reason to limit the number of different gTLDs that a
given registrar should administer. However, it might be desirable to
limit the number of registrars per gTLD, and to make certain that
these are widely distributed across the world -- to make sure that
adequate domain name service is provided to all parts of the world.

> 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?

Ideally, the right to use a domain name should not be limited by
trademarks, except when some component of the domain name is
trademarked in several different countries, the trademark is not
considered specific to a particular product category or market, or
when the use of the domain name is intended to mislead.

It should be possible to establish a domain name, such that after an
initial search period, the domain name cannot be taken away.

> 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?

I believe that such a review would be useful, but I am unqualified to
recommend specific standards for such review, or specific entities to
conduct the review or provide dispute resolution.

> 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?

The rules for arbitration of gTLD disputes must be the same for all
disputes under that gTLD. However, these rules might be different
from one gTLD to another. For example, different arbitration rules
might be appropriate for each of .EDU, .ORG, and .COM.

The courts of any particular country might be appropriate fora for the
resolution of disputes over the use of a domain name within a gTLD, as
long as those courts respect the rules for dispute resolution within
that gTLD, rather than the laws of that particular country. There
should be the possibility of appeal to an international organization,
especially when the disputing parties are from different countries.

> 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?

The scoping of trademarks along product or service categories, and
within particular political jurisdictions, is inherently in conflict
with the scoping of domain names under gTLDs.

Unless a trademark is established worldwide to not be restricted to a
particular product or service category, the existence of a domain name
which is similar to that trademark should not be held to infringe on
that trademark or diminish the value of that trademark. Neither
should the existence of a trademark be held to diminish the value of a
similar domain name.

In effect, each gTLD should be considered as its own product or
service category for trademarks.

> 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?

Domain name applications should not be required to demonstrate that
they have a basis for requesting the domain name. Rather, new domain
assignments should be broadcast over well-known channels, and
trademark holders should have to demonstrate, within a particular time
of having the domain name established, that the establishment of a new
domain name infringes on their globally-established trademark. After
that time interval, the domain name would be on equal standing with
the trademark, as long as it is not used to mislead.

> 26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of
> registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?

An increase in the number of gTLDs will increase the number, and
probably the cost, of trademark disputes.

> 27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a
> single domain name, are there any technological solutions?

The technological solution to the domain name conflict problem is to
encourage the deployment and use of directory services which can
search for human-friendly names (trademarks or otherwise), and return
multiple results, each including a domain name, from which the user
can choose. This would allow the user to distinguish between
different, legitimate, uses of a trademark, and would relieve some of
the pressure on domain name registrars (and the courts!) to resolve
trademark conflicts.

> 28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?

###

Number: 424

From: Don Goebel <lifetime@airmail.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/28/97 10:09pm
Subject: Comments regarding Internet Domain Names

I am writing the letter in response to your request for comments, which
I just learned about today. I realize that it is past the deadline. I
am sorry that I couldn't have made this comment earlier.

Today, while at work and searching the web, I stumbled onto an
adult/sexually-oriented site without much warning at all. This is the
second time I have stumbled onto such locations. This time, however, I
am enraged at how explicit it was. I am flabbergasted at what was
permitted to be posted on the page. This is prompting me to do a little
research into who I should voice my concerns about this to. You are one
of the organizations that I feel compelled to write. Again, I apologize
for missing your public comment deadline.

Having 4 children and wanting to encourage them to use the internet, I
am concerned about this. My initial thought was that if this type of
material needs to exist then let those that favor it create their own
network and have at it. However, I realize that the internet is too
vast, likely, to duplicate.

The next thought that came to mind is probably something that would be a
little more feasible. Just as commercial (.COM), educational (.EDU) and
organizational (.ORG) entities have their own top level domain. Why
shouldn't adult/sexually-oriented sites have their own (e.g. .ADU or
.SEX). If every site with this type of content were required to have a
.ADU name them it seems to me that it would be much easier for this
content to be kept from our children. Web-browsers could be set to not
even go to pages with these names.

It seems to me that this suggestion would be a great compromise between
both sides of the content debate.

Thank you, for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
Don Goebel
lifetime@airmail.net

###

Number: 425

From: millman <ad@netspace.net.au>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/28/97 11:48pm
Subject: Alternative DNS petition

I would love to see the availability of more TLD's, of-course, because
it would enhance my business marketing by making my webaddress more
appropriate and relevant to my customers. I have contacted my local
ISP (admin@netspace.net.au) and their response was, "Hi there.

Unfortunatly at this time we will not be supporting this.


We are not willing to risk the stability of domain name resoluation on
a server that is not "official" in any way."

Too bad, but I look forward to the day when name.space is somehow
recognised as "official".

Yours sincerely, ANTHONY MILLMAN.
--
CLICK FOR "BM*" WEB SITE http://www.netspace.net.au/~ad

###

Number: 426

From: Don Heath <heath@isoc.org>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 9/2/97 7:46pm
Subject: Internet Society Response to RFC - Docket No. 970613137-7137-01

In the matter of REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF INTERNET DOMAIN
NAMES, Docket No. 970613137-7137-01, the Internet Society is pleased
to submit its comments as presented in the attached Microsoft Word
document.

We thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments.

Sincerely,
Donald M. Heath
President/CEO
Internet Society

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(hgelman)

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               )

President/CEO

12020 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 210

Reston, VA 20191-3429

USA

      In the Matter of                    ) 
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF  )
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES               ) 
Docket No. 970613137-7137-01        )

1. The Internet Society (ISOC) respectfully submits comments in this proceeding.
2. The Internet Society is a non profit 501(C)(3) corporation incorporated in the District of Columbia, USA, whose mission is, "To assure the beneficial open evolution of the global Internet and its related technologies through leadership in standards, issues, and education."
3. The Internet Society has defined a set of "Guiding Principles" as a foundation upon which it establishes its goals and objectives, its programs and initiatives, and the position it takes on issues confronting the Internet.

a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name registration system should be encouraged. However, conflicting domains, systems, and registries should not be permitted to jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet. The addressing scheme should not prevent any user from connecting to any other site.

###

Number: 427

From: Yuan John Jiang <yjj@mci.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 9/4/97 9:40am
Subject: Comment

1. The domain name registration system should remain for the common
good of the Internet community. It should not become the means for
some to make money. It should be managed by non-profit
organizations or government bodies.

2. Instead of creating a system separate from the company and
trademark registration systems, in existence for over hundreds of
years, and being entangled in trademark infringence disputes, the
domain name system should go along the existing systems.

For example, IBM is registered in New York State and its domain name
should be ibm.inc.ny.us. AS/400 is a US registered trademark, and its
domain name may be as400.com.us.

The registration should be part of the company or trademark registration
process. The system may be supported by the registration fees or
taxes.

3. The original five top-level domains, com, edu, gov, net and org were
set up for the original ARPA net. They were for the companies and
institutions
who were related to the ARPA project. These domain names should
be phased out from now on.

Yuan John Jiang
MCI Internet Engineering yjj@mci.net
IFCSS CCIC director yjj@ifcss.org

###

Number: 428

From: <kconnolly@evw.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 9/8/97 2:29pm
Subject: PAB Response to US Gov RFC -Forwarded

Dear Ms. Washington:

As the attachment indicates, the Response provided by the undersigned
as a member of the GTLD Policy Advisory Board has passed our internal
processing guidelines and has been adopted, without change, as the
statement of the Policy Advisory Board.

Very truly yours,

Kevin J. Connolly

Date: 09/08/1997 12:30 pm (Monday)
Subject: PAB Response to US Gov RFC

Dear PAB Members,

As of September 4, 1997, I received only two dissents from PAB members
concerning the call for consensus relating to the PAB statement to the
Department of Commerce in response to their Request for Comments concerning
domain names.

Our rules say that if fewer than 10 dissents are received in response to a
call for consensus for a given proposal, then that proposal shall have
passed as a consensus measure.

Therefore, I am pleased to say that I have asked Kevin Connolly to report
to the Department of Commerce that the PAB statement is an official
statement of the entire PAB.

The document can be found at http://www.pab.gtld-mou.org/News/DoC-RFC.html

This document will be changed shortly to show that it reflects the will and
intention of the entire PAB, instead of only the signatories currently
mentioned.

Thanks to all,

Antony Van Couvering
PAB Chair

###

Number: 429

From: "John G. Yimin" <jyimin@hotmail.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 9/9/97 10:41pm
Subject: domain name registration

it is my strong opinion that the governments of the world should not
attempt to excercise regulatory control of domain name registration.
peace.

###

Number: 430

From: <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 9/22/97 10:22am
Subject: The Iperdome Addendum

Now that a majority of the responses to the NTIA comment
process are in, Iperdome has prepared an analysis of the
implications of our proposal. Specifically, what impact
would this plan have on the existing DNS system.

Summary - The Iperdome Proposal

In a nutshell, our proposal would:
* Move .com, .org, .net, .edu, .gov, and .mil under .us
* Formalize and Provide Appropriate Funding for IANA
* Open .us to Free Market Competition
* Begin Process to Establish Global Internet Governance

Implications - The Iperdome Proposal

Under this proposal, the name space would be split into two
distinct and seperate realms:

1) The "public" name space

The "public" name space would consist of all two character
ISO country code TLDs, .int, and .arpa. The newly defined
IANA would administer these TLDs. In turn, each country
would be responsible for administering its corresponding
TLD. The existing laws, customs, and traditions of each
country would be used to determine appropriate resolution
to issues like trademarks, how SLDs are administered, etc.

These TLDs would be universally resolveable.

2) The "private" name space

The "private" name space would consist of all TLDs that
are not reserved for the "public" name space. Diverse
companies would compete with new products and services
in this realm. Existing "private" root server systems
like The Alternic, name.space, eDNS, AU.RSC, etc.
would be free to continue to develop free market
solutions for the Internet.

These TLDs would only be resolveable to those
ISPs and Netizens who subscribe to their services.

Analysis - The Iperdome Proposal

This simple act of defining the name space into two
seperate realms offers a tremendous number of advantages:

Stability - The public name space would be extremely
stable. Questions about authority would be removed,
and each country would be free to support their TLD
in any way they choose.

Stability would also be introduced into the "private"
name space. Once the uncertainty is removed from the
future direction of the name space, and once the "private"
name space is recognized, investment capital and venture
funding will become available.

Governance - Given that 98% of all Netizens have been
on the net for two years or less, and given that over
80% of all Netizens reside in the U.S, implementing
Global Internet Governance at this juncture is simply
premature. This proposal gives the Internet a little
time to mature, at the same time it allows each country
to determine its own policies without international
considerations.

Competition - As one of our stated goals, competition
is the cornerstone of our proposal. It allows the free
market to adapt and evolve to meet the needs of Netizens
using the latest technology and creative talents of *all*
stakeholders world wide. Competition under the
Iperdome Proposal is extremely diverse:

Competition Under .us

Consistent with the long historical bias towards free market
solutions in the U.S., our proposal would embrace the following
models of competition under .us:
Regionally Distributed 3LDs
.atlanta.ga.us, .austin.tx.us
Private Registry SLDs
.com.us, .web.us, .per.us
Shared Registry SLDs
.firm.us, .store.us, .rec.us, .nom.us, .info.us
Other Registry SLDs
(i.e. SIC codes, etc.)

Competition Between Country Codes

As each country decides how it will administer its TLD,
the distinctions between country code TLDs will become
apparant. These differences will result in a competitive
environment, one that will lead to best products and
services in the "public" name space.

Competition Between Private Root Servers

Private Root Servers have formed on various continents
for assorted reasons. This trend will continue, and
ultimately, is a good trend for the Internet.

Competition between these systems will ultimately lead
to new products and services that may look nothing like
the current DNS. Cooperation between web browser
manufacturers and private root servers is very likely.
The result will likely be an evolution of the current
DNS towards more of a directy based search service.

We believe that allowing the free market to drive this
process is much preferable to a centralized,
bureaucratically planned approach.

In closing, the advantages to the Iperdome Proposal are:

* Postpones GIG until the Internet matures and a consensus
that involves the newly emerging stakeholder communities
can be reached.

* Allows each country to administer its own domain name space,
using the historical laws and customs as accepted within their
respective jurisdictions.

* Allows each countries IP, Trademark, and anti-trust Laws to redress
existing grievances under the former .com, .org, etc. TLDs.

* Greatly Increases Competition and Choice

Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com

###

Number: 431

From: <Christopher.WILKINSON@BXL.DG13.CEC.BE>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 9/30/97 10:51am
Subject: European Commission reply to the DOC/NTIA DNS Inquiry

Further to Mr Robert Verrue's letter to Mr Larry Irving of 4 August 1997 transmitting the Commission's replies to your recent DNS Inquiry, I attach an electronic copy in ASCII format of the enclosed document, dated 30 July 1997 which may be posted on your web site.

With Best regards, Christopher Wilkinson.

ATTACHMENT

ISSUES INVOLVING THE REGISTRATION OF
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES

European Commission reply to the
Department of Commerce (NTIA) enquiry.

The Commission's reply takes the form of specific comments, as appropriate,
replying to the questions set out in the document. For convenience, the original
questions are retained above the replies.

>A. Appropriate Principles

> proposals for the registration and administration of Internet domain names.
>Are the following principles appropriate? Are they complete? If not, how should
they >be revised? How might such principles best be fostered?

>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.

The Internet should be primarily a global interoperating system ensuring
unrestricted access from any Internet address to any other. The responsible
organisations should ensure that the introduction of new Domains and/or new Root
Servers should be compatible with that principle. The expansion of the Internet
will no doubt require that an increasing number of top level and second level
domains be introduced, but the consequences for the network's overall integrity
will have to be carefully checked and monitored over time.

An increase in the number of organisations with access to the DNS in different
parts of the globe would no doubt facilitate competition.

>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.

This principle is broadly acceptable provided that the interested private sector
from all relevant global regions has effective access to participate in the
system. Public Authorities have a role in providing users with dispute
resolution mechanisms. Self-governeing mechanisms should apply to all gTLDs and
no only to some of them.

The Commission is aware of two problems in this context. The first is that the
private sector in the United States has not, to date, developed a consensus, in
spite of more than one year's debate. The second is that the private sector in
Europe has not participated in the IAHC process, commensurate with the extent of
Internet usage in Europe. While we accept that efforts are being made on both
parts to remedy this situation, we are also concerned that other - rival or
competing - processes in the US private sector are even less likely to
incorporate adequate European participation.

The Commission welcomes that this enquiry has extended the time available,
internationally, to define a new system.

>c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently global
nature of >the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over time.

This principle is agreed. The necessary evolution over time implies both that
the DNS should respond to the growth of the Internet and the markets which it
serves and to the geographical distribution of Internet activities. Techniques
should be developed to accommodate the use of the Internet in all languages and
the administrative structure should also accommodate, over time the
representation and participation of countries and regions which today are not
yet significant users of the Internet.

The objective of assuring effective directory services for the Internet as a
whole should be promoted. This will become increasingly important as the
Internet expands.

>d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open, robust,
>efficient, and fair.

This principle is also acceptable. The DNS should not introduce new forms of
dominance or anti-competitive restrictions into the Internet at the time when
other aspects of the communications industry are benefiting greatly from the
introduction of competition. Internet users should also benefit from competition
in the telecommunications industry.

Although the Internet authorities should apply this principle themselves, this
should be without prejudice to the competence of the Competition Authorities,
should the need arise. The bundling of Internet DNS services with
telecommunications services offered by dominant operators may justify specific
consideration in this respect.

>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.

Yes. As far as possible such disputes should be resolved before names are
allocated. Since with current DNS technology, the name space only accommodates
unique names and addresses, the systematic use of generic second level domains
should be encouraged. More systematic use of the nTLDs based on the ISO 3166
standard) would alleviate the problem.

At present, the generic domain name space is too "flat", with the result that
name conflict, including trademark rights will become increasingly unavoidable.

Although the case has been made for introducing some new gTLDs, essentially for
commercial reasons, this is not the appropriate solution to problems of
scaleability of the DNS. Scaleability should be achieved through the systematic
use of generic second and third level domains.

>f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of these
issues >permits.

It is important to recognise the reasons for urgency and to determine the most
effective short term measures, pragmatically, without prejudice to longer term
solutions.

1. Congestion in the .COM domain:

We understand that it is becoming increasingly difficult to accommodate the
demand for commercial .COM addresses within one "flat" name space. As long as
.COM is the primary space for electronic commerce, globally, then the
introduction of generic second level domains based on professional and
geographical categories would appear to be essential and urgent, irrespective of
other proposals for new gTLDs.

2. Monopoly operation of the .COM domain by NSI

The Commission is aware of certain criticisms that have been expressed in the
United States about the lack of competition in the management of the .COM
domain. In so far as these relate to the implementation of a contract with the
United States Government, the Commission considers that the necessary remedies
exist, should the need arise, both within the terms of the contract (which has
been amended several times in the past) and in US Competition law.

We would however note that a significant proportion of registrations in .COM are
from without the United States, including many from Europe, and consequently we
have an interest in any outcome which might affect those registrations.

3. Competition between registries operating .COM

The IAHC recommendations presuppose that in the future it will be possible for
several or all of the new Registrars to share the management of some or all of
the proposed new Registries. The Commission welcomes this prospect from several
points of view. However we would suggest that it might be more urgent to apply
this possibility to the existing gTLDs where a problem of competition may
already exist rather than await the suggested introduction of new gTLDs.

Whatever the outcome of the current review of the IAHC proposals, the Commission
wishes to see a global DNS Administration which applies to all gTLDs, existing
and new. The IAHC recommendations expressly did not address the administration
of the existing gTLDs, and consequently we do not rely upon them to resolve the
problems which have been identified in this area.

Consequently, remedies to competition problems in the DNS should be applied on a
pragmatic basis, using existing instruments as appropriate.

4. Technical reliability of the Internet DNS.

It has been argued in the past that the architecture of the Internet includes a
high degree of redundancy permitting the reliable, robust transmission of
messages, independently of any particular route or part of the network.

However, it has recently transpired that in practice this may not always be the
case, and it is not clear to what extent the reliability, or otherwise, of the
Internet is affected by the DNS itself or by other causes. In principle a more
distributed system might prove to be more robust in the event of technical
failure in any one part of the Internet.

In view of the growing importance of the Internet for international electronic
commerce, we suggest that this question should be carefully analysed and
reported upon by an independent panel of experts.

>B. General/Organizational Framework Issues

>1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration >systems?

In the first instance, we would record the fact that the continued vast growth
of the Internet has not been affected significantly by the domain name
registration system as it operates at present. Thus discussion as to how the DNS
should be improved or how Internet governance should be changed in the future
should be kept in proportion. The global Internet community would, we believe,
rather see a stable and agreed solution emerge in good time rather than be
obliged to choose in the short term between incomplete or inadequate solutions.

The current Domain Name system in Europe is based essentially upon the national
Top Level Domains (nTLDs). Thus for - currently - fewer users in Europe we have
more TLDs than in the US. Furthermore, several of the larger nTLDs have already
incorporated generic SLDs. This policy has given rise to significant degree of
scaleability which is currently lacking in the existing gTLDs. We expect to see
this principle being extended more widely to other nTLDs in Europe.

In this context we have already given our full support to the IAHC
recommendation to the effect that the .US domain should be more systematically
used in the United States.

We recognise that the introduction of the IP/V6 addressing scheme will greatly
expand the available Internet numbers; it is important that the DNS also be
sufficiently scaleable to give access to this expanded address space, taking
account of the limited number of words and other alphabetical sequences that
most users currently find acceptable as Internet names.

>2. How might current domain name systems be improved?

Several elements of the reply to this question are incorporated into the replies
to other questions and will not be repeated here.

>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 Commission supports the principle of an internationally recognised and
transparent system of management of the Domain Name System. We Consider it
imperative to ensure adequate European representation in this system.1

We have considered the proposals from the IAHC in this respect and have already
made certain comments and suggestions as to how they should be adapted to meet
this objective. These include:

- integrating existing gTLDs, into a common Internet administrative
structure

the importance of the presence of the ITU and WIPO in establishing the legal
basis of the proposed system;

- alternative structures for membership of the Policy Oversight Committee
(POC) including eventual regional representation from the Registrars (CORE);

- possible accommodation of existing national TLDs within the CORE-MOU;

- an open and flexible policy for the designation of new shared Registers,
including the possibility of professional or regional domains, both at the top
level and at the second level.

Meanwhile, we have encouraged the Interim Policy Oversight Committee (IPOC) to
facilitate open consultations between themselves and the Internet Community in
Europe, particularly in so far as certain organisations2 which are significant
players in Europe have not found it appropriate to sign the gTLD-MOU at this
stage, and consequently are not members of the Policy Advisory Board (PAB).

>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 >organisations, if any, in national
and international domain name registration systems?

There would appear to be no single appropriate metaphore for the DNS. Each
example gives some relevant guidance.

1. Numbering plans: For the foreseeable future the DNS should be as scaleable as
for example the telephone numbering plan. We believe that the system of IP
addressses will achieve this objective through IP/V6 but if the DNS is to
continue to be based on mnemonic alphabetic names, then careful and systematic
heirarchisation will be necessary including second and third level generic
domains. In the interests of competition and portability, the DNS administration
must be independent of individual Service Providers or operators.

2. Standardisation organisations: International standardisation organisations
are designed to produce private sector industrial consensus, and as such are a
useful model, but their procedures are too time consuming for the practical
administration of the DNS. National or Regional standardisation organisations do
not represent the degree of global consensus that is required.

A distinction might be drawn between the process of setting up the future DNS
administration which is akin to the work of a standardisation organisation, and
the actual administration of the DNS, which is akin to a self-regulatory
function.

3. Spectrum allocation: The radio spectrum is limited and scarce by virtue of
fundamental physical laws. The present scarcities of address space within the
DNS would appear to be largely artificial, bearing in mind that when the DNS was
initially conceived, its current expansion had never been envisaged. Solutions
based either on restrictive licensing policies or on pricing should be
unnecessary if the basic issue of scaleability can be resolved.

>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?

1. Retiring .COM would appear to be an extreme measure at this stage. If the DNS
becomes more scaleable and less expensive, .COM may in due course be considered
to be obsolete for most purposes, and at that time the question of how much
longer to maintain it might arise. Meanwhile, the existing problems in .COM
should be urgently addressed. in particular greater scaleability could be
achieved through the creation of gSLDs and other Registrars should have access
to the .COM Registry.

2. National TLDs are already widely used around the world. In this respect, the
United States is rather the exception. As explained above, the nTLDs have
significant advantages which should be built upon. There is some useful
experience in Europe in this regard.

3. The link between the nTLDs and the ISO standard 3166 would appear to have
been historically fortuitous. Three or four letter identifiers would be more
flexible and easier to identify than the existing two letter codes, at least for
some countries. Certain regions, including the European Union, will need to be
able to use geographical TLDs which are not part of the ISO standard and may not
be limited to two letters.

>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?

The reply to this questions 6 and 7 presupposes technical knowledge of the
architecture and operation of the Root Servers and the Internet backbone network
which is not at present available to the Commission. We are conscious of the
fact that ten out of twelve of the existing root servers are located within the
United States reflects an historical situation which is rapidly being overtaken
by the global expansion of the Internet, however, to the best of our knowledge,
the precise relationships between the gTLD Registrar(s) and the Root Servers
have not been analysed or reported upon. This should be done for the benefit of
the global Internet community, particularly as the proposed expansion of gTLD
registrars outside the United States may be facilitated by the creation of
additional root servers in other parts of the World.

>8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?

As indicated above, the transition should be progressive and prudent and address
the most urgent problems first. The best available knowledge and technology
should be brought in to ensure that under no circumstances does the transition
prejudice the integrity of Internet services meanwhile. Furthermore, short term
solutions should if atall possible avoid inhibiting the introduction of new
technolgy in the future.

>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?

The Commission is not aware of any technical constraints, particularly as a
large number of nTLDs are already in operation. We expect that in the near
future the linguistic and professional diversity of Internet users will require
either a highly structured and scaleable system of nTLDs or a large number of
new gTLDs, or both.

>11. Should additional gTLDs be created?

On balance, Yes. However, new gTLDs should be introduced progressively and in
response to market demand. The expansion of the gTLDs is not the solution to
long term scaleability of the Internet; for the time being, this should be
achieved through the systematic use of second and third level domains until a
more definitive solution has been identified.

It is also likely that in the interests of meeting users' requirements in
different parts of the World that different gTLDs, using different languages and
chacter sets will be necessary and desirable.

>12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the
>scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs?

Yes. the scaleability of the DNS based on words or mnemonics will require a
very careful study of the requirements of users and or the eligibility for
specific domains. This should be one of the first tasks of the new DNS
Administration.

>13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
>code domains?

The nTLDs and the gTLDs will have to coexist for the foreseeable future. A
single DNS Administration should have oversight for all gTLDs. There will be
links between the two systems: there are already generic SLDs within the nTLDs
and there is no reason why there should not be national SLDs within gTLDs.

There is also the question of dispute resolution procedures. The Commission
questions the advisability in the long term of having different international
dispute resolution procedures for gTLDs and nTLDs, particularly in the area of
trademarks.

>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?

Generic TLDs which are designed for global use should not be the exclusive
perview of a particular Registrar. We understand that there are no technical
limitations on the number of Registrars which may have access to a particular
gTLD, although this remains to be demonstrated in practice. There would seem t
be no reason to oblige all Registrars to operate in all gTLDs, unless they wish
to do so for commercial reasons.

>16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and what
>responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these and how?

The appropriate thresholds should be determined by consensus and implemented by
the DNS Administration. The thresholds should not constitute an unnecessarily
high barrier to entry, but they should take account of the necessity for the DNS
Registrars to provide reliable service at all times.

Governments should have appropriate oversight to ensure that new registrars
fulfil minimum quality and technical standards.

>17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?

Not to our knowledge. The Internet is expected to become the principal
communications network for the global Information society and for international
electronic commerce. In which case, it will be necessary to accommodate a very
large number new users most of whom do not hold Internet names.

>18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space
raised by >increasing the number of domain name registrars?

It is incumbent on the IAB/IANA/IETF to permit the introduction of new TLDs and
new Registrars as far as the technology and standards ensure that full
reliability and integrity can still be assured. The process of transition should
be carefully managed.

>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 general the addition of new domain name registrars should be geographically
balanced. There may be practical technical and commercial limits to the number
of gTLDs a given Registrar may wish to operate. It should also be quite
exceptional for a Registrar to be obliged to operate in a particular gTLD
registry against its will. It should also be quite exceptional for a private
commercial Registrar to have exclusive rights over a gTLD.

Additional considerations would have to be taken into account with respect to
national TLDs, for example the economics of managing very small registries.

>20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?

-------

>E. Trademark Issues

In general, the Internet DNS, as presently administered, raises in principle
insoluble problems with respect to national Trademark Law. The present
requirement for uniqueness for an Internet name conflicts with the principle
that a trademark is normally protectable only in certain territorial markets and
in a particular sector of activity. Furthermore, certain generic concepts and
widely used words are not protectable as trademarks. Trademark law is enforced
by national courts. There is very little that can be identified as international
trademark law, even within the European Union.

Thus there is an inherent scope for dispute, of which some examples are already
well known. Fortunately there have not been more of them and the problem would
still appear to be manageable for the time being. It is likely to be a very long
time before trademark law is harmonised internationally to the extent required
for it to become compatible with the use of names on the Internet and vice
versa. Consequently the most fruitful line of policy is likely to be to minimise
the scope for uncertainty and conflict through efficient allocation of names and
dispute resolution, and by importing into the DNS some of the features of
trademarks such as territorial and professional specificity.

This has already been referred to above in relation to other questions. Policies
oriented towards enhancing the scaleability of the DNS should also be designed
to reduce the scope for trademark disputes in the future.

>21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks, common law trademarks,
>geographic indications, etc.), if any, should be protected on the Internet
vis--vis >domain names?

Exercise of existing trademark rights should be protected within their present
limits. Steps should be taken to introduce generic SLDs which define the scope
of the protected activity, thus limiting the scope for overlap - and
consequently for dispute - between organisations with the same or similar names.
National and common law trademarks should normally find their home in the
corresponding nTLD, with professional or sectoral SLDs.

Even with these improvements, there would still be a problem for some companies
when their trademarks were "passed off" as names in other domains which they did
not wish to use. The process whereby names are allocated will have to be refined
to minimise this problem, and it will probably be necessary for large companies
with "well known names" to monitor the situation as it evolves, globally, on a
permanent basis. We see no other solution at this stage.

>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?

There should be a preliminary review, for the reasons indicated above. The
proposed Administrative Challenge Panels (WIPO) are the only current proposal
with an international dimension. Their working methods should be reviewed after
two years' experience.

Registration organisations must become much more conscious of this problem then
they have been in the past. Hoarding and merchandising of names by third parties
must be strongly discouraged. Names that are unused for a significant period
should be retired. There should be a strong logical link between the domain
names and the name, location and activities of the applicants for those domain
names.

Claimants should not loose any rights before their national courts, but the
allocation process and dispute resolution system should endeavour to minimise
recourse to the courts.

The Commission would support the establishment of pre-registration procedures in
order to reduce the number of disputes (early publication of new domain names,
in a manner which is quickly and easily searchable, dispute resolution available
immediately that would include a facility for suspension of the domain name
during a provisional period . . .)

>23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark rights be
>protected on the Internet vis--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/non-governmental >organizations?

See above.

In so far as recourse to the proposed WIPO/ACPs is voluntary, then other dispute
resolution procedures (ICC, UNCITRAL . . . ) are not excluded. However, one must
bear in mind that efficient dispute resolution in this area requires a certain
expertise and infrastructure including on-line access to Trademark databases and
it would not be practical to spread these resources too thinly. Consequently the
necessary specialisation should be encouraged.

>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?

This question has been examined in the context of the WIPO/ACPs. The creation of
world-wide trademark databases - linking electronically existing and future
electronic databases of national and regional trademark offices by a central
public authority such as WIPO - should be encouraged. the creation of trademark
directories - linking trademarks and Internet addresses - is seen as being a
more appropriate subject for private sector initiatives.

>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?

A comparative evaluation of the practice and experience of all the principal
Registration organisations should be undertaken. The experience with the
WIPO/ACP procedure will in the future provide further guidance to the
Registration organisations. A minimum requirement would be to ask domain name
applicants to make a declaration to the registrar that they do not deliberately
offend against trademark rights; one could also envisage a form of demonstration
that the applicant has a basis for requesting a particular domain name, such as
a business name or registered trademark.

>26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars affect
>the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?

The expansion of the DNS without the establishment of proper mechanisms for
dispute resolution and pre-registation formalities will multiply the number of
disputes between trademark holders and applicants for domain names.

>27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain
name, >are there any technological solutions?

We are not aware of any technological solutions. Rigorous use of gSLDs would
provide an improvement in the situation which would have to be accepted by the
trademark owners. The territorial or sectoral scope of a trademark should not be
increased simply because it has become someone's domain name.

>28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?

It is becoming quite urgent to define internationally acceptable rules to solve
disputes. In any event, the work initiated by WIPO should be concluded and a
workable system should be in place before the creation of new gTLDs or the
reassignment of existing gTLDs is undertaken.

__________________

Brussels, 30 July 1997

1 . c.f. Bonn Ministerial Declaration on Elecronic Commerce, Point 12.

2 . For example, several of the Telecommunications Operators and the
national TLD Regisrars.

###

Number: 432

From: Gerry Robles <gxroble@uswest.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 10/28/97 5:34pm
Subject: Domain Name comments

Corporate America spends billions in advertising and products to build a
name for themselves. These trademarks that have been build are the
foundation our our business and it is necessary for us to protect them.
Any new Domain Name System needs to acknowledge that a companies name is
its identity and on the Internet that corresponds to its address (URL).

A system similar to our trademark laws needs to be in place to protect
the investment that companies make into their identity.

###