August 4, 1997
Ms. Patrice Washington
Office of Public Affairs
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA)
Room 4898
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230
Dear Ms. Washington:
The International Trademark Association (INTA) is pleased to provide you with its response
to the
"Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names"
[Docket
No. 970613137-7137-01], as published in the July 2, 1997 Federal Register. INTA is a
not-for-profit
organization comprised of 3,400 members from over 117 countries. The Association's
membership
crosses all industry lines and includes manufacturers, retailers, law firms, and professional and
trade
associations. What this diverse group has in common, is the understanding that trademarks are a
company's most valuable asset -- a simple yet effective means of communicating with consumers
in
the global marketplace.
In addition to our official response, we are pleased to provide you with a "special edition" of
INTA
"White Paper:" The Intersection of Trademarks and Domain Names. This INTA publication
has been
prepared by the Association's Internet Subcommittee as a source of information on the meeting
between the world of trademarks and the new world of cyberspace. Most importantly, Appendix
II of
the "White Paper" contains a complete version of INTA's proposal for a new domain name
assignment
system. All documents being provided by INTA are contained on computer diskette
(WordPerfect 6.1)
which has also been enclosed.
INTA appreciates the opportunity to present its views on this important and highly complex
issue.
Please do not hesitate to contact Mike Heltzer, INTA's Government Relations Program
Coordinator, if
you require further information.
Thank you for considering our submission.
Sincerely,
David Stimson
President
Enclosures
Appropriate Principles
INTA has answered a, b, c, d, e, and f
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.
Ans: INTA recognizes the importance of competition and the importance of
inter-operation.
It is essential, however, that the administration of Internet domain names recognize that
the important and valuable legal rights of trademark owners not be harmed.
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.
Ans: INTA generally agrees with this principle and, toward that end, participated in the
International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) and currently has a representative on the
interim Policy Oversight Committee (iPOC) -- the body that oversees implementation
of the IAHC plan.
These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently global nature of the
Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over time.
Ans: Although the Internet was conceived of and raised from infancy by the U.S.
government, it has grown well beyond its borders, and the U.S. government should
not
now attempt to treat the Internet as a U.S.-asset. Instead, the U.S. government should
work with the private sector, as well as other governments and international organizations to
permit the Internet to evolve into a truly global asset.
d. The overall framework for accomodating competition should be open, robust, efficient,
and fair.
Ans: INTA supports open, robust, efficient and fair competition with
appropriate mechanisms to protect the rights of trademark owners.
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.
Ans: INTA agrees that the overall policy framework for domain name allocation and
management should promote prompt, fair and efficient resolution of conflicts, including
those involving intellectual property. Toward that end, INTA believes that the IAHC
plan is a positive step.
The IAHC plan also includes administrative domain name challenge panels (ACPs),
that will not take the place of national or regional sovereign courts, but will assist trademark
owners in the protection of their well-known trademarks. In addition, the IAHC
procedures require detailed contact information of domain name applicants (and those
renewing domain names), prepayment for domain names, annual renewal, and procedures for
the immediate publication of domain names, all of which should assist trademark owners with
their efforts to police against trademark infringement.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of these issues
permits.
Ans: INTA supports an early resolution of the problems relating to registration and
administration of domain names. The need for an early resolution becomes more
critical as the Spring 1998 termination date of NSI's contract with the National Science
Foundation (NSF) approaches. However, INTA also notes that the issues that
must be resolved involve new and complicated legal and technical concerns that must
be carefully considered before arriving at a fair solution.
IAHC has created the necessary framework for the continued evolution of the domain
name system. INTA encourages the U.S. government to support the IAHC plan,
recognizing the accomplishments of the process, while permitting further evaluation of
some of the elements of the plan, including the decision to increase the number of
generic top level domain names (gTLDs), and the standards to be applied by
administrative challenge panels (ACPs).
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
INTA has answered questions 1, 2, 3, 4 (part), 5, and 8
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the current domain name registration
system?
Ans: The Disadvantages
The current system established by Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) is
inadequate to combat "cybersquatters." "Cybersquatters" are online pirates who routinely
register domain names in bulk, without regard for the rights of trademark owners and with
no other purpose than to ransom the names to the highest bidder. NSI procedures are also
not equipped to handle cases where two companies own the same mark, or where an
individual's name may be the same as a company's mark. In addition, NSI does not
require sufficient information from the domain name applicant.
At the core of NSI's problem is its position that domain names have no legal
significance, but are used only to address various sites in cyberspace. Further, NSI has
stated that its only purpose is to register domain names, not perform trademark searches
or arbitrate trademark rights. NSI contends that it is not equipped or funded to perform
such searches and that it should not be responsible for any infringement that takes place
involving the domain names it registers. This aspect of NSI's policy is disappointing
to trademark owners, since like a trademark, domain names serve as a "shorthand"
reference tool to locate information concerning a specific product and learn about the
company offering the product for sale. Trademarks in cyberspace deserve the same level
of protection they are afforded in the "real-world" of commercial activity.
Instead of being familiar with just a single policy, there is a potential requirement for
trademark owners to be familiar with hundreds -- if not thousands of dispute policies.
This system represents an unnecessary expenditure of money and manpower. Finally,
some registrars do not even have a dispute policy.
Advantages
The disadvantages outlined above make it evident that there are few, if any real
advantages for trademark owners under the current domain name registration system.
Notwithstanding, there are a select few aspects of NSI's application policy that represent
a step in the right direction: (1) an applicant must submit a document that states,
to its knowledge, the domain name requested does not interfere with or infringe the rights
of third parties and (2) an applicant must have a bona fide intention to use the Internet
domain name on a regular basis.
Finally, the ability to get a domain name put on hold may be considered an advantage.
2. How might the current domain name system be improved?
Ans: INTA has circulated a proposal for a new domain name registration policy, portions of
which have been incorporated into the IAHC plan. A complete version of the INTA
proposal can be found in "Appendix II" of INTA "White
Paper:" The Intersection of Trademarks and Domain Names (see attached).
Highlights of this proposal include:
- Publication of domain name applications on a publicly available Web site for 90 days before the registration becomes effective, with full particulars of the domain name applicant, enabling trademark owners to monitor infringements of their marks.
- A renewal process, similar to the application process, with a sworn statement by the applicant individual or the officer/general partner of the applicant business entity setting forth the actual use which has been made of the domain name since the application or last renewal period should be required. Renewal should be required every 12 months. This renewal process would help remove "deadwood" from the register.
- Submission by the applicant to subject matter jurisdiction in an action brought under trademark or unfair competition law, or analogous laws, arising out of actual or intended use of the domain name. Also submission to personal jurisdiction in any competent tribunal in the country in which the registrar through which the domain name registered would be located. Finally, a waiver of the right to challenge either jurisdictional predicate.
- Agreement that, in the event of a dispute, the registrar would not engage in the resolution of the dispute, but will abide by any order of a tribunal or arbitration panel having jurisdiction.
INTA also supports the plan developed by the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC).
3. By what entity, entities, or type of entities should current domain name systems be
administered?
Ans: INTA encourages the U.S. government to support the plan of the IAHC and to
promote regulation by the private sector.
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/nongovernmental organizations, if any, in national and
international domain name registration systems?
Ans: In accordance with the IAHC plan, INTA supports a system which is
industry-driven. The Association does however, support the role of international
governmental organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
in the administration of on-line mediation and dispute resolution procedures.
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 Standard Organization (ISO) country
code domains?
Ans: Given the current dependence of the commercial world on existing gTLDs,
particularly .com, the economic costs of retiring gTLDs would be too great. It
is too late to delete mnemonics entirely and use only random numbers based on names.
Likewise, requiring country code TLDs alone is not a realistic alternative give the historical
use
of gTLDs and industry's enthusiasm.
Management issues pertaining to gTLDs are separable from questions of ISO country
code domains for two reasons: one historical and one political/practical. The historical
reason is that gTLDs and ISO country code domains simply have been treated separately
over time by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). The political/practical
reason is one of sovereignty and self-determination. INTA believes that the latter remains
important in some respects, but the former does not. INTA would like to see all registry
policy uniform on questions of second level domain (SLD) assignment and dispute
resolution.
8. How should the transition to any new system be accomplished?
Ans: INTA supports the revisions to the existing system contained in the IAHC plan.
This plan is currently being implemented by the interim Policy Oversight Committee (iPOC).
As a member of IAHC and now iPOC, INTA has been involved in developing the new
system and providing input which reflects the needs and concerns of trademark owners
from around the world. In May 1997, INTA signed the gTLD Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) acknowledging its support for the IAHC system.
INTA believes the following aspects of the IAHC proposal will be beneficial to
trademark owners:
- Publication of domain name applications on a public Web site, with full particulars of the domain name applicant, enabling trademark owners to monitor infringements of their trademarks.
- An online challenge process that will permit a trademark owner to contest the granting of a particular domain name.
- Elimination of registrar discretion in dispute resolution.
- An admission of both personal and subject matter jurisdiction to overcome the problem of obtaining jurisdiction over the challenged domain holder.
In light of the benefits to trademark owners which are listed above, INTA urges the
U.S. government to issue a statement which acknowledges its full support of the IAHC
plan. INTA further urges the U.S. government to ensure that the gTLDs which are
currently administered exclusively by NSI (.com, .org and .net) as
per a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation (NSF), be made a part of
the shared registry system developed by the IAHC.
C. Creation of New gTLDs
INTA has answered questions 10, 11, 12 and 13
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations that constrain the total
number of different gTLDs that can be created?
Ans: Some proposed domain name plans call for hundreds, even thousands of new
generic top level domains (gTLDs). This scenario presents a policing problem for trademark
owners, requiring them to spend countless hours monitoring for infringing use of their
marks. "Cybersquatters," the pirates of the Internet, would also be given more
opportunities to infringe on the good names of trademark owners.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
Ans: Not at this time. INTA advocates a "go-slow approach" and views the seven new
gTLDs (as proposed by the International Ad Hoc Committee) as an experiment, the results
of which, particularly in terms of the increased policing burden on trademark owners, must
be considered prior to adopting any more gTLDs.
12. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the
scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs?
Ans: See answer to question 10.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country code
domains?
Ans: The issues relating to gTLD management are separable from questions involving
ISO country code domains for two reasons, one historical and one practical. The historical is
that gTLDs and ISO country code domains simply have been treated separately over time
by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). The political/practical reason is
one of sovereignty and self-determination. INTA believes that the latter remains
important, in some respects, but the former does not. INTA would like to see all registry
policy uniform on questions of second level domain (SLD) assignment and dispute
resolution.
D. Policies for Registrars
INTA has answered questions 18 and 20
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space raised by
increasing the number of domain name registrars?
Ans: There are significant business and policy reasons that caution against increasing the
number of domain name registrars. It cannot be emphasized enough that domain name
registrars must serve in a critical position of worldwide public trust. If one registrar fails
to keep that trust, the entire domain name system will suffer.
A policy to support a large (or unlimited) number of registrars bears a likelihood of
unintentionally creating economic incentives that will injure trademarks and the overall
interests of the domain name system. Because a high number of newly created registrars
would be competing for the finite resources of domain name applicants, such registrars
would be motivated purely by financial considerations to urge the creation of more and more
gTLDs over time to ensure profitability. Registrars would seek to create more gTLDs
regardless of the effect upon trademark rights or the needs and best interest of the
Internet as a whole.
Numerous registrars competing for profit and for finite resources, also create the
potential for a variety of other abuses. For example, a registrar, motivated by financial
gain, could misuse proprietary information in a shared registry database to encourage its
own applicants to "lock up" certain names. Registrars located in countries whose laws
are not as favorably disposed to protecting trademark rights, could also take advantage of
the current lack of harmonization in international trademark laws by encouraging
extortionists and infringers to take advantage of the jurisdictional advantages afforded
under the laws of a particular country. For these reasons alone, the number of domain
name registrars must be limited.
It is also instructive to look to the Final Report of the International Ad Hoc Committee
(IAHC) for guidance on this issue. That report had proposed the creation of no more than
28 new registrars, based on a regional quota and selected by lottery. One key feature of
that proposal was the requirement that the applicant agree to locate the registrar only in
countries that are party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property,
or are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and comply with at least Article
2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
At an absolute minimum, it is critical to ensure that registrars be located in
countries that respect trademark laws.
20. Are there any other issues which should be addressed in this area?
Ans: Registrars should also be subject to a consistent set of registration and dispute
resolution
policies. INTA has proposed a domain name registry policy for second level domain names
that encourages meaningful and effective procedures for (1) ensuring accountability
by domain name registrants, (2) allowing complainants sufficient information through
an application, pre-screening and publication process to pursue appropriate legal remedies
against extortionists and infringers, (3) reducing "deadwood," i.e., unused domain names, (4)
increasing the available pool of domain names, (5) ensuring fair and legally supportable
decisions regarding domain names; and (6) reducing Network Information Center (NIC)
exposure and costs by taking NIC out of the dispute resolution business. INTA endorses the
procedures discussed in its proposal and recommends
that it serve as the mode to be adhered to by all approved registrars. A complete copy of the
INTA proposal can be found in Appendix II of the
INTA "White Paper."
E. Trademark Issues
INTA has answered questions 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27
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?
Ans: INTA believes, that under certain circumstances, trademark rights need to be
protected vis-a-vis domain names. The issue should not be categorized in terms of
whether trademark rights stem from common law rights or registration but rather whether a
party can lay any claim to superior rights. It is important to note that trademark
registration does not confer trademark rights in the U.S. and certain common law
countries, but rather merely constitutes rebuttable evidence of those rights. In the U.S.,
substantive trademark rights arise from actual use as a trademark. In civil code
countries, trademark rights exist only through registration. Under trademark law,
most trademark owners do not own the right to
use the mark in question to the exclusion of all others -- many similar and identical marks
coexist happily and peaceably in commerce because rights are very often
limited by dissimilarities of products or services, and by jurisdictional territory.
Additional problems arise in the context of the Web. Because people use domain names
to locate Web resources, companies doing business online want domain names that are easy to
remember and relate to their products, trade names and trademarks. For example, a florist
might find the domain name flowers.com very valuable to identify it as a source of
flowers. Likewise, owners of famous trademarks (such as Microsoft) typically register
their trademarks as domain names
(such as microsoft.com). This kind of identification can be highly important to a
business that conducts commerce on the Internet. Moreover, many consumers
who do not know the domain name of a company often will first choose the principal
trademark of such company to locate the company's Web site.
However, the Internet was not created solely for commercial enterprise, and domain
names should not be the exclusive province of trademark owners. Thus, those with legitimate
non-trademark interests in second level domain names have to be accommodated along
with the rights of trademark owners. Similarly, the interests of owners of trademarks which
exist
in commerce concurrently for non- related products or services must be considered, as do those
of well-known marks.
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 is notified of the conflict? Automatic referral to dispute
settlement?
Ans: After significant study and consideration, INTA concluded that Network
Solution's (NSI) domain name dispute resolution policy is unworkable and cannot be
"fixed," because neither NSI, nor any other future registrar or network information
center should be a tribunal for trademark dispute resolution or be expected to be a
specialist in trademark matters.
INTA believes that the issue of whether a domain name conflicts with a trademark
or trade name or otherwise is violative of some fundamental principle of trademark law,
would best be determined in the manner that trademark rights in
general are determined by established judicial and alternative dispute resolution
methods. Under the INTA plan (see Appendix II "White
Paper"), the proposed domain name would be published on a publicly available and
well- publicized database prior to its activation for a period of 90 days. During this
time, a potential challenger would have the opportunity to take whatever action it deemed
necessary with respect to an applied for second level domain name (SLD), including seeking
appropriate relief in the courts. It is anticipated that the publication period would afford
potentially adverse parties the opportunities to resolve their differences without litigation.
Generally, it is impractical to assume that satisfactory results will result if domain name
conflicts are automatically referred to any dispute settlement mechanism. There is no single,
international trademark law, so it not possible to reserve
disputes involving trademarks and domain names to a body applying a globally recognized body
of law. Therefore, in case of an automatic dispute referral system, the dissatisfied party will
often seek to have its rights adjudicated in a
national court.
INTA believes, however, that the alternative dispute mechanisms contained in the plan
created by the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) may be practical tools for
cost-effective
resolution of a number of international domain name disputes.
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/non- governmental
organizations?
Ans: Ideally, trademark disputes involving domain names should be settled voluntarily
by the parties. Whether by direct negotiation or mediation, these voluntary
solutions should be highly favored whenever possible. INTA is a strong supporter of
alternative dispute resolution.
The IAHC, of which INTA was a member, recognized that trademark owners rights arise under national trademark laws because there no single, universal international trademark law. The IAHC and INTA also recognize, that involving the registrar as an arbiter of disputes, no matter how well-intentioned, summarily confers upon a non-judicial body the discretion to essentially grant an injunction against a continued use of a second level domain, without any adjudication of the merits of the trademark owners claim against the domain name holder. Therefore, at this time, the INTA believes that national courts serve as the appropriate forum within which trademark rights can be fairly adjudicated if all voluntary efforts fail.
The IAHC, recognizing the demand for some kind of streamlined dispute resolution,
at least in the case of disputes involving a well-known mark, has recommended
the creation of administrative domain name challenge panels. These panels do not
substitute for national or regional sovereign courts; they have authority over the domain
names only, not the parties. Unlike courts, however, the challenge panels would have the
ability to exclude certain names such as well- known trademarks from all generic top level
domains (gTLDs). These standards by which such panels would operate are still being
developed. INTA believes that such an approach may prove to be an effective tool against
"cybersquatters."
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented? What information
resources (e.g., data bases of registered domain names, registered trademarks, trade
names) could help reduce potential conflicts? If there should be a data
base(s), who should create the data base(s)? How should such a data base be used?
Ans: Conflicts over trademarks in cyberspace can best be prevented through traditional
means. A party wishing to protect a trademark throughout the world, should register
the trademark in as many countries as possible and otherwise attempt to publicize the
proprietary status of the trademark. The importance of national trademark registrations is not
diminished under INTA's proposed policies, as national trademark courts will continue to
look to national laws, which primarily rely on trademark registrations as indications of a
mark's protectability. Trademarks which are well-known around the world can be protected in
countries in which the mark is not registered under the provisions of Article 6 (bis) of the
Paris Convention to which nearly all trademark jurisdictions are signatories.
Trademark owners will continue to have a duty to police the use of their marks
throughout the world. Vigilant policing and early detection of infringement usually prevents
disputes from becoming litigations.
The IAHC plan (and INTA's proposed domain name registration policy) mandates that
an application to register a second level domain name be quite detailed, as
explained in response to question 25. Under INTA's proposal, all of these details would be
published by the local registrar on a central publicly available Web site for 90 days before the
registration becomes effective and before
the registrant may begin use. The publication period would commence no later than one
week after the registrar receives a fully completed application, including the fee. The
publication period would allow potential challengers to take appropriate action. It is
assumed that commercial searching services and smart agents/robot searching
programs would be sufficient to monitor the publication Web site. In fact,
such agencies already actively monitor the registration of new domain names
and the use of trademarks on the Internet. The purpose of the database would be for
potential challengers to a SLD to determine if sufficient cause exists to object to or take
any action against the issuance of the new domain name, preferably, within the 90-day
publication period.
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 value of what criteria?
Ans: Applicants should be required to identify the basis for their particular domain name request. As further described in INTA's proposed registry policy (see Appendix II of INTA "White Paper"), INTA believes that standard registration procedure should require the applicant to disclose the following information:
- The applicant's name, business or residential address, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address.
- The state or country of incorporation or partnership (if applicable).
- Certified copy of the certificate of incorporation or partnership (if applicable).
- The name and address of an agent for service of process, which can be the applicant in the case of an individual. Service on the agent will constitute an effect upon the registration of the domain name.
- A sworn statement by the individual applicant, or by an officer of the applicant corporation or general partner of the partnership:
* That there is a bona fide intention to publicly use the
domain name within 60 days of its registration and a bona fide intent to continue
such use for the foreseeable future.
* That the domain name will be used for a [stated] use (e.g.,
for a web site to advertise the applicant's business, namely,________.) (This
can be a very broad statement and is not intended to restrict actual use.)
* That the applicant believes that the domain name is available
and does not infringe the rights of any other party.
* That the applicant submits subject matter jurisdiction in an
action brought under trademark or unfair competition law, or analogous laws
arising out of the actual or intended use of the domain name, and also submits personal
jurisdiction in any competent
tribunal in the county in which the registrar to which the domain name would
be registered is located, and waives the right to challenge either
jurisdictional predicate.
* That the basis for the claim could be the applicant's
trademark, or business name, or nickname, or child's name, etc.
The INTA domain name registration policy would also mandate a renewal process,
similar to the application process, with a sworn statement by the applicant individual or
the officer/general partner of the applicant business entity setting
forth the actual use of the domain name since the application or last renewal
period.
It is not the purpose of the registrar to evaluate the information. The information would
be made publicly available so that owners of trademark rights or other potential challengers
of the second level domain may fully evaluate the basis on which the domain name has been
requested. It is INTA's belief that a great deal of litigation can be avoided once it is made
clear that a domain name applicant's intended or actual use does not conflict with any trademark
rights of the potential challenger. Additionally, INTA strongly believes that a potential
domain name holder will be very hesitant to commit acts of piracy when, as opposed to the
present time, it is forced to disclose extensive information under oath and subject itself to
services of legal process and jurisdiction.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars affect the
number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
Ans: Creating multiple gTLDs may result in more problems for the owners of
trademarks by imposing an enormous policing burden on the trademark owner requiring them to
spend additional fees for monitoring each new international top level domain
(TLD) for potential infringement/dilution. Further, as long as registering another's
trademark as a domain name is considered lucrative, each new gTLD creates the opportunity
for valuable trademarks to be misappropriated.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain name,
are there any technological solutions?
Ans: A directory of domain names could assist in alleviating likelihood of confusion, but this is not a complete solution. A directory would assist in situations where legitimate trademark owners would normally co-exist without confusion in industry. For example, apple.com could legitimately be owned by companies such as Apple Computers, Apple Records or Apple Bank. A directory appearing on the screen at the outset when "apple" is typed could assist the user in locating the correct company. However, a directory will not help in the case of an extortionist who registers a well-known mark as a domain name. Further, a directory would not assist in instances where the user does not have enough information in the directory to figure out which company it is seeking: e.g., XYZ, Inc., XYZ Company, XYZ Industries. Consequently, INTA supports development of directories, but maintains it only addresses one part of the domain name problem.
###
Number: 151
From: Darrell Greenwood <Darrell_Greenwood@mindlink.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/4/97 3:21pm
Subject: Comments - Registration And Administration Of Internet Domain Names
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Darrell Greenwood
(signed) by Darrell Greenwood
Aug 4, 1997
Darrell Greenwood
3985 Dundas, Burnaby, BC
Canada, V5C 1A6
Retired
Aug 4, 1997
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary
A. Appropriate Principles
Principles a-f
Other principles
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Questions 1-9
C. Creation of New gTLDs
Questions 10-14
D. Policies for Registries
Questions 15-20
E. Trademark Issues
Questions 21-28
F. Other Issues
[List other issues addressed]
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
SUMMARY
I support the principles of the gTLD-MoU at
<http://www.iahc.org/gTLD-MoU.html>. I reproduce these principles
below for ease of reference;
SECTION 2. - Principles
The following principles are adopted:
a. the Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) name space is a public
resource and is subject to the public trust;
b. any administration, use and/or evolution of the Internet TLD
space is a public policy issue and should be carried out in the
interests and service of the public;
c. related public policy needs to balance and represent the
interests of the current and future stakeholders in the Internet name
space;
d. the current and future Internet name space stakeholders can
benefit most from a self-regulatory and market-oriented approach to
Internet domain name registration services;
e. registration services for the gTLD name space should provide
for global distribution of registrars;
f. a policy shall be implemented that a second-level domain name
in any of the CORE-gTLDs which is identical or closely similar to an
alphanumeric string that, for the purposes of this policy, is deemed
to be internationally known, and for which demonstrable intellectual
property rights exist, may be held or used only by, or with the
authorization of, the owner of such demonstrable intellectual
property rights.
Appropriate consideration shall be given to possible use of
such a second-level domain name by a third party that, for the
purposes of this policy, is deemed to have sufficient rights.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Darrell Burtt Greenwood
I, Darrell Greenwood, respectfully submit comments in this proceeding.
I am a retired telecommunications manager and internet user who
participated fully in the IAHC-discuss mail list, reading all
submissions to the mail list during its life, reading related
material and commenting to the mail list as appropriate.
I have no financial or other interests in any internet, ISP, or
registrar business and submit these comments as an internet user.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
A. APPROPRIATE PRINCIPLES
a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name
registration system should be encouraged. Conflicting
domains, systems, and registries should not be permitted to
jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet, however. The
addressing scheme should not prevent any user from
connecting to any other site.
Yes.
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.
Yes.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the
inherently global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve
as necessary over time.
Yes.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition
should be open, robust, efficient, and fair.
Yes.
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.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent
consideration of these issues permits.
Yes.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
B. GENERAL/ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK ISSUES
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current
domain name registration systems?
Disadvantage - NSI monopoly.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
Eliminate monopolies.
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 gTLD - MoU covers this well.
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?
The gTLD - MoU covers this well.
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?
It is not practical to retire the gTLDs.
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?
The gTLD - MoU covers this well.
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 gTLD - MoU covers this well.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be
accomplished?
The gTLD - MoU covers this well. Direction is needed from NSF or
appropriate agency to NSI to cause NSI to cooperate in making the
transistion to the system outlined in the gTLD - MoU.
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
I have no further comments in this area.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
C. CREATION OF NEW gTLDs
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations
that constrain the total number of different gTLDs that can be
created?
No.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
Yes.
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 issues are handled by the gTLD - MoU.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions
about ISO country code domains?
Yes.
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
I have no further comments in this area.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
D. POLICIES FOR REGISTRIES
15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a
particular gTLD? Are there any technical limitations on using
shared registries for some or all gTLDs? Can exclusive and
non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?
A gTLD registrar absolutely should *not*, repeat *not*, have
exclusive control. This would have, and has had, a major negative
impact on domain name holders.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name
registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars
have? Who will determine these and how?
The threshold requirements should be as low as practical. Ideally
every ISP should find it possible to be a registrar if they wish.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of
domain name registrars?
No. No practical limitation in the near future, other than not having
too many during the startup period.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the
name space raised by increasing the number of domain name
registrars?
Yes. The gTLD - MoU handles this well.
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?
No, there should be no limit on the number of different gTLDs a
registrar can handle.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
I have no further comments in this area.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
E. TRADEMARK ISSUES
21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks,
common law trademarks, geographic indications, etc.), if any,
should be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names?
Minimal trademark rights should be protected. In this case the gTLD - MoU
is possibly more protective than it should be in my opinion, but I
can live with 'internationally known' trademarks being protected as
detailed in the gTLD - MoU.
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?
gTLD - MoU is the best solution for these questions. In the long run
policies should be adopted by the POC of the gTLD - MoU which
eliminates the profitablity and existence of domain name hoarders.
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 gTLD - MoU covers this well.
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?
A domain name should not be considered a trademark item any more than
a 'vanity' automobile license plate is considered a trademark item.
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?
No.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number
of registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark
disputes?
If there is minimal interaction between trademarks and domain names as
there should be, the number of different gTLDs and number of registrars
will have no effect in the number and cost of resolving trademark
disputes.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for
a single domain name, are there any technological solutions?
No.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
I have no further comments in this area.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
F. OTHER ISSUES
I have no comments in this area.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
Annex 1
SERVICE LIST
[List parties to whom you provided courtesy copies.]
None.
###
Number: 152
From: "Justin T. Youens" <aggie@cleaf.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns),NTIADC40.SMTP40("aggie@clea...
Date: 8/4/97 12:23pm
Subject: dns comments
my comments on dns setup
I think that the current system is reliable at best. We need faster
and more solid processing on domain services. My company is a victim of
the sluggish and "forgetful" registration process. One request for a
modification, registration, or deletion should be all that is needed, and
a response should happen instantly, with processing shortly there after.
We all know where technology is right now, and it is certainly capable of
going through a database, no matter the size, and making a couple of
changes in a couple of minutes. Yet we must wait weeks for even a reply
that the request was recieved! I thought E-Mail worked faster than that!
I guess it doesn't, my friends just see into the future and write me
replies to my mail weeks in advance. This also applies for NIC Handles,
DNS information, and everything. I think that the future of the net needs
to be a little more concerned about the businesses that make up, support,
and rely on it.
As for organization of domains. There needs to be more defining
extentions. Lets make so new ones that reach out further and divide
the people having fun from the businesses. Make a new one for "tourist
attractions" maybe ".fun". One for porn, maybe ".xxx". One for public
schools, maybe ".pub". This would make things so much easier if someone
would sit down and think up who has domains, and how to catagorize them.
I know it would make programs such as Net Nanny easier to opperate, and
it could even be incorporated into browsers easier. Schools could simply
lock out all "????.xxx" and not have to worry about it. Then enforce it.
No one can put commercial stuff on ".fun", and no porn unless its on a
".xxx". If someone breaks the rules, take their domain. Or make a 3
strikes you're out program. Or if its a user on an ISP, make the ISP
cancel their web page abilities. Also have the ISPs check their own space
so that the work can be divided up. And if they don't, or they slack off,
penalize them. We can't have the net a place of anarchy, but we
shouldn't try to be dictorial about it either.
My 2 pence.
John Daniels
I-Pagez Internet Creations
jdaniels@ipagez.com (as soon as my domain gets its modification processed)
here@juno.com
aggie@cleaf.com
###
Number: 153
From: Barry Cohen <becohen@halldickler.com>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/4/97 4:03pm
Attached please find the CASIE Response to the Department of Commerce
request for Comments regarding the Internet. The format of the document is
WordPerfect 6X for windows. Please call me at the number below or send
email if you have any problems accessing this file.
Barry Cohen
Director of Information Technology
Hall Dickler Kent Friedman & Wood LLP
909 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022-4731
212-339-5456
Coalition for Advertising Supported Information and Entertainment
(CASIE)
Submission to the Department of Commerce Request for Comments on the
Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names
Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
To: Patrice Washington, Office of Public Affairs, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Room 4898, 14th
St. And Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230
From: Douglas J. Wood, Esq., CASIE Legal Counsel, Hall Dickler Kent
Friedman & Wood LLP, 909 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022. Telephone: (212)
339-5400; Telecopy: (212) 935-3121; email: dwood@halldickler.com.
This submission to the Department of Commerce Request for Comments on
the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names is filed on
behalf of the Coalition for Advertising Supported Information and
Entertainment (CASIE), a joint effort of the U.S. based Association of
National Advertisers (ANA) and the American Association of Advertising
Agencies (AAAA or 4A's), the members of which have and continue to spend
millions of dollars per year on Web sites and electronic commerce. They
are among the true users of the Internet.
Before commenting on the specific questions posed by the Department,
some general observations are in order.
I. CASIE and Its Involvement
Since January, 1996, CASIE has been monitoring and evaluating changes
to the Internet that may become effective as early as this fall. This
included attendance at key meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, Washington,
D.C. and New York City. These meetings included sessions with
representatives from both the International Ad Hoc Committee ("IAHC") and
Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), the two main proponents of change.
The proposed changes may have a profound impact on
the Internet. Unfortunately, the IAHC, now known as the Interim Policy
Oversight Committee ("iPOC") and NSI have become polarized in the debate.
The polarization is largely due to NSI's failure to participate in the
public forums in Geneva and elsewhere sponsored by, or held on behalf of,
the iPOC. This lack of open communication and debate by and between the
two primary players in the controversy has created the troublesome
possibility of disruption -- or worse yet fragmentation -- of the
Internet. This could mean e-mail does not get delivered, security is
compromised, and Web sites become inaccessible from some computers. Given
the fragility of the Internet and its unproven performance as an effective
form of media for advertisers, the present situation has received close
attention by the U.S. advertiser and advertising agency communities who
collectively have contributed the bulk of funds thus far invested in the
Internet.
II. The Historical Perspective
While CASIE does knows that the Commerce Department is aware of
much of the history of the Internet that has brought us to the present
situation, it is nonetheless helpful for CASIE to outline its
understanding of that history. If there is any material error in its
understanding, CASIE welcomes corrections.
Historically, Internet administration was primarily under the
auspices of the Internet Architectural Board ("IAB") and the Internet
Assigned Number Authority ("IANA"). IAB was responsible for the technical
architecture of the Internet and the IANA was responsible for
administering the allocation of Internet addresses among various
registrars that dealt with those in the public who wanted to establish a
presence or Web site on the Internet. From the outset, IAB and the IANA
worked with the National Science Foundation ("NSF"), an agency within the
U.S. government dedicated, in part, to the development of new businesses
in the science and technology sector.
As the Internet grew, the NSF decided some existing roles could
be subcontracted to the private sector. In 1992, the NSF called for
private sector bids to administer registrations under the .com, .net, and
.org. gTLDs. NSI won the bid. The contract expires in March, 1998.
Upon winning the bid, NSI took control of InterNIC, the body
that dealt with the public in the registration process in a nonprofit
status. At the same time, two other "NIC's" were operating, ApNIC,
covering the Asian Pacific area, and RIPE,
covering most of Europe, although the geographical coverage of each was
technically not exclusive. Nonetheless, InterNIC focused primarily on the
United States where the greatest growth occurred. NSI invested millions
of dollars in developing .com, .net, and .org. It was .com, however, that
saw the greatest growth, now with more than 1.4 million registrants and
new registrants coming aboard at a reported pace of nearly 100,000 per
month.
All this ran smoothly until 1996 when the NSF granted NSI
permission to charge a fee to new registrants and to require renewal fees
from those already on the Internet and to become a profit-making entity.
Not surprisingly, NSI started making significant revenues, much to the
consternation of some members of the Internet community.
The prospect of profits also caught the attention of many
would-be entrepreneurs hoping to cash in on the bonanza. They took a
number of forms. First, an entire industry of Web site designers and
access providers was born. Today, it is probably the most robust industry
associated with the Internet. On a somewhat parallel course to the
InterNIC, the Alternic was formed by a loose association of companies
offering access to the Internet via their own network servers, using any
variety of top level domain names to entice registrants. Some of the
Alternic's TLDs included .corp., .web, .arts, and .sex, each name intended
to indicate the nature of materials a consumer might find within the given
gTLD. The Alternic, however, never really took off and is rumored today
to be largely a thing of the past, although some of the organizations that
first formed the Alternic are supposedly trying to form yet another
network that will access the Internet.
The NSF added more confusion to the situation when it announced
in April, 1997 that upon expiration of its contract with NSI in March,
1998 for the administration of its gTLDs, the NSF would not renew NSI's
contract and would no longer stay involved in Internet administration,
leaving it to the private sector to sort it all out. This abandonment
allowed NSI to claim brand ownership of .com, .net, and .org, the
underpinning of NSI's competition model. This is a somewhat curious
position. Clearly, when NSI was awarded the contract, it did not own the
gTLDs it administered under the terms of its contract with NSF. Its
position, however, is that it built the gTLDs into the brands they are
today. In NSI's words, "it invested millions in developing personnel,
policies and infrastructure to run domain name registrations. Through its
own efforts alone, NSI has taken full risk on profit and loss,
with no assurances of profit." It is under this theory that NSI
presumably believes it has a right to claim ownership of its gTLDs. This,
however, would depend upon applicable local trademark laws.
During this process, it also became apparent that the second
level domains ("SLDs") were very valuable commodities. Since the Internet
is a technical environment, no two SLDs can be identical within the same
gTLD. For example, there can be only one cocacola.com.
While that may seem logical insofar as The Coca-Cola Company is
concerned, the issue is far more complicated in other examples. Who
should have the right to delta.com? Delta Airlines or Delta Faucets? Who
should have the right to united.com? United Airlines or United Van Lines?
This dilemma gave rise to cybersquatters, individuals who rushed to
register as many SLDs with names associated with famous trademarks or
companies as they could with the hope of later selling them to the highest
bidder. Trademark owners revolted and demanded that NSI address the
situation. In response, NSI set up a rigid procedure whereby a
disgruntled trademark owner could challenge a domain name holder on the
basis of its superior trademark rights. If victorious, the trademark
owner would have the right to the disputed SLD. While the NSI challenge
process served to solve some of the problems, it created new ones as well,
particularly since it depended on the judicial system if a matter could
not be settled. According to NSI, the result has been twenty six lawsuits
naming NSI as a defendant. All but four of the suits have reportedly been
settled. NSI points out that this is a relatively insignificant number
given the more than 1.4 million registrants. Not within the number of
lawsuits, however, are the unknown number of private battles between
claimants to the same or similar SLDs and the unknown number of would-be
registrants who have abandoned a claim to a previously claimed SLD even
where they might have had a valid claim. Add the business disruption that
lawsuits cause, and the "insignificance" of the problem is put into better
perspective.
As the phenomenon of cybersquatting grew, it became apparent
that SLD space was a very valuable commodity that grew scarcer every day
as more and more names were registered with InterNIC. Amid all this
controversy, there was also a concern among some in the Internet technical
community, that the .com domain was growing too fast and that its growth
could undermine the structural integrity of the network. It should be
noted that NSI disputes the conclusion that huge growth within the .com
domain threatens the stability of the Internet.
From this was born the IAHC. While it is not altogether clear
how the IAHC was formed, its goals were to establish a centralized
administrative structure for the Internet and to introduce competition to
NSI in domain name registration and administration.
To understand the next stage of the controversy precipitated by
the organization of the IAHC requires some basic understanding of how the
Internet works.
Composing the heart of the Internet are the primary root
servers. There are presently nine primary root servers operating, eight
in the United States and one in Sweden. There can be as many as thirteen
primary root servers under the present structure of the Internet, the
technical reasons for which are unnecessary to this discussion. These
primary root servers are designated with the first thirteen letters of the
alphabet -- "A" through "I" (most of which are maintained by uncompensated
volunteers who consider IANA the ultimate authority). It is to the
primary root servers that the Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") and
Internet Access Providers ("IAPs") connect to access the Internet and
begin the journey of a given message from one remote computer to another
somewhere else in the world. Perhaps the easiest way to understand the
structure is to picture the primary root servers as a multi-line
telephone, with the "A" server representing the first line and the
remaining servers, "B" through "I" representing the balance of the lines.
In order for the Internet to work, all registrants in all TLDs,
including the ISO 3166 country codes, must have their Internet addresses
entered first on the A server's database and then downloaded to the B
through I servers. By doing so, whenever a Web user accesses the Internet
through his or her ISP or IAP, that Internet provider's connection to any
of the primary servers enables a search of the primary root server
databases until the location of the address the Web user requested is
found and the connection completed. At present, NSI owns and controls the
"A" primary root server. Every day, thousands of new Internet addresses
are loaded into its database by registrars of the ISO 3166 country codes,
its own InterNIC database of new registrants, and any new registrations
from APNIC or RIPE. These are in turn downloaded into the databases of
the other primary root servers. Thus, new addresses, including any new
gTLDs and associated SLDs attached to those gTLDs, cannot get into the
Internet unless they are first entered into the NSI's primary root server.
Recently, however, NSI has publicly taken the position that it
does not have the authority to accept new gTLDs, citing that such
authority must come from a consensus within the Internet community.
Contrary to previously understood "protocol," it has become apparent that
NSI no longer recognizes the IANA as the authority over the authorization
of new TLDs, despite the fact that NSI accepted that authority for years
under what is described as a cooperative agreement between NSI and the
IANA. Since the IANA is a part of the IAHC and a proponent of the IAHC
competition model, it would be inconsistent for NSI to propose its own
plan and at the same time take instructions from the IANA, despite its
history of doing so. On the other hand, the IANA clearly believes it has
authority to unilaterally authorize the new gTLDs, although a letter has
been circulated by NSI from legal counsel for the University of Southern
California where the IANA resides that denies the IANA unilaterally has
such authority, again citing that such authority must come from a
"consensus" within the Internet community. The problem with both NSI's
and USC's legal counsel's position is that NSI can effectively veto any
additional gTLDs if it disagrees with their implementation since NSI is a
material part of the Internet community whose disagreement with a given
course destroys the prospect of consensus.
This is where the real confusion starts.
The IANA has publicly said it does not believe NSI will violate
its long-standing cooperative understanding with the IANA and refuse to
program the new gTLDs into the Internet Domain Name Service. The IANA has
posted a number of warnings to NSI regarding what the IANA believes to be
NSI's obligation in that regard. NSI, however, continues with its public
position of lacking authority to implement the IAHC proposal. In the face
of this, it is rumored that the IANA could order a realignment of the
primary root servers so that the one maintained by NSI is no longer the
"A" server from which all programming of new Internet addresses emanates.
The problem with that scenario, however, is that nothing would force NSI
to include the new programming on its server, thereby "splitting" the
Internet so that .com could not, for example, communicate with .firm and
vice versa. The IAHC proposal calls for the new gTLDs to become active as
early as fall 1997. If the stalemate between NSI and the IANA is not
resolved by then, the Internet community may face a disruption of the
Internet.
It is also important to remember that among the original group
of Internet founders are those who are very passionate about the integrity
and stability of the Internet. Should NSI or any other organization play
an active role in any disruption, the "old timers" on the Internet, many
of whom are very technically savvy, may strike back by creating even more
disruption with "spamming" or other destructive programming. It is
possible that, should the IANA "program out" NSI's "A" server, the
remaining servers comprising the Internet might be significantly more
vulnerable to hacker attacks. Such knee jerk reaction by Internet
fanatics is not unprecedented.
III. The Competing Proposals
A. The IAHC Proposal
The IAHC has proposed a number of profound changes in the
present structure of the Internet. The key changes are:
ú Basic administration of the Internet by the
Policy
Oversight Committee ("POC") whose members are
appointed by a group of trade associations and quasi-governmental
organizations. The POC will be physically based in Geneva, Switzerland.
The iPOC is
in place until the full POC is appointed later this
year.
ú Seven new gTLDs:
ú firm -- for businesses or firms;
ú store -- for businesses offering goods to
purchase;
ú web -- for entities emphasizing activities related
to the World Wide Web
ú arts -- for entities emphasizing cultural and
entertainment activities
ú rec -- for entities emphasizing
recreation/entertainment activities
ú info -- for entities providing information
services
ú nom -- for those wishing individual or personal
nomenclature
ú The addition of new registrars to compete with
InterNIC via a shared database of all SLD registrations worldwide. Under
the iPOC proposal,
SLDs are "portable" -- a company can choose to
use
any registrar to register and/or administer its
SLD
and can change registrars at any time. Such
a move
would not require a change in an Internet address
and would be transparent to consumers, much
like
a change in long distance telephone
carriers.
ú The establishment of a
self-regulatory process to resolve disputes over the ownership of SLDs in
instances where the owner of an "international
trademark" disputes a SLD registrant's right to a
particular domain name. The procedure also
allows for the owner of an international trademark to
petition for a special ruling that its international
trademarks can be used only by it in any or all of the
gTLDs.
A. The NSI Proposal
In response to the IAHC proposal, NSI released its own
plan. The key provisions in the NSI proposal are the following:
ú Basic administration of the Internet by the
Federal Advisory Committee initially under the sponsorship
of a U.S. government agency and later shifted to
an
organization sponsored by an entity like the U.N.
ú SLDs would not be shared in a common database.
NSI would continue to "own" .com, .net, and .org and all
the SLD registrations within those domains.
Marketplace demands would dictate whether
new registrars are formed to compete with
NSI's InterNIC. If a company desires to enter
the market as a registrar, it would create its own
gTLD and "own" it and the SLD registrations
within it. Thus, SLDs are not portable among
registrars unless an owner is willing to change
the gTLD, e.g., cocacola.com would become
cocacola.firm.
ú Unlike the IAHC proposal, no new gTLDs are
immediately proposed. New gTLDs would be
added as new companies chose to become registrars
as marketplace demands dictate.
ú Much like the present procedure, there is no
centralized SLD dispute resolution system in the
NSI plan. Fights over who has the right to a given
SLD would be determined primarily by local courts.
IV. CASIE's Review and Conclusions
In the end, CASIE's primary concern is that the Internet be a
stable medium for delivery of product and service information and
commercial messages to consumers. Any system must also respect brands,
minimize consumer confusion, and avoid unnecessary administrative expenses
in doing so. The IAHC proposal is one approach. NSI's is another. The
fact remains that many individuals, organizations, and companies very new
to the Internet only learned of the IAHC/NSI debate in December, 1996, the
timing of which made it very difficult to focus on given the holidays.
In the ensuing months, however, CASIE has had the opportunity to
review both the IAHC and the NSI proposals and to meet with the principals
of both organizations as well as attend key meetings on the future of the
Internet. CASIE feels it is very competent to voice its opinion on the
various proposals.
On the basis of that review, CASIE believes that the IAHC plan
is a sound beginning and that the NSI plan is fatally flawed and should be
rejected as a viable structure for the Internet for numerous reasons,
including the following:
ú The NSI proposal has more government involvement and
oversight than the IAHC proposal. Contrary to the rhetoric in the
marketplace, the IAHC has less government oversight and involvement than
the NSI proposal. Indeed, the entire underpinning of the NSI proposal is
initial sponsorship by a U.S. government agency. While the IAHC proposal
has quasi-government organizations involved, their role is not pivotal and
is less intrusive. Interestingly, NSI describes the IAHC proposal as "too
bureaucratic." Yet NSI's proposal has just as many bureaucratic layers.
ú The NSI proposal will allow for virtually uncontrolled
proliferation of gTLD's without a common SLD dispute resolution system in
place. Since increasing gTLDs will undoubtedly become a reality in the
near future, it is better that it be controlled by a single source rather
than by the whims of entrepreneurs. Otherwise, there is no assurance that
a given gTLD will be here one day and fail the next, leaving registrants
in the lurch. Thus, the NSI proposal is not attractive for brands and
brand protection for at least two reasons:
> There is potential for consumer confusion as gTLDs
are added without centralized control or efficient directories, e.g.,
consumer confusion in trying to remember which gTLD serves a given SLD and
whether it has changed.
> Because the NSI proposal has no viable provision for
centralized SLD dispute resolution, it leaves controversies to present
judicial systems where brand protection is spotty and expensive and where
each country may have entirely different approaches to trademark
protection.
ú The lack of portability of an SLD together with its
corresponding gTLD poses a significant problem for brand owners. Since
brand names are often embedded in the domain address, changes are
undesirable. In addition, the task of notifying consumers of a change
should a registrant change to another gTLD is unnecessary and cumbersome.
Under the NSI proposal, if a registrant is dissatisfied with its
registrar, it must change its address to a new gTLD should it "relocate."
This would in turn require "change of address" notices to Web browsers and
consumers, revising Web page content, and loss of immediate connection by
those consumers who have bookmarked the prior location. Under the IAHC
proposal, a change in registrars would be transparent to the consumer.
The result is better for both the domain owner and the public.
ú The competition model in the IAHC proposal is better.
Based upon competition at the SLD level, the IAHC proposal will create
more robust competition. Pricing and service will be the keys to
distinguish one registrar from another under the IAHC proposal. Under the
NSI proposal, competition is at the gTLD level. Given the inability to
migrate an address, a registrant is somewhat captured by a registrar under
the NSI proposal. Clearly, it is less desirable to change a gTLD under
the NSI proposal than it is to change a registrar under the IAHC proposal.
The latter is invisible to the consumer, the former requires Web page
content changes, explanations to consumers, and additional expenses. NSI
argues that the "IAHC proposal does not recognize the need for market
branding in the commercial world. Legitimate corporations will not invest
time, stockholder capital, and other resources in 'shared' brands." While
it may be true that a given company may be more motivated to invest in
servicing a gTLD if it owns it, there are plenty of marketplace examples
where servicing shared databases has made for very healthy competition.
The battle for long distance telephone carriage is but one of them. NSI's
conclusion is a generality that does not pass muster under examination.
ú Contrary to perception, the key players in the iPOC are
U.S. based and thereby maintain, at least philosophically, a U.S.-centric
Internet. While the NSI proposal is also U.S.-centric, it is dominated by
government, not business. It is inaccurate to characterize the IAHC
proposal as a power grab to remove the U.S. from its dominant position
within the Internet community. The first chair of the iPOC is a well
respected and accomplished trademark attorney from a Chicago law firm.
Without doubt, the United States is well represented in the IAHC plan.
ú NSI has been less than forthcoming in its public
statements regarding the issues surrounding the IAHC proposal. For
example, NSI has repeatedly claimed in written materials that "The White
House, State Department, European Commission, CIX (the largest ISP
organization with 170 members), and dozens of other commercial and
international organizations outright reject or have serious concerns with
the IAHC proposal ..." At best, this statement can be described as
exaggerated; at worst misleading. At meetings in Geneva when this
statement was read into the record, the United States representative and
the European Commission delegate denied the characterization. Their
positions have been that they take no position -- positive, negative, or
neutral -- on the proposal. That is a far cry from saying they "outright
reject or have serious concerns" with the proposal.
ú NSI has not participated in the open meetings conducted
by the IAHC in Geneva despite opportunities to do so. It is disingenuous
at best to criticize a competing program while refusing to publicly debate
the opposing side when given the opportunity to do so. NSI has said it
did not participate because it did not want to give the impression that it
recognized the IAHC as having authority to propose or implement any of its
proposed changes. Such a position is nonsense. The members of the IAHC
are as much a part of the Internet community as NSI. NSI should have
given them the mutual respect of open discussion. It would have prevented
much of the rhetoric that clouds the issues at hand.
ú NSI's proposal is motivated primarily by its desire to
protect its investment and market share, particularly in light of its
recently announced plans for an initial public offering. That is entirely
understandable. Were they to adopt the IAHC proposal, it could result in
corporate suicide. Follow this scenario. The IAHC proposal is endorsed
by NSI and its database of registrants becomes part of the shared database
available to all registrars. Among the new registrars are the likes of
Digital, MCI, and other telecommunications giants. Overnight, NSI would
move from a dominant to an insignificant role. Given that not unrealistic
scenario, one can understand NSI's position. What is best for NSI's
market position, however, is not necessarily what is best for the Internet
community. The players in the IAHC proposal do not appear, however, to be
in the game for money. Two of the IAHC members -- ITU and WIPO -- are
quasi-governmental agencies. The remaining members -- the IANA, INTA,
ISOC, and IAB -- are non-profit entities. While it is true they seek
power, that power appears to be motivated not by economics but by their
collective perception of what is best for the stable operation of the
Internet. One may disagree with many parts of their proposal, but it is
clearly a plan by a group far more representative of the Internet
community than NSI.
In CASIE's support of the IAHC plan, however, it should not be
assumed that CASIE does not have material concerns about that plan as
well.
In CASIE's opinion, the following issues should be debated and
resolved before the IAHC plan is implemented:
ú Its alternative dispute resolution system's failure to
include coverage of the ISO 3166 country codes may create inconsistencies;
ú The POC should be more representative of the Internet
community and include members of the marketing community, third world
countries just beginning to take part in Internet commerce, and
international chambers of commerce, to name a few.
ú IANA's and ISOC's veto power on the POC is unworkable and
likely to alienate whatever Internet community exists;
ú The lack of formal legal status of some of the bodies
within the IAHC structure creates due process and jurisdictional issues
that need to be resolved;
ú Further attention needs to be given whether there will be
a way to pre- screen SLDs;
ú The impact, if any, of moving jurisdiction over the
administration of the Internet to Geneva needs to be evaluated.
ú France's concern expressed in Geneva at the late May
meeting that the IAHC proposal SLD dispute resolution system as submitted
may be hard to enforce, is time consuming, and may be too expensive should
be evaluated.
ú NSI properly points out that the IAHC proposal does not
"address the total situation." NSI claims IAHC fails to address three
important areas: the allocation of IP addresses, the management of
Internet identifiers, and the administration of the "dot" (that part of an
Internet address that helps route a message or request). While these
areas may be matters the iPOC will take up later or considers to be within
the present IAHC proposal, its position in respect to these issues needs
to be clarified.
Without doubt, the IAHC stumbled when it initially proceeded too
quickly and did not allow full participation by the Internet user
community. They have begun, however, to mend their ways. It now appears
that the iPOC is considering a more participatory period of discussion and
debate. That remains to be seen.
V. CASIE's Formal Response to the Questions Posed by Commerce
The following constitutes CASIE's formal reaction to the policy
statements and response to the questions posed by the Department of
Commerce, lettered and numbered to correspond to the form published by the
Department:
A. Appropriate Principles -- Are the following principles
appropriate? Are they complete? If not, do they need revision and might
they 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.
CASIE Response: CASIE believes competition in
the domain name registration system is long overdue. Without competition,
services will not improve and prices will remain inelastic. CASIE agrees,
however, that it is crucial that change and competition not impact on the
integrity of the Internet. Therefore, the change must be slow and
controlled. Of the two proposals presented, the IAHC proposal is the most
controlled with a central body determining the timing for new gTLDs. The
NSI proposal is potentially too unsettling by permitting new gTLDs at the
whims of would-be entrepreneurs. Controlled growth like that proposed by
the IAHC is one way to ensure fluid and transparent communication among
consumers and users of the Internet.
b. The private sector, with input from government
should develop stable, consensus-based self-governing mechanisms for
domain name registration and management that adequately defines
responsibilities and maintains accountability.
CASIE Response: CASIE agrees that the private
sector, with appropriate input from governments throughout the world, is
the best structural alternative. The Internet has become a global
phenomenon, beyond the exclusive regulatory control of any one government.
While the U.S. government certainly has the greatest claim to the
Internet, it should adopt an open, leadership role in fostering private
sector control of the network.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize
the inherent global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve as
necessary over time.
CASIE Response: This principle is a critical
part of any evaluation of Internet governance. The Internet is a truly
global communications network without boundaries. Its growth can only be
ensured if the various interests in the Internet community learn to work
together with evolving self-governance. Both the IAHC and the NSI
proposals seek such a structure, the only primary difference between the
two being the greater degree of government supervision in the NSI
proposal.
d. The overall framework for accommodating
competition should be open, robust, efficient, and fair.
CASIE Response: CASIE agrees with this policy
statement. The structure for competition, however, should be focused on
what will best serve the interests of the Internet user, not those
competing for the business. Thus, the NSI proposal of registrars "owning"
gTLDs must be rejected. It is fundamentally unsound both for competition
and for service to the Internet user.
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.
CASIE Response: Obviously, CASIE agrees with
this policy statement. The mechanisms, however, will have to evolve over
time and everyone must be patient. The present judicial systems among the
various countries throughout the world differ widely. It will take years
to sort out the many differences. For that reason, self-regulatory models
should be tried and revised. Over time, a system for the "prompt, fair,
and efficient resolution of conflicts, including conflicts over
proprietary rights" will evolve.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as
prudent consideration of these issues permits.
CASIE Response: A rapid resolution of the issues
is important. Otherwise, the rhetoric and misinformation will only
continue, further undermining the confidence the advertiser and
advertising agency communities have in the Internet. In this respect, it
would seem advisable for the NSF to utilize the six-month "flexibility
period" between April 1, 1998 and September 30, 1998 provided in the NSI
contract to orchestrate an orderly transition to new governance of the
Internet.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the
current domain name registration systems?
CASIE Response: (i) Advantages -- with one
predominant commercial domain, i.e., .com, communications to and from
consumers is simple. Assuming a particular second level domain name owner
is first to claim its name, consumers can easily find it by coupling the
second level domain name with .com. For those owners who captured their
second level domains early, the system is fine. There is little, if any,
advantage to them to see change. (ii) Disadvantage -- unfortunately, the
bulk of potential users of the Internet who might want their own SLDs is
increasing exponentially. As a result, the "space" within .com for
appropriate SLDs that in some manner identify the owner is becoming an
ever declining commodity. This is a distinct disadvantage to new users.
They must adopt names that a consumer can only find through search
engines, themselves overloaded with countless variations within the .com
domain. For them, new gTLDs are necessary and desirable. In addition,
the current NSI SLD dispute resolution procedure is inequitable and
contravenes accepted principles of trademark law. NSI insists it is not
an arbiter of rights to SLDs, yet NSI can and will reassign or place on
indefinite "hold" a well-known SLD simply because the owner of a trademark
registration for the same name demands it. NSI's procedure automatically
favors the trademark owner, even when the cited registration is not for
Internet-related services and the owner is not using the mark on the
Internet. NSI also disavows any liability to, and demands indemnification
from, the registrant for suspending an SLD, even if the disruption damages
or destroys the registrant's business and NSI suspends the SLD with
reckless disregard for the registrant's legal rights. Earlier this year,
the International Trademark Association's Internet Subcommittee released a
paper which "propose(d) that the current NSI Dispute Policy be recognized
as a failure and eliminated, (and) that domain name disputes be left to
the courts." Regardless of whether one prefers the courts or the SLD
dispute resolution plan proposed by the IAHC, it is clear that NSI's
procedure is unacceptable.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
CASIE Response: Controlled addition of new gTLDs
is one solution that appears to have the most support. At the May/June
meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva,
however, two alternatives to the addition of new gTLDs were proposed. A
number of the European countries appear to favor an emphasis on the ISO
3166 country codes. There are nearly 200 such TLDs, one for virtually
every country. According to those country representatives who supported
this approach, using the country codes instead of the existing or proposed
gTLDs would alleviate the present SLD conflict. That position is
incorrect for at least two reasons. First, the use of gTLDs like .com is
too widespread and accepted to turn back the clock. Second, and more
importantly, focusing emphasis on the ISO 3166 country codes presents a
nightmare for brand management with each country separately determining
the fate of a given brand name. A smaller group of countries suggested
abandoning unique SLDs entirely and making all SLDs random numbers. This
would eliminate the trademark issue since it would be impossible to use a
brand name. While this alternative may have been viable at the inception
of the Internet, it's far too late to introduce that now. Too much equity
has been built up by companies in both the gTLDs and the ISO 3166 domains
to reverse the trend. Therefore, the only viable solution appears to be
the addition of new gTLDs. Another improvement would be the creation of a
central, searchable directory of SLDs, much like an on-line telephone
book, that would provide a simple mechanism for Internet users to
determine SLD owners. The present "Whois" search does not cover the ISO
3166 domains and does not allow searches by corporate names rather than
exact SLDs.
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?
CASIE Response: (i) It seems to be universally
agreed upon that governments should not be the administering bodies. Both
the NSI and the IAHC proposals suggest predominately self-regulatory
systems. Upon close analysis of the two proposals, there is not much
difference in their respective approaches. CASIE believes that the
self-regulatory philosophy is sound and that either proposal could
eventually evolve into an acceptable administration model, although the
IAHC proposal appears to be more aggressive in that regard while the NSI
proposal starts off with more significant U.S. government oversight.
CASIE questions whether that oversight is needed or desired given the
global nature of the Internet and its many years of self-regulation
without significant disruption. (ii) The entities that are involved in
the administration should be representative of the Internet community and
evolve as the Internet grows. The IAHC proposal only begins that process.
The proposed structure of the Policy Oversight Committee ("POC") should,
however, be shuffled to allow for participation of other sectors of the
Internet community, e.g., the commercial sector, third world nations, etc.
The NSI plan is not clear on the mix of participants, but it is assumed
that the same basic policy applies.
4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve
as models for deciding on domain name registrations 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?
CASIE Response: (i) CASIE believes that
self-regulation and dispute resolution systems that avoid formal judicial
process are well suited for the Internet. The WIPO has established
procedures for arbitration and mediation, together with an experimental
process, the Administrative Challenge Panels ("ACPs"), for the resolution
of second level domain name disputes on the Internet. The WIPO system is
very worthy of consideration. Other self-regulatory bodies may propose
similar systems, but the WIPO process is an established, global system.
The fears of some "U.S.-centric" companies and individuals that the WIPO
system undermines the U.S. judicial system must be alleviated, however,
through more thorough discussions with representative from the WIPO than
thus far have occurred. (ii) An increased role of national or
international governmental organizations in national and international
domain name registration systems should be avoided. The Internet has
largely been a self-regulated system for most of its existence. To now
impose significant government oversight would be disruptive. There is
also no apparent reason that it is necessary. There is a role, however,
for certain quasi-governmental organizations like the U.N. bodies or other
such global organizations. Such organizations, however, should play more
of a supportive role than a governance responsibility. Governance should
be placed with non- governmental trade associations, businesses, and
organizations that are the primary users of the Internet.
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?
CASIE Response: (i) CASIE strongly believes that
the present gTLDs, i.e., .com, .org, and .net, should not be retired.
Many companies and individuals have invested millions of dollars in
developing their Web sites at these gTLDs. By retiring them, such
companies are deprived of their investment for no logical reason. Nor
would it be logical to retire those domains for new registrations, leaving
the present owners intact. Despite the ever declining "inventory" of
available SLDs, .com is a robust and active gTLD. Nothing should, or
needs to, be done to undermine it. (ii) As discussed earlier, requiring
ISO 3166 country codes will not solve the problems at hand. First, the
present gTLDs are too established. Second, requiring new addresses that
include the ISO 3166 designation will only confuse Internet users and cost
millions in unnecessary investment. (iii) As stated, the .com domain
should remain intact. There is no reason to undermine or diminish its
worth. (iv) CASIE believes that the ISO 3166 country codes must
eventually come within the same governance umbrella as the gTLDs. In this
respect, it would appear that the NSI proposal is better than that
proposed by the IAHC where ISO 3166 governance is not addressed. As a
first step, however, it may be necessary to start with governance of the
gTLDs and evolve into full governance of both the gTLDs and the ISO 3166
country codes. That evolution, however, needs to be debated and should
not be left unresolved as is currently the case in the IAHC plan.
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?
CASIE Response: (i) CASIE lacks the expertise to
opine on whether there are any technological solutions to the current
domain name registration issues. (ii) CASIE strongly believes that if a
registrar controls a primary root server there is an inherent conflict of
interest. The owner of a root server can directly affect the routing of a
given gTLD and its corresponding SLDs. If a given owner of a root server
is also a registrar, it could disrupt other registrars' customers.
Therefore, the root servers should be independent from the registrars.
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?
CASIE Response: CASIE lacks the technical
expertise to respond to this question.
8. How should the transition to any new system be
accomplished?
CASIE Response: While the various dimensions of
this question are not clear to CASIE, any transition should be carefully
considered. Clearly, the National Science Foundation should play a
leadership role, together with its historical partners in the Internet,
the Internet Assigned Number Authority, the Internet Architectural Board,
and NSI. The transition must also involve the members of the former IAHC.
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed
in this area?
CASIE Response: It is unclear in either the NSI
or the IAHC proposal how the administrative functions are going to be
financed. Proper administration under both plans will require full time
staffs and many volunteers. Who will be compensated? By whom? How will
they be financed? Who will administer the administrative funds?
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?
CASIE Response: CASIE lacks the technical
expertise to respond to this question.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
CASIE Response: For the reasons stated in the
answer to question 2., CASIE believes that the addition of new gTLDs is a
sound alternative.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy
issues about guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated
with increasing the number of gtlDs?
CASIE Response: CASIE lacks the technical
expertise to respond to this question.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from
questions about ISO country code domains?
CASIE Response: As stated in its answer to
question 5., CASIE believes the gTLD and ISO 3166 country code management
issues, while separable, must some day come under one, centralized
administration.
14. Are there any other issues that should be
addressed in this area?
CASIE Response: CASIE has no further comments on
Section C of the request.
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?
CASIE Response: (i) CASIE cannot over-emphasize
its belief that no registrar should have exclusive control over a
particular gTLD. Allowing such control is contrary to the best interests
of the SLD owner and the clear trend of portability in global
communications. NSI's position that companies will not invest in gTLDs
they cannot "own" does not withstand scrutiny. Certainly, the competition
among long distance carriers for service of consumers illustrates how
portability best serves the consumer. In addition, the International
Telecommunications Union and other international governmental and non-
governmental bodies have clearly adopted the idea of portability in
telephone numbers as the wave of the future. Why would there be any
reason not to adopt the same concept to the coupling of SLDs to gTLDs?
(ii) CASIE lacks the expertise to evaluate whether there are any technical
limitations on using shared registries for some or all gTLDs. (iii)
Allowing exclusive and non- exclusive gTLDs will only cause confusion.
Since there is no justification to allow exclusivity in the first place,
placating the internal financial fears of the present registrars is poor
management and a flawed decision.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain
name registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars have?
Who will determine these and how?
CASIE Response: (i) While CASIE would support a
minimum financial requirement for registrars (provided that requirement
did not act as an unreasonable barrier to entry for companies interested
in becoming registrars), CASIE has insufficient knowledge to determine
what minimum capitalization a given registrar should have.
(ii) Presumably, NSI, NSF, and the members organizations of the IAHC have
the collective expertise to set the minimum standards.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible
number of domain name registrars?
CASIE Response: CASIE lacks the technical
expertise to respond to this question.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy
issues about the name space raised by increasing the number of domain name
registrars?
CASIE Response: (i) On the technical side, CASIE
lacks the expertise to respond to this question. (ii) CASIE believes
that, in principle, increasing the number of domain name registrars should
not create business or policy issues, provided registrars follow
standardized procedures and utilize a centralized database that insures
the integrity of the Internet. Presumably, the greater the number of
registrars, the more robust the competition.
19. Should there be a limit on the number of
different gTLDs a given registrar can administer? Does this depend on
whether there registrar has exclusive or non- exclusive rights to the
gTLD?
CASIE Response: (i) CASIE is unaware of any
business or policy reasons a registrar should be limited in the number of
gTLDs it administers. CASIE lacks the expertise to determine if there are
any technical reasons a registrar should be limited in the number of gTLDs
it administers. (ii) As CASIE has stated in its answer to question 15.,
it strongly believes there is no logical justification for a system of
both exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs. Therefore, the answer to the
second question is moot.
20. Are there any other issues that should be
addressed in this area?
CASIE Response: CASIE has no further comments on
Section D of the request.
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?
CASIE Response: SLDs that utilize established
brand names or variations thereof should be afforded full protection under
trademark laws. The very purpose of an SLD owner in using its established
trademarks or variations thereof is to denote a source of goods or
services that can be found on the World Wide Web. In that sense, the SLD
is used as much as a trademark as it is as an Internet address. In
addition, it is clear that misuse by third parties of such established
trademarks that do not have legitimate rights therein dilutes the value of
the trademark and causes consumer confusion when a Web user attempts to
find the Web site of a particular trademark owner only to find that the
site is either unavailable or controlled by a totally unrelated party.
The extent of the protection should be subject to established principles
of trademark law. Thus, geographic designations should be afforded little
protection unless strong secondary meaning has been established through
use, registration, and other extrinsic evidence. Similarly, common law
trademarks would not be expected to have the same broad protection
afforded federally registered trademarks.
22. Should some process of preliminary review of an
application for registration of a domain dame 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?
CASIE Response: (i) The idea of a process for
preliminary review of an application for registration of a domain name was
extensively discussed at the WIPO May/June meeting in Geneva. There are
considerable complications in adopting a pre-screening process, the least
of which is the lack of adequate global databases that incorporate
trademark registrations from around the world. While there are some
companies that have apparently made progress in this regard, e.g.,
Internet Computer Bureau Plc., Bridge House, 181, Queen Victoria Street,
London EC4V 4DD, United Kingdom, tel: 0171 837 6889, e-mail:
Paul.Kane@ICB.co.uk., a comprehensive database appears years away. Until
it is in place, pre-screening is not realistic. (ii) Until a viable
database is in place, establishing standards is premature. (iii) Just as
is the case in the present U.S. system, the first review should be by the
applicant before it files an application. Once filed, the registrar would
then compare the name against the existing database for an identical name.
Assuming there is no exact match, the SLD should be issued. (iv) This
should be followed by publication on the Internet at a location that can
be easily accessed and searched by trademark owners. By periodically
searching this location, trademark owners will be able to determine
whether any potential infringements have been registered. If so, the
trademark owner may then take appropriate measures to protect its
trademark rights. There should be no affirmative obligation by the
registrar to notify anyone. (v) The concept of an automatic referral to
dispute settlement is an unnecessary administrative burden. It should not
be the responsibility of a registrar to police the trademark rights of
non-registrants or other registrants. Trademark owners should bear the
responsibility of initially policing their trademark rights.
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?
CASIE Response: (i) The resolution of SLD
disputes via a self-regulatory system as an alternative to local courts
should be available. It should not, however, be mandatory. Trademark
rights are territorial. No "global" trademark law exists. While over
time, case law developed through the self-regulatory system may develop
global principles for the Internet. But in the short term, trademark
owners should have the right to resort to the judicial system. There
should also be a mechanism like that proposed by the IAHC that allows
global protection of internationally known trademarks. The procedures for
such protection, however, require far more debate than has occurred thus
far. (ii) The IAHC's ACP format is an example of an alternative dispute
resolution system, although its relationship with local courts needs to be
carefully reviewed. CASIE is unaware of any other viable proposal. (iii)
Without doubt, national courts are not the only appropriate forum for such
disputes. Virtually every modern judicial system recognizes the wisdom
and value of alternative dispute resolution systems. The Internet is no
less an environment for ADR than any other forum. (iv) While CASIE
believes there is a role for national/international governmental
organizations, the primary focus should be on nongovernmental alternatives
given the unique global nature of the Internet.
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?
CASIE Response: (i) At present, preventing
conflicts over trademarks on the Internet is an evolving dilemma. Over
time, principles will be established both in courts and through
self-regulatory systems. It is far too early to state any definitive
manner to prevent conflicts short of adopting random numbering for SLDs,
an alternative that has little, if any, viable support in the Internet
community. (ii) Clearly, comprehensive databases of SLDs and trademarks
(both registered and common law) are desirable. The precise configuration
of such databases requires much discussion and debate. Most importantly,
however, progress in resolving the gTLD/SLD controversy should not be
delayed for lack of adequate information resources. (iii) Preferably, the
databases should be created by the private sector. Some companies have
already begun the task. Clearly, private sector efforts will be faster
and more comprehensive than governmental efforts. (iv) It is premature to
decide how such databases should be used. Until we know what those
databases should or will include, how they would be used is idle
speculation.
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?
CASIE Response: (i) While CASIE believes that
applicants should file requests in good faith, any requirement to
"demonstrate" a basis for requesting a particular domain name should be
minimal and inexpensive. Otherwise, access to the Internet is limited by
economics. (ii) Similar to the present system used in the Untied States
for federal trademark registrations, applicants should be required to file
an affidavit that attests to their good faith belief that they have the
right to claim ownership of the SLD and that their registration and use of
it will not infringe upon the rights of any third parties. Beyond that,
little more can be expected until viable databases are in place that allow
for economical pre-screening. (iii) At present, other than comparing the
requested SLD against the database of previously registered SLDs in a
given gTLD, registrars should not evaluate the information included in an
application. Requiring more would be an unnecessary administrative
burden. Furthermore, there presently are no comprehensive databases that
allow for a viable review. (iv) In CASIE's view, since requiring an
evaluation of the information included in an application is unrealistic,
establishing criteria is unnecessary.
26. How should the number of different gTLDs and the
number of registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark
disputes?
CASIE Response: This question poses the "Catch
22" of adding new gTLDs. While new gTLDs are necessary to allow
legitimate owners of trademarks to adopt SLDs that are associated with
such marks, the corresponding need to police all of the gTLDs for
trademark infringement increases the cost of marketing on the Internet.
It remains unclear whether increasing the number of registrars will
similarly increase costs. Assuming, however, that all the registrars use
a shared database and follow centralized, consistent rules regarding
disputes, the number of registrars should have little bearing on costs.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark
rights for a single domain name, are there any technological solutions?
CASIE Response: CASIE lacks the technical
ex-pertise to respond to this question.
28. Are there any other issues that should be
addressed in this area?
CASIE Response: CASIE has no further
comments on Section E of the request.
###
Number: 154
From: "Andrew K. Martin" <akmartin@coastalmicro.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/5/97 11:10am
Subject: domain management
Regarding management of generic top-level domains:
These, as well as all other issues of identification on the internet (e.g.
IP addresses) should be handled privately and non-exclusively through more
than one organization. There should not be a monopoly for both economic
and technological reasons. Just as a single, monopolistic entity cannot
be trusted to insure fairness to the consumer, neither can it be entrusted
with the sole management of these resources, upon which the transfer of
vital and non-vital information depends. Provision should be made to
allow several (possibly a limited number) of organizations manage
top-level domains and these organizations should succeed or fail based on
their fiscal viability and their commitment to provide quality services to
consumers. Each of these should be allowed to manage any and all domains
as per the request of the consumer. That one organization established or
provided prior service to a domain should not limit management of that
domain to that organization. If that organization fails to meet the needs
of the consumer in a satisfactory manner, the consumer must have the
option to easily, quickly, and without penalty, transfer the management of
the domain to another organization, subject to, of course, any applicable
costs of service to the new manager of the domain.
Andrew K. Martin
###
Number: 155
From: "John R. Mathiason" <mathiason@netstep.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/5/97 6:38am
Subject: Comments on theDomain Name System
Please find attached my comments on the issue of the Domain Name System.
Document available at: <http://_________________>
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Dr. John R. Mathiason
John R. Mathiason
P.O. Box 48
Mt. Tremper, NY 12457
Adjunct Professor of Public Administration
July 26, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary
A. Appropriate Principles
Principles a-f
Other principles
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Questions 1-5, 8-9
C. Creation of New gTLDs
Questions 11, 13
D. Policies for Registries
Questions 16-17
E. Trademark Issues
Questions 21-27
SUMMARY
1. The issue of domain name regulation is related to the wider issue of
public responsibility for the Internet and within this the role of
international organizations. Maintenance of the fundamental openness of
the Internet on the basis of universal access and fair competition
requires that this essential public good has reasonable regulation to
ensure a level playing field for all users. As a new, borderless entity,
the Internet can neither be regulated effectively by national governments
nor by self-governance of its many and diverse users. 2. The
registration of domain names system is the administrative heart of the
current Internet. The system is not working, because as constructed it
cannot cope with the volume of use, the growing disputes about trademarks
and a growing sense among many users that its institutions were not
legitimately founded. The Memorandum of Understanding on generic Top
Level Domains has been a start in the right direction and should be
implemented. It needs, however, further work to legitimize the structure
and to link the domain name system framework to a larger framework. 3.
The role of the International Telecommunications Union and the World
Intellectual Property Organization are crucial to the improvement of the
domain names system, but further consideration needs to be given to the
nature of their role and the need to adapt to a policy environment in
which non-governmental and private sector entities as well as governments
have to be active participants in decision-making and where all users,
governments, non- governmental organizations and individuals need to feel
that they are involved in oversight as a%means of ensuring legitimacy.
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Dr. John R. Mathiason
1. John R. Mathiason respectfully submits comments in this proceeding. Dr.
Mathiason is an adjunct professor at the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School
of Public Service of New York University where he undertakes research and
teaching in the field of international public management including the
role of international organizations in the regulation of the Internet. He
has begun a study of the issue of domain names as a case study of the role
of the international public sector in the management of a complex
transnational public service. As managing director of a consulting firm,
Associates for International Management Services, which includes
assistance in the use of the Internet for advocacy and training, he has a
direct concern with Internet management. For over twenty-five years he
was a career staff member of the United Nations Secretariat and knows well
the strengths and weaknesses of international organizations.
A. Appropriate
Principles
a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name registration system
should be encouraged. Conflicting domains, systems, and registries
should not be permitted to jeopardize the interoperation of the
Internet, however. The addressing scheme should not prevent any user
from connecting to any other site.
1. The Internet has evolved as an almost pure market that is also an
almost pure public domain. Transcending national borders, with a
technology that can permit universal- accessibility, it is a public space
for communication that has never previously existed and for which there is
little precedent in law and institutional practice. It has, however, a
minimum set of structures where regulation is necessary to provide order.
The domain name registration system is at the heart of these structures.
2. Use statistics show that the number of domain names is growing
geometrically. From 165 .com domains in October 1991; through 600 .com
domains in March 1993, 11,000 in Janury 1994, 30,000 in January 1995 and
232,000 in February 1996; the number reached 1,222,000 in May 1997. There
were, in June 1997, an estimated 22 million hosts on the Internet.
Assigning names in the context of this growth requires a structure that
can itself transcend borders and involve all of the parties who are the
users of the Internet. These include governments, international
organizations and public entities like educational institutions, but more
importantly they involve provide sector firms, non-governmental
organizations and individuals.
3. If the Internet is to be orderly, it must have regulation. An
unregulated Internet can invovle major costs as a result of unfair
competition, unresolved disputes and litigation, slowing of transmission
and reduction in access growth. That regulation must be provided by an
institutional structure that can accomodate existing parties and the
growth that can be expected. The principle, therefore should be: a
freely and universally accessible Internet, open to fair competition which
is orderly on the basis of universally-accepted norms and standards.
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.
1. As noted in a.1-a.3, the Internet transcends national borders. It
enters what Johnson and Post call a new kind of territory, not bounded by
geography and thus not easily subject to laws that are based on physical
place. The question can fairly be asked, in a world where the private
sector either exists in a national environment subject to national laws,
or in the form of transnational corporations who, by moving from country
to country, can largely evade national laws, can self-governing mechanisms
work? There is no reason to believe that, by themselves, they will be
stable. The recent litigation between InterNic and AlterNic indicates how
fragile is the current system. Nor is there an easy private sector
mechanism for arriving at a normatively binding consensus about
registration -- or for that matter anything else on the Internet. The
disputes about the Memorandum of Understanding clearly show that there are
different parties with different conceptions of how the Internet should be
managed.
2. In any case, the Internet is a public good, not a private
one. While private use of public goods is a normal practice, so too is
public regulatory authority. It is within this public regulatory
framework that any self-government is achieved. Thus, self-government in
the private sector -- or more properly, in Civil Society -- must take
place within a public framework, where the underlying consensus is worked
out.
3. This public framework, which at the national level, is built on
a combination of governmental institutions and public input, needs to be
applied to the Internet. This has not yet been done.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently
global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over
time.
1. The inherently global nature of the Internet means that the
self-governance mentioned in principle b has to be evolved within the
public framework of international institutions. It is now time to
recognize the need for that broader framework and begin to take steps to
create it.
2. A institutional base exists in the organizations of the
United Nations system. With universal membership, politically neutral
professional Secretariats and evolved and agreed procedures, they can
serve to organize the necessary dialogue among governmental, non-
governmental, private sector and individual stakeholders in the Internet.
The fact that both the International Telecommunications Union and the
World Intellectual Property Organization are already involved in the
domain name question testifies to their utility. However, the issues of
Internet regulation are only partially technical, and it will be necessary
in due course to see whether these are the most adequate mechanisms.
Certainly, however, for the question of domain names, which has up to now
been posed as a technical question of assignment methods and dispute
resolution, these two institutions provide a base.
3. As the Internet
evolves, particularly in its international commercial use, other
institutions will have to be involved. The fact that the World Trade
Organization has seen fit to begin negotiating specific agreements in the
information sector is an indicator of an evolving response to changing
requirements. There will be more, some related to technology (and within
that satellite-based transmission system), some will be related to the
control of crime, others with issues of content regulation.
4. At that
point, the issue of coordination among the various regulatory schemes will
have to be raised. The international public sector differs from the
national in that it is inherently non- hierarchical. It has no sovereign
center or chief executive, it component parts are all formally equal in
status, and therefore different rules apply. It depends, in fact, on the
legitimacy of action that comes from consensus decisions. This requires
different institutional structures, as some national analyses have found.
At that point, the institutional framework will have to be revisited.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open,
robust,
efficient, and fair.
1. The idea that the framework should be open, robust, efficient, and
fair is indisputable. It must be recognized, however, that while openness
and fairness are clearly linked, there may be a tradeoff between fairness
and efficiency. Fairness means, in the context of the Internet, that the
interests of the many diverse users are represented in the design of the
framework and in the monitoring of its implementation. So diverse are the
users, that normal institutions will not achieve this. It will be
necessary to create a new class of institutions at the international level
that permits participation. This will, inevitably, be less efficient than
current government-based structures (where it is only necessary to
accomodate 185 countries who would normally negotiate in three to four
blocs). However, to the extent that a consensus- based legitimacy is the
foundation of self-governance, it will be more effective, however
inefficient it may be.
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.
1. In national jurisprudence, resolution of conflicts always bears in
mind that justice delayed is justice denied . For conflicts in the
Internet, where rights have historically been defined in terms of national
jurisprudence, but where the conflicts will inevitably be transnational,
prompt resolution will require the elaboration of international
instruments, norms and procedures that will permit fair resolution.
2. Whether promptness can be achieved will depend on the care with which
the overall policy framework and its mechanisms are worked out
internationally and with the participation of whom.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of
these
issues permits.
1. As noted in previous comments, the framework should be adopted as
quickly as the various parties involved can be brought together
internationally to reach a consensus.
Other principles
1. A central principle should be that the policy framework and
regulatory mechanisms should reinforce the globalization of the world
economy, accelerate interdependence among peoples and strengthen
international public institutions in the interest of all of the world s
people.
2. Recognized in a cascading series of conventions, agreements and
declarations in a wide variety of fields, and embodied in a growing number
of international institutions to implement these agreements, the increased
interdependence that characterized the end of the 20th century and will be
the leitmotiv of the 21st. This has meant that the size and context of
international public space has grown. This borderless world can have
incalculable benefits to everyone, but may be particularly important to
Americans, many of whose national ideals are reflected in the way
international space has been defined, and whose economic well-being
increasingly depends on development elsewhere and whose physical
environment both affects and is affected by people outside its physical
boundaries. The United States, therefore, has a special responsibility to
encourage the development of international institutions that reflect our
values. The Internet was a creation of US technology and, in its free and
open structure, based on fair competition, reflects fundamental American
principles. But it has passed into the international domain: it belongs
to the whole world. It is imperative that we help create international
institutions whose structures and processes are consistent with our
values.
B. General/Organizational
Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems?
1. The main advantage to the current system has been its almost
seamless functioning.
2. Its main disadvantage is that it is not adapted to cope with the
physical growth and internati/nalization of the Internet and has begun to
develop systemic weaknesses in dealing with conflict. It now appears
poorly adapted to the rapid changes that are occuring in international
communications and seems no longer to reflect a clear consensus among
users of the Internet. Absent that consensus, the domain name
registration system is beginning to lapse into a costly and divisive
competition among parties with different perspectives about the Internet.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
1. An agreed international policy framework for the systems, that
involved all groups of users, needs to be adopted at an authoritative
level. To an extent that has been done by the Memorandum of Understanding
on gTLD s. The difficulty with the procedure followed, which was probably
unique in international public agreements, is that key parties did not
join the consensus, and some, like Network Solutions, have actively
opposed it. Absent an agreed international policy framework, which among
other things would link the management of the domain name systems to wider
issues and norms, it will continue to be difficult to make the system
work.
2. A clear and understood structure of international governance into
which the domain name registration system can be fitted is essential to
improvement.
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?
1. As noted above, for the system to be administered effectively, it
must be accepted by the diverse groups of users of the Internet, and it
must have a governmental connection since it deals with a public good.
The proposal in the gTLD MoU goes a long way in that direction: it gives a
coordinating role to two international public organizations with universal
membership, but it is governed by a board that includes representatives of
the main civil society groups.
2. What the arrangement lacks is a legitimate way of selecting those
representatives. The current lineup may well be the best, but it was
created without the kind of transparency of agreement that provides for
legitimacy. It needs to be ratified (and possibly modified) by a public
means. The ITU is one such means, but not the only one. It might be
possible to refer the ratification process to the United Nations (where
the Economic and Social Council has on- going work on informatics), but
that would have to be done with extreme care to avoid linking domain
registration with issues that are related but not entirely relevant, such
as technology transfer.
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?
1. The way in which both ITU and WIPO function to implement their
respective treaties and agreements is the best current model, although
they would clearly have to be modified to accomodate the role of civil
society (especially the large private sector firms that provide the
telecommunications hardware for the Internet, and the diverse community of
individuals who make up an autodenominated world of netizens .
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. The gTLDs reflect the new reality of the global economy and society:
they are inherently transnational. To retire them would be to deny that
reality. Moreover, by now many of the existing domain names have taken on
the character of tradenames that are indelibly imprinted. It would be
inconceivable to imagine the disappearance of yahoo.com or microsoft.com.
Moreover, while many sites holding generic gTLDs are essentially national
(the reach of my Internet provider in Kingston, New York, netstep.net,
includes only Ulster and Dutchess Counties), their content and users are
inherently international. There are many sites that are inherently
transnational (un.org for example). Moreover, the existence of the
generic top level domains is a protection for the openness of the
Internet, since country code domains would presumably be easier to control
in a negative way.
2. Clearly gTLD management issues go beyond the ISO country code domains.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
1. Practically speaking, any new system that is built on, as an
extension or addition, to an old system can make the transition by putting
all new transactions into the new system while gradually phasing out the
old. The exception would be to those gTLDs whose administrator is not
part of the new system. In that case, an arrangement would needed to be
made to make a complete handover to the new administrator of that part of
the system by a certain date.
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
1. There are two other issues that need to be born in mind, if not
addressed directly. First, there is a need for oversight and reporting on
the new mechanism that will involve the main groups of users. This
includes procedures for determining who will represent those groups.
Second, the extent to which the domain name system is linked to other
systems and other issues needs to be spelled out and procedures worked out
to allow domain name system representatives to participate in the other
foru s.
C. Creation of New gTLDs
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
1. The proposals in the gTLD MoU make great sense to me.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
guaranteeing the
scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of
gTLDs?
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO
country
code domains?
1. The gTLD management issues are related to, but separable from, the
ISO country code domains. Relationships exist in terms of the use of
trademarks in ISO country code domains and the extent to which sites with
gTLDs can or should be controlled by national authority.
D. Policies for Registries
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars,
and what
responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these
and how?
The definition of threshold requirements and responsibilities clearly
have to be built into the policy framework. Much of the answer is already
provided in the gTLD MoU.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain
name
registrars?
1. Whether there are technical limitation or not, a major consideration
is that the more domain name registrars exist, the greater the difficulty
in maintaining oversight and accountability and the more complicated the
decision-making process. In this case, it is not a matter of too much ain
t enough but rather too much is too much.
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?
1. The fact that the Internet is transnational means that an
international standard needs to be applied. Currently, trademark law is
essentially national, but interdependence of the global economy has led an
increasing number of countries to make national law square with the
international conventions administered by WIPO. The WIPO standard should
apply to protection and national laws should be brought into line with
those standards.
2. With this principle, international mechanisms can be set in place to
protect recognized trademark rights.
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?
1. The answer here is clearly yes and the appropriate preliminary
review should be done by WIPO, which already has a dispute settlement
procedure that could be adapted to the needs of the Internet.
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?
1. As noted above, national courts will have an increasingly more
difficult time solving disputes, since these are likely to be
multi-national in nature (if dealing with ISO country domain names) or
involving gTLDs whose international character is by definition. The
primary role should rest with WIPO, monitored and assisted by
non-governmental organizations. To the extent that enforcement may be
required, thought will have to be given to a mechanism whereby resolved
disputes are communicated to national authorities and applied by national
courts in accordance with the provisions of relevant conventions.
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?
1. The technology exists to have data bases of data bases. There is no
longer any need for a single centralized, Big Brother type database. What
is needed, however, is an international focal point to help direct
searches. Obviously WIPO would be a possibility and, in any case, should
be involved. An institutional framework in which the databases would be
developed by private parties, universities, trade associations or even
governments would be needed and a central point to bring them together
designated.
2. Such a data base system could be searched for conflicts prior to
registering the domain name, using standard protocols developed by the
relevant international organization. In fact, applicants could be
encouraged to search the data base themselves for conflicts as a means of
minimizing the work of the WIPO or whoever else would be designated to
make the official search.
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?
1. Clearly with regard to the generic TLDs, some proof that the
criterion of the level is met, e.g. an organization clearly must not be a
commercial enterprise to obtain the .org designation. This means that the
criteria have to have been spelled out and agreed, again at the level of
an international organization. Application of the criteria could then
easily be done by the registrars.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of
registrars affect
the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
1. Given an accessible system of data bases, there should be
little%incremental cost per registrar for resolving trademark disputes.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a
single domain
name, are there any technological solutions?
1. The issue of trademarks is not technological. A set of words and
symbols are attached to a product or company in the minds of customers.
Adding additional generic names or subcodes would not solve this problem.
The fact that the Internet is globally accessible viciates the normal
flexibility of trademarks in national law, as was also noted by Johnson
and Post.
Annex 1
Service List
Mr. Richard Beaird, Department of State, Rm. 4826, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Jo Ivy Buford, Dean, Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public
Service, New York University
Hon. Maurice Hinchey, Member of Congress
Mr. Riel Miller, SGE/AU, Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Paris
Prof. Kurt Mills, American University of Cairo, Egypt
Prof. Michael Schechter, Michigan State Univeristy
Prof. Tim Sinclair, University of Warwick, United Kingdom
Prof. Dennis Smith, Director, Public Policy Program, Robert F. Wagner
Graduate School of Public Service, New York University
John Mathiason
Adjunct Professor
Robert F. Wagner School of Public Administration
New York University
###
Number: 156
From: Bill Spencer <BSpencer@peabodygroup.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/6/97 6:43pm
Subject: re: Domain Name Issues
Sirs and Mesdames:
I understand that the Commerce Department is seeking comment regarding issues
with the Internet's Domain Name system and its administration.
I fervently believe that, without further administration or regulation from the
governments (U.S. or UN), the commercial parties will solve this to their mutual
satisfaction and to the successful usability by the world's populace.
Computer users have a history of viciously eliminating bad solutions and
rewarding good ones, using the capitalistic marketplace.
In this particular case, should another company start issuing domain names, they
will succeed only to the extent that they convince the rest of the Internet
infrastructure to set their Domain Name Servers (DNS) to point to the issuing
company. Similarly, Internet Service Providers (ISP) and other parts of the
Internet infrastructure will have incentive to offer their subscribers as many
domains as possible, yet to simultaneously offer only one unique resolution of a
given domain name (i.e., one issuing company per domain) and to have an
organized and efficient naming system.
The same industry that reached the recent Digital TV solution, and historically
a great many other ANSI, IEEE, ISO, and other standards, should have no problems
achieving sufficient practical standards here. Keeping the government from
having to worry about these standards will also lead to more flexibility as the
technology inevitably evolves.
Thank you for consideration of these comments.
Bill Spencer
401 Crest Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63122-5602
Bill5@lumencontrols.com
314-342-7504 (work)
PS: I am a computer software design consultant (though I am only an Internet
user, not a consultant in Internet design) with G.A.Sullivan, currently working
at Peabody (Coal) Holding Co. I have 22 years experience in the software
industry, and I am the holder of the domain name "lumencontrols.com".
###
Number: 157
From: Adrian Tymes <atymes@lts.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/7/97 4:26pm
Subject: DNS comments
A point-by-point response to
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dn5notic.htm :
A. Appropriate Principles
a. A useful method to encourage this would be to set up a central
registry of DNS
servers, preferably under the control of an appropriate body (the
Internet Ad Hoc
Council, the Internet Engineering Task Force, or a council formed by the
current DNS
administrators [after forced expansion from just Network Solutions],
seem like the best
choices for this, possibly as advised - but not controlled - by the UN
and the WIPO).
All top level DNS servers would be obliged to contact the other DNS
servers on this list
if their own database does not contain a domain name that it has
received a request for.
Any DNS servers that refuse to participate in this system would not
offer access to most
of the Internet, and either be forced to change or lose customers as a
result. The
choice of the central server administrator should be made with extreme
caution, as this
administrator may be the ultimate enforcer of nettiquite (the Internet
version of law).
b. As in A.a. Emphasis should be placed on "with input from
governments" as opposed to
"as ordered by governments", since placing power over the entire
Internet in any
government's hands has proven to, almost without exception, degrade the
Internet.
c. This is the reason for my suggestion of the IAHC and/or IETF. They
are global, can
evolve, and have proven to be effective but non-restrictive
"governments" (to the limit
that the Internet can tolerate governance without breaking down).
d. Any solution will have to be robust and efficient for people to
accept it; if no one
buys into the solution, then it will not work. However, "open" and
"fair" are subject
to interpretation, and as such, might not be the best standards. A
typical
religious/military dictator of a small country would probably say that
the current
standards are neither open nor fair because he can not dictate that, for
instance,
anyone using the .mil domain (except for his military) be put to death,
and yet anyone
reading this comment would probably find such a demand to be ridiculous
in the extreme.
e. See A.c and A.d; my comment here can easily be deduced from those
two.
f. In addition to adopting a new framework, care must be taken to switch
current users
over with a minimum of hassle. Abruptly shutting down the current DNS
system, if that
is called for, would result in massive disruption, and should thus be
avoided if
practical. Adding to the current system, or automatically rerouting DNS
calls to
names which used to be valid, would alleviate this concern.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. Perhaps the primary advantage is the simplicity of domain names.
"www.x.com" might
result in a lot of headaches, but it is a lot simpler to remember (and
thus, for human
beings to use) than "www.x.sf.ca.us" or "101.32.224.132". The primary
disadvantage is,
as has been pointed out by several others, intense competition for the
"x.com" DNS from
all companies named X, and an unclear resolution process if multiple
companies with the
same name are in different countries. Other advantages disadvantages
exist, but again,
those have been pointed out, and are not as important, so I shall not
waste space by
repeating them here.
2. For DNS lookups, see A.a and A.b above. For domain names themselves:
* Force ISPs and network connectivity providers to use the .net domain
name.
This is why .net was implemented in the first place; ISP insistence on
.com is only making the pressure for that top level domain (TLD)
worse.
* Implement alternate TLDs such as .biz, and forbid the same
organization from
registering itself in both .com and .biz. If this forbidding is not
implemented, legal council for most companies will, as others have
pointed out, suggest that the safest course of action, and thus the
one
that companies will take, is to register themselves in all applicable
TLDs, thus negating most of the benefit of multiple TLDs.
* Require valid contact information for a domain name, and do not
activate new
domain names until this information has been verified. It should be
possible to shut down those who abuse the Internet, even if they can
not be punished (as in the case of a spammer using a domain name with
false contact information and going through another service: the first
would be denied, and the other service can at least try to stop the
spam
traffic as soon as it is notified of it).
3. See A.a and A.b above.
4. See A above. National organizations should only be responsible for
national TLDs.
International organizations should be responsible for international
TLDs, such as .com.
These organizations should reflect the will of those who use the
Internet. Those who
have not bothered to expend the minimal effort required to learn the
true issues, or
even to touch the Internet, should not have a voice in governing the
Internet until they
have done so. Recent history (for example, the "cyberporn" scare and
the encryption
debate in the USA) serves as evidence of what will happen otherwise.
Since governments
speak for all of their people, not just the Internet literate ones,
governments should
probably not be in direct control (except, of course, of their national
TLDs, as these
were set up specifically for them).
5. No. The .com TLD is in such widespread use, its retirement alone
would probably
cause too much disruption. A similar, though weaker, case can be made
for .net, .edu,
and .org. Of the remaining non-national TLDs, .int is not really
generic, but .gov and
.mil are inappropriate. These two domains should be moved to .gov.us
and .mil.us. As
currently used, they are potentially confusing - since .com means a
company anywhere in
the world, does .gov mean a government anywhere in the world? Only the
UN and similar
organizations qualify for that title. Non-national TLDs are inherently
separable from
national (country code) TLDs: national TLDs were created to be the
property of their
nations, while non-national ones are explicitly not the property of any
government.
6. See A above, especially A.a and A.f.
7. The system proposed in A.a is infinitely scalable. If one TLD
becomes too crowded,
as .com has, another server can open up with another (or another few)
TLD(s). Newcomers
wishing to acquire a domain name, upon finding that, for instance,
"x.com" is already
taken, can simply take "x.biz" with minimal fuss (assuming that, to
protect its
trademarked name, the first X has not taken "x.com", "x.biz", "x.net",
"x.org", and so
on for all other TLDs - which, for this reason, it must be prevented
from doing).
8. A table of DNS entries, mapping all second level domains (SLDs) in
retired TLDs to
new domains, would not be too hard for those who currently operate the
main DNS servers
to construct, and since they are (mostly) American institutions, it
would be even
simpler for the American government to order them to do so, if desired.
Queries to the
old TLDs could simply be referred to this table.
9. I am sure that there are, but I can not think of any at the moment.
C. Creation of New gTLDs
10. Under the system proposed in A, none, as long as SLD hogging
(gobbling up the same
domain name in all gTLDs) is both forbidden and actively prevented.
11. Yes, if for no other reason than the current .com domain is growing
crowded, and
breaking it up would be impractical. Again, the system proposed in A
makes it easy.
12. See 10.
13. See the last part of 5.
14. See 9.
D. Policies for Registries
15. New gTLDs would probably work best if the proposing registrar
maintains exclusive
control over them. Current gTLDs that are not retired should probably
be shared,
especially .com. The only technical limitations, so long as all
participating servers'
listings are consulted by each other for all requests (or, at least, as
many as are
necessary to answer the request), is handling two different entiries for
something like
"x.com". Perhaps the simplest technical fix for this is to forbid
adding an entry for
"x.com" if it conflicts with a current entry for the same name. This
could be added as
a technical fix to the DNS servers to prevent accidents, but if one of
the server
administrators wanted to deliberately create chaos, it could probably be
circumvented
(although the effort to do so would still serve as a minor deterrent).
Exclusive and
non-exclusive gTLDs can coexist with ease: exclusive gTLDs are routed to
one server,
while non-exclusive are routed to a group of servers, each of which
checks the others if
it can not find the answer on its own.
16. Yes: irresponsible DNS administrators do more harm than good, and
thus should not be
allowed to become such. Under the plan in A, the central server
administrator will
logically determine the requirements.
17. No, as with the number of TLDs under the plan in A.
18. Obviously yes, but I have addressed the ones that I can think of
elsewhere.
19. Probably no more than a handful (two to five, the exact amount is
arguable)
exclusive gTLDs, as well as being able to participate in any number of
non-exclusives.
The same requirements that allow an organization to become a DNS
administrator should
also qualify it to participate in the non-exclusive gTLDs, should it
choose to do so.
20. See 9.
E. Trademark Issues
21. Only those recognized by international law.
22. Experience indicates that this is a good idea; the DNS administrator
issuing the
domain name would probably be the best reviewer. However, to aviod
beauraucratic
snafus, something along the following lines should be appended:
* If the review, for any reason, takes over two months from the time
that the
applicant has submitted a request for a new domain name, the
application should be assumed not to violate any other trademarks
unless
and until evidence to the contrary is provided.
If a conflict is found, the applicant should definitely be notified. It
the applicant
holds an applicable trademark, the application should go through. If
not, the
application should be denied. Note that this is seperate from the case
of multiple
"x.com" registrations - in that case, if both applicant and holder have
relevant
trademarks, the application should be denied.
23. National courts are only appropriate if both parties reside in the
same nation. If
they do, then national courts are probably best. If they do not,
international
arbiters (for instance, courts) are the only appropriate recourse if
disputes between
trademark holders can not be resolved without arbitration. Note,
however, that under
the proposal in A, the central DNS administrators are de facto
international arbiters
for this purpose.
24. The easiest solution would be to abolish trademarks entirely, but
that could
probably not be enacted even if it were feasable. An international
registry of
trademarks - one which the trademark offices of all countries can submit
their own
trademarks to, without requiring local companies to go to the expense of
re-submitting
their trademarks in every single country, and which all countries will
take as
legally binding - would probably be the best resource here.
25. No. Requiring this would cut down on the alternate domain names
that a particular
organization could get, which is especially important in crowded TLDs
like .com. On
the other hand, if proof-less applications are allowed, they should be
subject to
slightly more stringent trademark searches, since they will be violating
any trademarks
currently held. (Perhaps domain names should, themselves, be considered
trademarks?)
26. Under the plan in A, it would not. An organization would be allowed
to duplicate
its tradmark in only one domain; it could not then prevent the use of
its name in
other domains by those who hold similar trademarks. (Of course, if only
one company
has a particular trademarked name, then no one could use its name for
other domains
without filing another trademark for that name - which is fair, assuming
that filing
said trademark is easily possible for another organization with the same
name.)
27. Unfortunately, no, as trademarks are entirely a legal issue. There
are ways of
addressing the symptoms through technology, but they do not remove the
underlying
problem. "First come, first served" is the method of dispute currently
used, and under
the proposal in A, it would work - the second to come merely uses the
same SLD, but in
a different TLD.
28. See 9.
###
Number: 158
From: "Scott K. Johnson" <scott@zworx.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/7/97 8:20pm
Subject: The DNS Issue
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a WebMaster and President running a very small Internet based company.
We are running on a very tight budget (as a matter of fact we anticipate to
lose money for the next little while) and our domain name is as important as
our company name. With all the political rigmarole that has been going on
lately with the domain name issue, we are concerned that one private company
(with maniacal tendencies) has the power to turn our name on and off at a
whim. We would certainly like to see the administration of domain names
turned over to several non-profit organizations, or to several companies.
We feel that would help to spawn competition and thus better prices and/or
service.
We also feel that there should be some minor government regulations (laws)
that enforce the integrity of these institutions. After all, no one would
"turn-off" the name McDonalds's one day without some serious ramifications.
As it stands now, we are at the administrators whim....
Thank you for your time,
----------------------------------------------
Scott K. Johnson
NNI Networx NewMedia Inc.
http://www.zworx.com
###
Number: 159
From: "Sibert, Scott" <SSibert@yokohamatire.com>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/7/97 12:19pm
Subject: Top-level domains
I've been using the Internet since 1990. The current method of
top-level registration is easy to understand and it is easy to know
where to go for information.
The top-level registration process should be widely distributed.
Possibly it could be spread over maybe two or three companies each doing
different domains but it should be somewhat centrally-controlled. With
the anarchic nature of the Internet in its loose controls and easy
access to information, there should be some kind of central place for
the name registrations. This should not be controlled by the government
of the United States or any other country, although the company or
companies doing the controlling should be subject to the United States
government.
On the matter of additional top-level domains, any new domains must be
easily recognized as to what they represent. The proposed .store and
.firm will be confusing. "Should I check www.landsend.com or
www.landsend.store or www.landsend.firm?" And what is .nom? It does
not immediately, or after some thought, look like anything in
particular. What is the purpose of .web?
These proposed top-level domains look like someone is wanting to make
the internet addressing look like reversed Usenet groups. The only one
that might be of some use would be .info but the rest are unneeded.
Scott A. Sibert
Oracle Development Lab
YTC, Salem Plant
###
Number: 160
From: "mark2@yourgallery.com" <Mark.Gierth@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/7/97 10:57pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
Please stay out of this issue, in most casses the market
will take care of itself.
There is no way to justify government intervention on this
issue also.
PLEAS STAY OUT OF OUR LIVES AND LEAVE US ALONE!
YOU COULD CUT YOUR BUGET BY 90% BY ISSUING THE NATIONAL MESSAGE
OF:
CONSUMER BE WARE!
Spend the 10% left on the educating of the public on bad
products, and telling the American people that it is time
that they thought for themselves, and need to look into any
thing that they spend money on.
That is all that is needed, so stay out of the the internet
naming issue.
Mark Gierth
-------------------------------
Thursday, August 7, 1997 22:55:56 EDT
Mark Gierth
Mark Gierth
407 Abner Cruze Rd.
Knoxville TN
37920
###
Number: 161
From: "shadow@mediafilter.org" <CHRIS.PALMER@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/7/97 8:08pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I CHRIS PALMER do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Thursday, August 7, 1997 20:06:19 EDT
CHRIS PALMER
###
Number: 162
From: "smatic@mediafilter.org" <Satomi.Sugishita@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/7/97 11:47pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Satomi Sugishita do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Thursday, August 7, 1997 23:45:23 EDT
Satomi Sugishita
###
Number: 163
From: "metzger@bway.net" <Richard.Metzger@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/7/97 11:40pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Richard Metzger do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Thursday, August 7, 1997 23:38:44 EDT
Richard Metzger
###
Number: 164
From: "burke@northweb.com" <Joe.Burke@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/7/97 11:13pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Joe Burke do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel Internet
namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s name.space(tm)
service, located on the internet at http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or
http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Thursday, August 7, 1997 23:11:59 EDT
Joe Burke
###
Number: 165
From: "vaxen@x-net.net" <ROLLAND.D.ALBA@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/7/97 9:34pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I ROLLAND D ALBA do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Thursday, August 7, 1997 21:32:39 EDT
ROLLAND D ALBA
260 Cooper Rd
Westminster, SC
29693
###
Number: 166
From: "zone@desk.nl" <Zvonimir.Bakotin@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/7/97 8:32pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Zvonimir Bakotin do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Thursday, August 7, 1997 20:26:43 EDT
Zvonimir Bakotin
Amsterdam NL
###
###
Number: 167
From: Adam Prall <adam@hawaiian.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 1:08am
Subject: Top-Level Domains
To Whom It May Concern;
Currently there are many plans put forth by various commercial ventures
who want to control the new top-level domain "system" of naming that is
currently used on the Internet, all of which make the average person pay
them a fee for "registration" and "maintenance". What "maintenance fee"
are they charing for? A database is simply a file that contains
information, just like a physical card catalog that is still used in
many libraries today. It does not require "maintenance", and
"registration" is simply the insertion of a new "card" into the "card
catalog", or simple data-entry. There are many companies which would
like to charge us, the public, fees for one minute of typing on a
computer, and additional, higher fees for them not to delete us from
their databases. Currently, the InterNIC has this position. As a web
publisher, my company has registered several domain names with a
registration company, let's say about 15 names in the last 2 years. So
with our business alone, this registration company has made about
US$1500 for about 15 minutes worth of typing. Fortunately, when I was
born, name registration was still free, so that my mom didn't have to
pay $100 to name me. I think it is very rude for us to have to pay a
company to gain the right to have a name on the Internet. Under whatever
plan is finally arranged by our government, I don't think people will be
willing to pay for something which should remain free.
Adam Prall
###
Number: 168
From: "John Schaub" <john@printcolor.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 11:46am
Subject: Domain Names
Barbara Wellbery
Chief Counsel
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Dear Ms. Wellbery:
Our domain name is vital to our business. We have advertised it and invested
a great deal of time and money in getting it out to our customer base.
Please do not allow anything to happen that would make us loose our domain
name or make it too expensive to maintain it.
We are a small business. My biggest fear is that a larger business would
"buy" the rights to our name and take it over along with our customer base.
Please protect America's small business by protecting our ability to
maintain our domain names at a reasonable cost.
Thank you for your concern.
Sincerely,
John Schaub
Sir Speedy Printing
2640 Financial Ct., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92117
619/581.1884
john@printcolor.com
###
Number: 169
From: "Harlan Pittelkau" <harlanp@dis.wa.gov>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 2:39pm
Subject: Domain Names
Site identification and subject content are often at odds with what we want
to see. At the very least, Domain Names need to properly describe the
site.
Harlan Pittelkau
Washington State Year 2000 Program Office
harlanp@dis.wa.gov
###
Number: 170
From: howard <hleshner@map.com>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("dns@ntia.doc.gov.")
Date: 8/8/97 1:11pm
Subject: Government DNS Policy
To Whom it concerns,
I believe that government regulation specific to the internet in any
respect is wrong.
This should not be and can not be the model of a sucessful information
infrastructure.
The issue of DNS TLD regulation by the government would be a mistaken
endevor.
The only government laws that should have any effect on the DNS issue
are the current antitrust laws NOT specific to the internet and other
current laws prohibiting restraint of trade and commercial monopolies.
I believe The paradigm implemented by name.spaceTM 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
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. The name.space 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.
Howard Leshner
###
Number: 171
From: "Doug Lakin" <Doug@TeleCommerce.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 5:58pm
Subject: Response to RFC on Internet Domain Names
Please accept my comments on your subject RFC.
I have attached my response in two formats. The first attachment is a
Word/95 document (rfc-resp.doc), and the second is in HTML format
(rfc-resp.htm) to facilitate display on the web.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like further explanation.
Respectfully submitted,
Doug Lakin
TeleCommerce, Inc.
###
Number: 172
From: "foodie@chef.net" <Alif.Terranson@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 12:34am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Alif Terranson do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 00:32:52 EDT
Alif Terranson
Box 775544
St. Louis, MO 63177
###
Number: 173
From: "jghicks@wordswork.com" <Jennifer.Hicks@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 1:22am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Jennifer Hicks do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 01:21:30 EDT
Jennifer Hicks
Boston, MA
###
Number: 174
From: "registration@g3.org" <George.Morris@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 12:50am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I George Morris do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 00:48:16 EDT
George Morris
###
Number: 175
From: "gimmi@inx.net" <Susanne.Schropp@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 10:59am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Susanne Schropp do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 10:58:13 EDT
Susanne Schropp
###
Number: 176
From: "david@speco.com" <David.Schutt@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 9:32am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I David Schutt do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 09:30:29 EDT
David Schutt
Speco, Inc.
3946 Willow
Schiller Park, IL
60176
###
Number: 177
From: "tsmith@collegeboard.org" <Tamara.Smith@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 9:23am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Tamara Smith do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 09:21:25 EDT
Tamara Smith
###
Number: 178
From: "jlevine@li.net" <Jason.Levine@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 9:02am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Jason Levine do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 09:01:19 EDT
Jason Levine
###
Number: 179
From: "Rick@Bueker.com" <Rick.Bueker@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 8:57am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Rick Bueker do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 08:55:59 EDT
Rick Bueker
###
Number: 180
From: "kpx@panix.com" <kevin.prichard@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 8:54am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I kevin prichard do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 08:53:12 EDT
kevin prichard
###
Number: 181
From: "boww@eden.rutgers.edu" <David.Bowser@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 8:48am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I David Bowser do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 08:46:48 EDT
David Bowser
###
Number: 182
From: "Roel@lx.student.wau.nl" <Roel.Janken@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 8:34am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Roel Janken do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 08:32:27 EDT
Roel Janken
http://dondersteeg.free.zone
###
Number: 183
From: "ddprod@walrus.com" <Danny.Dries@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 8:18am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Danny Dries do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 08:16:52 EDT
Danny Dries
###
Number: 184
From: "husham@bigfoot.com" <husham.memar@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 7:56am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I husham memar do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 07:54:35 EDT
husham memar
###
Number: 185
From: "sandra.fauconnier@rug.ac.be" <Sandra.Fauconnier@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 7:54am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Sandra Fauconnier do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 07:53:20 EDT
Sandra Fauconnier
###
Number: 186
From: "Webmaster@Uniad.com" <Osvaldo.Medina@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 7:32am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Osvaldo Medina do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 07:30:51 EDT
Osvaldo Medina
San Juan, Puerto Rico
###
Number: 187
From: "hrainer@tks.fh-sbg.ac.at" <Hansjoerg.Rainer@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 7:04am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Hansjoerg Rainer do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 07:02:07 EDT
Hansjoerg Rainer
###
Number: 188
From: "Paolo@khm.de" <Paolo.Atzori@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 6:42am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Paolo Atzori do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 06:40:44 EDT
Paolo Atzori
Luetticher Strasse 34 D-50674 Cologne
###
Number: 189
From: "fil@bok.net" <RIVIERE.PHILIPPE@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 6:18am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I RIVIERE PHILIPPE do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 06:16:32 EDT
RIVIERE PHILIPPE
###
Number: 190
From: "mvario@escape.com" <Michael.Vario@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 6:03am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Michael Vario do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 06:02:15 EDT
Michael Vario
###
Number: 191
From: "chisler@usa.net" <David.Chisler@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 5:49am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I David Chisler do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 05:48:10 EDT
David Chisler
###
Number: 192
From: "michelc@quebectel.com" <Michel.Canuel@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 5:40am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Michel Canuel do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 05:38:27 EDT
Michel Canuel
###
Number: 193
From: "felicity12@earthlink.net" <Ed.Nguyen@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 5:22am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Ed Nguyen do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel Internet
namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s name.space(tm)
service, located on the internet at http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or
http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 05:20:58 EDT
Ed Nguyen
###
Number: 194
From: "mdana@hevanet.com" <Michael.Dana@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 3:41am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Michael Dana do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 03:39:18 EDT
Michael Dana
2980 NE Division st.
Space: 45
Gresham, OR; 97030-6039
###
Number: 195
From: "arjenjkl@noord.bart.nl" <Arjen.J.Kloppenburg@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 3:29am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Arjen J. Kloppenburg do hereby support the design of the expanded
toplevel Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 03:28:07 EDT
Arjen J. Kloppenburg
###
Number: 196
From: "daveb@interlog.com" <David.Berman@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 3:23am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I David Berman do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 03:23:12 EDT
David Berman
###
Number: 197
From: "gargoyle@echonyc.com" <Steve.Jones@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 2:53am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Steve Jones do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 02:52:09 EDT
Steve Jones
New York City
###
Number: 198
From: "dschuerewegen@europarl.eu.int" <Dany.Schuerewegen@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 3:42pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Dany Schuerewegen do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 15:40:05 EDT
Dany Schuerewegen
Coord. Informatique DGI
European Parliament
Batiment Schumann 3/36
Plateau du Kirchberg
L-2929 Luxembourg
Luxembourg
###
Number: 199
From: dannero@worldnet.att.net <Melvin O@zero.tolerance.org,
Danner@zero.tolerance.org>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 2:52pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Melvin O, Danner do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 14:45:21 EDT
Melvin O, Danner
22998 E. Crenshaw St.
Tampa, Florida 33610
###
Number: 200
From: "leander@dds.nl" <Leander.Janssen@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 2:07pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Leander Janssen do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 14:06:19 EDT
Leander Janssen
###
Number: 201
From: "serpent@v-wave.com" <Sary.Mao@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 1:59pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Sary Mao do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel Internet
namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s name.space(tm)
service, located on the internet at http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or
http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 13:57:53 EDT
Sary Mao
###
Number: 202
From: "john@fenixsf.com" <John.Blower@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 12:19pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I John Blower do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 12:18:05 EDT
John Blower
41 Murdock St
Brighton, MA 02135
US
###
Number: 203
From: "imda@imda.com" <Judy.Leshner@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 12:18pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Judy Leshner do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 12:16:31 EDT
Judy Leshner
617B College Hwy. Southwick MA 01077
###
Number: 204
From: "hleshner@map.com" <Howard.Leshner@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 12:15pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Howard Leshner do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 12:12:20 EDT
Howard Leshner
PO Box 974 Southwick MA 01077
###
Number: 205
From: "106576.113@compuserve.com" <Ralph.Beloch@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 12:12pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Ralph Beloch do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 12:10:27 EDT
Ralph Beloch
###
Number: 206
From: "mystic.one@mci2000.com" <Daniel.Prather@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 12:05pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Daniel Prather do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 12:03:27 EDT
Daniel Prather
3521 Florida Avenue
Panama City, Florida
32405-3324
###
Number: 207
From: "adeen@parsons.edu" <Anthony.Deen@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 11:22am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Anthony Deen do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 11:20:52 EDT
Anthony Deen
500 West End Avenue
New York, NY 10024
###
Number: 208
From: "john@theonly.com" <John.Catlin@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 10:34am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I John Catlin do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 10:32:33 EDT
John Catlin
3 Shore Dr.
Shutesbury, MA 01072
###
Number: 209
From: "feldmann@metronet.de" <Martin.Feldmann@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 10:08am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Martin Feldmann do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 10:06:45 EDT
Martin Feldmann
###
Number: 210
From: "jbdomic1@msn.com" <Jorge.B.Domic@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 10:02am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Jorge B.Domic do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 10:00:45 EDT
Jorge B.Domic
###
Number: 211
From: "jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com" <Jeffrey.A.WIlliams@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 9:57am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Jeffrey A. WIlliams do hereby support the design of the expanded
toplevel Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 09:55:46 EDT
Jeffrey A. WIlliams
1333 west Cambel rd. #176
Richardson, Texas, 75080
###
Number: 212
From: "bwarden@rmci.net" <Brett.Warden@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 7:34pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Brett Warden do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 19:32:52 EDT
Brett Warden
###
Number: 213
From: "123@pobox.com" <Mark.Whitby@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 9:17pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Mark Whitby do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 21:15:48 EDT
Mark Whitby
###
Number: 214
From: "hawkmoon@mindspring.com" <Greg.Shields@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 10:44pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Greg Shields do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 22:42:43 EDT
Greg Shields
###
Number: 215
From: "jrscott@hotmail.com" <John.R.Scott@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 6:36pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I John R. Scott do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 18:34:46 EDT
John R. Scott
###
Number: 216
From: Milton Mueller <milton@usthk.ust.hk>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/9/97 11:56pm
Subject: Comments -- Internet Domain Names Notice
The attached document is a Word 6.0 file containing
my comments for "Registration and Administration of
Internet Domain Names" (Docket 970613137-7137-01)
Please acknowledge receipt.
Milton Mueller
--
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
OF INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
)
Comments of Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Milton L. Mueller
Syracuse University
School of Information Studies
Syracuse NY 13244
Associate Professor
18 August, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
* Summary 2
* A. Appropriate Principles 3
* B. General/Organizational Framework Issues 4
* C. Creation of New gTLDs 6
* D. Policies for Registries 7
* E. Trademark Issues 8
SUMMARY
1. NTIA is to be commended for initiating this Request for Comments. There is growing confusion and conflict over Internet administration. Key resources and agencies are stranded in a legal vacuum. Because of its historical responsibility for the funding and organizational framework of the Internet, U.S. Government action of this sort is overdue.
2. This comment supports privatization and additional competition in the top-level domain
namespace. It recommends adding freedom of expression to the list of appropriate principles
used to evaluate proposals. The comment calls for the definition of procedures that would
allow new TLDs to be created in response to entrepreneurial activity and market demand. It
strongly opposes the proposal to phase out gTLDs in favor of compulsory national TLDs. It
also refutes the equation of domain names with trademarks or brands, and rejects attempts to
forge inappropriate links between domain name registration and trademark protection.
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
OF INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
)
Comments of Milton L. Mueller.
1. Dr. Milton L. Mueller respectfully submits comments in this proceeding. Dr. Mueller is Associate Professor and Director, Graduate Program in Telecommunications and Network Management, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University. He is the author of numerous scholarly works on telecommunications policy and regulation, including issues related to Internet economics and administration. He has also served as consultant to governments and businesses in the United States and Hong Kong on regulatory policy issues in telecommunication.
2. The views expressed here are those of an individual faculty member and do not necessarily represent the views of Syracuse University or its School of Information Studies.
A. Appropriate Principles
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.
3. This statement reveals a degree of confusion about the existing situation and the proper role of government. The current crisis in domain naming is a product of a legal and administrative vacuum for which the US government is directly responsible. The domain name problem is about ownership and allocation of valuable resources; specifically, root name servers and top level domain names. No existing entity has direct, unambiguous property rights over these resources.
4. In particular, the commercialization of the Internet has stranded the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) in an ambiguous position. IANA does not have a clear legal right to manage the root as a private, commercial entity. Nor has the root been declared a public resource to be managed by government(s). Nor has IANA been given any legal or procedural mechanism for distributing relevant property rights to competing firms in the private sector. This legal vacuum does not encourage "self-governance;" it only perpetuates confusion and invites the Internet equivalent of land grabs and squatting. As for "consensus," it is evident from the growing number of lawsuits, the angry rhetoric on listservs, and the growing schism between the key institutions of Internet administration that no consensus exists.
5. In this context, loose references to "self-governance" and "private sector initiative" are not helpful. They only obscure the legitimate and unavoidable role governments must play in the definition, enforcement, and adjudication of property rights. Without clearly defined property rights, there is no "private sector." Without stable rules governing the nature and use of resources, there can be no "self-governance."
6. As an alternative formulation of principle (b.) I respectfully propose the following: The U.S. government must play an active role in moving the core resources of the Internet out of the US-based public sector and into a competitive, private sector-driven, global institutional framework. Only government can establish the legal and institutional basis for private sector competition and ongoing self-governance. Because of its historical responsibility for the central authorities of Internet administration, the US government must take the lead in this process.
Other principles
7. A new principle should be added to this list. Domain names must be recognized as a form of expression or communication. Domain names convey ideas and transmit organizational identities. They can be put to creative uses. They are often selected to attract attention, and in some cases form phrases. Domain names can make references to people, institutions, and events. In formulating public policy, therefore, considerations of freedom of expression and of the proper level of restraint upon personal and public communication must be taken into account. Many governments around the world are hostile to freedom of expression. I urge the US government to uphold the principles embodied in its own Bill of Rights and clearly recognize the principle that freedom of expression is implicated in its treatment of domain naming.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
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)?
8. One significant model is the system of company symbols adopted by the stock exchanges in the United States. The analogy is relevant because:
a) Names have some semantic relationship to the actual company name;
b) There are competing, privately-run exchanges, but all exchanges manage to make their naming conventions consistent and avoid collisions;
c) Most importantly, the exchanges do not simply hand out symbol strings at random or passively upon application, but actively manage their namespace. For example, NYSE reportedly is reserving the symbol "M" for Microsoft in an attempt to lure it from NASDAQ. This kind of active management of the resource in an environment that combines competition with cooperation is applicable to DNS.
4. (continued) What is the proper role of national or international
governmental/non-governmental organizations, if any,
in national and international domain name registration systems?
9. In establishing rules for privatization of the global namespace, the US government needs to find an appropriate forum in which to coordinate its efforts with other governments. The World Trade Organization is the most appropriate international organization for this purpose. The WTO is free of the sectoral vested interests that characterize, for example, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) or the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). As a vehicle for commerce and communication, the future of the Internet is vital to the growth of free trade in services and is also likely to have an impact on trade in commodities. Internet-related services themselves form a growing part of world trade. It is best, therefore, for international coordination around the domain name issue to be approached as an instance of trade in services, and the international framework established through WTO agreements.
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?
10. Generic TLDs should not be retired from circulation, and ISO-3166 codes should not be compulsory. Such a course of action would be the most disastrous mistake that could come out of this proceeding.
11. A regime of compulsory national TLDs is unfriendly to users. The primary purpose of domain names is to make addresses easier to use than numbers. ISO-3166 codes are only marginally better than numbers. The codes themselves are often counter-intuitive and confusing. For example, ".au" could be Austria or Australia; ".il" could be Iceland, Ireland, or Israel.
12. Another aspect of user-unfriendliness is the additional hierarchical levels that a country-code system imposes on users. National TLDs usually have a second-level hierarchy with additional "generic" categories inside them. (If country codes were compulsory then all of them would need generic second, and possibly even third, -level hierarchies.) Under a national TLD regime, expansion of the namespace can only occur by adding additional levels. The economic premium placed on existing gTLDs, especially ".com", by multinational companies is largely attributable to the shorter, more easily remembered name. A very large number of users have demonstrated a clear preference for shorter domain names.
13. Elimination of gTLDs eliminates all innovation in naming conventions. It fixes the total number of TLDs and imposes a single top-level categorization scheme upon the entire Internet, regardless of user demand. Ideas such as the ".nom" or ".per" space for personal names, or the ".num" space for telephone numbers, could not be implemented on a global basis.
14. Most importantly, a regime of compulsory ISO-3166 codes threatens to give national authorities the same bottleneck control over the Internet that they have traditionally enjoyed over post, telephone, telegraph and broadcasting systems. That is, domain name policies and conventions would be set by national governments or national registration monopolies. Naming conventions could be subordinated to the desire of national governments and/or network administrators to control and monitor the activities of Internet users. One virtue of gTLDs is that they create a global competition for names and registrations. It is ironic that a form of "Internet nationalism" would be proposed now, when telecommunications and broadcasting industries are slowly extricating themselves from the constraints and inefficiencies of a regime organized around national monopolies and national boundaries. Forcing Internet TLDs into a hierarchical framework organized around nation-states invites the politicization of Internet governance. It is also totally out of synch with the global, borderless nature of Internet communication, and the regional and local boundaries of language and culture.
15. A high level of coercion would be required to implement Internet nationalism. Tens of thousands of gTLD domains would have to be migrated into national TLDs. Many registrations under national TLDs would also have to change. There are at least 50 country-code registries that now accept registrations from hosts not resident in that country. This practice would have to be ended and policed.
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?
16. Technically, there seems to be no significant disagreement with the proposition that there could be 500-600 TLDs (i.e., 250-350 more than currently exist). After that, expert opinion varies, but it is not uncommon to hear technically supportable claims that the system could sustain up to 10,000 new TLDs.
17. By way of background it is worth noting that in February 1996 IANA's Jon Postel, someone who could reasonably be considered an authority on the operational aspects of the Internet, proposed adding 300 new TLDs over a period of five years, with 150 new TLDs added in the first year.
18. Trademark protection is sometimes cited as a reason against creating new TLDs. In fact, additional TLDs help to decouple domain names from brands and trademarks and thus improve this alleged problem. This argument is developed in greater detail in the section on trademark protection.
19. User "confusion" is also cited as another reason to restrain or limit the number of TLDs. This argument assumes that domain names need to be part of a controlled, exhaustive classification scheme. In fact, there is no empirical evidence that users benefit substantially from a controlled classification scheme in the top level. All that matters is whether the TLD is easy to remember and gives users some semantic clues as to the nature of the address (e.g., ".biz," ".sex").
20. The most important practical considerations are not technical but economic and administrative. Specifically, the procedure for distributing the right to create and administer new TLDs must be carefully defined. If this process is open and continuous, as it should be, poorly defined procedures in the early stages of implementation may result in "land grabs" that could create injustices and threaten the connectivity or operational integrity of the network.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
21. Yes. More precisely, a procedure that allows new TLDs to be added continuously in response to consumer demand, entrepreneurial effort, and market evolution should be defined. More TLDs should be created because:
a) it reduces conflicts over desirable or popular names or expressions
b) it increases competition for registry services
c) it reduces the incentives for name speculation
d) it provides an additional channel for entrepreneurial innovation in value-added registration services and naming structures
e) it will eventually provide a mechanism for domain names based on non-Roman alphabets
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO
country code domains?
22. The real issue is the creation of new TLDs, not new "g"TLDs. Until and unless there is a consistently enforced policy that every name must end in a national TLD, there is no important distinction between "generic" TLDs and national TLDs. At the present time users still have the choice of registering in a "g"TLD or in alternative national TLDs. As long as this is true, national TLDs are nothing more than badly truncated, semantically unattractive generic TLDs.
D. Policies for Registries
15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a
23. Shared registries may reduce users' risk of losing any sunk costs they invest in a
particular
domain name. In a competitive marketplace, this may make shared TLD registries an attractive
option to users. However, there is no reason why all TLD registries should be required to be
shared. There are no technical or administrative barriers to the co-existence of shared and
exclusive TLD registrars. Hence, the choice of a shared or exclusive TLD registrar can be left
to end users.
19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a
24. In the initial distribution phase of TLD rights there must be fairly stringent limits
imposed
on the number TLDs given to each registrar, otherwise applicants will have an irrational
incentive to claim as much of the top-level namespace as possible regardless of their real
capability to administer it, in order to pre-empt competitors and/or profit from a secondary
market.
E. Trademark Issues
21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks, common
25. A great deal of nonsense has been written about this issue. There is a pervasive
fallacy that
domain names are the same thing as brands or trademarks and that textual identity of
a
domain name and a trademark is equivalent to a violation of intellectual property. The issues
surrounding trademark rights will never be resolved justly until these fallacies are disposed of.
26. The "trademark-like" status of second-level domain names has been greatly
exaggerated by
the artificial restriction on the supply of gTLDs devoted to business. As long as ".com" was the
only game in town, naive Internet users could assume that typing in
"www.<companyname>.com" was a reasonable way to find the web site of a particular
company. Browser software reinforced this assumption by automatically filling in ".com" when
users typed in an unadorned company name. In this environment, it was rational (if not ethical)
for name speculators to take advantage of the huge gap between the low cost of registrations
and the high potential economic value of famous company name registrations under ".com".
Given the monopolistic status of ".com" it was also rational (if not legally correct) for the
affected companies to see such speculative registrations of their name by third parties as a
dilution of their brand identity or trademark.
27. Expansion of the TLD space is the only permanent solution to this problem. As
alternatives to ".com" proliferate, the putative equation of domain names, brand names, and
trademarks is progressively weakened. As TLD space expands, it becomes increasingly
unlikely that the mere presence of a "famous name" in the second or third level of a domain
name will attract attention or dilute the value of a brand.
28. The domain name/trademark debate seems to have lost sight of some fundamental
facts
about the Internet. There are millions of web sites out there. The number is doubling every six
months. Users do not flock to a particular web site merely because of the character string in a
domain name. Site content must be promoted and updated, and the site address advertised,
cross-linked and bookmarked to attract significant, recurring attention. Owners of
internationally famous names and brands have the resources to promote their own Internet sites
and to forge a strong link between their Internet domains and their own unique brands and
trademarks. Similarity of domain names per se does not constitute dilution or passing off
unless the offending domain name holder also engages in systematic efforts to exploit the
famous name and confuse users.
29. The only legitimate link between trademark/IPR protection and Internet domain
names and
sites occurs when domain names contribute to the defrauding of customers or users. That is, if
a company other than Microsoft acquires a domain name with "Microsoft" in it and organizes
its information, products or services in ways that deceive users into believing that they are
interacting with the "real" Microsoft, then and only then does a legally actionable
trademark
problem exist.
30. Trademark protection must be balanced with the principle (proposed above in
paragraph
9) that domain names are a form of expression. It is legitimate for companies, organizations,
and individuals to use domain names to refer to other companies, organizations,
events, or
individuals, as long as no attempt at deception or "passing off" is involved. For example, a
group of disgruntled Microsoft customers has a perfectly legitimate claim to register the
domain "microsoft.org" and set up a web site at "wehate.microsoft.org." In this case the
domain name can be construed as a reference to the Microsoft Corporation, in the
same way
that one would use the term "Microsoft" in writing or talking about that company. Just as
Microsoft's ownership of its trademark does not give it a right to prevent people from using its
name in all documents or speech, so domain names per se must not be equated with brands or
trademarks.
22. Should some process of preliminary review of an application
31. No. This question assumes that the mere textual identity between a domain name
and a
trade name creates a legal or economic conflict. That assumption is totally invalid for the
reasons explained in paragraphs 28-32 above. More generally, re-organizing the whole world's
domain name registration system in order to give major multinational trademark holders veto
power over all name allocations represents an unwarranted expansion of the power of
trademark and a grotesquely disproportionate response to a fairly minor problem. Furthermore,
such an approach would exacerbate rather than resolve trademark conflicts. Current domain
name categories bear no relationship to the jurisdictional, industrial, and geographic
boundaries of trademark protection. Those who conduct such a preliminary review thus have
no solid legal basis for resolving conflicting claims.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark
32. When real trademark violations occur on and through the Internet, they can be
handled in
the same way as international intellectual property violations are handled now. There is nothing
unique about Internet domain names in this regard. There is simply no evidence for the
presumption that mere textual identity or similarity between a domain name and a brand name
somehow gives intellectual property violators sweeping powers to reap illicit gains at the
expense of IPR holders. Real trademark violations involve sustained sequences of actions
designed to pass off or defraud. The adoption of a domain name, by itself, cannot accomplish
this.
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?
33. This is a helpful question, but needs to be reframed. The answers to these
questions can
only come from the policies name registries adopt to prevent name speculation and to control
the secondary market for names. Name speculation is a form of arbitrage. The speculators
attempt to exploit the gap between the price of registering a name and the higher value of that
name to some other potential user. Name speculation thus provides a clear signal that the
primary distributor of name registrations is not exploiting the full economic value of its name
resources.
34. The best long-term solution to this problem is privatization of name registration
and
expansion of TLD space. It is in the rational self-interest of commercial registries to manage
name resources actively rather than passively. Just as airlines or movie theater owners do not
allow aggregators and wholesalers to buy up all available seats and resell them to end users, so
it seems unlikely that private, profit-motivated name registries would allow speculators, rather
than themselves, to exploit the full economic value of their namespaces. As the namespace
becomes privatized and commercialized, it seems likely that more active monitoring of who is
applying for names and why would take place. Administrative policies such as this are much
preferable to intellectual property law as a solution to problems of name speculation.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of
35. As noted above, additional TLDs reduce legitimate conflicts over name
allocations. If there
are fifty additional generic TLDs devoted to businesses, then United Airlines, United Van
Lines, and the United Hardware Store of Wahoo, Nebraska can all find unique, second-level
domain names based on the string "united". What additional TLDs do not do is make it
possible for one of those three companies to stake a global claim to all possible uses of the
string "united" in the second level of the hierarchy. In fact, no one should be able to do
that--unless, of course, they are willing to pay the full market price for the name resources they
exclude others from using.
36. Apologists for multinational trademark holders have attempted to argue that
additional
TLDs "worsen" the "trademark problem" by making it more difficult for them to reserve or
register a famous name in all possible TLDs. This argument is fallacious. There are about 250
TLDs in the world now. In response to the demand for name protection, intermediary
companies such as NetNames have already established "international Internet name registry"
services that offer multinational firms registrations of their desired names in the world's top
commercial domains. In other words, global name protection is readily available for companies
that are willing to pay for it. When these companies lobby for elaborate bureaucratic
mechanisms to vet domain names, and/or for artificial restrictions on the supply of TLD
namespace, they are simply asking the world's governments and Internet users to subsidize
their own private commercial objectives. This is unfair and unnecessary.
37. Creating additional TLDs will probably make global name reservation/protection
services
more expensive (although competition and improving market organization may have
countervailing effects). But for well-intentioned companies, it should also reveal the futility and
irrationality of the notion that they need to control all possible uses of particular character
strings in all domains.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a
38. Again, the assumption that mere textual identity between a domain name and a
trade name
creates a legal or economic "conflict" must be rejected. Valid, conflicting claims for the same
second-level domain name will undoubtedly arise. This problem must not be confused with a
conflict over "trademark rights." United Airlines, United Van Lines and possibly hundreds of
other companies have a perfectly legitimate claim to "united.com." When such conflicts arise,
the solutions are semantic and economic. For example:
a) The loser can choose an alternative formulation of its name. (e.g., united-van.com;
united-vanlines.com; move-united.com)
b) The person who wants "united.com" the most can bid a higher price for it.
c) The excluded party can move to an alternative TLD (e.g., united.firm, united.biz)
August 15, 1997
Patrice Washington
Re: Request for Comments on the Registration
Dear Ms. Washington:
This letter is in response to the Department of
Commerce's Request for Comments on the Registration and
Administration of Internet Domain Names, which appeared in the July
2, 1997 edition of the Federal Register.
A. Appropriate Principles
The domain name registration system is not best left to
the private sector. The assignment of a domain name carries no
inherently valuable commercial content any more so than does the
assignment of a telephone number, a post office box, or a postal
address. Private sector competition in the domain name
registration "business" would only serve to further confuse the
already complicated domain name system. Administration of the
domain name registration system by an international regulatory body
would be more efficient, fairer and make more sense.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. The principle disadvantage of the current domain
name registration system is that it, unlike the trademark
registration system, does not permit two entities in non-competing
businesses to use the same name, so long as there is no likelihood
of confusion. Thus, for example, a company which legitimately uses
the name "ABC" to sell furniture, could not register the domain
name "ABC.com" if it had already been registered by ABC News.
3. Because of the international nature of the Internet,
domain name registration systems should be administered by an
international organization, in a manner similar to the operation of
the ISO. The makeup of such an international entity should include
representatives from both the public and private sectors in various
countries in which the Internet is being used.
4. Currently, the disputes over domain names are caused
by the fact that many Internet users expect to find a particular
company's site simply by entering that company's name with the
".com" top level domain name extension. However, once an Internet
site is known to a user, that user no longer has a need to remember
the domain name, because the user can simply "bookmark" the site in
his or her web browser. In addition, as the Internet comes into
wider use, it will become increasingly difficult for companies to
use domain names that are easily recognizable or memorable.
Therefore, Internet search engines and indices will become more
important and more prevalent in the way users of the Internet
locate sites of interest. Therefore, I would suggest that a more
sensible way of allocating domain names would be to entirely
eliminate the domain name system, and replace it with the numerical
system used for IP addresses. In fact, the current use of host
domain names is simply a surrogate for the IP numbers, to which the
domain names map. By using the essentially random IP numbers,
instead of domain names, many of the disputes over domain name
registrations would disappear. In this manner, domain names would
be no more distinctive then telephone numbers.
8. The transition to the new "numbers only" system
should be accomplished in a phased but rapid manner. The Internet
is always fast-changing, and the change in the domain name system,
though radical, would quickly be absorbed and adopted by users.
Thus, the new "numbers only" system could probably be transitioned
into use over a period of only a few months.
C. Creation of New gTLDs
11. New gTLDs should not be created. If new gTLDs are
created (such as .inc, .ltd, .firm, .store, or any of the other
suggested gTLDs), companies are likely to respond by simply
registering the same second level domain name across several top
level domain names (i.e., ABC.com, ABC,inc, ABC,firm, etc.) Thus,
creation of gTLDs as alternatives to ".com" would only cause
companies to register their company's name across several top level
domain names.
E. Trademark Issues
24. Conflicts over trademarks in the domain name context
can best be prevented by simply eliminating the source of the
conflicts by using a "numbers only" domain name system.
Very truly yours,
David Leit
cc: Mike Heltzer
This is a Response to: Request for Comments on the
Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE - Docket No. 970613137-7137-01 DATE: August 14, 1997 TO: Patrice Washington, Office of Public Affairs National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) Room 4898 14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20230 FROM: David H Klein - Cambridge Internet 9123 E Mississippi Ave #19-301 Denver, CO 80231 (303) 696-9098 davidhk@cint.com http://www.cint.com The best
way to allow for competition in domain name registration and
protect organizations and trademarks legally is in the choice of
the TLD names. I. A New Model Introduction The New DNS Administrative Model Principles Operation of the Root Servers Choosing the TLD names Creation of new TLD’s Code of DNS Dispute Resolution Advantages of this model II. Answers to the DOC Questions A. Appropriate Principles Comment on the Appropriate Principles B. General/Organizational Framework Issues 1. What are the advantages and
disadvantages of current domain name registration systems? 2. How might current domain name systems be
improved? 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? 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? 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? 8. How should the transition to any new
systems be accomplished? 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? 11. Should additional gTLDs be created? 12. Are there technical, business, and/or
policy issues about guaranteeing the scalability of the name
space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs? 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? 16. Should there be threshold requirements
for domain name registrars, and what responsibilities should
such registrars have? Who will determine these and how? 17. Are there technical limitations on the
possible number of domain name registrars? 18. Are there technical, business and/or
policy issues about the name space raised by increasing the
number of domain name registrars? 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? 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? 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? 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? 26. How would the number of different gTLDs
and the number of registrars affect the number and cost of
resolving trademark disputes? 27. Where there are valid, but conflicting
trademark rights for a single domain name, are there any
technological solutions? The purpose of this response to the DOC’s request for
comments is to both provide a potential new model for the
administration of the Domain Name Service and answer all
questions that I am qualified to. The answers to the questions
will come from the perspective of the state of DNS today and the
new model listed in this document. As you go through Section II, the answers to the questions, I
have put a title page in front of each grouping of questions that
lists the ones that I have chosen to answer. The New DNS
Administrative Model The organization of DNS should be supported legally by
either the United States of America and/or the United
Nations. The rules for organization of DNS legally describe a GTLD,
the root servers, and registration companies that manage,
maintain, and operate the distribution for each GTLD. The control of the root servers is government regulated at
a minimum. A contract to a third party for the maintenance of
the GTLD database is acceptable, but the company that
maintains it can not also be a distribution registry for any
individual GTLD. There are multiple TLDs and registries. The TLDs should be created so that certain named TLDs
afford legal protection to corporations, trademarks, and
copyrights. A uniform code of DNS resolution will regulate name
disputes. The first part of the resolution would require
arbitration. Extensive disputes would be handled by the court
system. The root servers of DNS control who has the table for each Top
Level Domain. Due to the organization of DNS it is appropriate
for there to be exactly one root server database. There are great
difficuties in a DNS system that does not have one root database.
The coordination of multiple databases is extremely complicated.
In addition, multiple root server databases could potentially
bring chaos to the entire addressing system for e-mail addresses
and websites. By having exactly one root server database, we can
have a consistent organization for Domain Names and TLDs. The root servers should be operated by a company or multiple
companies who agree to keep the computers operational 24 hours a
day, 7 day a week for the length of their contract. They will
also agree not to operate the database for any individual TLD. One of the greatest advantages of multiple companies with
multiple computers with a single database that they all have the
same copy of is for the protection of the root server database
from hackers. If a company has more than one computer and it is
determined that their database has been corrupted, intentionally
or not, that computer can be immediately turned off without
affecting DNS world-wide. The company can then have a spare
computer available with a copy of the accurate database. Even in the situation that a company suffered from a large
disaster, the outage of an individual company will not effect
world-wide DNS. The secondary DNS servers will just move on to
the next set of servers at another root server company. In order to keep the root databases coordinated, all of the
servers can be set up to receive the database information from
one computer controlled directly by one governmental
organization. The best way to allow for
competition in domain name registration and protect organizations
and trademarks legally is in the choice of the TLD names. New recommended names: .TM1 Trademark Registry #1 .TM2 Trademark Registry #2 .TM3 Trademark Registry #3 .INC1 Corporation Registry #1 .INC2 Corporation Registry #2 .INC3 Corporation Registry #3 .NOM1 Surname Registry #1 .NOM2 Surname Registry #2 .NOM3 Surname Registry #3 .ORGx Non-profit Registries .NETx Network Entity Registries The new TLDs should all have two parts. The first part
identifies the type of organizations or domain name. This must
always consist of two to four letters. The second part would
follow immediately and always be a number that identifies a TLD
registry. Because a TLD type would always have a number following
the name that identifies a company, a consumer could always go to
a different company to get a domain of the same type. So from the Registry comanys’ perspective, upon deciding
to become a registry, they would be assigned a number. That
company would then be responsible for any GTLD they wished to
administer by adding a number to the end of the registry name.
For example, if I registered my company, Cambridge Internet, as a
registry, the governmental organization would assign a number to
my company, let’s say 4. From that point forward I could
register domain names under my registries for: .TM4, .INC4,
.ORG4, etc. From the perspective of a domani name holder, they would
always have a choice of multiple companies to register their
domain name. For example, let’s assume that my company,
Cambridge Internet, chose the domain name CINT.INC. I could then
have it fully assigned as CINT.INC1, CINT.INC2, or CINT.INC3,
etc. If I were not happy with the service I was receiving from
registry #1, I could always switch it to #2 or #3 as long as that
domain were not previously assigned. In this system, there would not be a TLD that did not have a
registry number. This way, no individual registry could have an
advantage over another by having the shorter and potentially more
desirable name. For example, there could not be a TLD called .INC
instead of .INC1, .INC2, .INC3, etc. A name without the number
would likely be more desirable to consumers because shorter names
are preferred for domain names on the Internet. The best advantage of this system would be to afford legal
protection to some of the names and allows others to be
unrestricted. For the companies that have trademarks they wish to
protect on the Internet, we can require that the only domain
names that go into a .TMx registry must have proof of a Federally
Registered Trademark. All companies or organizations registering
in the .INCx registries must have documents of Incorporation as
proof. Other domains such as .NOMx for surnames and .FUNx for
entertainment, would not have to prove anything. Anyone could
register within these names. The only requirement for an
unregulated TLD would be that an individual or organization could
not have the same domain in multiple unregulated registries. For
example, I could sign up KLEIN.NOM1, but would not be allowed to
own KLEIN.NOM2 and KLEIN.NOM3 in order to corner the market on
all .NOMx domains that began with KLEIN. The only rule that would be needed for trademark or corporate
protection at this point would be that the use of an unregulated
TLD domain could not represent one that is regulated in any
manner. For example, in this model I could not sign up
MICROSOFT.ORG1 and attempt to represent myself as Microsoft. This
would clearly be a trademark infringement. On the other hand,
this would allow me to make a website dedicated to discussing
snakes called SLINKY.FUN1 without infringing on the product which
would be registered under SLINKY.TM1. In order to accommodate people who are currently in domains
without registry numbers, a one-year period would be allowed for
both unnumbered and numbered registries to co-exist. During that
period, all individuals and organizations must update to the new
numbered system. After that period, unnumbered TLDs would cease
to exist. The only reason that a new TLD should be created is in order
to provide groups different set of protection based on their
product, service, or affiliation. The new TLDs would be best kept
at a minimum for efficiency, but should go through the vote of a
committee if there is a legitimate reason for a regrouping. Probably the best example of a new TLD that might or might not
need legal protection would be .MOVx for movie title websites. A new TLD should be created when there is a potential conflict
in two types of domains within one existing one. The purpose of
the creation would be to minimize any potential conflicts within
one TLD. NOTE: Please see question 7 in Section IIB of this document. Code of DNS Dispute
Resolution As long as the extensively distributed naming system above is
used, there should be few conflicts altogether. The only cases
that should bring a dispute to arise is when either one company
attempts to corner a domain name within many different registries
or a company or individual infringes upon the legal corporate or
trademarks of another by misrepresenting their domain. If either of these cases do occur, the current method of
arbitration or prosecution should be sufficient to deal with
these cases. There would be redundancy of the root DNS database. No single organization, company, registry, or domain name
holder would have the monopoly rights to the root DNS
database, a TLD, or complete domain name. There would be competition for the registration of domain
names, thereby improving the service to domain name holders. Due to the allowance for market competition, domain name
holders would likely face a fair market price for the
registration and service of their name. With registration laws afforded to certain TLDs,
trademarks and corporations would be protected from
infringement of their product, service, or good name. Due to the equal use of all registries for any TLD, a
domain name holder would not have to worry about being
blocked out of the domain name of their choice. II.
Answers to the DOC Questions 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. 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. f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent
consideration of these issues permits. Comment on
the Appropriate Principles The most important change to the principles listed above is
the elimination of self-governing mechanisms. If the new model
listed in the first document is implemented, there is little need
for regulation or governing the operation of the registries. However, it is necessary and imperative that the government
step in with a set of rules and regulations so that the root DNS
database has legal protection. Without it, an individual or
organization can destroy Internet commerce completely by taking
over or destroying the access to the root DNS servers. The foundation of DNS today is now and should be a public
service. Governments are necessary where the common good is
enhanced by a service that would fail under the self-interests of
individuals or companies. This is the same reason that Interstate
Freeways are funded by the Federal Government. B.
General/Organizational Framework Issues 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain
name registration systems? 2. How might current domain name systems be improved? 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? 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? 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? 8. How should the transition to any new systems be
accomplished? 1. What are
the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems? Disadvantages: Because there is no competition for the registration of
domain names, it is in the economic interest of Network
Solutions, Inc. to provide as little and/or no support for
the registration of a domain name. Once they have the $100
registration fee, the less support of the domain name they
operate, the greater percentage of the registration fee is
kept as profit. Therefore, it is in their self-interest to
not help or serve their customers. Network Solutions, Inc. has the ability to cut off a
domain name and substantially damage a company that does
business over the internet. The domain name customer has
little to no recourse. Because they can have a monopoly over a domain name and
the root servers, they can prevent others from becoming
registries. Due to the limited number of GTLDs that companies can
register domain names within, an individual or organization
can prevent others from access to a domain name. For example,
if I wanted to start a consulting company called "Klein
Networks" and use a domain named called KLEIN.NET, I
could not because the company that currently holds it will
not let me use or rent it. Because an individual or organization can block others
from use, many domain names have been purchased in order to
charge significant sums of money to those who could have a
use of it for any purpose besides real-estate holding value. 2. How might
current domain name systems be improved? Allow for multiple registries of domain names that each
individually do not have a monopoly of any TLD. Require that certain TLDs have proof in order to get a
domain name under them. (i.e. In order to get a .TMx domain,
you must show proof of a Federal Trademark. In order to get a
.INCx domain, you must show proof of incorporation.) A company that runs a Root Server should not be allowed to
have any interest in a Registry. GTLD TLD Root-Server Company Registry Domain Holder What should the
makeup of such an entity be? GTLD - a Global Top Level Domain that either has or does
not have regulations on its usage. For example, a GTLD under
the system in Section 1 would be .INCx, .TMx, .NETx, etc. TLD - the complete Top Level Domain that an individual
registry could give out complete domain names from. For
example, a TLD under the system in Section 1 would be .INC2,
.TM8, .NET5, etc. A Root Server Company - is a company that lists the IP
addresses of the servers for each TLD in its root DNS
database. A Registry - is a company with a specific registry number
that can 5. Should
generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be retired from
circulation? No. Should geographic
or country codes (e.g., .US) be required? No, but there is also no reason to eliminate them either. If so, what should
happen to the .com registry? If the new suggested model listed in Section I of this
document is implemented, the following transitions should occur: A one year period should be allowed for current holders of
domains within the .COM registry to migrate to new gTLDs. Once at least two new registries have been formed with the
new system, there should not be any new registrations within
the .COM registry. A domain name representing a trademarked product or
service should migrate to a .TMx registry. A domain name for an incorporated company should migrate
to a .INCx, .LTDx, .LLCx, or .GmbHx domain 6. Are there
any technological solutions to current domain name registration
issues? Not that I am aware of. Are there any
issues concerning the relationship of registrars and gTLDs with
root servers? A registrar should not at the same time be allowed to maintain
operate or have any interest in a root server or the database
contained on any. The common control of both allows undue power
to be given to an individual. The registry would then have the
ability to use the monopolistic power made illegal by our Sherman
Anti-Trust act. This exact type of incident has already occurred with Network
Solution’s operation of the root servers. The Department of
Justice has already started looking into Network Solution’s
use of this monopolistic power. This action is also publicly
listed within Network Solution’s S-1 form to the SEC in its
filing for an Initial Public Offering of stock. As long as TLDs are created for domain names that can be
grouped under new TLDs, the DNS database structure should grow
evenly between all the new TLDs. Probably the best model for adding a new TLD is to ask: If this TLD existed, would more than 1000 domains be
registered under it? If the answer is yes, then it should be created. If no, then
it should not be created. In order to keep any individual TLD from becoming too big, the
following question should be asked: If this TLD has more than 1,000,000 domains, can it be broken
into one or more groups that contain at least 100,000 domains? If the answer is yes, then a committee should recommend one or
more TLDs. If not, then the TLD should be allowed to grow. 8. How should
the transition to any new systems be accomplished? See question 5. 10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy
considerations that constrain the total number of different gTLDs
that can be created? 11. Should additional gTLDs be created? 12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated with
increasing the number of gTLDs? If the model in this paper is used, the potential number of
gTLDs will be TLD x # of registries. Due to the cost of
maintaining a registry, it is unlikely that there will be more
than 1,000 registry companies. 11. Should
additional gTLDs be created? Yes. The current system allows for no differentiation of
domain names since the vast majority of domain names currently
reside in .COM. There are also a significant number of advantages
that support the existence of multiple gTLDs including: The prevention of one individual or organization from
blocking another from the legitimate use of a domain name. Greater differentiation of domain names to reduce the size
of any individual registries’ database. By creating special purpose, regulated domain names, we
can give corporations trademark protection. In general, No. The current system has more than 1,000,000
.COM domain names. DNS software has scaled well for the quantity. However, it would be wise to limit the creation of a gTLD for
a registry only. Otherwise this system will probably run into the
same problem of multiple people fighting over the names that
would represent companies or trademarks. For example, we would go
through the same headache again when multiple organizations begin
fighting over .IBM or .MICROSOFT. As long as we follow the rules
suggested in the answer to question 7 in this document, there
shouldn’t be any trouble in the expansion of gTLDs. 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? 16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name
registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars
have? Who will determine these and how? 17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of
domain name registrars? 18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about
the name space raised by increasing the number of domain name
registrars? 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? 15. Should a
gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a particular gTLD? No. Are there any
technical limitations on using shared registries for some or all
gTLDs? If the system does not allow for multiple registries to use
the TLD numbering system as described in Section 1 of this
document, then we must assume that there can only be one
descriptive TLD (i.e. there would only be one .TM or .INC). In
this case it would be, for all practical and technical purposes,
impossible for multiple organizations to control and manage a
single TLD database. The regulation and cooperation required
would not be worth the headaches involved. Can exclusive and
non-exclusive gTLDs coexist? If we allow all registries access to a TLD via the registry
numbering system listed in Section 1, then the answer is yes. Yes. The responsibilities should fall into two categories:
technical operation of the service and customer service. In
technical operations, a registry needs to guarantee redundant 24
x 7 operation of the servers on circuits directly connected to a
backbone of the Internet. For customer service responsibilities,
the registry should be able to respond accurately to the requests
of a customer within one business week. Who will determine
these and how? A board that regulates the DNS structure as a whole. 17. Are there
technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars? There shouldn’t be more than 1,000 for ease of regulation
and technical scalability if all registries are allowed to manage
all TLD’s as described earlier in this document. If we do not allow for multiple registries to give out TLDs as
defined in question 3, they will continue to fight and sue each
other for the ability to monopolize a GTLD. 19. Should
there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a given
registrar can administer? As long as a registry can have any GTLD they wish to register
via the TLD numbering system, no. Does this depend on
whether the registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights to
the gTLD? Yes. 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.? 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? 26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of
registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark
disputes? 27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights
for a single domain name, are there any technological solutions? No. Due to the fact that there can be legitimate use of a
domain if it does not fall within a .TMx domain, there should not
be any pre-checking of an unregulated domain name. It is possible
for the use of a domain called SLINKY.EDU1 to discuss snakes
without infringing on the product that would reside under the
domain name SLINKY.TM1. In general, it is not required that a small company,
individual or organization attempt to seek permission for any
potential use of the word "slinky in their advertising or
documentation". It is the responsibility of the company that
holds the SLINKY trademark to protect itself against
infringement. This should hold true if we give a GTLD that will
clearly identify them. In the case of regulated GTLDs, yes. In unregulated ones, no. If so, what
information should be supplied? For a domain .TMx, a Federal Trademark registration should be
supplied. In the case of .INCx domains, articles of incorporation
should be. Who should evaluate
the information? The registry should require it in their application process. On the basis of
what criteria? Legal documentation. As long as the new GTLD system prevents an organization from
blocking access to a legitimate trademark, product, service, or
company representation, then the only rules that need to apply
are the normal ones of trademark protection. The key issue that has caused disputes in domain name usage
has been the sole representation of one domain for the name of a
product or service. Yes, a domain name can be split up. If the only uses of the
domain are e-mail and a website, both parties should be given the
choice of one of the following two solutions: The domain name in question should be put under the
control of a third, uninvolved party. This party will replace
the website at the domain name that lists the new websites
for the disputing parties. Both companies will have only one
e-mail address in the disputed domain. They resolve their dispute. If the new system described in Section 1 is used, then the
disputing parties could have WIDGET.TM1 and WIDGET.TM2. ###
Number: 327
From: "Jeff Griswold" <jgrizzz@msn.com>
I just wanted to throw my two cents into the hat. I think that we
"www.business.fl.com" or "www.business.ny.com"
Just a thought
###
Number: 328
From: <Nlordi@aol.com>
RECOMMENDATION
The issue of Internet domain name registration and administration is but
Therefore, the US government should work within international circles
The US government should also consider the upcoming 1 - 3 October 1997
DISCUSSION
Internet domain names is but the first of many issues to surface.
- intellectual property rights regarding the content one posts to
Any one of these above issues could effect the global stability and
We must therefore ask ourselves "given the existing set of proposals
Consequently, we must also ask ourselves, "are the processes and set of
In fact, in the charter of the IAHC (http://www.iahc.org/iahc-charter.html)
Therefore, the US government should consider sponsoring a session to
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE ISSUE OF DOMAIN NAME
MANAGEMENT
First, the system is stable, and contrary to the popular press there
The US government, specifically the National Science Foundation,
The system established under NSI has provided a stable system for a fair
There are still many unanswered questions regarding the IAHC / gTLD-MoU plan.
We are concerned that the IAHC / gTLD-MoU is moving forward
THE .US DOMAIN
The US Domain is an official top-level domain in the DNS of the Internet
The "Final Report of the International Ad Hoc Committee: Recommendations
Furthermore, the IAHC report states:
"The IAHC suggests that the domain administrator for .us undertake
Why has this issue not been discussed further either by the
This is but one example that we may be moving too fast without fully
###
Number: 329
From: Gordon Irlam <gordoni@base.com>
Document available at:
Before the
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Gordon Irlam.
gordoni@base.com
Gordon Irlam
18 August 1997
Gordon Irlam respectfully submits comments in this proceeding. Gordon Irlam
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
A. Appropriate Principles
* Additional principles
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
* Questions 1-8
C. Creation of New gTLDs
* Questions 10-13
D. Policies for Registries
* Questions 15, 16, 19, 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Appropriate Principles
The Government seeks comment on the principles by which it should
The following additional principle is suggested:
Domain name registrants should acrue the wealth they have created.
It is the domain name registrant that performs the vast majority of
Two implications of this principle are:
* For the duration of use of a particular domain name, the domain name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain
The registration system for the .COM, .ORG, and .NET domains have the
The registration system for the .US domain is highly fragmented rendering it
The registration systems for most of the other ISO country code domains
All the present registration systems have the disadvantage of a lack of
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
The provision of registration services could be improved by having multiple
The operation of the root name servers could be improved through a
3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should current
We don't feel any existing entity is presently ideally suited. However,
Desirable aspects of the gTLD MOU include the provision of competitive
4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as models
The role of the FCC in regulating the provision of long distance phone
* Long distance service is provided by commercial organizations within a
5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be
The generic top level domains should be preserved. The regulatory and
On a long term basis, as ISO country code domains grow, they too would
6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain name
A clear distinction needs to be made between administrative and operational
Domain name registrars should be prohibited from operating root name
Fundamentally, it is the operators of the root servers that have control of
7. How can we ensure the scalability of the domain name system
To ensure the scalability of DNS, continued investment in the development of
Rather than occurring on an ad hoc voluntary basis, operation of the root
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
The NSF needs to act in a timely fashion to ensure the complete contents of
The initial registrars for each existing domain name should be allocated
This entire transition process needs to be performed very quickly, in a
Under the terms of the existing cooperative agreement Network Solutions is
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Creation of New gTLDs
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations
No hard restrictions on the number of gTLDs exist. However, great care and
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
It is our perception that at the present time no new domains need be
Right now the primary focus should be on the management of the existing
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
So long as all of the new gTLDs are administered within a single
If different gTLDs are administered under different administrative regimes,
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO
Yes, gTLD management issues can be separated from the management of ISO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Policies for Registries
15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a
None of the gTLDs should be under the exclusive control of a single
There are no technical problems to using shared registries for all gTLDs.
Exclusive and non-exclusive domains could coexist, but the creation of
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name
There should be a set of requirements on domain name registrars. These
It is reasonable for the bodies established under the gTLD MOU, the PAB,
19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a
All gTLDs domains should be a part of a single shared database. Registrars
Exclusive domains should be phased out.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
It is important that appropriate contractual language exist to require
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
###
Number: 330
From: "Lawrence W. Hillman" <sofar@compuserve.com>
I think the number of domain name "extensions" (.com, .gov, etc) should be
Larry Hillman
LHillman@HillcoRealty.Com
###
Number: 331
From: "Dave A" <daveanin@netlabs.net>
I believe the Internet's naming should stay under one company, for
Think about it, if I had 10 companies to choose from each offering different
Leave NSI alone... Just because a lot of the good .com's are taken, doesn't
Dave Aninowsky
###
Number: 332
From: <Marktrade@aol.com>
FROSS ZELNICK LEHRMAN & ZISSU, P.C.
Telephone: (212) 953-9090
August 18, 1997
VIA E-Mail
Office of Public Affairs
Attention: Ms. Patrice Washington
Reference: Request for Comments on Internet Issues
Dear Sir:
I am writing on behalf of the Intellectual Property
The Section will not be submitting written comments
Respectfully submitted,
MDE/gf Mark D. Engelmann
###
Number: 333
From: "proteus" <proteus@tpa.net>
Subject: TLD FILTERING AND WHAT IT DOES FOR ALL OF US
To: The Internet Community and every human on the planet
Cc: vice.president@whitehouse.gov, president@whitehouse.gov,
TLD FILTERING AND HOW IT WORKS FOR ALL
TLD filtering is a simple and effective answer to a dilemma facing our
The two conflicting issues are:
1. Should parents have the right to determine what content reaches their
2. Do adult Americans have the right to freedom of expression and
With the unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court that the Communications
These haveincluded rating systems, watchmen organizations, and
At the same time, the internet community itself has responded to these
The way TLD filtering works is simple.
The BBS community *ancestors of the Internet * always controlled access to
With this method, TLD filtering, it is impossible for any child to access
TLD filtering is a way for us to have our cake and eat it too.
It is a win win for everyone.
Larry BuckmasterPresidentConsulTech of Chicago
As of July 29, 1997, at 3:55 pm CST, the phrase "TLD Filtering" did not
No claim or credit or the concept is claimed; only a desire to chronicle
###
Number: 334
From: Geoffrey Atkin <lmga@millcomm.com>
My comments are in answer to section B, questions 1, 2, and 5, section
Thank you for the opportunity to voice these opinions.
The IAHC memorandum is not perfect, but it is the best solution anyone
It is vital that the current NSI monopoly be ended, and the expiration
The major problems with the current system are (1) many people are
I think the IAHC plan can solve the first problem, but it will not solve
Some have argued that trademark law does not apply to domain names. I'm
Domain names are intended to be mnemonic identifiers for a group of
I think the .com domain needs to be overhauled. In its place we need a
chiquita.ag.us
It is necessary to separate by country because two unrelated companies
Here is one possible set of replacements for .com, based on Standard
.ag.us Agriculture, forestry, and fishing (SIC 0xxx)
These subdivisions could also be applied at the state level, for
Whatever second-level names are chosen, I think the list needs to be
We don't need to worry about other countries; they have their own
If such an overhaul is made, it would be sensible to encourage greater
The Department of Commerce could certainly play a helpful role. For
Geoffrey Atkin
###
Number: 335
From: "Christopher Hadden" <webmaster@jasc.com>
To whom it may concern:
Inter-network communications is a very open thing by design. I do not believe that Network
Solutions, Inc. should retain it's monopoly as the domain name registrar for top level domains
such as .com and .net.
I welcome some of the ideas contained in the International Ad Hoc Committe's proposal
including
the addition of top level domains. I also believe that problem resolution of domain name disputes
should be handled at an international level.
If I may be of any help in this discussion process, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Christopher Hadden
Webmaster, Jasc Inc.
###
Number: 336
From: <BDarcy@lga.att.com>
Attached is AT&T's response to NOI on Domain Names
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("rosenblu@lga.uucp","kleinman@lga....
Before the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
Washington, D.C.
COMMENTS OF AT&T CORP.
Pursuant to the Public Notice released July 2, 1997, AT&T Corp.
("AT&T") respectfully submits its Comments to the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration ("NTIA") on the questions presented concerning the
registration and administration of Internet domain names. AT&T commends NTIA's
leadership on the these issues and welcomes the opportunity to provide its comments.
AT&T also reaffirms its willingness to work actively with the U.S. Government, the
International Ad Hoc Committee("IAHC"), Policy Oversight Committee ("POC"), Network
Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), and the industry at large to help define an approach that can
achieve broad domestic and international consensus, and be implemented in a
practical and timely way.
AT&T responds below to each of the questions posed in the Public
Notice, as enumerated in that Notice.
A. Appropriate Principles
a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name registration system
should be encouraged. Conflicting domains, systems, and registries
should not be permitted to jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet,
however. The addressing scheme should not prevent any user from
connecting to any other site.
AT&T supports this principle.
b. The private sector, with input from governments, should develop
stable, consensus-based self-governing mechanisms for domain name
registration and management that adequately defines responsibilities and
maintains accountability.
AT&T supports this principle.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently
global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over
time.
AT&T supports this principle. In addition, any new mechanism must be
scalable and thus be able to grow with the Internet.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open,
robust, efficient, and fair.
AT&T supports this principle. AT&T recognizes the importance of
clearly
defined transition plans and operations plans in evolving to a new framework.
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.
AT&T supports this principle.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of
these issues permits.
AT&T supports this objective. AT&T urges the U.S. Government to
ensure that appropriate protections for trademark owners are thoroughly considered
and included in the framework.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
B.1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain
name registration systems?"
The main advantage is that it works. There have been complaints about
the current registrar, and some of the complaints have merit. On the other hand, the
current registrar has grown the system from a small start to a system that has now
registered well over one million names in ".COM," and it has built up expertise and
support systems to handle the current load of new requests. Any replacement must be
able to handle the current load as well as the expected rapid growth without major
disruption.
The main disadvantage is the monopoly position of the current provider.
Once the current NSF Cooperative Agreement ends, there are no checks on the
registrar. The ".COM" domain is very well known to Internet users and it is thus at this
time the "place to be" for anyone wanting to do business on the net. If the registrar
changed the rules to exclude arbitrarily some businesses or greatly increased the
rates, most name holders would have no alternative but to live with the change.
B.2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
Because of the potential for abuse of NSI's monopoly position to the
detriment of Internet service providers and their customers worldwide, as noted above,
AT&T recommends evolving from the current monopoly system to a structure that
accommodates multiple domain name registrars. However, there are a number of
operational and trademark issues that arise under any new proposal for multiple
domain name registrars distributed throughout the world. AT&T thus recommends
significant further dialogue with key stakeholders prior to the implementation of any
specific proposal.
There are several other improvements that AT&T recommends be
undertaken within the current or any new structure. For instance, one of the major
improvements would be increasing the security of the system. The recent situation
where the AlterNIC redirected requests so that people who wanted to access the
InterNIC were sent to the AlterNIC instead shows the vulnerabilities of the current
system. The IETF has done work on Secure DNS; these features should be
implemented on root servers and other DNS operators should be encouraged to use
them as well. The code exists, is exportable, and is free of restrictions on its use. Use
of this technology is vital to prevent further hijackings.
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?
AT&T believes there is merit in the concept contained in IAHC's proposal
for multiple domain name registrars throughout the world. Any organization effecting its
implementation has to be broadly based. Such organization must include
representatives of the user community including trademark owners, the providers, and
the server sites. Furthermore, it must be international. The current DNS works
because most sites agree that it should. If too many ISPs disagree, there won't be a
single DNS, which would be catastrophic to the Internet. The technology differs in a
major way from the telephone numbering system, where the numbering plan is
implemented in an inherently centralized fashion.
B.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 lessons to be learned from certain aspects of telephone
number administration process, though we must be conscious of significant differences
as noted above. Examples of processes from which we can gather some insights are
US 800/888 number assignment, assignment of new NPAs in the US, the current local
number portability processes being discussed at NANC (North American Numbering
Council), assignment of telephony country codes and assignment of two- and three-letter country
codes by ISO. Any learning from these processes can not be simply
replicated for the Internet. New processes that benefit from the learning should then be
tailored to the different environment of Internet domain names.
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?
While a proposal that all domain names be under a specific country code
has appeal, such a system would pose numerous problems. The main one is that it
may be too late. There are over 1.3 million names in ".COM" already, and
approximately 60,000 more in each of ".NET" and ".ORG." Many of these names are
well known to Internet users, and in many cases businesses have spent significant
amounts of money promoting recognition of their name. To change all these names at
this point would cause massive confusion among users and inhibit the growth of
commerce on the Internet. In all events, eliminating ".COM" is not a practical or
realistic alternative. Even if it were possible, many of the same technical and
administrative issues would arise in the ".US" domain, because ".COM" consists
overwhelmingly of U.S. entities today.
Furthermore, there are multinational companies that are not easily
associated with any one country code. For example, it is not obvious that Nestle would
be associated with ".CH" (Switzerland), or Shell Oil (Royal Dutch Shell) with ".NL"
(Netherlands). These companies would have to register in almost every country code if
they were permitted to do so by the registrar for that country code domain. Such a
process would be unnecessarily costly and inefficient.
B.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?
The registration issues are not primarily technical. The root name servers
can handle millions of TLDs if necessary (the ".COM" domain is currently held by the
root name servers and has over a million entries). The technology to support shared
registries exists; many commercial relational database management systems have the
required features. Work would have to be done to implement the system, but it is
technically feasible.
The relationship of registrars and gTLDs is not constrained by technical
limitations. The formal relationship between multiple registrars and multiple root name
server operators would have to be worked out in several dimensions. Significant
substantive work needs to be done on many related legal and organizational issues.
B.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?
There are technical limits to the number of possible servers for any single
domain, including the root and ".COM." These arise from packet size constraints in the
current DNS, and limitations on the bandwidth necessary to download backup copies of
the zone files.
These Comments specifically apply to addresses as well as domain
names. There are some fundamental technical concerns about the current IP address
space. First, it's limited, and will remain limited until IPv6 becomes widespread. This is
already posing problems for many companies. The only long-term solution is
deployment of IPv6.
A second issue is "provider-based addressing." This is more properly
known as "topology-based addressing" -- your IP addresses must be given to you by
your upstream provider. Although there are unfortunate consequences of this scheme -- in
particular, it's hard for a site or ISP to connect to multiple providers, or to change
upstream providers if necessary -- the requirement is due to limits on the memory sizes
of today's routers, and the amount of CPU time necessary to calculate paths through
ever larger routing tables than are used today. The industry requires automatic
renumbering technology.
B.8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
Any proposed new system should have an associated transition plan that
spells out how the migration from the current system will be carried out. The plan
should include schedules, milestones, contingencies if dates cannot be met, test plans
(including capacity tests), and criteria for meeting the milestones. The plan should
specifically address the scale of the current registry and show how all current domain
name registrations will be handled. The plan must indicate what is expected of the
current registrar during the transition. Because the current registrars have indicated
that they feel they have ownership rights to the current data, the plan must indicate the
terms and conditions pursuant to which the new registrar will be able to obtain and use
the data. As part of the plan an ongoing test system should be maintained to provide
rigorous testing of new registrars and new versions of software that may affect the
central database of TLDs.
The plan should be made available to the Internet community and
substantive comments should be addressed.
B.9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
Other issues will certainly arise; this series of questions is adequately
comprehensive at this time.
C. Creation of New gTLDs
C.10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations that
constrain the total number of different gTLDs that can be created?
There are no significant technical limits; i.e., the technology can probably
handle any number that is operationally feasible. There are clearly trademark-related
implications as new gTLDs are created (for example, ".COM" and ".STORE" for the
same company name).
C.11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
Yes. To support the growth of the Internet and electronic commerce, the
industry must ensure that domain names capacity is increased.
C.12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated with increasing
the number of gTLDs?
There is no significant technical limit. The business and policy issues
require further exploration.
C.13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO
country code domains?
Yes, and they should be separated.
C. 14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
The recent NSI outage shows the dangers of a single point of failure.
Research and engineering should be done to add redundancy to the generation of all
gTLDs, including ".COM," ".NET" and others, and eliminate single points of failure
wherever possible. The planning effort should address both software and operational
processes.
D. Policies for Registries
D.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?
All gTLDs must be served by multiple registrars, to promote competition.
There are no inherent technical limitations on using shared registries, but
implementation options need to be well tested.
D.16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name
registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who
will determine these and how?
AT&T suggests certain threshold requirements applicable to domain
name registrars. For example, all registrars should be bound by a common set of rules,
submit to the jurisdiction of a single, pre-determined court and post a bond to satisfy
judgments. Measures should be taken to ensure the smooth operation and transition to
other registrars, particularly where a registrar has become bankrupt or has ceased to
do business. Underlying these obligations would be full disclosure of the registrar's
credentials and compliance with these requirements, so that the holders of domain
names have the information needed to make a reasonable choice of registrar.
D.17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain
name registrars?
Any reasonable number of registrars can be supported technically,
subject to limitations noted in the answer to B.7. The operational and policy issues will
dictate limits before the technical considerations will.
D.18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name
space raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
Trademark issues are a major concern as the number of registrars
increases. See AT&T's response to the questions in Section E. Operational impacts
of
increasing the number of registrars must be well understood and resolved prior to
implementation.
D.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?
At this time, AT&T does not foresee the need for a limitation on the
number of gTLDs that a given registrar can administer. AT&T does anticipate a need
to revisit and examine the issue based on the registrar qualification process and the
robustness of operational and trademark protection processes that need to be in place
for effective sharing of registration for multiple gTLDs.
D.20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
Other issues will certainly arise; this series of questions is adequately
comprehensive at this time.
E. Trademark Issues
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, including service and certification mark rights, trade
dress rights and company name rights, should be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis
domain names. Moreover, sufficient measures should be taken to avoid public
confusion.
E.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 not be a requirement of preliminary review of an application
for registration of a domain name other than review by an entity such as the proposed
Administrative Challenge Panels (ACP).
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?
AT&T has developed a continuum of concepts and proposals. AT&T is
prepared to discuss these (and other parties') proposals in future fora before the U.S.
Government and industry groups.
An entity such as the Administrative Challenge Panels would decide
whether the domain name should be registered. The standard which should be applied
by the panels is "identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of any demonstrable
trademark right". The principles of stare decisis, res judicata
and collateral estoppel
should apply. Moreover, the losing party should be allowed to file a de novo
action
locally. In addition, a reasonably long period of time (five years) should be set aside in
which any party that believed it was being damaged could petition to cancel a domain
name.
E.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?
It is unrealistic to believe that conflicts over trademarks are preventable.
However, if there is a legitimate conflict, AT&T supports the individual parties being
offered the opportunity to craft a workable solution. For example, if a trademark
registrant of ACME for food services applies to register a domain name of ACME and
another trademark registrant or owner of demonstrable trademark rights of ACME for
toys opposes, the parties could use the Dispute Mediation Procedures so that the first
party registers "ACME-FOOD.COM" and the second party registers "ACME-TOYS.COM."
This is consistent with the current settlement of trademark disputes
parties limit their use of a trademark to their respective goods or services by
agreement. However, where there exists a well-known, strong mark such as AT&T, no
third party other than the trademark owner should be able to use that mark. Principles
of dilution and unfair competition should be used to determine the scope and breadth of
a mark's protection.
It is AT&T's view that the creation and maintenance of trademark
databases would be overly burdensome, costly and difficult to administer.
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 the basis of what criteria?
No. Domain name applicants should not be required to have a basis for
requesting a domain name. However, the number and nature of domain name
registrations owned by an individual or entity should be considered and should be a
strong factor in determining the good faith of a potential domain name applicant. If, for
example, an applicant holds scores of other domain names which are identical or
confusingly similar to the names or marks of various third parties, that factor alone
should create a strong presumption, in any litigation or dispute resolution procedure,
that the applicant is attempting to traffic in trademarks, is not acting in good faith and
thus not entitled to domain name registrations.
E.26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of
registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
As the number of different gTLDs increases, so too does the risk of
having to challenge a domain name applicant. The number of disputes and costs will
increase substantially as the number of gTLDs and registrars increase. Moreover,
trademark owners will face the daunting and expensive task of monitoring domain
name registrations for each gTLD. Also, registrars might require that challenges be
conducted in a country across the globe. This will certainly increase costs to a domain
name challenger and will be particularly burdensome to owners of well-known marks
and to small companies that are really primarily national or regional in scope of
business, but to whom their brand is of significant value.
E.27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single
domain name, are there any technological solutions?
Directory servers can help people find Web sites in ways other than
guessing at "www.company-name.COM." But that solution is not workable for other
uses of domain names, such as e-mail. In other words, the industry can ameliorate the
contentiousness of the trademark battle by deploying directory servers, but the industry
cannot eliminate it -- uses of the DNS by programs (as opposed to humans typing the
names) are not compatible with any sort of vague, interactive lookup process.
Requiring the use of geographic and/or subject area qualifiers in domain
names, to parallel the legal separations, is unworkable. Apart from the fact that most
people can't and won't remember such information, the resulting domain names would
be far too long to be used.
E.28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
Yes. AT&T discusses below specific issues with IAHC/MOU proposals:
1. The major problem confronted by trademark owners is "cybersquatting", or the
extortion and piracy of domain names that are identical or confusingly similar or
dilutive of a prior valid trademark right. (For example, a third party other than AT&T
registers "1800CALLATT.COM" and offers to sell the domain name to AT&T.)
Another major problem is the use of domain names that are identical or confusingly
similar or dilutive of a trademark. (For example, a third party other than AT&T
registers "AT-T.COM" or "AT-TWEB.COM." The current IAHC/MOU proposals do
not adequately address these problems. It has been stated that the ACPs have a
limited function. However, litigating in court is extremely expensive, especially with
a proliferation of cybersquatters. This problem needs to be addressed by IPOC and
a compromise solution found that is acceptable to all interested parties.
2. Disputes would be determined by Administrative Challenge Panels
international experts in the field of intellectual property law and Internet domain
names. It is not clear who would serve on these panels, how panelists would be
compensated or what their qualifications would be. There is a need to address this
issue in greater detail.
3. The IPOC Guidelines indicate that to be "internationally known" a mark must be
registered in a least 35 or more countries in at least four geographic regions for the
same goods or services; to be "globally known," the mark must be registered in 75
or more countries for the same goods and services. These are extremely high
thresholds, and will not protect a majority of trademark owners. Enormous amounts
of money are invested in promoting trademarks that do not meet these thresholds.
Such trademarks may have significant commercial appeal, and thus their owners
would enjoy brand equity in such names. However, there is nothing in the current
proposals to protect the interests of these trademark owners. For example, a
medium size business has one trademark in the U.S. that is well-known in its
industry and in the U.S. and all European Community countries. (This business
also owns a U.S. trademark registration that is incontestable and trademark
registrations throughout the European Community.) The current proposals do not
afford protection to this trademark owner.
4. As proposed, the Administrative Challenge Panels will not have jurisdiction to
decide disputes beyond the narrow question of preventing in appropriate
circumstances, the registration of "a second-level domain name in any of the CORE
gTLDs which is identical or closely similar to an alphanumeric string, that for
purposes of this policy is deemed to be internationally known, and for which a
demonstrable intellectual property right exists . . ." (Articles 2 and 3 of the MOU,
emphasis supplied). Industry has revised the question of deciding disputes
respecting all valid trademark rights. There is sentiment that all entities who have
rights should be allowed to challenge, not just the owners of internationally known
marks. Also, significantly, some domain names could be considered an
infringement of a trademark and still not be considered identical or closely similar.
The litmus test should be the internationally accepted standard: likelihood of
confusion.
5. Difficult jurisdictional issues arise. The domain name registrant is located in
Country A, the trademark owner in Country B, the registrar in Country C. The
problem is the domain name registrant may "forum shop." To alleviate this problem,
domain name applicants should agree to be subject to jurisdiction in a specified
choice of venues.
6. The IPOC Guidelines indicate the Administrative Challenge Panel process is
subject to be reopened by any person, and unknown parties may thus have the right
to intervene. If an infringer is dissatisfied with the outcome of the Administrative
Challenge Panel, it would initiate an action in a country whose laws may be
favorably disposed to such party and force trademark owners to engage in exposure
for such litigation. This and other issues related to the finality of arbitration rulings
require further discussion.
7. The 60-day publication period is not mandatory and there is no procedure for
opposing a domain name. There should be a 60-day mandatory publication period
in which any party who believes it would be damaged by the domain name could
oppose. This would also be favorable to the domain name registrant, because
obstacles to use of the domain name would be identified prior to the domain name
holder investing time and money in such domain name and corresponding website.
AT&T recognizes that the mandatory waiting period was removed from the
Memorandum of Understanding due to opposition, but believes the concept has
value.
8. Sui generis protection for domain names, essentially creating a
wholly new form
of intellectual property protection to protect domain names, is unnecessary and will
prejudice existing trademark owners. It has been proposed the use of a domain
name for a two-year period on the Internet will create a right in the domain name.
This is unacceptable. Trademark rights are only created by substantive law.
9. There should not be an opt-out clause in the domain name application that
permits domain name holders to opt-out of binding arbitration. This would effect a
clear and significant prejudice to trademark owners.
10. The Administrative Challenge Panel may, on its own initiative, decide to modify
an TLD in lieu of excluding it. This may weaken a trademark owner rights in a mark
and should not be permitted.
11. It is AT&T's view that the IPOC, which governs policy issues in the domain
name
process, has insufficient representation by trademark owners. While other
organizations (like ISOC, CORE and IAB) are represented by two members, INTA
and WIPO, ostensibly the only representatives of the trademark community, are
allotted one member each. This must be remedied in order to result in balanced
representation.
CONCLUSION
AT&T appreciates the opportunity to provide its views on this important
subject, and looks forward to continuing participation in this and other fora dealing with
the critical issues involving proliferation of new technology-based services in the U.S.
and worldwide.
Respectfully submitted,
AT&T CORP.
By /s/ Ava B. Kleinman
Mark C. Rosenblum
Its Attorneys
Mahal Mohan
295 North Maple Avenue
August 18, 1997
###
Number: 337
From: Glenn B. Manishin <glenn@technologylaw.com>
On behalf of the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility,
Please contact me at this e-mail address or by telephone at 202.955.6300
Sincerely,
Glenn B. Manishin
Counsel for CPSR
CC: "Glenn Manishin" <glenn@technologylaw.com>
Before the
UNITED STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
Washington, D.C. 20230
COMMENTS OF THE
COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Aki Namioka, President Glenn B. Manishin
Dated: August 18, 1997
The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) <http://www.cpsr.org/
home.html>, by their attorneys, submit these comments in response to the Notice
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dn5notic.htm> released by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) <http://www.ntia.doc.gov>
soliciting public input on the present and future systems for registration and administration of
Internet domain names.
SUMMARY
The current controversy over the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) raises
important questions about how the Internet, as a decentralized, global medium, should be
administered and governed. While much of the Internet was invented and originally funded by the
US Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation (NSF) <http://www.nsf.
gov/>,
and although its governing institutions were initially established and sanctioned by the American
government, the Internet's technical standards and basic policies have in fact been set by a
number of ad hoc, consensus-based consortia comprised of Internet service providers,
engineers
and users. This system worked for a long time because of the shared goals and technical
sophistication of the Internet's original academic-based user community. See And How Shall
the
Net Be Governed?, by David R. Johnson & David G. Post <http://www.cli.org/
emdraft.html>.
But increasing commercialization and explosive growth have begun to strain the
consensus-driven process of Internet administration. The strong and widely publicized reactions
of many providers and users (and foreign governments) against the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) developed by the Internet Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC)
<http://www.iahc.org>
for revisions to Internet domain name registration and administration
<http://www.gtld-mou.org/> show that the stakes are high and that more open, considered
and perhaps formal
mechanisms for Internet self-governance -- and for evaluating alternative DNS proposals -- are
called for in the present environment. In these comments, CPSR focuses on proposals for
reforming DNS with a view toward maintaining open Internet self-government,
introducing
competition into Internet domain name administration, separating DNS management from
trademark protection, and supporting the continued growth of the Internet itself.
(CPSR
addresses each section of the NTIA Notice, and as requested our comments in Sections II-VI
follow the organization of the Notice.)
As discussed more fully below, CPSR -- a public interest alliance of information
technology professionals and others concerned about the impact of computer technology on
society, founded in 1981, with over 1,400 members and 22 chapters nationwide -- believes that
DNS is too important to the structure of the Internet for DNS "reform" to proceed in a
hasty or ill-conceived manner, particularly without adequate input from consumers and
other users of the Internet. Whatever its merits, the IAHC process was closed, rushed
and
unbalanced, leading to a proposal that should not be endorsed by the US government. CPSR
commends NTIA for commencing this open, thorough public airing of DNS issues, and
for its
express acknowledgment that DNS reform, like other aspects of Internet governance, should
remain a matter for the Internet community itself, not national or international government
agencies.
CPSR proposes that changes to the current DNS model must reflect the twin goals of
maintaining Internet self-governance, thus minimizing government's substantive role in Internet
administration, while avoiding the continuation of de facto DNS monopolies in the
increasingly
commercialized Internet. We also emphasize, however, that there is no present "crisis"
in
DNS administration that requires hasty implementation of any system for DNS reform,
including those proposed by IAHC, Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) <http://www.netsol.com/
papers/internet.html> and others. Unlike IAHC or NSI, CPSR believes that the twin aims of
competitive Internet services and non-governmental Internet administration can and should be
applied to the DNS system. A sensible plan for DNS reform combines the better elements of both
the IAHC and NSI proposals, while jettisoning others. In this light, CPSR proposes the following
principles for reform of the Internet DNS system:
A. The Internet domain name registration process should be opened to competition
for all existing and newly created generic top-level domains (gTLDs).
1. Shared gTLDs should be administered by competing registrars, with
restrictions imposed only based on any technical limitations.
2. No registrar (NSI or others) should enjoy a proprietary interest or
commercial "ownership" of any gTLD, including ".com".
B. Domain registration should be separated from trademark issues.
Registrars should not be involved in trademark dispute resolution, but rather
should refer all trademark issues to appropriate national and international judicial
bodies.
C. The Internet's "root" server administration responsibilities should be coordinated
and centralized in order to assure reliability and scaleability of the Internet.
D. The DNS reform process and ongoing DNS administration should be handled in an
open, balanced and non-governmental manner, with full participation by consumers
and small commercial entities, in addition to trademark owners.
1. International quasi-governmental organizations (ITU, WIPO, OECD, etc.)
should have no formal role in Internet governance or domain name
registration. The extensive new bureaucracy for domain name
management and oversight proposed by IAHC, including a Swiss-based
Council of Registrars (CORE), a Policy Advisory Board (PAB)
<http://www.pab.gtld-mou.org> and a higher level interim Policy
Oversight Committee (iPOC), is unnecessary and counterproductive.
2. National governments (Commerce, DOD, etc.) have no necessary role in
DNS administration except for ISO 3166 TLDs (e.g., ".us," ".de," etc.) and
maintaining fair, open and competitively neutral Internet self-governance
organizations.
3. The IAHC process was inconsistent with open Internet self-governance and
biased towards trademark owners. With encouragement from NTIA, the
Internet Society (ISOC) should be required to open up the process to
permit full debate by the global Internet community on DNS practices. The
absence of any "crisis" in domain name resources allows for thoughtful and
deliberate consideration of DNS issues.
4. Hasty implementation of the IAHC approach will continue to splinter the
Internet community and would unnecessarily involve international quasi-governmental
organizations in Internet governance. The DNS reform
process should be slowed in order to permit achievement of a consensus
approach that all interest groups (including Internet users/consumers) can
support. No "rush to reform" is necessary.
5. The US government should not endorse, and should actively oppose,
intervention by ITU and WIPO in the DNS administration process. The
government should not attempt to unilaterally dictate any specific domain
name registration process for gTLDs, which are global Internet resources.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
1. The domain name system (DNS) provides a key service in the global
Internet. In translating Internet 'host' names into Internet Protocol (IP)
numbers needed for transmission of information, DNS shields network
users and administrators from the complexities of using IP numbers to
identify computers, routers and networks on the Internet. Without a
reliable, efficient and robust DNS system -- including registration of
domain names and management of DNS servers -- the Internet as currently
configured could not function in the user-friendly manner available for such
current Internet applications as electronic mail and World Wide Web
(WWW) browsing. DNS administration also plays an important role by
maintaining 'root' servers that operate as the highest-level Internet
databases for translating domain names into IP addresses, without which
domain name-based Internet communications would not be possible.
2. Many governmental, quasi-governmental and private groups, along with
users and Internet service providers, are currently examining the limitations
of the current DNS and domain name registration models, including
questions related to introducing competition to domain registration,
oversight mechanisms for DNS administration, opening of new generic top-level domains
(gTLDs), and the role of registrars in resolving trademark
disputes regarding domains.
3. One of these groups, the so-called Internet Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC),
has proposed and is implementing a plan for establishing new gTLDs, with
significant input from and the endorsement of international multilateral
organizations, such as the World International Property Organization
(WIPO) <http://www.wipo.int/> and the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) <http://www.itu.ch>, as well as major trademark holders.
After signing of its MOU in Geneva, the IAHC was dissolved on May 1,
1997 and replaced by the iPOC <http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/ipoc-members.html>.
4. The IAHC proposal has drawn opposition and criticism from parties
ranging from Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) <http://www.netsol.com>, the
current US government-selected contractor responsible for registrations in
the '.com,' '.gov,' '.org,' and '.edu' domains, to the Domain Name
Rights Coalition <http://www.domain-name.org/dnrc-comments.html>, the
World Internetworking Alliance <http://www.wia.org/pub/dns-brief.html>,
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
<http://www.oecd.org/>, Directorate General XIII (telecommunications)
of the European Union <http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg13/13home.htm>,
and major US-based Internet service providers. Alternate DNS models
have also been developed by other providers of domain name services, such
as eDNS <http://www.edns.net/> and AlterNIC <http://www.
alternic.net>, and in draft form by the Internet Engineering Task Force
<http://www.iahc.org/contrib/draft-iahc-higgs-tld-cat-03.txt>. At least one
entity has filed suit against the IAHC plan in the United States
<http://www.wia.org/dns-law/pub/stef-io-declaration.html>.
B. CPSR's Concerns
1. CPSR is a public interest alliance of information technology professionals
and others concerned about the impact of computer technology on society,
founded in 1981, with over 1,400 members and 22 chapters nationwide.
CPSR believes that the Internet is a potentially revolutionary medium that
has flourished, and grown exponentially over the past several years, in large
part due to marketplace competition and the absence of restrictive
government involvement. We believe these same objectives should be
applied to efforts to 'reform' DNS administration. Given its central role
in the development of the Internet, the US government has judged well
when to lead the process of Internet management and when to cede
authority to the Internet community and private organizations. In the case
of DNS administration, it is time for more decentralization, competition
and private initiative, although governments can and should serve as
'stewards' of the Internet to ensure open and inclusive processes, prevent
anticompetitive practices, and complete the final step in the transition from
a government-managed to a private sector, community-administered
Internet.
2. While CPSR agrees that monopoly domain registrars are a poor substitute
for a competitive DNS model, we caution that DNS is too important to the
structure of the Internet for DNS 'reform' to proceed in a hasty or ill-conceived manner,
particularly without adequate input from consumers and
other users of the Internet. Whatever its merits, the IAHC process was
inconsistent with consensus-based Internet policymaking and is biased
towards the rights of trademark owners. The IAHC plan should therefore
not be endorsed by the US government. CPSR applauds NTIA for
commencing this open, thorough public airing of DNS issues, and for its
express acknowledgment that DNS reform, like other aspects of Internet
governance, should remain a matter for the Internet community itself, not
national or international government agencies.
3. The current proposals for DNS reform have been advanced by groups with
commercial and institutional objectives that do not necessarily reflect the
broader interest in a competitive, non-governmental Internet structure.
ISOC is a respected organization, with an important role to play in the
Internet community, that to its credit, has correctly recognized that
problems exist with domain name administration. However, the outcry
provoked by IAHC's gTLD-MOU shows that its process was not open
enough. By unilaterally implementing its proposal through quasi-governmental international
organizations (ITU and WIPO), IAHC has
sought to legitimize a role in Internet governance it simply does not enjoy,
at a time when its controversial proposal was still undergoing critical
examination by the Internet community at large. Substantively, although it
proposes competitive provision of domain registration in a series of new
gTLDs, the IAHC plan is geared largely to the creation of international
rules (and mandatory, non-judicial arbitration) for trademark protection of
domain names, including a new bureaucracy within WIPO for the
resolution of domain disputes. The NSI response, in contrast, proposes to
protect its private commercial interests by extending its de facto monopoly
on '.com' registrations into a competitive DNS environment, without
sharing of TLDs, and has advocated that national and/or international
governments should be involved in 'oversight' of certain
'administrative' DNS functions <http://www.netsol.com/papers/
internet.html>.
4. Unlike IAHC or NSI, CPSR believes that the twin goals of competitive
Internet services and non-governmental Internet administration can and
should be applied to the DNS system. To do so, however, requires
recognition that (1) as NSI has explained, there are some functions, known
as 'root' server management, which need to remain centralized and
coordinated in order to promote reliable and scaleable Internet routing, and
(2) 'rationalization' of trademark law (the pursuit of what IAHC terms
'efficient' dispute mechanisms as an alternative to court litigation for
trademark protection) for DNS purposes is inconsistent with the
traditional, and successful, non-governmental approach to Internet
administration. (While the US government for years subsidized certain
Internet facilities and still contracts for DNS and IP-number allocation
functions, Internet policies, standards and operating arrangements have
been set with little if no government involvement since the
'commercialization' of the NSFNet backbone in 1994.)
C. CPSR's Proposal
A sensible plan for DNS reform combines the better elements of both the IAHC
and NSI proposals, while jettisoning others. In this light, CPSR proposes the
following principles for reform of the Internet DNS system:
1. The domain name registration process should be opened to competition for
all existing and newly created gTLDs.
a. Shared TLDs should be administered by competing registrars, with
restrictions imposed only based on any technical limitations.
b. No registrar (NSI or others) should enjoy a proprietary interest or
commercial "ownership" of any gTLD, including ".com".
2. Domain registration should be separated from trademark issues.
Registrars should not be involved in trademark dispute resolution, but
rather should refer all trademark issues to appropriate national and
international judicial bodies.
3. The Internet's "root" server administration responsibilities should be
coordinated and centralized in order to assure reliability and scaleability of
the Internet.
4. The DNS reform process and ongoing DNS administration should be
handled in an open, balanced and non-governmental manner, with full
participation by consumers and small commercial entities, in addition to
trademark owners.
a. International quasi-governmental organizations (ITU, WIPO,
OECD, etc.) should have no formal role in Internet governance or
domain name registration. The extensive new bureaucracy for
domain name management and oversight proposed by IAHC,
including a Swiss-based Council of Registrars (CORE), a Policy
Advisory Board (PAB) <http://www.pab.gtld-mou.org> and a
higher level Interim Policy Oversight Committee (iPOC), is
unnecessary and counterproductive.
b. National governments (Commerce, DOD, etc.) have no necessary
role in DNS administration except for ISO 3166 TLDs (e.g., ".us,"
".de," etc.) and maintaining fair, open and competitively neutral
Internet self-governance organizations.
c. The IAHC process was inconsistent with open Internet self-governance and biased
towards trademark owners. With
encouragement from NTIA, ISOC should be required to open up
the process to permit full debate by the global Internet community
on DNS practices. The absence of any "crisis" in domain name
resources allows for thoughtful and deliberate consideration of
DNS issues.
d. Hasty implementation of the IAHC approach will continue to
splinter the Internet community and would unnecessarily involve
international quasi-governmental organizations in Internet
governance. The DNS reform process should be slowed in order to
permit achievement of consensus approach that all interest groups
(including Internet users/consumers) can support. No "rush to
reform" is necessary.
e. The US government should not endorse, and should actively
oppose, intervention by ITU and WIPO in the DNS administration
process. The government should not attempt to unilaterally dictate
any specific domain name registration process for gTLDs, which
are global Internet resources.
II. PRINCIPLES
NTIA has sought comment on a set of principles by which the Administration can
"evaluate proposals for the registration and administration of Internet domain names." The
proposed NTIA principles are:
"(1) 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 interoperability of the Internet, however. The addressing scheme
should not prevent any user from connecting to any other site.
(2) 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.
(3) These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently global nature
of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over time.
(4) The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open, robust,
efficient, and fair.
(5) 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.
(6) A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of these issues
permits."
CPSR Comments
A. The basic thrust of the NTIA principles are appropriate in light of the needs for
competition in gTLD domain registration and for Internet self-governance.
B. The international role of gTLDs is a crucial aspect of the principles. Neither the
US nor any other national government has authority to dictate unilaterally policies
or rules for gTLD creation or administration. While the vast majority of '.com'
domain registrations certainly remain in the United States, the US government can
best promote the global expansion of Internet access -- to the resulting commercial
benefit of American-based Internet software, hardware and content companies --
by ensuring that it is not viewed internationally as attempting to secure a favored
position for US-centric domain holders in the gTLD scheme.
C. The IAHC and NSI proposals raise administrative, legal, financial and business
issues far beyond the technical focus and scope of the ISOC. ISOC and the other
members of IAHC (such as ITU and IANA), have no clear charter to dictate gTLD
policy and little if any experience in legal procedure or public policy. A need exists,
therefore, for the establishment of new 'consensus-based self-governing
mechanisms' that allow balanced, fair and open participation on these Internet
policy issues by all segments of the Internet community. This includes Internet
users, who have essentially been excluded from the IAHC process. Given the
crucial nature of end-user participation, the Internet community deserves legitimate
public interest, non-profit input into decision making processes. The needs of the
Internet community should not be subordinated to profits or control issues. The
US government can thus act as a catalyst in assisting the creation of the new self-governance
organizations (open and balanced consortia of Internet professionals,
providers and users) that will be necessary to complete the transition to a fully
non-governmentally administered Internet.
D. Although the US government has fostered the growth of the Internet and laid the
framework for its current expansion and commercialization, its future role should
not include oversight of DNS administration or the selection of registrars and other
DNS-related entities (InterNIC, IANA, etc.). Rather, the US and other national
governments should encourage open, consensus-based Internet self-governance,
intervening (as in this proceeding) only to assure public debate and to prevent any
single segment of the Internet community from asserting its special interests above
those of all Internet users. As in its oversight of the North American Numbering
Plan Administrator (NANPA), the US government can also act to guarantee that
vital Internet communications resources are managed impartially by the affected
industries and to prevent disruptive efforts by other governments and inter-governmental
organizations to assert authority over Internet administration.
E. Conflict resolution for domain name registration need not and should not include
resolution of disputes over trademarks or other proprietary rights. DNS policies
should be based on technical efficiency, reliability and competitive considerations,
without regard to the relative legal rights of trademark owners and domain
holders. As discussed in Section VI, 'efficient' trademark dispute resolution is a
code word for supplanting judicial decision-making with DNS registrar-imposed
trademark rules. Particularly in the IAHC proposal -- which provides the basis for
WIPO to establish new international common law of trademarks applicable solely
to DNS and without resort to national courts -- combining DNS administration
and trademark dispute resolution is poor public policy.
III. GENERAL/ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK ISSUES
In this Section, NTIA asks for comment on a number of issues related to the operational
model for domain name registration and the technical basis for alternatives to the current model,
including retirement of gTLDs from circulation, the relationship between root servers and gTLDs,
and interoperability among registrars.
CPSR believes that the current model for DNS administration -- monopoly registrars for
both gTLDs and ISO (country code) domains -- is anticompetitive and will, in the long run,
present substantial risks to the scaleability of the Internet. We believe that the disadvantages of
the monopoly model clearly warrant a shared registration approach to gTLDs, but that certain
functions, namely root server administration, should remain centralized and coordinated in order
to preserve the basic reliability and 'transparent' functionality of the Internet itself.
A. Existing gTLDs should not be retired. In addition to the transaction costs and
confusion surrounding such an approach, the existence of 'supra-national'
domains is inherent in the global nature of the Internet, helping to maintain the
Internet as a geographical and politically indifferent medium. Instead of
eliminating the .com and other gTLD registries, competition should be introduced
into domain name registration.
B. Shared gTLDs are a workable and efficient approach to introducing competition to
the DNS system. Much as in the US system for administration of '800'
telephone numbers, common standards and technical interfaces can be created --
based on non-governmental industry standards processes -- to allow shared use of
the .com resource. Competing registrars would assign available domains in all
gTLDs on a first-come, first-served basis, with real-time querying of the
appropriate gTLD database. Internet users would in this way be accorded, for the
first time, real choice of domain name registrars, with the consequent competitive
pressures leading to reduced prices, improved service and innovative registration
options.
C. The IAHC proposal for the establishment of new gTLDs is a good approach, in
that it permits use of identical domain names in different gTLDs for different
purposes (e.g., mcdonalds.com and mcdonalds.nom). The specific new gTLDs
selected by IAHC, however, raise questions about global transparency and
potential duplication and user confusion that merit additional study. IAHC's
proposal, now rescinded, to limit the number of registries to 28 (four per WTO
region) is unnecessary, as there should be no limits on the creation and operation
of domain registries except as may be required for technical reasons. Rather than
mandating financial and other registrar qualifications, 'quality control' of domain
registration should be a function of the marketplace. So long as a registrar follows
any technical standards established for assignment of a domain name from a shared
TLD, there appears to be no reason why prior "authorization" from any
governmental or Internet-governance entity should be required for entry into the
domain name registration market.
D. Root server administration (and related "population" of zone server databases) is
a key DNS function that should remain centralized, under the control of a single
entity worldwide, and coordinated through a technically reliable and integrated
process. Root servers must maintain interoperable, updated databases in order to
ensure that all IP networks can communicate across the Internet. As NSI has
correctly noted, the IAHC proposal is deficient because it does not reflect this
need for root server (what NSI terms "the .dot") centralization and "risks the
fragile stability of the Internet" by "increasing the likelihood of failure of the
administrative functions and services of the Internet." Competition in root server
administration would therefore -- absent some new technical approach to Internet
architecture -- appear to represent an exception to the general principle of
competition for DNS. (Of course, competition could still exist as part of the root
server administrator selection process.)
E. The US government has traditionally been the "first-mover" on issues related to
Internet architecture and administration, but in this instance should refrain from
selecting the entity responsible for root server administration. Backbone Internet
carriers and other entities, commercial and governmental, responsible for IP
transport have the technical background to select a responsible root server
administrator and (as in ARIN <http://www.arin.net/>, RIPE <http://www.
ripe.net/>, etc.) establish compensation mechanisms under a non-governmental
structure.
1. End users and domain holders have no substantial interest in root server
administration since root servers are "transparent" to them. NSI's
proposal that the US government assume "interim authority" over root
server administration -- and then transfer such authority to an international
legal entity -- is unnecessary. Absent some fundamental breakdown in the
Internet's technical standards development process, the shared mutual
interest of backbone and major Internet transport providers in maintaining
functional, high-quality root server management (and ensuring their ability
to route domain-based messages to all other IP networks) is sufficient to
guarantee a responsible root server administration.
2. Root server centralization does not guarantee error-free administration or
coordination (synchronization), as the events of the past month (NSI's
snafu) have illustrated. Nonetheless, with the increasing reliance of
individuals and businesses worldwide on the Internet, any benefits from
competitive provisioning of root server management would appear to be
outweighed by the risks of network collapse (and overhead requirements)
arising from multiple root server administrators.
F. Oversight of shared gTLD administration should remain a non-governmental
function. It should not be placed under the auspices of quasi-governmental
organizations like WIPO or the ITU, as IAHC has proposed. So long as registrars
comply with consensus-based technical requirements for domain name registration,
there is no need for the creation of CORE, iPOC and the related new bureaucratic
bodies IAHC has proposed. Thus, as it has already indicated, the US government
should not endorse the IAHC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and should
oppose the use of ITU and WIPO as oversight bodies for the DNS system.
G. Administration of gTLDs and ISO country code domains is completely separable.
Although the same principles of competition and self-governance should also apply
to ISO-domain registrations, these resources have traditionally been considered to
be subject to the rules and policies of national governments. There is no technical
reason why competitive, shared gTLD administration cannot co-exist with the
many monopoly ISO-domain registrars. Indeed, the creation of a competitive
system for efficient, worldwide administration of gTLDs would have the
commensurate benefit of creating marketplace pressures that would encourage
national governments to open their own ISO-domain registries to competitive
entry. As the OECD has recommended to EU-member nations for their own
country code domains, the US government should consider opening the ".us"
domain to competing registries and should actively promote similar procompetitive
policies by other national governments for ISO country code domains.
H. The "transition to any new systems" for domain name registration should be
accomplished with the full, open and considered participation of all stakeholders in
the Internet. The IAHC proposal, in contrast, raises serious questions about the
authority of ISOC and the other members of IAHC to impose their chosen solution
for DNS reform and the essential openness of Internet self-governance.
(1) IAHC does not have sufficient input from the Internet community; the
Internet Society is not a member oriented group, and its decisions cannot
legitimately claim to be based on Internet community "consensus."
(2) IAHC's aggressive timelines are unjustified, especially given the lack of
urgent technical problems. As recently as August 1996, it was deemed
unlikely that the growth of the .com domain would pose any technical
problems.
(3) IAHC's comment period was very short (2 weeks), and its extremely rapid
implementation timeline does not allow for sufficient debate and generation
of proposals for registrars.
(4) According to a brief filed by the World Internetworking Alliance
<http://www.wia.org/pub/dns-brief.html>, the participation of international
groups in the IAHC raises concerns regarding the legal nature of the IAHC
proposal as an intergovernmental agreement.
(5) Despite the participation of ISOC, IAHC did not include substantial input
from the community of Internet end-users. Furthermore, the IAHC's
proposed bureaucracy is similarly lacking in community representation.
(6) IAHC is proceeding as if its proposal was thoroughly and completely
accepted, including a Geneva MOU signing ceremony in early May 1997
and the continuation of plans to implement CORE-managed shared gTLDs
in October 1997. However, this purported Internet consensus is not all
clear. For instance, the Commercial Internet Exchange (CiX)
<http://www.cix.org>, a consortium including members such as AT&T,
CompuServe and MCI, has expressed reservations regarding the IAHC
plan, and a new organization known as the Open Internet Congress (OIC)
<http://www.interactivehq./org/oic/> has similarly raised objections to the
closed, hasty and "top-down" nature of the IAHC process.
IV. CREATION OF NEW gTLDs
In this Section, NTIA specifically seeks comment on whether new gTLDs should be
established and whether there are any technical, practical and/or policy considerations that
constrain the number of different gTLDs or the management of gTLDs.
CPSR believes, as discussed in Section III above, that IAHC has developed a reasonable
approach to the creation of new gTLDs, with different gTLDs signifying different uses of
domains. Although this approach was driven more by the demands of existing registrars and
trademark owners for TLD-based alternatives to domain-name disputes in the .com registry, in
order to reduce pressures for litigation over .com domains, the concept of creating
"special-purpose" gTLDs is an attractive one from the perspective of both Internet users and
commercial
businesses. (Whether or not the specific gTLDs developed by IAHC are appropriate or optimal is
open to question, however.)
A. Creation of new gTLDs is not a necessary predicate to the introduction of
competition into the DNS system. Existing gTLDs registries could be
administered on a shared basis. There is no technical reason to create new gTLDs,
but there is also no technical constraint (except the capacity of root servers and IP
space) to the number of gTLDs that the Internet can support. Unlike the situation
in the North American Numbering Plan for telephone numbers, IP resources,
although finite, do not appear to be as anywhere near in such short supply as
telephone numbers and area codes. The creation of new gTLDs should not, at least
in the short run, create any undue stress on available IP resources.
B. Competitive provisioning of DNS is not sustainable if only new gTLDs are opened
for shared administration. As discussed in Section V, the .com and other NSI-administered TLD
registries are the product of the historic, US-government
monopoly over gTLDs and NSI's status as the "sole-source" government
contractor for domain registrations in gTLDs. Extending this monopoly into an
era of competitive DNS would allow one private, commercial entity to obtain the
most currently valuable gTLDs. Competition in DNS is accordingly inconsistent
with exclusive control of any gTLD, whether .com or a newly created gTLD.
V. POLICIES FOR REGISTRIES
In this Section, NTIA asks whether registrars should have exclusive control of a particular
gTLD, whether shared and "exclusive" gTLDs can co-exist, whether there should be any
threshold requirements for domain registrars, and whether there are any technical, business and/or
policy constraints in light of IP number space or other issues on the number of domain registrars
and how many domains any registrar can administer. NTIA also asks whether a registrar should
be permitted to administer both exclusive and shared gTLDs.
CPSR believes that monopoly control of any gTLD is antithetical to the interests of
Internet users and to the long-run objectives for competitive, non-governmental administration of
the Internet. NSI's proposal for the retention of proprietary, so-called "brand" TLDs is a
naked attempt to convert the public .com resource to its private, commercial property. There is
no legal or policy justification for such an approach either in NSI's existing NSF contractual
rights or in the legitimate needs of Internet DNS administration. Whether or not new gTLDs can
or should be created, all TLDs should be opened to competitive administration, and no TLD
registrar should be entitled to maintain any proprietary interest in an "exclusive" TLD.
A. As a technical matter, exclusive and shared TLDs can co-exist, provided that all
TLD administrators comply with industry standards for interoperability with the
Internet root servers.
B. TLDs should not be subject to the exclusive control of any single registrar. NSI's
approach, under which new registrars would establish exclusive domains marketed
commercially on a "branded" basis, ignores the proper status of domain names as
globally unique identifiers for all users, both commercial and non-commercial
(much like NANP telephone numbering resources). While both domain names and
telephone numbers can and should be privately held, the higher-level resources
(gTLDs and areas codes, respectively) are not the private property of any provider
or entity.
C. Given commercialization of (and competition in) the Internet backbone, transport
and access functions, DNS is the last bastion of government-funded, sole-source
administration of the Internet. Neither NSI nor any other private entity can lay
claim to convert the .com registry, which until recently was administered on a
"cost-plus" contractual basis, into a private monopoly. NSI's position that
"[l]egitimate corporations will not invest time, stockholder capital and other
resources in Ôshared' brands," ignores the monopoly roots of the .com registry
and is inconsistent with market realities. Already, many organizations and
commercial ventures exist, in America and worldwide, that compete for
registration services for .com domains to end users. Given the ubiquity and market
recognition of the .com domain -- a product of its monopoly status rather than any
special technical or business expertise of NSI -- NSI should not be permitted to
transfer its NSF-contract role into a huge (as much as $35 million per year)
financial windfall and commercial marketplace "head start" over competing TLD
registrars.
D. NSI is correct, however, in critiquing IAHC's initial proposal to artificially limit
the number of gTLD registries to 28 and its continued efforts to impose
"qualification" requirements (financial and otherwise) on applicants for registrar
status. These restrictions may raise potentially serious antitrust concerns. In fact,
there is no underlying need for any "awarding" of registration rights, since the
only technical requirement for gTLD administration in a shared TLD environment
is that each registrar follow industry specifications for reservation and assignment
of domains and interoperate with the Internet root servers. Moreover, if root
server administration is centralized, the consequences arising from the failure of
any individual registrar to follow these standards (so long as any one registrar's
data could not contaminate the entire root server database) would be limited and
localized -- its domain name holders would be unable receive Internet transactions
(Web HTTP "hits" and electronic mail messages) from the larger Internet, but the
interoperability and functionality of the Internet itself would remain
uncompromised. Therefore, marketplace forces should be adequate to ensure that
gTLD registrars operate in a technically efficient manner (although national
consumer protection laws may need to be invoked against "rogue" or "sham"
registries that engage in deceptive or fraudulent registration practices).
VI. TRADEMARK ISSUES
In this section, NTIA seeks comments on intellectual property issues (trademarks, etc.) on
the Internet, including whether trademark rights, if any, should be protected on the Internet,
whether domain registration should require any preliminary review of an application for potential
trademark conflicts, and how trademark disputes regarding domain names should be resolved.
CPSR strongly believes that the infusion of trademark issues, and trademark dispute
resolution processes, into domain registration is a serious problem that should be corrected.
Much of the impetus for the IAHC plan stems from differences between trademark owners and
others as to the relative rights, and economic leverage, that NSI's own (and unilaterally imposed)
dispute resolution policies have engendered over the past several years. Thus, given the role of
WIPO and significant commercial trademark owners in IAHC, IAHC's proposal quite naturally
seeks to provide a single, internationally based procedure for arbitration of trademark disputes,
coupled with mandatory waiting periods, that would substantially increase the ability of large
corporate entities to chill smaller businesses and users from registering potentially infringing
domain names. At the same time, much of the litigation against NSI has arisen not
because of any
inherent conflict between the domain registration process and trademark rights, but rather because
NSI chose to insert itself as the mediator of disputes between trademark owners and domain
holders by cutting off or threatening to terminate domain registrations on receipt of a
complaint
from a trademark holder. Finally, relative to the millions of domain names registered, there
has
been a trivial number of disputes, which should not lead to the imposition of a cumbersome,
international and mandatory dispute resolution approach that will undoubtedly slow down the
domain registration process for all Internet users.
A. DNS administration should be separated from trademark rights and intellectual
property dispute resolution. gTLD registrars should not intervene in disputes
between trademark owners and domain holders, but rather should refer disputes to
the applicable national courts. The US government can assist this sensible result
by making clear its view that because registration of a domain name is not the
"use" of a trademark, the domain registration process cannot constitute
"contributory infringement" under US trademark law such that registries would
be exposed to legal liability for ignoring a request to "take down" a potentially
infringing registration. (CPSR notes that there is a significant line of domestic US
trademark cases involving proprietary claims to telephone numbers, but that in
none of these cases was the telephone company or other number assigning entity
either sued or found liable for contributory infringement.)
B. There is no need for any international body of trademark law or supra-national
forum for decision or arbitration of Internet-related trademark issue. Intellectual
property rights have always varied on a nation-by-nation basis, and multinational
corporations are experienced in dealing with the multiplicity of different trademark
laws world-wide. Conversely, jurisdictional limits on the authority of national
courts protect smaller registries and domain holders from being subject to suit in
other nations over US-based domain activities. Simply put, in the absence of a
multilateral treaty, trademark issues on the Internet, like other intellectual property
rights, should be subject to the domestic laws of each affected nation.
C. Domain trademark conflicts can be prevented by use of trademark databases prior
to registration of new domains. Although the information sources and operation
of such databases are beyond CPSR's expertise, we note that similar databases
already exist in the US for both patents and trademarks and are commonly used by
firms specializing in dealings with the PTO. While domain applications should
continue to be processed on a first-come, first-served basis -- and no
"entitlement" to a domain name should be required to be demonstrated by an
applicant -- the cost and burden of changing domains in the face of a potentially
infringing registration should be sufficient to persuade a reputable applicant to
select a different domain in the first instance. So-called "pirate" applicants,
whose registrations are an effort to extract financial concessions from trademark
owners, can be dealt with adequately in the courts or, if the trademark owner finds
it economically advantageous, through private settlements.
D. CPSR believes that the recent fascination of many parties with trademark rights to
Internet domains is a short-run issue only. The desire of many commercial entities
to obtain easily recognizable ".com" domains is a function of the inexperience of
many Internet users -- novices typically type URLs into their browser -- and the
relative unsophistication of WWW search engines. As user experience with the
Internet increases, domains become progressively less important to navigation.
Indeed, technology is already developing that may supplant DNS with other
Internet "directory" services, whether intelligent agent-based search engines,
"push" and "channel" technologies by which information is sent to users
(instead of retrieved by them), IP-address based directories (e.g., LDAP), and the
like. The important and competitively crucial matter of introducing competition to
DNS administration should therefore not be held hostage to a quixotic desire to
create a new, international law of Internet trademark rights or to perfect an
"efficient" trademark dispute mechanism that displaces national courts, since the
importance of literal or pneumonic domain names will likely decrease substantially
as the Internet evolves and matures.
CONCLUSION
NTIA and the entire Executive Branch have appropriately intiated a forum for public
debate on the controversial issues of domain name registration and Internet administration, while
making clear that such matters are to be resolved principally under the auspices of open,
consensus-based Internet self-governance organizations. Having developed and for years funded
the Internet, the US government should assist the final steps in the transition to a fully
non-governmental model of Internet administration. The DNS process should be opened to
competition through shared gTLDs and rescission of NSI's de facto monopoly of the
".com"
registry, but with continued centralization and coordination of root server administration.
Trademark rights and trademark dispute resolution should be separated from the DNS process,
with domain name intellectual property issues referred to national courts or subject to multilateral
international treaties. The IAHC gTLD-MOU, given both its procedural infirmities and its
improper resort to multinational quasi-governmental Internet oversight, should not be endorsed,
and should actively be opposed, by the US government.
Respectfully submitted,
COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS FOR
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
By: Glenn B. Manishin /s/__________
Counsel for CPSR
Dated: August 18, 1997
###
Number: 338
From: Dan Steinberg <dstein@travel-net.com>
Re: Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of
My comments are attached as a Word 6/95 file.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views.
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
RESPONSE TO NTIA RFC
[Docket No. 970613137-7137-01]
PREAMBLE
I welcome the opportunity to comment on "Request for Comments on the Registration and
Administration of Internet Domain Names" [Docket No. 970613137-7137-01], as published in
the July 2, 1997 Federal Register. I feel that the RFC process is extremely important, as any
changes to the existing structures have the potential for greatly influencing the direction of the
internet.
This response was deliberately submitted after many other submissions, in an attempt to avoid
repeating the obvious and in an attempt to synthesize/analyze some of the common threads. One
of the most common threads is a suggestion that a hierarchical structure be imposed on the
internet (similar to the existing structure under the .US and .CA domains). The presumed
advantages cited for this structure include:
decrease or elimination of domain/trademark disputes
increase in the quantity of possible URLs or mail addresses
But there are structural problems inherent with such a framework. With a hierarchical
structure
similar to the current .US framework, an organization that physically moved would have to
change internet addresses. For a physical move to require a corresponding cyberspace transition
is ludicrous. It defeats one of the most elegant features of the net.
I have provided responses to all questions in each section. The views expressed herein are
not
necessarily the views of any of my clients or business partners. Thank you for the opportunity to
share my thoughts on these important issues.
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS: Law & Technology
35, du Ravin
Chelsea, Quebec
Canada J0X 1N0
DETAILED RESPONSE
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.
The current 'competition' between competing registry schemes is an indication that
competition/expansion should be encouraged. Despite dire predictions, the net has not been
destabilized by this competition. So far everyone has cooperated to ensure that no domain
confusion occurs. At last count, there were over 20 different Root server cooperatives and over a
hundred new registries actively doing business.
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.
In order for the private sector to develop self-governing mechanisms, it is necessary to
arrange for
a seamless transfer of authority. Implicit in the transfer of authority is the recognition that:
someone else currently has authority
that 'someone else' i.e. the US govt. has decided 'who' in the private sector should be in
charge of
providing a framework for self-governing mechanisms. This is a non-trivial step.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently global nature
of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over time.
Agreed.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open, robust,
efficient, and fair.
Agreed. But this should not take precedence over internet stability and the ability meet
consumer
demand for more domain names.
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.
This is an admirable goal, but probably impractical without a resolution of the current
problems in
international trademark law and the establishment of a new body of intellectual property law
covering domain names.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of these
issues permits.
There is really no hurry to establish a new framework, other than the need to decide what to
do
about the registry when the current contract with NSI expires next March.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name registration
systems?
It is important to distinguish between the merely administrative problems encountered by
internet
users when they interact with the InterNIC and actual structural issues that require an examination
of public policy and/or legislation.
In general, the current system 'works'. It has been argued that there are many court cases and
inequities, but this is true of any system. No matter what policies, procedures, etc. are instituted,
there will always be conflicts and someone will always try to 'get away with' something.
Several have advocated that separate policy and administrative entities would better serve the
internet. This is a good idea on the surface. However, the question remains: who has the right to
decide on an organization that will have a mandate to make policy? And who decides/approves
applications to make entries in the registry.
If the same organization (i.e. the US govt.) grants the policy rights to someone and the admin.
rights to grant new registrars then nothing has changed. The various proposals to split the
policy/registrars do not address the issue of 'who' owns this beast. If this function is devolved to
the member nations (under an ISO TLD structure) then there is an immediate potential for
conflict. So the choice is between no change and chaos.
The only disadvantage to the current domain system is in the current
mechanisms/policies/agents
for running the 'show'. There are known weakness that are discussed in response to later
questions.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
It is my belief that there is not much inherently wrong with the current domain system. The
only
major problem is that there is a tendency within the US to consider .COM a US domain, and a
tendency outside the US to consider it international. While it is possible to envisage a
reorganization of the net to move away from this structure, it would most certainly not be in
keeping with the current administrations' policy of not interfering with a growing successful
experiment. It is impossible to make such structural change without conflict and disturbing many
businesses, and that would almost certainly serve to remove some of the 'cachet' from internet
commerce.
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?
My personal recommendation is that US government accept ongoing responsibility for the
internet
as a public trust akin to the current role in ensuring world peace. This puts stewardship at an
international diplomatic level. Objections to stewardship (and proposals to take it over) get made
at the diplomatic level. This takes care of the top level issues. Once the US government accepts
ongoing stewardship, it is free to decide on how to run it, just as it is free to decide how to and
when to intervene in the interest of world peace. Choices include:
subcontracting the work out to a monopoly via an RFP process
subcontracting to a number of registrars with all who meet the admission criteria accepted
maintenance of the database as a public trust by the Library of Congress or some other
existing
government body
subcontracting the work out to a public organization such as the IETF, ISOC or similar group
It is evident that the current gTLD MoU has created a great deal of interest in the public
policy
issues regarding internet governance. I am personally not in favor of the gTLD-MoU, but this
personal position in no way affects the underlying questions of tranfer of authority. Before the
gTLD-MoU can gain validity (if ever), it is necessary for the US government to officially devolve
such authority. In keeping with my four possibilities, such a devolution could take place via a
subcontract to ISOC, which has sponsored the IAHC process. Again, this is not a personal
recommendation, merely an observation on how the gTLD-MoU could gain validity. It is still a
matter of public policy to be decided by the US government in consultation with concerned
citizens.
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?
My only comment on this is to suggest that existing models are not appropriate. In
particular,
the spectrum allocation process is most definitely not applicable. There is no current shortage of
domain names. If there were, then the InterNIC would not be busy 24 hours/day. When a
shortage arrives, adding 10 more TLDs gives an order of magnitude more domains. Expanding
the domain name alphabet to include more than plain ascii adds several orders of magnitude and
allows sites local to a foreign culture more freedom. This option is discussed more fully in a
later comment.
In a recent US Supreme Court Decision (Reno vs. ACLU), an attempt was made by all parties
in
the case to equate the internet with "something" i.e. a park, a BBS, a city, etc. This is part of
human nature to relate something new to a known entity. As the justices observed, the internet is
not just like 'something'. It is a unique entity. Comparison with other existing structures is
doomed to failure. Similarly, attempts to use existing models like spectrum to describe/resolve
the issues will fall short.
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?
Well, retiring .COM would solve most of the trademark issues as trademarks conflicts could
then
be solved by local courts. But this brings up national issues. Since the birth of domain name
system, there have been numerous countries broken up by war, vote, etc. The most obvious
examples are the breakup of the former U.S.S.R and Yugoslavia, but there are others. There is
no guarantee that trend to split up nations will stop. Of course splitting up nations into separate
states is really bad for ISO TLDs. If a country splits up, the separate components are sure to
want new domains as part of their new national identity. And this is not something that can be
done easily, like substituting a word in a word processing document. The internet does not
necessarily know where in physical space a particular domain or sub-domain is located. So
geographic boundaries become problematic.
Another possibility is that some nations/states may choose to merge. The leadership in
Belarus
appears ready to take their country back into the USSR (which doesn't exist anymore), but they
will settle for Russia. What to do with those .BE domains? It is not as difficult as the
country-split problem, but still an administrative nightmare.
All proposals to turn the internet into a hierarchical system have a certain elegance. But so
does
an org. chart that splits an organization on functional lines. And that's not always the best way to
allocate workload. When the internet was just getting started, there was a hierarchical, structured
addressing scheme available that had the blessing of governments and telecommunications
organizations: X.500.
But the internet 'way' prevailed, because dstein@travel-net.com is easy to remember and
much
easier to paste into a message than something with separate fields that have to be filled out.
People adopted the internet in part because it was so easy. There are downsides to this ease, such
as difficulty in implementing global e-mail directories, but the benefits have far outweighed the
disadvantages. That is why the internet has flourished, and X.500 is still struggling.
To summarize, these ideas seem like a good way to complicate and probably stifle the
internet.
What is the alternative? I don't have a ready answer. In the absence of a viable alternative,
the
best option is the status quo. There is no sense in jumping in with solutions that could make
things worse. The internet is thriving right now, and if a few people are making money by
warehousing domains and a few people are in domain/trademark conflicts, it's a small price to pay.
There are always winners and losers in any system and there are always a small minority that
manage to 'cheat' the system. Such is life.
Domain warehousers/hijackers exist in part because they recognized the value of domains
before
their victims. Just because someone was asleep at the switch and failed to register their domains
is not always a reason to protect them. Sure, there are inequities but this is true in any system.
The same is true for domain/trademark conflicts. In some cases, a trademark holder is being
punished for not figuring out the value of the internet in time. In others, a big organization is
flexing its muscles to step on a small player who happens to have a domain that the big boys
want. If these cases were more frequent, there would be cause to change the system
immediately.
But the vast majority of domain registrations are unchallenged.
In order to retire .COM it would be necessary to either:
move .COM to .COM.US or .COM.CA , .COM.UK, etc., or
make .COM so expensive that no one wants it
There have been proposals to significantly raise the bar on top-level names and mandate that
the
registration fee for XXX.COM or XXX.NET would be many thousands of dollars.
Such a proposals would be very difficult to impose. And it would be a goldmine for those
hated
domain speculators. For it would be difficult to get registered domains away from these
organizations. To prove use, all they have to do is put up a web page, which is not very
expensive. There are speculators with thousands of registrations. Imagine the difficulty in
proving that they don't have a use for these domains, and imagine a system that would/could
distinguish between warehousing and legitimate business needs such as a company like Nabisco
protecting its intellectual property.
Besides, there is no practical reason to raise prices other than to encourage a hierarchical
structure. There is nothing inherently wrong with easy names. Getting rid of easy names just to
avoid trademark/domain conflicts seems like overkill. As the registered owner of several
domains, I would stand to gain if the price went up, so I am not acting in self-interest when I
object to raising prices. One of the main reasons that there is so much interest in the domain
name issue is the underlying resentment for the $50/year charge that the InterNIC
instituted. Without discussing the need for a charge, it is easy to state that raising the charge
significantly will NOT be popular. And raising the barrier artificially merely to make a more
elegant structure would probably be grounds for a net revolt and construed as unwelcome
interference.
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?
Current issues are legal and public policy problems. Technical solutions are not relevant to
the
problem. The relationship of registrars and TLDs with root servers is governed by convention
and IETF RFC. These relationships have proven workable in the past.
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?
Scalability is only an issue if the TLD space is completely open. Unless the space is opened
to
permit .STEINBERG and .COMPAQ, there is no problem. To use an airline analogy, travel
agents can book flights on more than 7 different airlines. The databases are shared, robust and
take millions of hits/day without a problem using relatively old technology.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
I am not certain that any new system is required. Should the US government decide to
grandfather some of the competing proposals for new gTLDs, it should be done without
fragmenting the domain space. Other than that, transitions should be done in an orderly manner.
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?
Creating additional TLDs is only useful if there is a mechanism to share. Otherwise, the
owner of
synthesis.com (not me) will want to register synthesis.firm and synthesis.web, etc. Perhaps a rule
that an organization can only register a domain name under only one TLD would be in order.
There would undoubtably be exceptions and conflicts raised by this rule. A possible workaround
for the US only would be the limitation on using a 'famous' mark.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
There is nothing inherently wrong with creating more gTLDs. Variety is the spice of life.
However, the creation of new gTLDs should not be considered a panacea. Some firms have been
content to share the existing domain space and take on XYZ.COM, leaving XYZ.NET and
XYZ.ORG to others. Other firms have aggressively registered their trademark name as domains
in .COM, .NET, .ORG and most of major country domains. There is no reason to believe that
these trends will not continue.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the
scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs?
No system is without technical limitations. The existing infrastructure can certainly handle
thousands of gTLDs. A different structure would be required for 'infinite' gTLDs. For
business/policy issues, it is not recommended that the domain space be opened up immediately. It
is first necessary to solve the international trademark issues now facing WIPO and then work out
an integration of trademark issues with domain names. Until then, it will not be possible to decide
who gets .PRINCE or .APPLE.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country code
domains?
gTLD management is necessarily separate in that it cannot be managed by an organization
assigned by local government. ISO country code domains are the 'domain' of the national
governments or their authorized representatives. The US government cannot interfere with the
sovereign affairs of a country but it can and should have a say in the management of the gTLDs
that it has responsibility for, even if that is limited to saying "we don't want to be responsible
anymore".
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?
Some of the current problems stem from the fact that a registrar has exclusive control over
.COM, .NET and .ORG and this organization has operated as a quasi-judicial body without the
appropriate enabling legislation. Most of the common complaints about the current registrar
would be eliminated if there were choice. There is no technical reason why shared registries could
not be operational immediately. It is a much more difficult task to 'register' someone for an
airline flight in real time, but computer systems have been designed to do just that and access to
the 'registry' or flight is shared among thousands of travel agents every day around the world.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name registrars?
No. As discussed above, the airline reservation system is proof that multiple registrars can
conveniently share a database. It is just a matter of scaling the computer to the size of the traffic.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space
raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
The main issue with raising the number of registrars is accountability. There must be a
mechanism
whereby the registrars are not responsible for deciding on the relative rights of entities contesting
a particular domain. There must be a single point of contact and (more importantly), a single
place for court orders to be enforced.
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?
To continue with the airline analogy, there is usually no limit on the number of different
airlines
that a travel agent a book flights on. Users of a particular travel agent are normally most
interested in flights that begin/end at a local airport. There are limits on the number of local
flights, but these are determined by landing rights at the local airport. Thus, there should be no
limit on the number of gTLDs a given registrar can administer. They should all have the right to
take registrations in all gTLDs.
20.Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
An improvement could be made in the area of voluntary transfer. Under the current process,
the
existing domain holder sends a message to the InterNIC in order to remove their registration.
The transferee then sends a message with the new registration. In theory (and occasionally in
practice), a third party could manage to register the domain between the transferor dropping the
registration and the transferee sending the new registration. This is akin to someone else claiming
a house while it is being transferred. Such a situation would be ludicrous in the physical world
and it makes no more sense in cyberspace. There should be an established policy/procedure
covering voluntary transfers that facilitates this process and removes the risk. Such a procedure
could also be used for court-ordered transfers. This would have the additional benefit of plugging
a loophole in the current legislation.
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?
It is difficult to impose protection when the extent of rights is not known. US court decisions
have clearly indicated that a domain name identical to a trademark is not in itself sufficient to
force the transfer of the domain. Any protection of rights should be something that can be
imposed during the registration process, and this is where it is impossible. A registrar is not
necessarily qualified to make even a first-cut decision on trademark infringement, so even if the
registrar spends all day comparing applications to a database list, there is not guarantee that
anything useful will come of it. What will the registrar do? Refuse the application and wait to be
called into court? This protection would not be effective as the issue of who has rights to a
contested mark must be settled in a court of law.
Giving trademark holders specific protection would encourage entities to trademark their
domains, and this is unworkable. You cannot clear up the confusion by simply getting people to
trademark their domain names.
Domain names are not necessarily trademarks, even though some trademarks have been
infringed
by domain names. You can have several firms using the same trademark, as long as there is no
confusion. For example, the mark VO2Max is used by several organizations including:
K2 clothing for class 25 clothing and 18 leather goods
Mars (makers of the Mars bar) for a yet-to-be-released meal-replacement bar
As an unregistered mark by a local retailer who incidentally carries the K2 line..
Who actually has VO2Max.com? The Mars company. The local retailer in this example uses
magi.com and VO2max is just a username, as in magi.com/~vo2max. K2 is either out of luck or
happy to have K2.COM.
The DNS should not be merged with trademark law. There is a cost to this. There are over
1,000,000 .com domains now and a dozen lawsuits. This is not a bad ratio actually. The low
cost (and we think it is too high already) of a domain has served to promote the idea of
freely-available domain names. This has served to foster a culture of growth in the internet and
encouraged many thriving startups. Imposing trademark space on domain space will have the
following effect:
Add uncertainty to the process because it is not a simple task to do a trademark search and
you
never really know until it's too late if you missed something
Add cost because researching and establishing a trademark is not for the legal faint of heart. I
did
it for my own companies, but wouldn't recommend it as a hobby
Add time to the process because you can't just do a whois lookup. Time is money in
business.
All of the three will serve to drive up the cost of a domain. Those who make money with
domain
registrations or do registrations as part of a full-service package will see a decrease in business, as
this would constitute a new entry barrier. Those considering a new business venture would have
to raise more capital and increase the timelines for their startup. It is this increase that could be
disastrous. As anyone who has been through a startup will tell you, it is the time between the
initial idea and the actual moneymaking transactions that is the most difficult to finance. Any
increase in startup time will serve to raise the entry barrier to new business.
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?
No. In order to set up a process of review, it is necessary to establish rules and procedures
and
implement an administrative body that must employ procedural due process. This implies a court
structure and procedures similar to trademark applications. From a public policy standpoint,
such an organization would be contrary to President Clinton's stated goal of not interfering with
the growth of the internet. Obtaining a trademark is already costly, time-consuming process.
Obtaining a domain name is relatively inexpensive and almost instantaneous. This is one of the
'features' of the internet and should not be interfered with via the introduction of bureaucracy.
Only a court is competent to decide if a domain is in conflict with a trademark, and the courts
have explicitly stated that the process is not simple and limited to a comparison of names.
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?
Absent an international body to resolve international trademark disputes, there is no point in
establishing any more protection for trademark rights. The current system protects trademark
holders through established laws and court procedures.
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 current system, which includes the courts, provides for a mechanism to resolve conflicts
over
tradmarks. It is doubtful that an additional database would be of any use. The current trademark
system provides for organizations to share most trademarks across geographical and/or market
distinctions. Some organizations like IBM operate across many geographical and classes of
goods and services. No one could reasonably expect to trademark IBM shoes today. Nor would
they expect to get away with registering IBM.COM. If they did, the courts would take it away
from them.
For lesser known marks, it does no good for a sporting goods firm in Decatur, Georgia to
know
that someone in California has a trademark on peach for use in electronic computers. The firm
will register peach.com, and if they call their store Peach sportsware and have established
common-law rights to the mark, they will prevail in court. There is little chance that someone
would confuse peach sportsware in Georgia with peach computers in California. All that is
requires is a change from the current InterNIC policy of putting a domain on hold when a
trademark holder makes a request. It is true that domain holders do have recourse through the
courts by seeking a temporary restraining order, but all this does is favor cash-rich domain holders
over poor ones. There is no need for the current :
"It should be mine. Take it away from them, InterNIC"
"OK. Hey, you. You are getting cut off"
"I object. Here's my TRO, InterNIC. Let the courts decide"
"OK, domain holder. I won't put your domain on hold or transfer it"
A simple solution is to do away with the policy. Domains only change on the agreement of
both
parties or on court order. The courts are well-versed in trademark law and can best decide
between a domain hijack and legitimate use by a common-law mark holder. This solution also
does away with the need to seek a Tunisian trademark just to defend rights to a domain. While
great business for the Tunisian trademark office and a few law firms, this artefact does nothing to
further the real intellectual property rights of a domain holder. There are businesses in Tunisia
whose success depends on the rights conferred by their trademark registrations. The current
situation demeans them and could be construed as interference in the sovereign affairs of a nation.
When two organization have rights (in one form or another) to a name, then first-come-first-
served is as good a way as any to decide who gets it. Failing that, an auction or bid process
would have to be arranged every time there was a conflict. Unless all parties thought of the
name at the same time, this auction would punish the early adopter. Since there is no way to
arrange this equitably, an auction (or any other mechanism whereby the person who thought of it
first has to wait) does not provide for an equitable solution.
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?
No. I join the many others that believe that this kind of information cannot be properly
validated.
Companies change businesses and are sometimes sold to other organizations. Any basis/purpose
could be mere speculation even if the organization has a legitimate business purpose. This would
be needless bureaucratic overhead. Evaluation of such information can only be performed by a
body employing due process and more particularly, procedural due process. This implies a courts
structure and procedures similar to trademark applications. From a public policy standpoint,
such an organization would be contrary to President Clinton's stated goal of not interfering with
the growth of the internet. Obtaining a trademark is a costly, time-consuming process. Obtaining
a domain name is relatively inexpensive and almost instantaneous. This is one of the 'features' of
the internet and should not be interfered with via the introduction of bureaucracy.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars affect
the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
The number of different gTLDs could only affect the cost if there were rules stating explicitly
that
only one registration per domain in a single gTLD was permissible. There would have to be a
grandfathering clause to protect the existing rights of companies like IBM (IBM.NET,
IBM.COM) and myself (Y2KLAW.NET, Y2KLAW.ORG) in order to prevent chaos.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain name,
are there any technological solutions?
This should be considered in the same light as the response to 25 above. Valid but conflicting
trademark rights, along with valid but conflicting common-law or usage rights cannot be resolved
in a single domain. Trademark rights and priorities differ under US and WIPO rules, therefore
the trademark law cannot be used to make a choice. In some jurisdictions there is no such thing
as a common law right to a mark. That would mean that someone living in France could see their
domain removed but not someone in Massachusets.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
National identity issues have not specifically been covered by this but they are relevant as part
of
the international emphasis of the internet. If the US government wishes to recognize the
international nature of the internet, a good first start would be the adoption of a policy whereby
the full UNICODE character set was allowable in domain names i.e. accents, cyrillic characters,
kanji, etc. It would require a new version of the BIND software, but new versions are a normal
occurrence on the internet. This would permit groups linked by culture to communicate without
'wasting' an English domain name. Those that wanted to be seen by the whole internet would
continue to use acsii characters. This would incidentally serve to decrease the number of potential
trademark/domain conflicts.
###
Number: 339
From: "Donna L. Hoffman"
<hoffman@colette.ogsm.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Attached is my response to the RFC. Please acknowledge receipt.
Thanks.
DLH
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("hoffman@interval.com")
August 18, 1997
Patrice Washington
Washington, D.C. 20230
Re: Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of
Dear Ms. Washington:
This submission is in response to the Department of Commerce's Request for Comments on
the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names,
which appeared in the July 2, 1997 edition of the Federal Register [Docket No.
970613137-7137-01].
I am an Associate Professor of Management in the marketing division, Founder and Director
of the Owen Electronic Commerce emphasis, and the Co-Director of Project 2000, all at the
Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University.
Project 2000, founded by me and Professor Thomas P. Novak in 1994, is a sponsored
research program dedicated to the scholarly study of the
commercialization of emerging media like the World Wide Web on the Internet. I have published
widely on the topics of Internet and Web-based commerce
and consumer behavior in computer-mediated environments from the strategic, policy, and
measurement perspectives. In the summers, I am a Visiting Scholar at
Palo Alto based Interval Research Corporation, Paul Allen's high-technology research and
development laboratory, and throughout the year serve as
consultant to companies ranging from Fortune 500 multinationals to Net start-ups on Internet
strategy and marketing issues.
In winter and spring of 1996, I was an Expert Witness for the Plaintiffs in the joined trials of
ACLU v. Reno and ALA v. Reno, challenging the
constitutionality of the CDA portion of the Telecommunications Bill of 1996.
Further details regarding the Project 2000 program of research, the electronic commerce
emphasis, and my professional background may be accessed at
http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/.
The views I express here are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Vanderbilt
University or the Owen Graduate School of Management or the
Interval Research Corporation.
In my comments below, I focus my remarks on Section A, Appropriate Principles.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna L. Hoffman
Comments of Professor Donna L. Hoffman
A. Appropriate Principles
The Internet has changed dramatically and radically since its beginnings over two and half
decades ago as a research and communication tool for academics and
scientists. In the last four years, virtually coincident with important policy decisions by the
National Science Foundation and the introduction of NCSA's, use
of that portion of the Internet known as the World Wide Web has exploded (by any measure one
would care to employ). From the perspective of the "newbies"
surging onto the network of networks every day from every corner of the globe, the World Wide
Web is, in effect, virtually synonymous with the Internet.
These elemental changes in user perception of the Internet mirror its definitional, structural,
and compositional changes. The Internet is no longer just an open,
decentralized set of networks whose users consist exclusively of mostly white, upper-educated,
technically competent professional males, all UNIX proficient,
engaged in academic and scientific pursuits.
Instead, the new Internet, especially in the United States, is rapidly beginning to mirror the
larger general population, while the technically elite and
demographically homogenous original Internet community shrinks in proportion.
For example, in the United States alone, 45 million people 16 years of age and older have
used the World Wide Web at least once and among individuals
using the Web for a year or less, about 45 percent are female. Interestingly, there are now twice
as many newbies (30 million using for one year or less) as there
are long-time users (15 million using for more than a year). Even more important is that the
number of hard-core really new newbies (5.3 million hopped on the
Web for the first time less than three months ago and use the Web a few times a week or more)
equals the number of hard-core old-timers (5.5 million have been
on the Web for two or more years and use the Web a few times a week or more).
So what do these few Internet demographic facts have to do with the current chaos over the
domain name registration system? Well, as it turns out, quite a bit.
Just as the Internet user population grows and changes, so does the structure of the emergent
industry. Much of the present conflict can be traced to the fact that
the Internet is no longer a mere conduit or tool enabling the far-flung and open exchange of binary
information, but rather a nascent computer-mediated environment
whose globally located denizens are struggling to shape with their own unique identities and
preferences. Given that the dominant path for this process is
commercialization, is it any surprise that its consequences should be so hotly and vigorously
contested?
While the DNS issue may seem, on the face of it, to be a mere technical matter best left to the
insular, self-defined and long-standing "Internet community," in
fact, what to name a Web server, identifying the best naming process, and determining who shall
be responsible for managing this process, are critical steps on the
path to a globally successful commercially mature Web.
To date, key stakeholders have largely been omitted from the proposal process, and important
issues and concerns subsequently raised by the broader constituent
community virtually ignored. The result has been that, despite all the effort and energy employed
over the past several years by the long-standing technical Internet
community, no single proposal has emerged that satisfactorily addresses the key issues facing this
broader Internet community. Indeed, the IAHC proposal,
for example, raises more troubling questions than it addresses.
Focusing on the process, however, rather than the deficiencies of any specific proposal, what
should we do now? In my opinion, the key "appropriate principle" is
to define a process which takes into account not only legal and technical considerations, but
business and social ones, as well.
Several sets of new criteria to consider when developing a domain name registration system
have been proposed since the IAHC proposal was released, yet none
I have studied go far enough nor admit a perspective wide enough to address all constituent
concerns.
Thus, assigning names on the basis of trademark or SIC codes, for example, would not solve
the naming problem, as would any system devised around product
categories, product classes, industry categories, or the like. The key reason is that all such
systems are inconsistent with the notion of building a Web-based brand
identity for consumers in a competitive market.
In essence, any serious proposal must consider explicitly in its proposed solution how it will
impact: 1) the Internet user (i.e. consumer/customer); 2) business
(whose interests must be defined beyond the protection of trademarks); and 3) global society.
Thus, the stakeholder base must be expanded to include all Internet
constituents, not just the long-standing Internet community, and the criteria by which we judge
any one proposal must be enlarged to reflect a broader set of
concerns.
Such considerations must be based on our current knowledge of Internet users, Web-based
business, and how networked societies are addressing the presence of an
open, decentralized, many-to-many medium. Such knowledge is considerable, growing every day,
and can provide much needed direction to the current debate.
In this way, a solution may be achieved that will satisfy all key criteria (e.g. not just trademark
protection and technical feasibility, but also consumer relevance,
commercial viability, and the long-term growth and development of the Internet).
Because the Internet is evolving so rapidly, it is critical to seek a solution which is precise
enough to satisfy current domain name registration needs (the best
categorization schemes are mutually exclusive and exhaustive), yet flexible enough to expand
elegantly as the Internet evolves (there will obviously be categories
tomorrow we have not conceived of today).
At present, the broad, global Internet community does not possess enough information on
which to base an intelligent proposal decision. Open public debate is an
excellent first step. Now we must, through argument and consensus: 1) enumerate all key
stakeholders, 2) identify their (often competing) needs, and 3) establish the
criteria upon which a proposal should be developed. Only then will we have a basis for evaluating
any particular proposal to determine whether it best addresses all
criteria while simultaneously meeting the critical needs of all Internet constituents.
Finally, any proposal should start with a statement of objectives. It has been taken as a given
that the domain name space must be expanded, and quickly, else the
Internet may face grave danger. Yet no cogent analysis of this assumption exists. Why do we
need to expand the domain name space and what will happen (and
when), if we do not?
###
Number: 340
From: "Paul M. Kane" <paul.kane@icb.co.uk>
Please see the attached WORD document in response to the DoC RFC on the
Sincerely,
PK.
<><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><
><><><><><><><><><><><>
Paul M. Kane.
Before the:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of :
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES
Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
Comments of Paul M. Kane,
Director,
Internet Computer Bureau Plc, London.
paul.kane@icb.co.uk
I, respectfully submit the following comments in this proceeding.
I have been a Director of the above company since July 1996, having worked in the
computer industry as a systems analyst/designer since 1983.
I have participated as an invited attendee in at nine public and private conferences at
national and international level on this issue.
I have followed most of the discussions on the IAHC discussion list and as European
Adviser to the Directory Corporation (a signatory to the gTLD MoU), have followed
much of the debate on the gTLD Policy Advisory Board discussion lists.
ICB plc is not a Signatory to the gTLD inorder to remain impartial and objective to the
process of Domain Registration. As a small company at the leading edge of Internet
technology, we believe technology will not be constrained by arbitary rules. To build
consumer confidence in the Internet as a conduit for commercial transactions requires
certanty and security. Consequently we have developed numerous applications that
use technology to resolve domain name conflicts and promote Electronic Commerce in
a stable enviroment.
Paul M. Kane
15th August 1997.
Summary of Comments:
Internet Governance:
1. The global nature of the Internet implies that any one government
should not have
supra-national control of the medium. Each of the United Nations Organisations,
other than WTO, represent the interests of a particular market sector, and the
Internet governance needs to remain non-partisan and conscious to the dynamic
technology that underpins the Internet.
1. IANA is respected as the "guardian" of TLDs and the "dot". Constitute IANA as a
international treaty organisation, with direct funding from Internet constituent
members, namely APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE, and ISO 3166 member countries. IANA
has already developed a stable, consensus-based self-governing mechanisms.
Develop this role by directly involving the private sector, with input from
governments through ISO 3166 registries. Unfortunately the ROOT Servers are
operated on behalf of IANA by InterNIC which also hosts the .COM, NET, ORG
TLDs. Invite IANA to take the operation of the ROOT in-house and InterNIC to host
their gTLDs on servers directly funded by them rather than from the NSF funding
resources. As time is short, it may be necessary to extend InterNICs contract,
under new conditions, to ensure smooth transition to the new management
structure.
Top Level Domains.
1. The DNS architecture is monopolistic by nature and
consequently the number of
gTLDs should be increased, with competition amongst shared and exclusive
Registries.
1. The March 1998 deadline has focused many entrepreneurs minds' as all proposals
ultimately result in a single entity having exclusive power over a specific gTLD
namespace.
1. InterNIC has built a market for Domain Names in one gTLD in particular, namely
.COM. They have been successful and after many years of problems now operate
an efficient registry. InterNIC has been a victim of its own marketing success.
Companies have sought a .COM domain because it is perceived as the "most likely"
domain for "international" companies to be found. Browsers automatically insert
.COM if the user just types a known trademark as an address. Domain Names are
not Trademarks, the DNS is not a directory system and never will be. The direct
association of a Trademark, Registered or Common Law, with a Domain Name has
caused conflicts to arise. Increasing the gTLD namespace may dilute this conflict if
administered correctly, conversely it could exacerbate the problem if mismanaged.
1. As an organisation InterNIC should reappraise its flawed Domain Name Disputes
policy although there recently seems to have been a change of policy. The Prince
US v Prince UK dispute seems to signal the policy is being substantially reviewed.
Their billing system was chaotic, with long standing Domain Names potentially
being cut-off, although new registrations seem to be OK. The 30% Internet
Structure fund payment for each Domain registration has inflated InterNICs
registration fee above its true cost of $35/year. This Domain "rental" fee is not
particularly excessive, when compared with say a standard telephone line rentals.
As they are a monopoly with relatively static expenditure downward price pressure
should be appropriate.
1. InterNIC's current monopoly position must be concluded and replace with
competition but the mechanics for its replacement are yet to be evaluated, tried and
tested. Stability is of paramount importance. If InterNICs involvement in the industry
is to be concluded, a view I do not support, the six month "wind-down" provision in
the existing contract assists the gentle tranfer to a new system.
1. The IAHC proposal merits support in my view and its introduction should not be
delayed. However, I am unable to substantiate the justification for 7 new domains in
one introduction as opposed to one or two at a time. If seven ( some inappropriately
named) gTLDs are to be introduced they should be implemented one-by-one based
on performance and effectiveness of the system, once proven. If their Domain
operation is successful why limit it to seven. Once a domain has been designated it
is extremely difficult if not impossible to retract it.
1. The rationale for increasing gTLD was to give Trademark Owners the opportunity to
identify themselves using their mark. I remain to be convinced that existing Domain
Name Owners will not be compelled to register in each parallel domain "to protect"
themselves against passing-off or dilution. In which case increasing the domains in
small numbers will have little effect and the proposal of say 150 gTLDs becomes
more and more appropriate. There have been a number of Domain Name conflicts
involving the .COM domain, until the IAHC system is tried and tested in the market
there is no evidence to suggest that the additions of new gTLDs will not just
compound the number of domain name disputes. Yes we need the IAHC to
compete with InterNIC, but stability and public trust is of paramount importance.
1. Try ONE (or at a push two) new IAHC gTLD initially, to establish operational
effectiveness and verification that domain names disputes do not dramatically
increase. This incremental route has been envisaged by the gTLD MoU as IAHC
have offered no guarantees as to when (if) their proposed gTLDs will be entered in
the Root. In addition, Incremental introduction, gives late entrants to the Registrar
business the necessary incentives and the ability to sell "choice" names in
competition with "first wave" Registrars. This gives the IAHC the opportunity to
obtain greater consensus / participation in the registry process.
1. I welcome WIPO making its Mediation and Arbitration service available to resolve
disputes as National Courts remain a more expensive alternative option. The ACP
process could be used to address disputes in the InterNIC name space as well, for
consenting parties. WIPO is not a signatory to the gTLD MoU specifically and
remains "neutral".
1. Evaluate the other gTLD proposals over a longer time frame, exclusive and share
gTLDs can co-exist providing a firm basis on which to stimulate competition in the
Domain market.
Consumer Protection
1. For Electronic Commerce to gain and retain public trust, security
is the key to build
public confidence. Domain Names do not offer any security because one can
navigate the Internet without using a Domain Name (using IP Address) and where
domain names are used, traffic can be redirected to a spoof site without consumer
awareness.
1. Consumers need to know that they are communicating in the virtual world with the
company known to them in the physical world. Consumers and existing Consumer
Protection Authorities must be able to identify and marginalise counterfeiters,
pirates and passing-off/diluting Internet sites. As a company, ICB has developed a
number of technical solutions to reduce the opportunity of fraud in the world of
Electronic Commerce.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems?
ISO 3166 Registration System
InterNIC Registration System
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
DNS system
1. DNSs open architecture is fundamentally robust, resilient and efficient. Diversifying
the physical locations of the Primary Root Servers would improve global interaction
and enhance network efficiencies. This process has started with two Root Servers
located outside the USA. Increasing the number of mirror Root Servers to nodes of
high traffic activity would assist reduce bandwidth wastage, benefit redundancy
factors and enhance the political diversity and international nature of the Internet.
(max say 25 Root Servers)
3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should current domain name
systems be administered?
1. The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has done an excellent
job. Long may this
continue. Establishing a legal basis for IANA has advantages and disadvantages.
Becoming a legal entity makes it a target for litigation and claims for further gTLDs
to be added to the Root Zone File are likely to be forthcoming. Due to the nature of
the Internet it may be prudent to ensure IANA has protection and framework similar
to an international governmental organisations formed by International Treaty.
2.
What should the makeup of such an entity be?
The private sector, with input from governments, should be able to develop stable,
consensus-based self-governing mechanisms. The framework already exists with ISO
3166 countries having designated and control over their national Internet Registration
Authorities. Constitute IANA such that the national domain registration authorities,
administer and pay for the activities of IANA. If and when there are gTLD registries
invite them to participate and pay for their share of costs for the administration of IANA.
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)?
1. Rough Consensus seems to work effectively. Network
Numbering is best co-ordinated by ARIN, RIPE and APNIC in conjunction with IANA, IETF,
IESG and IAB.
A Top - Down management model will not work with a dynamic medium such as the
Internet. Too many techie rebels !
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?
1. National Governments are active in promoting trading activity
and co-ordinating
consumer protection measures on the Internet. Consumer protection is key to the
long-term commercial stability of the Internet. An internationally co-ordinated
approach is vital if consumers are to become confident using the medium for
transactions.
5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be retired from
circulation?
1. There are considerable advantages in removing generic Top
Level Domains from
an administrative perspective but the success of .COM and the significant
investments made in the name space indicates that gTLDs are here to stay. The
opportunity for retirement has been lost.
Should geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) be required?
1. Yes. Almost all countries other than the US, predominately use their national ISO
3166 code. It is jurisdictional and effective. More use should be made of the .US
domain, but it should not be compulsory
If so, what should happen to the .com registry?
1. InterNIC should not have any proprietary rights to .COM domain. It was employed
as a contractor to administer an existing asset. It has administered the Domain well
and has profited from its activities. Any extension to the contract should be on a
cost recovery basis and any legal claims to Intellectual Property clarified in a
supplementary contract. This introduces competition between the various gTLD
registry groups, without disruption.
Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about International
Standards Organisation (ISO) country code domains?
1. A number of ISO 3166 registries seem to think so.
Harmonisation of Domain Name
application forms would help registries share information on Domain Name holders,
but specific regulation is probably best left for determination within each jurisdiction.
6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain name registration
issues?
1. Yes. Consumers want to directly associate a company known to
them in the real
world with their Internet Address. The actual arrangement of characters in the
Domain Name is irrelevant, provided a direct association can be made from the
Company name to the Web's IP Address. Non-discriminatory directories are the
key to navigating the telephone world, the Internet is no different. We have a client
who provides www.dir.org, an Internet "telephone" directory and as a company we
have a working model of a DNS technical solution.
Are there any issues concerning the relationship of registrars and gTLDs with
root servers?
1. Not sure what is meant here. Registrars sell the name space on
behalf of
Registries. Registrars do not interact with Root Servers only the Registries who
have authorised them. If it is suggested that the Registries of any new gTLDs
should collectively have their own distributed gTLD Root and Domain Name
Servers, running in parallel and connected with IANAs established Root Servers
then, there is considerable merit to this argument from practical, consumer
confidence, security and political perspectives.
1. The DNS already is a distributed database. National domains work effectively as
parallel systems connected to the Root with their own national DNS subsets. If
more gTLDs are added later, by any qualifying party, also with their own parallel
infrastructure, they will have no detrimental effect on the technical/operational
stability of the Root and offers potentially numerous advantages.
1. One of the prime motivations for increasing the gTLD is to remove any one entity's
monopoly control in the international TLD name space. The experience of InterNIC
scenario, is that by virtue of not being based on a distributed model, it has a
contractor role with significant control. When InterNIC's Root Servers were fed
defective zone file information on the 16th July, all .COM, .NET, .ORG domains
were inaccessible. Also on the 17th July an accidental fibre cable cut between
Washington and New York affected UCL, ULCC, RAL and OXFORD in England,
CNES in France, all sites in Russia and BBSR in Bermuda.
2.
The new gTLD structure should be more robust and based on a distributed dynamic
model, so multiple registry contractors can co-exist servicing the same gTLD. If one
registry contractor is unsatisfactory or has down time, another can take its place
without unduly straining the system. (Distributed Registry) Failure to introduce this
structure could create an InterNIC mirror entity. The IAHC has not specified the
detail of its technical structure for its CORE as yet, but an overview appears to be a
central processing house, similar to the InterNIC model except with potentially
hundreds of authorised "intermediaries" selling the name space allocated in the
CORE monopoly name space. InterNIC has no authorised intermediaries but a
shared repository containing over 1 million customers.
1. From a political perspective operating CORE as a distributed model enables
registry contractors to be spread over a number of countries which fosters a truly
international Domain.
1. The provision of an international dispute resolution procedure to reflect the
multi-jurisdictional nature of the gTLD name space is a major contribution of the IAHC
proposals. If both shared and monopolistic models are to co-exist it would be
helpful if WIPO would be willing to make its Arbitration and Mediation services
available to any party holding a gTLDs in contention.
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
co-ordinate?
1. Multiple Sub-domains.- multiple sub-domains within each TLD,
either controlled by
the Central Registry (Monopoly CORE) or competing registries as a sub-set of the
Central Registry, (Distributed CORE).
1. More gTLDs - both distributed and monopolistic
1. Navigation requires effective directory services to identify the site in the virtual world
known in the physical world.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
1. Any new system should be complementary and supplementary not in substitution.
The existing system works fine, just needs extension, the idea of transition to a new
operating environment may introduce more problems than it solves, and should be
undertaken gradually, with each element subjected to real time evaluation.
1. The IAHC propose seven new gTLDs using a new model of multiple sales outlets
called Registrars. The IAHC's progressive approach will enable new Registrars to
join their system of Domain registration as an evolutionary process. An
organisation known as CORE is providing Registry services in a monopolistic
environment. It is not clear if the CORE Registry is a monopoly or a distributed
competitive process comprised of competing data processing houses servicing
CORE. Either way the IAHC recognise that all seven gTLDs may not be added at
once. This incremental scenario is wise.
1. An incremental approach would enable all facets of the new process to be examined
and tested. It may be for example, existing Domain Name holders feel compelled to
register in parallel domains, frustrating the reason for increasing the name space. It
may be that the introduction of additional gTLDs leads to an exponential increase
and compounding of domain name disputes. Either way it would be prudent to
introduce one or two of the new gTLDs now with more later depending on the
market realities. This incremental approach also enables Registrars who do not
enter in the first wave to share in "choice" domains of the new gTLDs as they are
introduced. Failure to introduce an incremental approach could lead to new
registrars effectively being excluded as the "choice" names would have already
been taken.
Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
1. Increasing the gTLDs name space should be considered
supplementary name
space rather than an Internet governance issue.
1. IAHC seeks to build a gTLD reputation for .STORE, .WEB, .PER, .ARTS, by
determining the parameters of allocation within the designated name space.
1. The original intent of the IAHC was to increase gTLD name space, not to provide a
platform for Internet governance. The IAHC introduced its Policy Oversight
Committee for administration of its policies but unfortunately this title has been
misconstrued as has inadvertently become entangled and associated with
governance of the whole Internet Domain Name space. Control of Domain Names
is not a foundation for Internet Governance and control of IANA by one gTLD
interest group, should be resisted.
1. The Internet is driven by private enterprise. Satisfying and protecting customer
interests on the Internet, should be the role of governance.
1. We do not believe this was the IAHC's intent and certainly Internet governance by
such a body (without national representation) should be rejected as it is technically
impossible to enforce "governance" in the traditional sense. The multi-jurisdictional
in nature of gTLDs prevents Nation States from being able to protect their citizens
interests and regulate their markets in the traditional sense. Consequently any
"governance" should not be directed towards fallible Domain Names but protecting
consumers against fraud and deception by co-operation by consumer protection
authorities at an international level.
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?
1. Yes.
2. Technical: - the caching rate of the DNS System, when gTLDs are in the tens of
thousands.
1. Practical - the more gTLDs the more opportunities there are for counterfeiting, even
with stringent domain name allocation procedures. The IP Address controls
navigation around the 'Net not the domain name.
2. During July consumers were confused when identical names in different gTLDs
were used with one service provider emulating the other. Consumers were duped
into paying twice the normal price.
1. Policy - The more gTLDs the higher the potential for deception. .- The larger the
number of gTLDs the more demand for judicial determination and dispute
resolution, by mediation, arbitration or litigation. A means of confirming that a site
owner is who they claim to be is vital for consumer confidence. Verification and
SSL certification offers a degree of consumer protection.
1. We support IAHC's objective to administer a dispute resolution process for their
allocated domains and determining which Registrars will be eligible to sell their
domains. The Internet community appears to want an enlarged gTLD name space
and the IAHC is just one of many organisations potentially able to satisfy that
demand.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
1. Yes but incrementally. Introduce one or maximum two new gTLDs as a trial. The
gTLD system is non-reversible and revocation of existing gTLDs is near impossible
from a consumer perspective. A large section of the market has demonstrated it
wants gTLDs. Certainly there is need for the DNS structure to be enhanced to
enable consumers to identify their chosen retailer on the Internet, even if they have
a trading name that is similar or identical name to that of a competitor. Only one
Domain Name should be allowed per trading entity. Much of the .COM name space
is unused and held by "cyber-squatters". It may be that increasing the gTLDs will
cause multiple parallel registrations in each new gTLD thereby frustrating real
expansion in namespace. Selling Domain Name space is big business. If the .COM
remains, enlargement is inevitable and should be encouraged to enable the existing
monopoly to be broken.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the
scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs?
1. The methodology of creating scaleable sub domains to ensure the scalability of the
name space within each new gTLD was briefly discussed but was rejected in the
light of pressure from the Registrar community, because Third Level Domains are a
harder sell, than SLD. Rejecting the use of third level domains is a mistake if the
number of gTLDs is to be kept small. The act of tiering the name space makes it
scaleable, selling third level domains like "xyz.CLOTHES.web" works. If a local
shop only trading in France, why not allow "xyz.VETMENTS.web".
2. The crux is to be able to identify the shop known to the consumer in the physical
world in the virtual world, irrespective of its Domain Name.
3. The technology exists but is not being applied, because the payback time to recover
the investment is too long for most private enterprises.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
code domains?
1. ISO country codes are jurisdictional in nature, gTLDs are
potentially multi-jurisdictional. Management should be viewed separately to ensure national laws
are respected and multi-jurisdictional interests are accountable..
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?
1. A Registrar should not have exclusive control over a Registry offering a particular
gTLD. Conversely, if a Registry offering a particular gTLD has control over a
particular Registrar, the consumer has the potential for demanding enhanced
service and a framework for compliance with standards.
Are there any technical limitations on using shared registries for some or all
gTLDs?
1. Depends how the shared registry is configured. Technology can be liberating or
constraining. Shared and monopolistic gTLDs can co-exist and this will remain.
Opening up .GOV or .MIL for example would be unwise. Introducing user specific
gTLDs may be appropriate.
Can exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?
1. Yes, and their viability will depend on the reputation, quality of service and price of
each gTLD.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and what
responsibilities should such registrars have?
1. The IAHC have set good threshold standards and parameters for registrar
responsibilities. The technical competence of each applicant should also be
assessed. Enforcement procedures to ensure conformity to the registrar's
standards need to be addressed. Will Registrars be removed if they fail the set
standards (with potential liability for wrongful dismissal) or will the standards be
dropped?
Who will determine these and how?
1. If IAHC is responsible for the IAHC gTLD brands and XYZ is responsible for the
ZYX gTLD brand, standards will remain high as reputation, price and quality of
service and competition between IAHC and XYZ will distinguish the "brands" and
determine their success.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?
1. No. The more Registrars the more complicated the process for the Registry to
monitor progress.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space
raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
1. Price. The InterNIC Registry charges consumers $100 per
domain for 2 years, 30%
of which goes to the Internet Structure fund. The real cost of an InterNIC domain is
therefore $70 or $35 per year. Is the new gTLD registry system going to see
consumers paying Registrars less than $35/year per domain? What happens if the
basic domain registration fee payable by consumers is more than $35, is it anti-trust, a cartel or
subject to competion law investigation?
19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a given registrar can
administer?
1. My preference is for only a few gTLDs, but the act of
introducing one more gTLD is
a slippery slope to their being hundreds. If all gTLDs are to be accessible to all
equally, users and Registrars alike, then access must be unlimited. The effect of no
limit would be to drive prices down and increase standards as gTLD Registries
compete. In the short to medium term the growth rate in gTLDs may be exponential
and the number of gTLDs and Registries may number in the hundreds and
Registrars in the thousands in a very short period of time. Conversley, there may
hundreds of Registries each with their own gTLD yet few Registrars, so the
consumers must be able to buy directly from the Registry.
1. If the number of gTLDs is restricted, the central administration for DNS (IANA) may
have calls of restricted practices raised and claims of operating a cartel with
litigation forcing them to open up the Root Zone Files to incorporate other gTLDs. If
the IAHC is the only gTLD Registry, then competition within the registry industry will
be constrained and CORE is likely to be sued in jurisdictions where it is not possible
to contract out anti-competitive practices.
Does this depend on whether the registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights
to the gTLD?
1. A Registrar submits applications to a Registry and has no explicit control over the
registration practices of the Registry. The Registry administers the DNS for the
gTLD and "owns" the gTLD under its control. The Registry can be exclusive, like
InterNIC, but as mentioned in 6. above, should be distributed shared if a monopoly
situation is to be avoided.
1. Currently, Applicants can apply to InterNIC for a gTLD or they can use the services
of a Registrar. Registrars provide value added services to Applicants helping them
to apply for a Domain Name. Both options provide direct access to the Registry and
via the additional services of the Registrar should be available to Applicants in the
new gTLD framework. Thus in an exclusive scenario, the applicant should be able
to apply to the Registry directly or via a Registrar if additional value added customer
services are required. In a non-exclusive scenario the Applicant should have to use
the services of a Registrar, who compete with each other in the process of
"forwarding" the application to the application to the Registry.
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-à-vis
domain names?
1. Trademarks and Domain Names are two distinctive identifiers used by consumers to
associate a particular product or service with a specific company. The two are not
related. Even if one had exhaustive procedures for vetting Domain Name
applicants, consumers could be duped by a technically aware DNS wizard to make
the domain name an irrelevance when accessing their spoof Web site. (Email is
more robust) A suggestion is to tackle the "virtual" problem in the same way as it is
established in the physical world..
1. In the physical world, the Trademark Owner, be they registered, common law or
regional rights, has a duty to police and protect granted intellectual Property
interests using the courts of a specified jurisdiction. In the virtual world the same
scenario is possible, if not imperative. Trademark Owners should take active steps
to identify themselves to their consumers. One of our clients,
http://www.trademark.org, have been proactive in this area. Their aim is to enable
consumers to identify Trademark Owners, their Web Address, irrespective of their
domain name, with security and confidence using Intellectual Property Practitioners
as the third party vetting authority.
1. Traditionally Trademarks are identified on registers or in practical use. The
Trademark Owner must apply to be registered or must be active in using a mark,
then must police and be responsible for protecting their derived intellectual
property. In the virtual world, technology can support the generation of physical
evidence in the event of counterfeiting. Such technology should be used to enable
judges to make determinations if and when fraud has occurred.
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?
1. Preliminary review of an application requires determination. Such determination
may be contentious and has little benefit if the objective is to protect a Trademark
Owner. Technology at the control of a fraudsters does not respect a Domain Name
application process, however diligent. Recently, someone used a flaw in the DNS
system, to technically manipulated the "official" Servers to recognise their
alternative gTLD. This flaw has been known by many for some time. The
distinction being that in this instance this person sought publicity for their actions. If
this attack had been malicious the technique could have been used to map and
divert the .COM domain, traffic destined for genuine .COM sites and the consumer
would not have known.
1. Promoting domain names as the means of identifying verified site owners as a basis
for conducting electronic commerce on the Internet , is without foundation as it will
only serve to boost the opportunity value for committing domain name deception as
technology will not be constrained by arbitrary rules.
1. A facility operated by one of our clients, makes it possible to identify that the site
operator is who they claim to be and is the genuine company and holder of a given
Trademark, that has been checked by an Intellectual Property practitioner. The
service is currently registering IP practitioners and I understand it will go live once
10,000 IP practitioners have enrolled, giving access to a projected 1 million
Trademarks in a secure forum.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark rights be
protected on the Internet vis-à-vis domain names?
Preliminary review inherently requires discretionary judgement. This could be
contention and lead to litigation. In addition it is futile, please see 22 above.
What entity(ies), if any, should resolve disputes?
71. Mediation, Arbitrators and the Courts.
Are national courts the only appropriate forum for such disputes? No
Specifically, is there a role for national/international governmental/nongovernmental
organisations?
72. Yes
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented?
73. Use technology to marginalise the counterfeiters and fraudsters. We have an
operational model and procedures in place today!
What information resources could help reduce potential conflicts?:
74.i) databases of registered domain names - already operated by the Registries. One
cannot have two identical Domain Names therefore first come first served model is
operational with appropriate databases.
74.ii) registered trademarks - is already available, numerous search firms provide
Registered Trademark search facilities, which is far from complete as it excludes
common law marks or regionally granted rights.
74.iii) trade names - difficult to assimilate, and of questionable value in the domain
registration process due to many identical names.
75. If there should be a database(s), who should create the database(s)? How should
such a database(s) be used?
76. There are already numerous databases, provided in the private sector. Their use
is directly related to how they are funded. If it is free to be in the database, the
charge is to view the data. This inhibits use of the database and has the potential
to include information that is not accurate. If it is free to view the database, there is
a charge to be included, and to be an authoritative listing the information must be
verified. Depending on the scope of verification required before inclusion in the
database determines the charge of entry to the database.
77. To encourage open access to information, an authoritative database that is free to
search, further marginalise the activities of fraudsters. It is harder to compile but
offers more long-term benefits to the community at large.
25. Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate that they have a basis
for requesting a particular domain name?
78. Yes, to obtain additional support from the Registry if the Domain Name is
subsequently challenged.
If so, what information should be supplied?
79. Confirmation of organisational / company name, Trademark or family name.
Documents can be scanned and attached to files or just the salient details noted where
the information is available in the public forum.
Who should evaluate the information?
80. The Domain Name Registry not the Registrar.
On the basis of what criteria?
81. One domain name per person or trading entity or brand.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars affect the
number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
82. The Registrars are "post-boxes" for the Registry. The number of Registrars is
unlikely to have any significant effect on the cost of resolving Trademark Disputes.
The more gTLDs the fewer the conflicts if an effective means of identifying the
Domain Names of Trademark Owners on the Internet is used. Without an efficient
means of identifying sites of Trademark Owners, increasing the number of gTLDs
will lead to an exponentially higher the number of passing off, piracy, cyber-squatting,
infringement and dilution and inordinately higher costs.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain name,
are there any technological solutions?
83. Yes. That is what this company has been working on since I attended the WIPO
meeting in May. We now have a working model !
END of submission.
###
Number: 341
From: <laina@singnet.com.sg>
Dear Patricia Washington of the office of Public Affairs,NTIA
The Asia & Pacific Internet Association is a newly formed (May 1997) industry
association of
Many in this region have felt that the need for formal channels to pass on their input to policy
APIA wishes to applauds NTIA for this process of open consultation, and thanks NTIA for
giving
Looking forward to further collaboration with NTIA in the future.
Regards,
Laina Raveendran Greene
PS This submission will also be posted on our webpage at http://www.apia.org
-------------------------------------
Name: Laina Raveendran Greene
This message was sent by Chameleon
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("apia-board@apia.org","dfidler@cis...
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
Comments of the Asia & Pacific Internet Association
(APIA)
Board of Directors
[18 Aug 1997 ]
Summary
A. Appropriate Principles
Principles a-f
Other principles
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Questions 1-9
C. Creation of New gTLDs
Questions 10-14
D. Policies for Registries
Questions 15-20
E. Trademark Issues
Questions 21-28
F. Other Issues
[List other issues addressed]
POINT 1. Applaud open consultation
APIA is pleased to support the US government attempt to open up consultation on the future
of
Internet Governance and recognizes that the US government by historical accident, has
"ownership"
of these issues. With the commercialization of the Internet and the Internationalization of the
Internet,
the time has come to review the current administrative structures which are "historical accidents".
Much as APIA wishes to acknowledge the good work from the US government and US
subcontractors such as IANA in keeping the Internet as one global network, it also recognizes
that
the time has come to review this existing system today.
POINT 2. New legitimate structures needed to reflect the commercialization and
internationalization of the Internet.
With a new environment of commercialization and internationalization, the new structure
should
reflect this carefully. It could for instance, be some sort of a non-governmental international
organization, with private sector at the helm and market forces as its driving force. Competition
and
market decisions should be encouraged as much as possible, within a framework of coordination
and
collaboration to keep the Internet together. Policies and guidelines of this framework should be
made
only after open consultation and input especially from the private sector.
Nevertheless, the governments of the world will need to give their "blessing" to these
structures and
frameworks, to ensure stability and legitimacy. Business interest demands that legitimate and
stable
frameworks are needed to minimize business and legal risks.
POINT 3. Internet governance should not just focus on domain names
More importantly, the new structure should not just be created to focus on domain names. It
should
also look at IP addresses, standards processes, financing of the Internet bandwidth costs globally,
etc.
Basically guidelines and policies that will help advance the vision of a Global Information
Infrastructure (GII) and the various National Information Infrastructures (NII). The underlying
principle to all these efforts should be interoperability and interconnectivy.
POINT 4. Domain names should not be presumed to be trademarks
Much of the debate on reform to date has focused on trademarks, due to a dozen or so
trademark
cases. APIA feels that domain names should not automatically be equated to trademarks, and
unless
there is legitimate infringement, trademarks and other such IP rights should not dominate the
solution.
In other words, APIA feels that more international study on these issues is needed before
attempting
to tie legal issues into a solution and create extensive frameworks to solve these handful of
problems.
There are many other appropriate forums for legitimate cases to be handled.
Scaling and the viability of the Net is more important than protecting the interest of a few.
Also,
domain names were created to make the Net easier to use, not harder. Where there are technical
solutions they should be pursued instead. For example, APIA would like to suggest new naming
methodologies that could include numbers and international languages, browsers that will lessen
dependence on domain names and directory services. These will help solve scaling issues and
recognize the global nature of the Internet.
POINT 5. More international consultation needed to ensure attention to cultural
sensitivities
and the needs of the developing world..
APIA feels that it is imperative that before new complex structures are created, careful study
of the
needs of the industry are made first. This includes industry from around the world, and APIA will
be
pleased to help in this effort from the Asia & Pacific Rim region. In this respect also, APIA
also feels
that more emphasis should also be given to cultural sensitivities and the needs of the developing
world, who are only just catching up to the various issues. For example, domain names in one
language can be very offensive in another and local needs also call for non-English computations.
POINT 6. Prudent solutions only after open consultation, and technical solutions not
legal ones
should be pursued first.
In conclusion, APIA feels that no one solution should be hurriedly applied, and where
necessary
existing mechanisms should continue (e.g. short term extension of NSI's contract). Prudence is
needed to determine that any new mechanisms is devised only after greater consultation and input,
and it should then be implemented smoothly to avoid business risks. It is therefore also important
that
the governments of the world endorse any such private sector solutions, to ensure that decisions
are
respected by the courts and regulators around the world. This way, legal risks will also be
minimized.
However, where there are problems, technical and not legal solutions should be pursued first.
Lessons
from the telecom world, where appropriate should also be considered.
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
Comments of the Asia & Pacific Internet Association
1. The Asia & Pacific Internet Association (APIA) respectfully submits comments in this
proceeding.
APIA is a regional trade association, formed in May 1997, whose aim is to promote the business
interests of the Internet related service providers in the Asia and Pacific Rim regions.
The goals of APIA include developing and promoting policies and positions in the best
interests of
their members and represent these interests to the relevant bodies. To date, there has been no
formal
channel to give a voice to Asia Pacific Internet concerns and APIA aims to fill this gap. Since,
issues
such as the registration and administration of domain names is very relevant to APIA and is of
great
concern of our constituents, APIA has decided to participate in this Request for Comments.
A. Appropriate Principles
a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name registration system should be
encouraged. Conflicting domains, systems, and registries should not be permitted to
jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet, however. The addressing scheme
should not prevent any user from connecting to any other site.
Whether there should be competition or not, depends whether we are referring to competition
in
the root server, the Top Level Domains or the Second level Domains. APIA strongly supports
competition in TLDs and SLDs, provided the necessary coordination activities and sharing of
databases are done to ensure interoperability of the network.
Where competition in the root server is concerned, more research is recommended to see
whether
this is technically feasible. Again, the principle of interoperability will be key, as APIA would not
like to see the fragmentation of the global Internet.
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.
APIA agrees that private sector mechanisms will have its definite advantages, however more
than just
input, APIA feels that government backing/endorsement will be needed. This applies not just to
the
backing of the US government, but of international governments, as without such "blessing", the
mechanisms will lack stability and legitimacy. From a business perspective, international
legitimacy
will be a key principle, as the community cannot afford to have differing solutions backed
differently
by governments and courts, in differing jurisdictions.
Government backing should not, however, mean that government or any inter-governmental
organization should take an active role in the management or policy making of the DNS. In fact,
this
applies to all Internet governance issues, not just DNS. Rather those functions should be left to
private sector and determined on market principles, but government should recognize these
mechanisms as legitimate.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently global nature
of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over time.
Indeed, the Internet is no longer a US centric network. It is today a truly global network of
networks.
The governance mechanisms of the past came out of an informal academic and research
community,
with key personalities as pivots of such informal structures. Besides this type of Internet culture,
much of the informal mechanisms stem from a US culture of private enterprise and of suspicion of
government involvement sentiment.
Today, the Internet is global and recognition needs to be given to the diverse international
approaches
to Internet governance. It may no longer be appropriate to determine the future of Internet
governance based on its historical accidents or personalities. More importantly from APIA's point
of
view, the commercialization of the Internet calls for more formal structures which provide
legitimacy
and stability to protect business interests. Internet governance today has to face up to these
changes.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open, robust,
efficient, and fair.
One can only underscore the need for openness, and fairness. Stakeholders of this network
need to
have their mechanisms for input. Having decisions that impact business interest, without a
mechanism
to minimize negative impacts will surely be detrimental to the future development of the Internet.
As
for robust and efficient, this comes back to the previous comment on stability and legitimacy,
however with an aim to avoid bureaucratization of the process. The Internet is a dynamic network
and its administration has to be too.
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.
APIA feels that the administrative framework should be prompt, fair and efficient, but does
not feel
that this necessarily applies to conflicts over proprietary rights. The history of the NSI's
involvement
in trademark issues is clear evidence that any future administration should stay clear of such
issues.
If such a messy litigious situation within NSI is created in a single jurisdiction(US) with a
single
federal law on trademarks (perhaps with state variations), would this not be ten times worse in a
situation where there is no universal Intellectual Property laws in this regard. Global TLDs such
as
.com, .net, .org, etc are global while trademarks laws are national. APIA feels that it will be
premature to have a global administrative body resolve Intellectual Property conflicts without
clear
international laws and only a dozen or so cases as the basis. APIA is therefore particularly
concerned
about the International Ad Hoc Committee proposal to adopt the creation of the Administrative
Challenge Panel , which in fact protects rights that are not universally recognized, and is even
more
than that found in the US Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995. (The adoption of presumed
versus
proven infringement, which is far greater than any existing national law to protect the interest of
the
big trademark holders, is of great concern.) The use of the WIPO Center for meditation and
arbitration on the other may have its benefits, but APIA feels more study is required before such
mechanism is made compulsory.
APIA would rather support efforts to try and diminish reliance on domain names as
trademarks, such
as browser, directory services, etc. Meanwhile, while APIA does recognize that there are some
legitimate instances where domain names can be equated to trademarks, APIA would rather not
support an approach that assumes that all domain names are equated to trademarks. Trademark
laws
came out of its own history and so did domain names. Applying one to the other should be done
with
prudence otherwise we would stifle the growth of the network. Therefore, for example, APIA
feels
that actual infringement should be proven through the normal procedures rather than adopting
mechanisms within the domain name administration that assumes infringement.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of these
issues permits.
Given that there is no real threat to the fragmentation of the Internet to date, APIA feels that
decisions have to be carefully made (not quickly) after consideration of the different viewpoints
and
interest (prudent). If a technical solution to this problem can be found, then it should be pursued
rather than trying to solve a problem that is not really there. A handful of domain name hijacking
cases and competing TLDs such as that of ALTERNIC, does not justify rushing into constructing
a
new global structure, without due consultation. If decisions cannot be made before the end of the
NSI
contract, consideration should be given to extending it for a short term, to allow for smooth
transitioning to a new system.
APIA would also like to highlight that to some extent, the telecommunications world faced a
similar
situation. There was a time when telephone numbers were alphanumeric but they ran into similar
problems as we are facing with domain names. Rather than create complex solutions to those
problems, the issue was solved at the root of the problem. APIA is not necessarily implying that
we
should go back to numbers (as this may not be practical to rename the existing names), however
would like to encourage other more practical solutions if they exist.
Other principles
Another important point that APIA would like to note is that domain names are only part of
the issue.
In fact, to some extent it is the lesser part of the issue. What needs to be addressed is the bigger
picture of reform of the Internet Governance issue. The time has come to review whether a
hierarchical administrative structure with a US government contractor at the helm (IANA) is still
relevant in today's global commercial Internet infrastructure.
The principle of the need to internationalize Internet Governance will have to be considered.
IANA
will have to be converted to some sort of International organization with governmental blessing
and
private sector input (perhaps the creation of a new Internet International Organization). It would
need
accountability to the stakeholders of the Internet, allow for global input and be "blesses" by
governments to provide legitimacy and stability. One could also consider IANA being converted
to
a membership organization much like APNIC and RIPE. The point stands that the time has come
to
relook the current structure.
Another part of this process of internationalizing is the promotion of different cultures and
languages
on the Internet. There are many cultures where the Internet has yet to develop to the extent seen
in
the US and other "European" countries. These cultures must not be disadvantaged in developing
their
own NII and connecting to the GII for their own cultural and economic activities. The governance
structures must be suitably international so as to provide the leadership and support. For example,
it should endorse domain names not be based on the Roman alphabet? Why not support Korean,
Hindi names etc?
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name registration
systems?
One clear advantage is that the current system has kept the Internet together as one network
to date.
Keeping one root server in a hierarchical naming structure definitely had its benefits to keep the
network interconnected and interoperable.
Many disadvantages, however, stem from the fact that policies are set arbitrarily without any
open
processes to develop guidelines on the allocation of domain names. Much of it has either been an
IANA decision or the registrars of the allocated exclusive TLD. As a result, especially with
national
TLDs, there are many inconsistencies in their allocation. Apart from this fact, in some countries
IANA may allow private entities to be registrars while in others allow government entities who
insist
on control. Some restrict national TLDs to the country geography while others do not. The ones
who
do not restrict national TLDs to their countries, therefore in fact become global TLD registrars.
This
has lead to abuse such as marketing gimmicks.
Another disadvantage includes the fact that domain names have not quite scaled as people
have begun
to use domain names as trademarks. The number of computations are immediately reduced.
Furthermore, since only Roman alphabets are used, this has further reduced the scalability of the
names globally. Besides scaling issues, the use of Roman alphabets leans in favor of languages
using
such characters and does not offer the opportunity to support diverse names on the Net. Just like
postboxes, while they need to be standardized for "network" recognition purposes (Internet
Protocol
addresses), names can be personal to the individual culture.
The greatest disadvantage APIA contends is the imputation of legal issues into what was
intended
to be addressing mechanisms. Domain administrators should not be directly involved or actively
involved in legal issues, but rather function more as a listing service. No doubt they cannot run
away
from all legal issues, but these should be restricted to those involving them as any other
organization
or legal entity.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
The key improvement to the current system would be the improvement of PROCESSES.
There needs
to be open and fair processes to ensure that input from stakeholders can be gathered and
considered,
i.e. OPEN CONSULTATION.
Next, legal issues should be left to the appropriate authorities to decide, and not have policies
created
within the DNS administration around the uncertainties of the law.
Competition in TLDs with coordination and future introduction of non-Roman alphabet
names will
also help. The bottom line however, is that the market should decide what it needs and wants.
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?
With the internationalization of the network, there needs to be a new type of international
organization (non-governmental, but with government "blessing"), with private sector at the helm
of
the structure. (There is no reason why government or any intergovernmental agencies such as the
ITU
and WIPO should be part of the management and policy making structure.) One could consider
either
making IANA the basis of creating a new type of international organization or make it a
membership
organization much like RIPE and APNIC but with government endorsement of the structure.
IANA
or ISOC its current form and within the IAHC proposal, as the veto body and at the helm of the
administrative structure is however unacceptable.
The commercialization of the Net, demands more formal structures with government backing
(not
just US government backing) or endorsement to ensure stability and legitimacy. Business interests
cannot afford to be part of a system open to countless litigations and insecurity.
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?
APIA endorses the need to learn from other arenas which may have had similar problems. The
network numbering plan in fact had the alphanumeric problems of the domain name world, and
we
could learn from how that was handled. While spectrum allocation is not a good analogy to
domain
names as it is a scarce resource and domain names a private resource, one can learn from the
system
of registration and coordination, rather than allocation. To a large extent, even there it should be
market forces and not some central coordinating body that decides what should be allocated.
The ITU-T model of consensus building among private sector, with the necessary government
backing may also serve as a model to start from. There are however many problems with that
system,
and the Internet world has to be careful not to import it wholesale. The standards setting process,
however, does allow for market decisions to be made and consensus building helps ensure
interconnectivity and interoperability of standards adopted. This is what the domain name system
can
definitely learn from.
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?
Retiring it completely from circulation will be highly impractical. There will be business costs
associated with renaming. Retiring it from future uses may have some validity, however this
decision
will have to be left to the market to decide. Also, merely retiring it without diminishing the role of
trademark law will not solve anything as application of dilution laws or its enlargement (such as
applied by the IAHC Administrative Challenge Panel) will mean that companies will block the use
of
other TLDs as well, creating new problems.
Likewise, country TLDs should also be determined by market needs. Countries such as
Cambodia
should not be forced to use .kh in today's world. They are more apt to decide what is appropriate
to
them than some central body who decides without their input. Even ISO country codes were
developed for a separate purpose and developed at a separate time.
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?
Not known, but worth pursuing.
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?
Of course this question assumes competition in root servers. APIA will strongly suggest more
study
to see if this is technical and practically possible, to ensure non-fragmentation of the Internet.
Nevertheless, sharing of databases and simultaneous registration in all root servers, are some
mandatory principles need to be adopted to ensure interoperability and interconnectivity.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
Prudently and smoothly. If necessary, NSI contract should be extended for 6months to a year
to allow
for more open consultation and input. This way, a more acceptable, coordinated and universal
mechanism can be put into place.
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
Just as with telecommunications networks that laid out common principles for interoperability
and
interconnectivity, it will be important to have a framework dealing with other such issues, such as
international standards of quality of service, international guidelines on how bandwidth for the
Internet is financed etc. The latter issue is important to APIA, as the Asia Pacific region ISPs are
still
paying for the entire bandwidth into the US, even though the 100:0 ration of traffic is no longer
true.
APIA would like to call for governmental backing to support industry to develop guidelines to
ensure
a more equitable settlement of costs in building the Global Internet Infrastructure. These issues
are
equally important to ensure the continued viability of the Net and its growth.
In other words, organizational changes should not just focus on domain names. Domain
names are
just but a tool that was developed to help the Internet to grow. There are many other tools that
need
to be coordinated and international standards developed, that such a "new" organization should
focus
on, beyond just domain names.
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations that constrain the
total number of different gTLDs that can be created?
gTLDs , unlike IP addresses or telephone numbers, are not technologically essential to the
operation
of the Internet but provide the ease of use of alphanumeric identifiers. There should therefore be
no
reason why there should be any technical constraints to this. In fact practical and policy
considerations will demand its expansion as the use of the Internet grows.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
From a cultural perspective, there is a call to have additional TLDs created to accommodate
the
different languages and characters. Creating gTLDs with numbers should also be considered.
However the decision to increase should be left to the marketplace and not to some decision
making
authority. Even if decided by such body, it should be done only after open consultation and
business
input.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the
scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs?
Efficiency and effectiveness of use will be more important than the technical limitations of the
issue.
There will have to be sufficient mechanisms in place to avoid hoarding. Global coordination and
consistency of policies, will also help ensure effective usage. As such, APIA is concerned that the
IAHC stance of putting trademarks as the crux of the mechanism, as this will seriously affect
scaling
as big trademark holders exclude others from TLDs using extemsions of trademark dilution laws.
This
we believe goes beyond the intention of trademark laws in the first place, and is not an
appropriate
extension to this new medium of the Internet and domain names, which have different purposes as
well.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country code
domains?
APIA recognizes the problems associated with .us TLD, and sees no reason to distinguish
between
gTLDs and country TLDs. In the end, the price, the market needs and the service will determine
the
final choice of the user. Furthermore to date, the ISO country code may impose non-user friendly
names, rather than allowing the country to decide an appropriate code (for example, Cambodia is
.kh
reflecting the days of the Khmer).
To date, each national TLD lays out its own policies, and this leads to inconsistencies which
affect
the others in the community. For example, some national TLD registrars insist that it be used
geographically, while others do not. Those who don't are in reality a gTLD registrar, which is
why APIA feels that there needs to be greater coordination in TLD policies just as for gTLDs,
and there may be no real reason to distinguish between country TLDs and gTLDs.
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
The charging policies of TLDs are important issues as well. It may be useful to reflect why
telephone numbers and names we choose for ourselves are free, while domain names are charged.
This is particularly important if there is only one TLD organization. If charges are imposed, then
the body imposing these charges have to be a legitimate authority and clear accountability of how
the money is used needs to be established.
If however, the position is taken to have competition in TLDs, then of course the market will
decide the legitimate body and the price it feels is right. Likewise, the same argument applies for
SLD registrars, depending on whether there is competition or not.
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?
There does not seem to be agreement among experts whether this is possible or not. More
study will
be required to see if this is technically possible and more importantly, if this is what the market
wants
and needs. As far as APIA is concerned, if the existing system if improved (incorporating the
international nature of the Internet, open consultation, incorporating private sector input and
participation, having the requisite inter-governmental backing/endorsement, charging only for
costs
for domain names, etc.) then there will be no real reason for competition. Nevertheless, APIA
believes that competition will certainly help solve many other problems, provided there has to be
clear
and consistent guidelines globally to avoid registrar shopping (i.e. shopping for reasons other than
for price and service).
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and what
responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these and how?
Yes for the protection of the users, but this threshold has to accommodated to the differing
legal
systems and corporate structures. The one proposed by the IAHC is too US-centric. The
legitimate
body (to be decided after greater public consultation) would be the one who determines the
guidelines
and its accommodation to local needs. Otherwise, ideally where there are sufficient consumer laws
within each country, it should be the market that decides this threshold.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?
Not known. More study required.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space raised by
increasing the number of domain name registrars?
The need for coordination should be underscored. The key principle should always be
interconnectivity and interoperability.
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?
APIA believes that this deserves extra study. Again market requirements should prevail within
reasonable limits of what the technology will allow.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
International standards for the quality to the network and market/consumer laws to ensure
quality to
the consumer are also key issues to be considered as well.
21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks, common law trademarks,
geographic indications, etc.), if any, should be protected on the Internet vis-à-vis
domain names?
Except for a dozen or so cases, there has not been much indication that business treat domain
names
as trademarks. APIA of course, recognizes that companies who have spent resources to protect
their
trademarks globally want to be protected even with respect to domain names, but this we feel do
not
reflect the majority opinion. It is more important to others to obtain domain names to make a
commercial presence on the Net, than to exclude others from the Net. Therefore we feel that
before
devising extensive administrative structures to protect trademark interests, it is important to study
the issues.
Domain names are global while trademark laws are national. More study is required to see the
impact
of this difference. More importantly, APIA feels that more study needs to be done on the
relevance
of trademarks to domain names. Both come out of their own historical reasons, and matching
them
de jure may not be the answer, This does not mean that APIA denies legitimate infringements, but
infringement should be proven not assumed.
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?
Again we like to stress that actual infringement and not presumed infringement should be the
guiding
philosophy. Doing so, would be to accept that all domain names is equivalent of trademarks,
which
is not universally accepted. In this regards, the domain name administration should act merely as a
listing service and not a trademark office. It should be the applicant's onus to protect his rights
through the normal procedures.
As for automatic referral of disputes, this should be left to the challenger and applicant to
decipher
the relevant forum. Also an alternate dispute settlement center should not be imposed upon them.
The
IAHC proposal making all registrars bound to contract with their applicants to bind themselves to
the
WIPO mediation center, does not give them this choice. Also, since all registrars are bound by the
decisions made here, this amounts to superseding national jurisdictions even if it claims not to do
so
(even if an applicant can get the national jurisdiction of the registrar involved to make a decision
in
its favor and the WIPO center or Administrative Challenge panel has a different decision, all
registrars
(except the one in which the local court decision is made) have to abide by the latter. In other
words,
the applicant may still have the name restored in the Registrar in question but it won't be registrar
on
the others, making his name useless. In actual fact therefore, the imposed mechanism does
supersede
national jurisdiction.)
We sincerely therefore stress further study and consultation before adopting measures to
solve the
problem of but a few.
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?
Specifically in relation to domain names, APIA is of the opinion that issues raised in questions
23 and
24 should not be dealt without further inquiry and research on an international scale. Consultation
with commercial, governmental and non-governmental bodies involved in dealing with trademark
rights should also be undertaken. As far as possible, the link between domain names and
trademarks
should be strongly discouraged.
For the moment therefore, APIA is of the view that trademark rights should be protected
through
existing national laws and judicial processes. A globally devised dispute resolution system such as
the
ACP (IAHC proposal) cannot be yet be justified (only a dozen or so cases to date), not until its
need
is determined. To do as was prescribed in the IAHC today, would amount to prescribing
trademark
protection rights over and above what currently exists under national and international trademark
laws, or in the reverse diminishing some other legitimate trademark rights. It also presumes that
domain names are trademarks, a presumption that should be proven not assumed.
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?
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?
The Registrar should be a mere listing service, not an evaluation body. Information about
actual
usage and qualification for a particular TLD is of greater importance, to ensure efficiency and
effective use, than trademark evaluations. Infringement should never be presumed.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars affect
the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain
name, are there any technological solutions?
The DNS is an addressing system. As web browser technologies evolve, less and less
emphasis will
be placed on the use of domain names as identifiers of products or services/trademarks. The
emergence of comprehensive search engines and greater use of directories may also provide for
shared use of domain names. Further study into such technologies is strongly recommended.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
Albeit protecting legitimate interests, minimize attention to trademarks, please.
APIA members include:
Founding Members:
Inet, Inc, Korea
Corporate Members:
Organisational Member:
Individual Members:
Legal Counsel: Melvin Khoo, Harry Elias &
Partners, Singapore
###
Number: 342
From: "David W. Maher" <dwmaher@ibm.net>
TO: National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Attached to this message, in Word format, are the comments of the gTLD-MoU
Respectfully submitted,
Document available at: <http://www.gtld-mou.org>
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
Comments of gTLD-MoU interim Policy Oversight
Committee
(created by the Generic Top Level Domain
Memorandum of
Understanding (gTLD-MoU) signed in Geneva,
Switzerland
on 1 May 1997)
gTLD-MoU Interim Policy Oversight Committee
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
Comments of interim Policy Oversight Committee
("iPOC")
1. The interim Policy Oversight Committee ("iPOC") respectfully submits comments in this
proceeding.
2. The interim Policy Oversight Committee ("iPOC") was created under the aegis of the
Generic
Top Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding ("gTLD-MoU") signed in Geneva,
Switzerland on May 1, 1997 by the by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ("IANA"), the
Internet Society ("ISOC"), and approximately 80 other signatory organizations. As of August 18,
1997, this has increased to approximately 160 signatory organizations.
3. iPOC is the successor to the International Ad Hoc Committee ("IAHC") which was
formed in
September, 1996 at the initiative of ISOC and at the request of IANA. IAHC issued a Final
Report on February 4, 1997, which led to the creation and signing of the gTLD-MoU.
4. The charter of IAHC specified that it would "operate in the style of an Internet standards
'design team', formulating criteria and procedures but seeking review, modification and consensus
from the rest of the Internet community" and stated further that "Internet standards are developed
according to the principal of 'rough consensus' which means a strongly dominant sense of
preference within the community that is seeking to achieve forward progress, in spite of differing
opinions."
5. Between September, 1996, and May 1, 1997, IAHC operated open mailing lists, solicited
and
received hundreds of formal contributions, and participated in a number of existing mailing lists,
thereby receiving thousands of comments from interested parties which were reviewed and
considered in the preparation of the gTLD-MoU. Members of the IAHC and iPOC have provided
continuing participation in those public mailing lists.
6. The gTLD-MoU proposes the creation, initially, of seven new top level domains and
provides
for an unlimited number of new registrars, all of which will share responsibility for registering
domain names in all generic top level domains. The process of submission of applications to
become registrars began on July 16, 1997. The registrars will sign a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "CORE-MoU") and will form a Council of Registrars ("CORE") which will be
a not-for-profit association under the laws of Switzerland.
7. Further information on the work of IAHC and iPOC, as well as the full text of the
documents
referred to above are available at the gTLD-MoU website <http://www.gtld-mou.org>.
A. Appropriate Principles
iPOC has answered a, b, c, d, e and f. 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.
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.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of these issues permits.
iPOC believes that the foregoing principles are appropriate and that they are substantially
complete. They have been the subject of public debate for more than three and one half years
and are in response to urgent Internet operations requirements. iPOC further believes that the
program set forth in the gTLD-MoU executed on May 1, 1997 is the only concrete plan now
in existence that embodies these principles. In order to foster these principles, iPOC urges the
Government to support the gTLD-MoU program.
iPOC has answered questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and
8. 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name registration systems?
Although the current system has the advantage that it has worked well enough to enable
the Internet to grow at an exponential rate, the disadvantages have now become painfully
apparent to nearly all users. The trademark conflicts, and especially the proliferation of
"cyber-squatters", pirates who hold domain names for ransom, are becoming increasingly serious.
There
are two major disadvantages of the current generic domain name system. First, there are only
three generic top level domains available to the general user, and second, the policies for
resolving conflicts within the system have not worked well. The current ISO country code domain
system has worked well, for the most part, and should be treated separately from the generic TLD
system.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
iPOC believes that the program set forth in the gTLD-MoU offers the best hope for
improvement of the generic TLD system. It increases the range of names that would be available,
provides for registrar competition based on price and service (and not based on registrar
monopoly control over specific TLDs), user domain name "portability", and takes a significant
step towards resolving conflicts among those contending for domain names.
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?
iPOC believes that the governance structure described in the gTLD-MoU, which is
designed for expanded participation by industry and public groups, will be best able to administer
the domain name system. iPOC further believes that this structure is fully consistent with the
principles set forth in the Framework for Global Electronic Commerce released on July 1, 1997,
and in particular, principle 1, that "governments should encourage industry self-regulation
wherever appropriate and support the efforts of private sector organizations to develop
mechanisms to facilitate the successful operation of the Internet."
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?
The Internet standards process of the Internet Engineering Task Force ("IETF") serves as
a model for the design of the domain name registration system and the program of the
gTLD-MoU. The model will be different because of the operational and commercial nature of the
gTLD-MoU structure and because the system must be designed de novo, rather than being based
on a
system with many years of existing operation. The specific principles which have been taken from
the IETF standards process are open operations, layers of review and oversight, and community
rough consensus. The design and responsibilities of the Council of Registrars ("CORE") is
intended as a coordination activity between Registrars and provides for the gTLD-MoU policy
oversight activities a single legal point of contact. The design of the Policy Oversight Committee
("POC") and the Policy Advisory Board ("PAB") reflect the higher level review mechanisms
needed to provide necessary public policy oversight functions. The POC is somewhat akin to the
IETF's Internet Engineering Steering Group, and the PAB is a formal embodiment of the general
Internet community representing the large number of stakeholders in the Internet DNS.
iPOC believes that the limited roles proposed for the International Telecommunications
Union ("ITU") and the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") in the overall
structure contemplated by the gTLD-MoU will provide additional benefits of public sector input
on the system without the disadvantages of putting the system entirely under the control of
international governmental entities.
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?
iPOC believes that it is neither desirable nor (at this late date) possible to retire the
existing gTLDs. Existing gTLDs represent a substantial base of users. They have made significant
organizational and marketing investment in these names and it would cause serious operational
and monetary difficulties for those users to give them up. There is no compelling technical or
operational requirement which justifies taking this extreme action.
The continued existence of the ISO country code domains offers flexibility in the system
that has no real disadvantages, assuming that there is coordination in management issues,
especially in the area of domain name and trademark conflicts.
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?
iPOC believes that the technological basis of the program set forth in the gTLD-MoU is
sound, and that the concept of shared data bases of multiple generic TLDs is practical and can be
established in a short time, without disturbing the current root server system. The technical
aspects of shared registration are well understood, and therefore the enhancement of the DNS
registration model to include shared registration is entirely appropriate. National registries such as
those in Great Britain have successfully implemented shared registries with a technology
analogous to that which CORE is planning to use.
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 proposal set forth in the gTLD-Mou is designed to be scaleable. In particular,
the gTLD-MoU sets forth a process which is designed to evolve as needs require and
understanding permits.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
There must be an appropriate period of technical testing of any new system, but the
administrative structure proposed by the gTLD-MoU is designed with enough flexibility to allow
a smooth transition to a broader base of control. The DNS tolerates addition of new top-level
domains with no impact on existing TLDs, as evidenced by the fact that approximately seven new
two-letter ISO country code TLDs have been added every year for a number of years.
When a stable operational base for the new shared gTLDs is demonstrated, it will be
appropriate to begin incorporation of the three existing gTLDs (.com, .net and .org).
iPOC has answered questions 10, 11, 12 and 13 10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations that constrain the total number
of
different gTLDs that can be created?
iPOC has taken into consideration, in its deliberations, assisted by public comments, the
technical difficulties of scaling the existing system. iPOC believes that, from a technical and
practical standpoint, the existing system could support 100-300 additional gTLDs, and that
technological progress may enable the addition of significantly larger numbers in the future. There
is a difference of opinion, among technical experts, as to the maximum number of additional
TLDs that can be tolerated by the DNS root, without degrading system performance or reliability.
Operational prudence therefore dictates a careful, incremental approach to the addition of TLDs.
This caution is reflected in the approach specified by iPOC.
Also, there have been many comments, largely from entities concerned with the conflict of
domain names and trademarks, urging that no new gTLDs or only a few be created. The seven
new gTLDs proposed under the aegis of the gTLD-MoU is a compromise between these interests
and the strong public demand for additional gTLDs.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
iPOC proposes the creation of seven new gTLDs as a first step. This permits
development of an experiential base, with a minimum of risk.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the scalability of the
name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs?
See answer to question 10. However, it should also be mentioned that gTLDs, as currently
used, represent a naming scheme much flatter than real-world identifiers. Therefore, in the longer
term, it will probably be necessary to require addition of hundreds of gTLDs to provide a
sufficiently rich name space as Internet exponential growth continues.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country code
domains?
Yes, they are separable. iPOC believes that, in the long run, the stability of the Internet
requires a unified management structure that will oversee the address space as well as the gTLD
and ISO country code domains. This does not mean, however, that the ISO country code domains
should be part of the registrar system established for gTLDs or that such domains should be
organized in the same way as the gTLD domains. Each country should be free to develop its own
policies in this area. iPOC is sympathetic to the position that intellectual property issues require
consistent and uniformly applicable rules for both gTLD and ISO domains because of the global
nature of the Internet.
iPOC has answered questions 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19
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?
iPOC proposes, in the gTLD-MoU, that all registrars share control over all seven new
gTLDs and believes that, as a general principle, all registries should be shared. However, iPOC
also believes that there may be room for some gTLDs (for example, a gTLD to be used
exclusively by a governmental or non-governmental organization) which should be controlled
exclusively by a single registrar under rules set by the body controlling the domains.
There are no technical limitations on its proposal for sharing and the computer technology
required to achieve sharing is extremely stable and well understood
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and what
responsibilities
should such registrars have? Who will determine these and how?
In the interests of fostering competition and encouraging lesser developed nations to have
registrars, iPOC has set what it considers to be minimum financial and technical requirements for
new registrars that are consistent with maintaining the stability of the Internet. The gTLD-MoU
establishes a system of governance - a Policy Oversight Committee, a Policy Advisory Board and
a Council of Registrars - that will share responsibility for the functioning of the system.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name registrars?
iPOC does not foresee any technical limitations to the number of registrars having access
to shared data bases, and has not, therefore, set any limit on the number of registrars that may
apply under the gTLD-MoU. Nevertheless, a specific effort is contemplated in the design of the
shared databases to assure that no such technical limitations may appear.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space raised by
increasing
the number of domain name registrars?
iPOC believes that increased competition among registrars will guarantee better service
and lower prices for registrants. In particular, iPOC believes that the consumer is served best by
having registrars compete solely on the basis of service and price, rather than on artificial control
over a specific portion of the name space. In addition to better service and price, shared
registration permits a single point of contact for registration activities, since a single registrar can
handle requests for any gTLD. With exclusive control, it is necessary to go to different registrars
for different gTLDs. As stated in answer to question 17, iPOC sees no technical issues at this
time.
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?
See answer to question 15 above.
iPOC has answered questions 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and
28 21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks, common law trademarks, geographic
indications, etc.), if any, should be protected on the Internet vis-à-vis domain names?
iPOC concluded at an early stage in its deliberations that it should do everything possible
to insulate the domain name registration system from trademark conflicts, and that registrars
should not have to make decisions on what trademark rights should or should not be protected.
iPOC further concluded that it would be impossible to construct a domain name system that is
free of trademark conflicts, unless a system were adopted that makes all domain names
meaningless strings of letters and numbers. There appears to be no significant support for having
meaningless strings aside from a few proponents who do not take account of the practical and
historical support for a mnemonic based system. The gTLD-MoU program leaves questions of
trademark rights to be resolved either by the courts or by alternative dispute resolution
procedures (as described below in answer to question 24). The policy, as set forth in the
gTLD-MoU, is as follows:
"a policy shall be implemented that a second-level domain name in any of the CORE-gTLDs
which is identical or closely similar to an alphanumeric string that, for the purposes of this
policy, is deemed to be internationally known, and for which demonstrable intellectual
property rights exist, may be held or used only by, or with the authorization of, the owner
of such demonstrable intellectual property rights. Appropriate consideration shall be given
to possible use of such a second-level domain name by a third party that, for the purposes of
this policy, is deemed to have sufficient rights."
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?
iPOC believes that a requirement of preliminary review of applications for domain name
registrations would put an impossible burden on the registrars and would ultimately cause the
system to break down. The possible benefit from preliminary review would only be to protect a
name applicant from investing in a name that will be challenged, but there is currently no
assurance that any such benefit would accrue to the applicant. A mandatory review period would
inconvenience all applicants, most of whom would derive no benefit. A voluntary review period
affords to those who might benefit from the process the opportunity to balance the inconvenience
against the uncertain chance of benefit.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark rights be protected on
the
Internet vis-à-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 gTLD-MoU proposes a novel plan to insulate registrars from trademark disputes by
providing an expeditious and cost-effective alternative procedure for resolving trademark
disputes. iPOC recognizes that it cannot and should not attempt to supplant the authority of
national courts. Using the established alternative dispute resolution procedures of WIPO, the
gTLD-MoU also proposes the establishment of Administrative Challenge Panels which will be
able to resolve many disputes without recourse to litigation. These procedures are fully described
in the Substantive Guidelines concerning Administrative Domain Name Challenge Panels
published on the gTLD-MoU web site<http://www.gtld-mou.org>.
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?
iPOC strongly supports full public access to the domain name registration databases for
the purpose of limiting and reducing potential trademark conflicts. The proposed Memorandum of
Understanding for the Council of Registrars (also available at the gTLD-MoU website) specifies
that all registration databases must at all times make available all significant information needed
for trademark searching.
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?
iPOC has proposed that each applicant for second level domain names be required to
furnish certain information about the applicant's purpose and reasons for requesting the name.
iPOC believes that this information will be useful in combating trademark piracy and
"cyber-squatting". The information will not be evaluated by the registrars but will be available if
there is a
dispute regarding the assignment of the name.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars affect the number
and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
iPOC does not believe that increasing the number of gLTDs and the number of registrars
will, in the long run, have any effect on the number or cost of resolving trademark disputes.
However, with a sufficiently large number of gTLDs, there is the possibility that trademark
disputes could be reduced through the availability of enough categorization that conflicts over
SLDs could be minimized.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain name, are there
any
technological solutions?
Various proposals have been made, including one in the Final Report of the International
Ad Hoc Committee ("IAHC"), the predecessor of iPOC, for separate domain name registries for
trademarks which would allow various owners of e.g. "ACME" to register in specific classes or
with numerical designations to differentiate the owners. None of these proposals has received
wide support, but the proposals of iPOC provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate such a
solution if the demand arises.
Respectfully submitted,
gTLD-MoU interim Policy Oversight Committee
by David W. Maher, Chair
###
Number: 343
From: Ellen Rony <erony@marin.k12.ca.us>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 12:28am
Subject: NOI - Registration & Administration of Domain
Names
Herewith, in the attached Microsoft Word 5.1 document--NOIrony.DOC--is my
submission for the U.S. Department of Commerce Inquiry into the
Registration and Administration of Domain Names.
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and
InformationAdministration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket
No.970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
ELLEN RONY
21 Juno Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
Director, Alexander Works
erony@marin.k12.ca.us
17 August 1997
Ellen Rony respectfullysubmits comments in this proceeding. I am
a16-year veteran of the computer industry. I have been following
domain name issues since January 1996 as co-author (withDr. Peter
Rony) of a forthcoming book called The DomainName Handbook: High
Stakes and Strategies in Cyberspace, to be published by R& D Books,
an imprint of Miller-Freeman Publishing.
I am pleased that the Department ofCommerce is proactively soliciting
comment from the public. We urgentlyneed a responsible system of
governance that is truly representative andaccountable to replace
NSI's monopoly franchise that will end on March 30, 1988.
A. Appropriate Principles a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name
registration systemshould be encouraged. Conflicting
domains, systems, and registries shouldnot be permitted to
jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet, however.The
addressing scheme should not prevent any user from
connecting to any other site.
tx6842a. First we shape our structures, and afterwards they shape us.
--Winston Churchill
While members of the Internet communitycannot seem to agree upon a
framework for the Internet administration andallocation of
international namespace, it is clear that few wish to
havefragmentation within that realm.The current monopoly
administration of five top level domains hasencouraged the
development of experimental root server confederations.Errant
registries that are not universally resolvable and potentialconflicts
in TLD namespacedo not favor the smooth interoperation of the
Internet.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: A competitiveregistration system with
universally shared root zone files shouldalleviate the pressure to
create parallel TLD systems.
b. The private sector, with input from governments, should
develop stable,consensus-based self-governing mechanisms for
domain name registration andmanagement that adequately
defines responsibilities and maintainsaccountability.
b.The Internet will become a critical infrastructure on which most
ofsociety's communication and commerce flow. Already it has infused
everyaspect of our society. As commercialization on the World Wide
Webproliferates, collisions between competing financial, legal and
operational interests are mounting. The stakes in this new,emerging
technology are very high, especially for electronic commerce.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: It doesn't seemprudent to rely on "consensus"
for domain name administration andaccountability. There needs to be
a system of checks and balances, andcertainly of accountability, to
minimize the opportunity for abuse of control.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Internet namespaceseems most akin to
bandwidth; the government should examine the model usedby the FCC.
c. Theseself-governance mechanisms should recognize the
inherently global nature ofthe Internet and be able to
evolve as necessary over time.
c. Broad consensus may bedifficult to achieve.
As the dimensions of the tree arenot always regulated by the
size of the seed, so the consequences of thingsare not always
proportionate to the appaent magnitude of those events thathave
produced them.
-- Charles CalebColton (1780-1832)
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: The organizationsundertaking the
administration of the Internet namespace need to be heldaccountable
in some way. I see no reason not to promulgate some
guidingprinciples that areresponsible, representative, accountable
and equitable.
d. The overallframework for accommodating competition should
be open, robust, efficient,and fair.
d.It is very distressing to read NSI's attempts to "brand .COM and
assertionof ownership over the.COM database. In its IPO filing with
the SEC (July3, 1997), NSI states, "The Company [NSI] has compiled a
database ofinformation relating to customers in its registration
business. While a portion of this database is available tothe public,
the Company believes that it has ownership rights in thisdatabase and
is seeking to protect such rights."
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: NSI should not beallowed to continue its
monopoly franchise over the valuable .COM TLD.(andthe other TLDs)
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Operational andadministrative arrangements
need to begin to establish multiple competitorsto register domain
names in the same TLD.
e. The overallpolicy framework as well as name allocation
and management mechanismsshould promote prompt, fair, and
efficient resolution of conflicts,including conflicts over
proprietary rights.
e. The question remains, howto resolve disputes between different
countries where both opponents have aright under their respective
laws to claim use of an identical name incommerce.Only a first-come,
first served system will work, but there must be somejustification
required in the number of domains an individual, organizationor
company can legitimately claim.
f. A frameworkshould be adopted as quickly as prudent
consideration of these issuespermits.
f. Based on the growthrate of the past two years, the Inspector
General says name registrations"will reacha plateau in mid-1999 of
approximately 4 million, generating annualrevenue from registration
fees of approximately $200 million." (posted
athttp://zeus.bna.com/e-law/docs/nsfnsi.html#FNREF82001.)
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Any framework thatis adopted must be scalable
to a continuing and enormous influx of newparticipants. A many-layered approach, where
responsibility is obfiscatedand registration
fees are duplicated should be avoided.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: It has to assurethat those who were born too
late, who are developing new businesses as wedebate these issues are
not in some way locked out of participation invirtual commerce.
B.General/Organizational Framework
Issues
1. What are theadvantages and disadvantages of current
domain name registration systems?
"Locus abauctoritate est infirmissimus." (The argument from
authority is theweakest.)
-- ThomasAquinas
1.The number of registrations--exceeding 1 million--attests to the
ease withwhich the process may be completed. This is a plus. On the
other hand, themonopoly administration over registration of 5
international TLDs hassubjected Internet users to self-serving
policies and misguided attempts to graft trademark assumptions onto
anew communication medium. Unilateral promulgation and
retroactiveapplication of domain dispute policies have had a material
adverse affecton the Internet community.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: The fact thatanyone can register many domains
specifically for resale at substantiallyinflated fees is, in my
belief, contrary to the open spirit of the Internet community.
Procedures should be put in place to haltthis destructive practice.
2. How mightcurrent domain name systems be improved?
2. The current approach,funneling 88% of all domain registrants
through .COM, is clearlyunsustainable
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: If 30 to 50 millionpeople are using the DNS in
the manner of a directory, then efforts shouldbe made to facilitate
this use. A WHOIS lookup that takes one directly to the relevant home
page would bea useful tool. Also useful would be standardization
among search engineprotocols, so that an average user can remember
how to make a well- definedsearch.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Name reservationsshould be prohibited.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: I have noobjections to the registration fee
and believe that it should be payable assoon as the registry verifies
that the desired name is available.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: The practice bywhich domain hoarders will hold
names up to 90 days without payment andthen reregister them as an
expiration date approaches should not beallowed.
3. By what entity,entities, or types of entities should
current domain name systems beadministered? What should the
makeup of such an entity be?
If voluntaryguidelines worked, Moses would have come down from
Mount Sinai with the Ten Guidelines.
-- Robert Orben,
3. SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Administrationof the US domain should be
shared among a small group of registrars. Thereshould be ethical
principles in common amongall the registries.
4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as
models fordeciding on domain name registration systems
(e.g., network numbering plan,standard-setting processes,
spectrum allocation)? Are there private/publicsector
administered models or regimes that can be used for domain
name registration (e.g., networknumbering plan, standard
setting processes, or spectrum allocationprocesses)? What is
the proper role of national or
internationalgovernmental/non-governmental organizations, if
any, in national and international domain name registration
systems?
4. SUGGESTED ACTIONITEM: As these issues have global
implications, I
think that it would beappropriate to develop an international
roundtable of representatives fromthe existing registries todiscuss
transnational issues. Three-letter TLDs are presumed to
beinternational, but the international perspective of commercial,
legal andtechnical issues at stake have not been fully
represented.The international community has been working since the
Paris Convention of1883 to develop standards for registration and
protection of intellectualproperty, so, unfortunately, I do not
expect we will see similarcoordination in the realm of cyberspace any
time soon.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: All domain registrations should be country
specific.Individual countries will have their own rules and policies
regarding disputes, but each registry should issue domain names only
to thosewho meet residency requirements or provide a business license
to operatewithin the country.
5. Should generictop 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
.comregistry? Are gTLD management issues separable from
questions aboutInternational Standards Organization (ISO)
country code domains?
5. Defending theinternational .COM, .ORG, and .NET domains is a
losing proposition.Law is based on geopolitical boundaries. Every
corporation, business orindividual, has a country of origin, a
headquarters, or a domicile. Thecurrentborderless approach to TLDs
makes every domain holder potentially liable tothe statutes and
regulations of every state, country, principality andkingdom, even
when they conflict and contradict.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: The current"international" TLDs should
scrapped in favor of national TLDs.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: The mapping of .COM to .COM.US (or .COM.xx
forcompanies resident in other countries) would significantly
alleviate thepressure and thorny issues we can expect regarding
registration ofcompeting international trademarks as domain names.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Better identifiers are needed to help
consumersidentify the source of goods or services, but I advocate a
differentapproach. Currently, the .US TLD requires a geographic
specificity thatmakes it unwieldy and unpopular. Instead,I recommend
appending .US to the current "international"three-letter TLDs, as
other countries do. This should at least alleviatethe potential for
disputes between two entities in different countries,each with a
legitimate claim to the same name. Although the largermultinational
companies want to enjoy thebenefits of an international TLD, in the
high velocity world of electroniccommerce, it is doubtful that
appending .US to a name would hurt a businessevent a whit.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: .COM, the target ofmost disputes, should be
subdivided. The biggest source of litigation isbetween those with
trademark registrations and domain registrants without.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Those with registered trademarks should get
portedto a TLD that is based on the 42 international classes of goods
andservices, simply called TM, preceded by the class number in which
thetrademark is registered, xxTM.
Class 15, for example, includes "Musicalinstruments (other than
talking machines and wireless apparatus."NAME.15TM.US would tell a
web user a lot more about what would be at that address than what we
have now, NAME.COM. It would befar easier to familiarize the public
with 42 classes of goods and servicesthan have us plow through 200
similar monikers, as is now the case. Thisalso would free up some
namespace for companies in a non-competing business identical names
used indifferent market channels.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: There also must be a repository for those who
haveaccrued common law rights to a name. Perhaps COM.US, would be
reservedfor those who had accrued common law rights to a name which
are notcurrently acknowledged by NSI's present domain dispute policy.
6. Are there anytechnological solutions to current domain
name registration issues? Arethere any issues concerning the
relationship of registrars and gTLDs
6. A conclusion is justsimply the place where someone decided to
stop thinking.
-- Marsala
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Currently, one ofthe requirements of domain
name registration is that the name be activatedwithin 90 days. This
provision should be enforced.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: The bright minds of the Internet community
shoulddevelop an autoresponder to PING a web site a month after
registration. Ifthere is no response, it should automatically PING
again a month later. Atthe end of the third month, perhaps a PING
should be made about four times in a 24-hour period on the lastday.
If there is no response, the name should revert to the availablepool.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: An online directoryis desperately needed to
help Internet users differentiateamong the many confusingly similar
names. The model provided by DISC.COMis a step in the right
direction. An intermediate home page lists two verydifferent
businesses using the identical DISC moniker. A user merelyclicks on
the desired one. Search engines return too much extraneous
information to help a person quicklydiscern from among 20 similarly
named domains which one is the source ofthe particular goods or
services being sought. A lookup databaseintegrated with the WHOIS
records, that takes a user directly to a particular web site, might
provide anefficient solution.
7. How can weensure the scalability of the domain name
system name and address spaces aswell as ensure that root
servers continue to interoperate and coordinate?
7. Certaintygenerally is illusion and repose is not the destiny of
man.
--U. S. Supreme CourtJustice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
(1841-1935)
8. How should thetransition to any new systems be
accomplished?
Change is not madewithout inconvenience, even from worse to
better.
--Samuel Johnson (1709 -1784)
8.SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: The brilliant technical minds not occupied
with theYear 2000 problem perhaps could create a mapping program that
would switch.COM to .COM.US or even to .15TM.US transparently. I t
would be theelectronic equivalent of call forwarding -- domain
forwarding -- over the course of a six month period. It wouldstart
on the assumption that all .COM domains originate in the .US and
secondarily transition out the smaller group of domains that are
headquarteredelsewhere.
I do notbelieve that a transition from an international TLD to one
that is country-based will extract a huge "social cost". Next month,
the San FranciscoPeninsula will change over from the 415 area code to
650 to accommodategrowth in this state. The change affects 2.5
million numbers. A newprefix means new stationary, new business
cards, reprogrammed cell phones, fax machinesand modems for business.
There doesn't appear to be any hue and cry aboutthe social cost of
this changeover, and new area codes are popping up allover the
country as the existing reserve of numbers runs out. It should be
easier to update URLs on line thanto change a phone number with all
its ripple effects. Some websites arehuge, but now there are HTML
generators that can perform global search andreplace.
C. Creation of NewgTLDs
10. Are theretechnical, practical, and/or policy
considerations that constrain the totalnumber of different
gTLDs that can be created?
10. Neither lawyers norgovernments can make ten pounds of names fit
into a one-pound bag.
-- John Gilmore, ElectronicFrontier Foundation
The name shortage is fueled by a speculative fever and a misguided
policythat allows anyone with access to the InterNIC registration
forms andperhaps an acronym generator to grab as many domain names as
they want. IfgTLDs are opened to public registration, we will just
ratchet the speculative, fever up to a higher level.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Halt the gTLDmovement immediately. It is
unnecessary to create new international TLDs,and such activities will
create a Pandora's Box of cross-borderproblems.
11. Shouldadditional gTLDs be created?
Businesses, organizations, andindividuals should absolutely not have
the right to name and "own" anyTLDs. A TLD should be seen as a
public resource and not as individualproperty.
11. SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: I believe weonly need one new gTLD, which
I shall call.NDX. This would be the beginnings of a global lookup,
akin to the WHOISdirectory, that would take people directly to the
domain name of choice.When a domain name is registered, a copy of the
the record couldautomatically be included in the NDX directory.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: New TLDs that are not country -based will only
exacerbate the "root" of the problems alreadymanifested in .COM. All
TLDs should be based on the ISO 3166 country codesexcept for .INT and
.ARPA, which should be grandfathered in., along withthe new one, NDX.
12. Are theretechnical, business, and/or policy issues about
guaranteeing thescalability of the name space associated
with increasing the number ofgTLDs?
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Thename protocols should drop down one level
across the board, with anexpansion of the SLD regime.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: New SLDs shouldinclude the major areas of
concern to human society, such as (in noparticular order):finance,
politics, sex, religion, commerce/no trademark,
commerce/withtrademark, non-profit organizations, individuals
(personal), media, arts,education, government, health, and military:
FIN, POL, SEX, REL, COM,xxTM, NPO, IND, MED, ARS, EDU, GOV, HEA, and
MIL.
The advantage to these SLDs is tht theywill help Internet users
better identify the particular domain holder. Myemail address is
long by average standards, but it lets people know: 1) who I am;2)
where I am located; and 3) generically, what I do. I think
itaccomplishes a lot in just 21 characters: erony@marin.k12.ca.us.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Expansion of theSLDs followed by the country
code would be the appropriate way to handlethe massive numbers of
domain applications arriving daily.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Conflicts would bereduced if all the non-commercial entites
that are now funneled under COM could be more
appropriately categorizied. Individual web sites that
areinformational, not commercial, certainly don't belong there.
Neither do theNPOs who gravitate to .COM because their desired .ORG
name is taken. Thiswould also help the consumer, who is hit with a
staggering assortment of very similar names.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Let the registrantchoose which category best
applies to the specific business/organization..A company wanting to
caste a net over more than one TLD would have toprovide a very good
reason for doing so. That does not preclude a company with anon-profit foundation from
registering in NPO, as well.
The focus should be more on how the DNS isactually used, not on ways
to avoid pigeon-holing businesses. Because ofthe latter perspective,
we now have a glut of registered but inoperative domains, ascompanies
busily scoop up every trademark, brand, division, committee,slogan,
variation, and plural they can think of associated with
theircommercial operation.
Recently, I tried to figure out which of 25 domain variations of the
WarnerBrothers name would take me to its web site. Such confusion
is anoutgrowth of companies fears that they will lose control over
their name incyberspace. But the end result isa bewildering array of
choices that more likely to encourage a Internetuser to look
elsewhere.
13. Are gTLDmanagement issues separable from questions about
ISO country code domains?
13. If the US does nothingand new gTLDs appear, what is to stop
other countries from issuingadditional TLD? Is this direction truly
going to serve the globalcommunity in the succeeding decades?
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: This question ismoot if the only gTLDs
involving the US are .US, .INT, .ARPA and .NDX.
14. Are there anyother issues that should be addressed in
this area?
D. Policies forRegistries
15. Should a gTLDregistrar have exclusive control over
aparticular gTLD? Are there any technical limitations on
using sharedregistries for some or all gTLDs? Can exclusive
and non-exclusive gTLDscoexist?
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Since this is a global medium, efforts should
bedirected toward harmonization and integration of registration
policies. Theestablishment of exclusive registries would move
Internet administrationfurther away from this important goal. Most
assuredly, NSI should not be allowed tocontinue its monopoly control
over .COM and the other "international"TLDs.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: An exclusiveregistry for .INT, .ARPA and .NDX
would be acceptable.
16. Should there bethreshold requirements for domain name
registrars, and whatresponsibilities should such registrars
have? Who will determine these andhow?
16. SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: NSIshould be required to immediately open
an escrow account for all pro ratamonies on registrations that extend
beyond September 1988. Domain registrants should be allowed to chose
among a variety of registrarsall servicing the same .US TLD. Those
who select another registrar shouldincur NO financial penalties and
should be allowed continuous use of the domain name as it transfers
under a differentadministration.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: There absolutelyshould be threshold
requirements. Those who register a name for Internetuse have much at
risk when they begin to develop content on a web site andemail
contacts under the name. it is in the public interest to assure
continuity and consistency ofservice.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Again, I wouldsuggest that the model of
allocating bandwidth and call letters to radiostations be explored to
see ways it can be applied to the virtualrealm.
17. Are theretechnical limitations on the possible number of
domain name registrars?
17. I have read that there arenot technical limitations, but there
certainly are practical ones.Citizens of modern society are already
overwhelmed by a plethora ofchoices. Although I believe that the
registry operations should be shared, too manyregistrars would slow
down or complicate the process.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Multiple registrars will need equal access to
adynamically updated, shared database to assure that identical domain
namesare not granted in separate locations simultaneously (the
airline ticketdatabase comes to mind).
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: It is essential notto permit monopoly control
over any gTLD.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: I believe it would serve the public interest
tohave, perhaps, a dozen geographically distributed registrars. The
numberwould assure competition without make the choice burdensome
upon theaverage netizen.
18. Are theretechnical, business and/or policy issues about
the name space raised byincreasing the number of domain name
registrars?
18. While those at thetechnical end want a piece of this lucrative
pie, perhaps 95% of the domainname holders have minimal interaction
with this part of the process. Theysimply want to establish a name
and get on with their business without interference. Currently there
areabout 180 registries worldwide, but they operate with different
levels ofexpertise and different policy requirements. Since the
Internet is a global medium with every website potentiallyaccessible
to anyone with a ISP connection, I don't think a business shouldfind
it necessary to register domain names in multiple countries and
inmultiple TLDs.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: TI think that nouseful purpose is served by
establishing a plethora of registrars. Thegreater the number, the
greater the likelihood of discord and confusion. .
19. Should there bea limit on the number of different gTLDs
a given registrar can administer?Does this depend on whether
the registrar has exclusive or non-exclusiverights to the
gTLD?
19. This NOI earlieraddressed the issue of whether a registrar
should have exclusive rights toa gTLD.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Since I feel that the domain name system
should be country-based, I can only addressthe .US TLD, which should
be shared by various registries. (Perhaps INT,ARPA and .NDX fall
into a different class and would be administered by asingle
registry.)
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: If the gTLDs areall country-based, then this
questions is perhaps moot. The US cannotdetermine for other
countries how they should handle their registries. Ifa minimal
number ofadditional gTLDs are established, there should not be a
limit on the numberthat a given registrar can administer.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: There should be a limit on the number of
multiple SLDs that are availableunder which individuals and
organizations can register domain names. Forexample NAME.NPO.US or
NAME.12TM.US are two different SLDs.
E. TrademarkIssues
21. What trademarkrights (e.g., registered trademarks,
common law trademarks, geographicindications, etc.), if any,
should be protected on the Internet vis-a-visdomain names?
21. If the was a magicway for us to take care of trademarks, we
would. But the trademark issue is just a mess.
-- Jon Postel
By removing the costs of distribution andthe barriers of time and
distance, the Internet is changing the rules ofcommerce and the
structure of our social order.There are ways people use domain names
other than expressing trademarks.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: The attempt tograft trademark ownership onto
domain registration is unsustainable. Suchefforts should cease.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: NSI hasestablished itself as an arbiter of
legal rights in a misguided attempt toobtain a balanced position
between the competing demands of trademarkowners and domain name
registrants.While NSI's dispute policy may quell some legitimate
concerns of trademarkowners (e.g., infringing use, extortion and
dilution of a mark), it placesthe registration authority in a
judicial role.Forcing the suspension of a domain name because a
registered trademarkholder asserts a baseless infringement claim is
in contradiction toestablished trademark law. Such arbiter efforts
should ceaseimmediately.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Trademarks used onthe Internet should be
protected by the body of trademark law as regardsinfringement and
dilution. The mere registration of a domain name, WITHOUTMORE,
should not be held by either NSI or the courts as justification
forpreliminary relief under a claim of jtrademark infringement.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Personal domains, for example, or names that
are sodescriptive that they aren't eligible for a trademark, or names
that havenot yet achieved secondary meaning. All of these may be
perfectlylegitimate domain names even though they are identical to a
company trademark.
22. Should some process of preliminary review of an
application for registration of a domain namebe required,
before allocation, to determine if it conflicts with
atrademark, a trade name, a geographic indication, etc.? If
so, whatstandards 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?
22. The problem now is thatso many businesses are moving operations
onto the web and just about every name willfind some kind ofconflict
with another. Theonly appropriate standards according to trademark
law are in the realm ofactual confusion as to the source of goods and
services. That means therehas to be content on the web site which
would be the source of confusionor, in the case of a famous mark,of
dilution. A domain name alone is not enough.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: A preliminaryreview is unappropriate, except
by the applicant. Any names that areunavailable because of federal
law should be posted, along with a link to the applicable statute
(e.g. "Olympic","NASA").
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: An online trademarkdatabase would certainly
help registrants be aware of trademark pitfallswaiting in the wings
for a particular name.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should
trademark rights beprotected on the Internet vis-a-vis
domain names? What entity(ies), if any,should resolve
disputes? Are national courts the only appropriate forum
forsuch disputes? Specifically, is there a role for
national/international
governmental/nongovernmentalorganizations?
23. Our system ofjurisprudence is designed to accommodate
conflicting claims, defineproperty rights, establish rules to guide
conduct and, of course, to resolve disputes.Cross-border disputes are
tricky because different countries applydifferent restrictions, rules
and limitations to the registrations.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Thetrademark-cum-domain issues would find
huge relief if, to the USC ISIgeographical hierarchy, we would add
the following:
.COM.US, .ORG.US , .NET.US, .EDU.US,.GOV.US, .MIL.US and so
forth.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: U.S. organizationswould be required to
register for the .US domain. Corporations in theinternational
marketplace would register according to the country whereintheir
headquarters are located.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM:An independenttribunal should be established by
the WIPO to adjudicate internationaldisputes.
The focus of most of the domain friction is upon whether a domain
name,this new identifier-hybrid, is property of just an address. A
domain namehas been likened to an alias, address, brand, directory,
handle, trademark,telephone number, and even a cow.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: It seems time forthe USPTO to recognize a new
category of intellectual property: domainnames.As distinct from
patents, trademarks and copyright as those other forms ofintellectual
property are from each other.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: An individual should not be required to
trademarkhis or her surname to protect a similarly named domain from
a trademarkinfringement claim (see TY.COM v. Ty, Inc.).
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: A company with earlier common law rights in a
nameshould not have to yield the coveted domain name to a registered
trademarkowner.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Wouldn't "unbundling" COM into somesociety-recognized
categories as SLDs relieve the congestion and,
mostimportant, help out the average Internet user?
24. How canconflicts 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?
24.This question treads into murky territory. Only 51 nations have
ratifiedthe Nice Agreement as of January 1, 1997. Other countries
apply differentclassification standards to their trademarks. And
country-to-country, therequirements for granting a trademark differ,
as well.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Internet use is evolving at a blistering pace.
Atrademark alone should give no automatic right to the name as an
Internet address or to the appropriation of the name from another
party to whom it isalready registered. Nor should a domain name
confer trademark rights in the name. Rightnow, anyone who is a
domain holder but does not possess a registeredtrademark for the name
is vulnerable to a challenge FROM ANYWHERE ON THEPLANET.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: There absolutely needs a directory of
registeredtrademarks accessible to the public without the need to
hire a trademarkattorney and spend $$$$$$ simply to register a domain
name.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Domain registrants deserve the opportunity to
feelsecure that their time and investment in developing a web site is
not atcontinual risk merely because they chose not to trademark a
name.Expensive and protracted litigation to lodge a response to a
name challenge imposes a significant burden upon alegitimate domain
registrant and can devastate an on-line business.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Assuming thecontent at a site is not of an
infringing or diluting nature, a registrant should have
publiclyavailable the resources (e.g. trademark directory, WHOIS of
registrants)that can provide peace of mind in this regard.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: A [erson who uses his or her given name as a
domainshould be exempt from competition with a registered trademark,
at leastbased on who is the senior user of the contested name.
25. Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate
that they havea basis for requesting a particular domain
name? If so, what informationshould be supplied? Who should
evaluate the information? On the basis ofwhat criteria?
25. SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Aregistrant seeking more than one domain
name should provide some evidenceof a legitimate need for each name
that is desired.
Acceptable evidence could be defined quitebroadly. A separate company
division, brand, product line, or geographicalregion would all be
acceptable, if undesirable, reasons for assertingrights to another
domain name.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Not acceptable would be those who wish to hold
aname for resale. Thus, a business name such as "For Sale by
Owmer.,""Domains for Sale" or my personal favorite, "If You Want
This Domain,Please Contact Me," would not be allowed.Some may argue
that an after market is a legitimate industry. I think itis just an
unproductive offshoot that exacerbates the frustrations of
manymembers of the Internet community.
26. How would thenumber of different gTLDs and the number of
registrars affect the numberand cost of resolving trademark
disputes?
26.If new gTLDs are established, many businesses will feel obligated
toregister their trademarked name in every one that they can, by any
stretchof the imagination, qualify for. This activity, already
evidenced in .COM,seems to be driven by some sort offear that if the
trademark owner doesn't throw a safety net around thename, another
user will not only claim it, but will impose infringing usesupon it.
A directory that facilitates user lookup would minimize the
opportunityfor confusion based solely on the domain name.
27. Where thereare valid, but conflicting trademark rights
for a single domain name, arethere any technological
solutions? How would the number of different gTLDs and the
number of registrars affectthe number and cost of resolving
trademark disputes?
I don't know how trademarkscan be "conflicting" when they are issued
for different classes of goodsand services. To have "valid, but
conflicting trademark rights," wouldmean that two registered
trademark owners of an identical mark would feel they were each
entitled to a particular domain name.That doesn't seem the proper
interpretation of trademark rights unless itis determined that domain
names = trademarks. They don't. Trademarkrights include the right
to protection against unauthorized use whichcauses confusion by
consumers as to the source of goods or services, or, in the case of
famous marks, protectionagainst a "whittling away" of the value of
the mark. The same trademarkapplied to different classes of goods
will not have a "conflicting" use.Many individual domain holders with
a legitimate nexus to a name havefought battles to keep Network
Solution Inc.'s hands off the domain while atrademark challenge was
pending.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: One field of thedomain application could be
for a date of first use of the domain name name(without the .COM.US
suffix) in commerce. For many registrants, that firstuse might
likely be the day the web site is activated. This would, at least,
put others on noticeof priority rights in a name but would not assure
priority rights in adomain name.
28. Are there anyother issues that should be addressed in
this area?
28. Yes.
SUGGESTED ACTION ITEM: Take decisive action immediately, before the
March 31, 1998cutoff of the Cooperative Agreement National
ScenceFoundation and Network Solutions, Inc. The U.S. government
(NSF) hasallowed this mess to build, now it should resolve it without
further delay.The online community wants to know that the transition
from a monopolyfranchise to a shared database with competitive
registries will occur ina timely and orderly manner. Theworst result
would be that confusion would reign and by default, thecurrent
registrar would be able to continue its flawed control over thefive
TLDs.
[END]
###
Number: 344
From: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 1:05pm
Subject: NOI RESPONSE - Docket number 970613137-7137-01
Please find enclosed our NOI response in Microsoft Word format.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| NEW! K56Flex modem support is now available
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| 56kbps DIGITAL ISDN DOV on analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("karl@mcs.net")
To: Department of Commerce, NTIA REQUEST
Docket number 970613137-7137-01
Regarding: DNS Governance Issues
From: Karl Denninger, President
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.
Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 2625
Chicago, IL 60601
312-803-6271 x219 (Voice)
312-803-4929 (Fax)
karl@mcs.net (email)
Gentlemen,
Please enter the following commentary as an official response from our organization to the
above-referenced
document and comment request. We look forward to a constructive dialogue, with the Federal
Government's
appropriate intervention and oversight, in resolving the significant policy questions which have
arising in the
management of the top-level domain namespace.
Sincerely,
Karl S. Denninger
President
Background
Karl Denninger, MCSNet's President, has been actively involved in the electronic and online
world for nearly 15
years. Author of the first electronic networked conferencing system, AKCS, in 1981, Mr.
Denninger has been at
the forefront of electronic commerce and online issues during his entire professional career. Mr.
Denninger
currently owns a majority interest in Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., a privately-held Internet
Service Provider
based in Chicago with a service area encompassing northeast Illinois and southeast Wisconsin.
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. (dba MCSNet) is one of the Chicago area's largest Internet
Service Providers.
MCSNet spearheaded the formation of eDNS, and alternative top-level domain name
registry system which was
originally constituted in March of 1997 and reorganized in May of 1997.
The eDNS system is predicated on the basic principle of "first come, first served",
recognizes the right to develop,
market, and own brand names in cyberspace just as in the "old fashioned" paper world. The eDNS
system also
recognizes that both government and industry have a legitimate interest in protecting competition
and preventing
the development of monopoly forces in the registration of domain names for the purpose of
protecting consumers
and promoting diversity.
As a consequence of this focus and background, our comments will necessarily be directed
towards the purpose of
protecting these principles and ensuring that open, competitive markets are able to form and
flourish.
Current Situational Facts
Today we have what amounts to a monopoly in domain registrations within the "gTLD"
arena. This name, given
by the IAHC and IANA, is actually a misnomer. All TLDs are necessarily at the same
level in the "authority" tree,
even though the IANA and IAHC would like to pretend otherwise. Different TLDs have different
policies and
procedures for both registration and operational criteria, including requirements on location of the
organization,
fees, dispute resolution, and possibly line-of-business or even affiliation requirements. For
example, .MIL is
limited to organs of the US Department of Defense. .GOV is limited to organs of the United
States Federal
Government. .ARPA is, in fact, the most special-case it is limited to the definition of
reverse-mapping records
for the resolution of host names from ip numbers.
It is misleading and in fact fraudulent to suggest that we can "categorize" TLDs into some
kind of artificial set of
groups. In fact, the assignment of ISO country codes (whether ISO2 or ISO3) as TLDs is in fact
a distinction
which is based on nothing more than historical precedent just as is .GOV, .MIL, and
.ARPA.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) originally designated certain registries to operate
different TLD zones,
based on either national sovereignty or administrative convenience. NSI, along with AT&T
and General Atomics,
were given a grant to operate .MIL, .GOV, .COM, .NET, .ORG and .EDU several years ago.
While there were
several complaints about the speed of processing and general performance over the years, no
severe controversy
arose until September 1995 when NSI unilaterally changed the terms of not only new
registrations, but renewals of
existing domains through the imposition of user fees.
There were and remain several serious complaints related to these changes. Some of the most
pressing were:
1) This change was undertaken without any comment period for the community.
1) The change was made retroactively, and amounted to a unilaterial
modification of an agreement (some
would even say "contract") by one party.
1) The change included a modification of the dispute resolution policy (which was
previously
"take it to a
judge"). In many cases this was far more significant than the demand for monies.
The community responded with a number of requests and suggestions, all of which were
ignored. The most
obvious fix for a firm taking such action would be competition but the IANA refused to
issue additional TLDs
and allow firms to attempt to develop those brands under its auspices.
The result was the birth of a new industry, the alternative DNS registry.
Since that time, the IANA has effectively boycotted these alternative registries. Further, a
non-profit organization,
ISC.ORG, delivers the DNS software, called "BIND", with a pre-loaded file which contains
only the IANA/NSI
root nameservers. No mention is even made of the alternative possibilities for this file, nor where
to find them,
when a user downloads and installs this software.
In addition, computer manufacturers and other software vendors package this software with
their operating
systems, including the cache file. The consequence of this is a restraint of trade, as in
many if not all cases
network operators are completely unaware that choices even exist. As a result, the monopoly
control over the TLD
namespace is perpetuated.
MCSNet and eDNS feel that this situation must be addressed.
Response to NOI Questions
A. Appropriate principles
MCSNet and eDNS feel that the principles espoused in this section, if implemented fairly and
appropriately, will
encourage competition and permit the entry of free competitive forces into the DNS registry
marketplace. So long
as principle (A.1) is not permitted to result in de-facto restraint of trade due to false technical
constraints which
have been claimed (but in fact are not real) the guiding principles set forth are appropriate.
A. General/Organization Framework Issues
1. Advantages and disadvantages of current system:
a. The current system is an effective monopoly. By exerting control over the number of
TLDs
which are issued, and who controls them, the IANA and NSF have effectively precluded
effective competition.
a. The advantage to any monopoly is that the costs, pricing models, and operation are
pre-determined for all registrants under any given monopoly system.
a. The primary disadvantage is that the free market is not able to address inequities in
pricing
or
dispute resolution by offering alternatives to the consumer.
a. A secondary, but possibly more-important disadvantage, is that the development of
natural
language forms of site naming has been completely prevented. For example, to find
American Airlines today on the web, you must type http://www.americanair.com.
Instead, should you not be able to type http://american.airlines? Today, the second form
will not function. It appears obvious that allowing the virtually-unlimited advancement
of top-level domains will enable the use of natural language within the Internet a huge
boost to usability by consumers.
1. How might current systems be improved:
By opening the current system to free and open competition, subject to the normal "first use"
restrictions
which exist for any other line of business in the United States or elsewhere, and permitting brand
development in TLDs to occur, the problems described in point (1) will be effectively addressed.
1. Who should administer the domain system?
The TLD domain system (ie: the "root") needs to be administered by an entity which is free of
coercion
and also accountable to both free market economic realities and the legal protections
which exist for firms
both in the US and abroad (ie: Anti-trust laws). The current IAHC proposal does not meet this
criteria, as
the moving of this function outside of the US to Switzerland effectively negates US anti-trust
legal
protections.
It is our contention that it is essential that all legal remedies available to registrants, and in
particular
firms that wish to enter this marketplace, remain fully available. It is particularly important that
any
malfeasance, deliberate obstruction of business process, or other actions which would constitute
either a
civil or criminal violation of a firm's or person's rights not be shielded from the jurisdiction of a
court by
either contract or selection of jurisdiction. The current IAHC proposal is particularly onerous in
that
regard, as their application procedure contains a clause that the applicant agrees that the IAHC
may not
be pursued legally even if the IAHC acts in a capricious, malicious, or arbitrary
manner. This sort of
unconscionable language would not be allowed to stand in a US-based agreement but it
may be perfectly
acceptable under Swiss law.
1. Are existing decision-making processes available?
We do not believe that there is a current model that applies to this problem. TLD assignment
is very
different than spectrum or IP numbering plans, in that there is an effectively unlimited namespace
available. Even if we only consider five-character and less TLDs (in fact there is no technical
reason to
limit TLDs to less than 32 characters) we still have a namespace of more than 60 Million potential
names
or one for every 4 people in the United States. Technical limitations do place
an upper boundary on the
number of TLDs which can be reasonably supported, but that number is in the tens of thousands
and the
technical requirements of providing effective, commercial service will prevent this space from
becoming
exhausted in the forseeable future.
MCSNet believes that national and international governmental bodies should act only to
prevent the
monopolization of the namespace and its control. The free market has been proven over time to
be the
only "fair" means to allocate resources when there is no natural scarcity of a given resource.
Since the
potential namespace is so enormous (many quadrillion potential TLDs), and reasonable technical
requirements act in the requirement of provisioning reliable service, there is no operative reason
for
governments to begin "rationing" TLD resources.
1. Should generic TLDs be retired?
It is MCSNet's contention that not only should they not be retired, but they should be opened
to free
competition. The disruption to the marketplace should generic TLDs be retired would be
enormous in
fact, beyond enormous to the potential disruption of all Internet-related commerce. It is simply
not
feasible today to force over 1 million registrants to change their addresses, stationary, and other
business
communications. Forcing this change now would effectively disconnect most businesses on the
Internet
for an indefinite amount of time.
Further, the disruption to existing ISPs cannot be underestimated. MCSNet, for example,
currently
houses over 1,500 customer domains. Each and every one of these zones would have
to be individually
changed should such a plan go into force. This would be repeated 1,000-fold at ISPs and other
providers
around the globe. The manpower requirements to do this would be astronomical and run into the
tens of
millions of dollars or more.
The gTLD system must recognize and provide for the ISO country code namespaces in both
the 2 and
three-character formats. Both of these, for any given country, should be delegated to an arm of
the
respective governmental body, and administration left to that government. For example,
management of
.US and .USA should immediately be given to an arm of the US Federal Government to manage
as they
see fit. In the United States, this might be the National Science Foundation, or perhaps the
Department of
Commerce.
1. Technological Solutions to current issues?
The issues facing us today are not technological they are political in nature. There is
no bar to even
100,000 TLDs being placed in the root servers other than Mr. Postel's refusal to do so.
There is no bar
to the roots synchronizing their zones again, other than Mr. Postel's and the IANA's
refusal to permit it.
The problems facing this area of industry are political and must be handled as such.
1. How can we ensure the scalability of the DNS system?
Appropriate technical standards for TLD "owners" or "delegates" make this requirement
moot. The DNS
system is a remarkable distributed database in fact, it is one of the most robust distributed
systems ever
invented. If the requirement to operate a TLD were, say, to have at least two DS-1 (1.5 Mbps)
connections to disparate networks and two distinct nameservers for that TLD, you would create a
"pool" of
potential registries of approximately 1,500 US organizations, and perhaps another 2,000
world-wide.
This would bring the total pool to approximately 3,500 organizations. If we then limit, to prevent
anti-competitive activity, the number of TLDs that an organization can control to 10, we have a
maximum of
35,000 TLDs in service.
Assuming that 50% of the organizations which could meet the requirements
would choose to enter this
market, we have under 20,000 TLDs in total. This is less than 1/5th of the existing capacity of
the TLD
DNS root servers by the most conservative estimate. This is also less than 1/50th of their
current
operational load (the roots currently have COM on them, which consists of 1 million active
domains).
Clearly, there is no problem with scalability of the DNS system even in a fully free-market
model.
IP numbering is an entirely different problem and should not be tied to nor attempted to be
addressed by
these same processes.
1. How should transition to these new systems be accomplished?
Clearly, someone needs to "take the bull by the horns". It is clear that at the present time the
IANA has
no intention of actually permitting free-market forces to come to bear. Since the NSF originated
this
system, it appears appropriate for it to let, by contract, an agreement to an agency to manage the
TLD
delegation system, recognizing all prior use claims consistent with the protection of free
commerce and
prevention of monopoly activity. This could be done immediately and with no disruption to the
existing
infrastructure.
1. Are there other issues that should be addressed?
MCSNet believes that a formal inquiry by the Department of Justice into the actions of the
IANA is
warranted at the present time to determine whether violations of US law, particularly the Sherman
and
Clayton acts, have occurred. We support and request that such an inquiry be conducted with
respect to
Mr. Postel's refusal to open the DNS system to free and full competition upon the origination of
user fees
and policy changes by NSI. We further request that all appropriate actions consistent with the
laws of the
United States be taken.
A. Creation of new gTLDs
1. Are there practical an/or policy considerations that limit the number of
TLDs?
Yes, but they are very large. Under point (7) above, we have addressed some of these
concerns and shown
that within the constraints of reasonable technological requirements, the natural outcome in a free
market
system will fall well within current capabilities.
Since the computer capacity of servers and systems is expected to continue to expand, we do
not believe
that any problems with scalability will arise in the future.
1. Should additional TLDs be created?
Yes. Only through the free market can the inequities of the current system be addressed. The
TLD
namespace should be immediately opened to free and full competition, consistent with protection
against
monopoly interests grabbing large portions of the namespace.
1. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues related to scalability of
the namespace?
Not within the guidelines set forth in this response. The current COM zone is running on the
roots and
has more than 1 million entries in it. This is constructive proof that contrary to some assertions,
the
system will not melt down even with similar numbers of TLDs.
1. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
code domains?
Within the 2 and 3 character ISO namespace, it is clear that the ISO country code delegations
must take
precedence. EDNS, for example, has reserved all two-character combinations for this reason.
However,
in the 4+ character namespace, there is no reason for interference to occur, and in fact even in the
3
character space, the ISO requirement is "sparse" compared to the total number of combinations
available.
1. Are there any other issues that should be addressed?
We believe this has been relatively exhaustive of the salient issues related to this section and
applaud the
thorough treatment you have given this issue.
A. Policies for Registries
1. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a particular gTLD?
Are there technical
limitations on using shared registries for some or all gTLDs? Can exclusive and non-exclusive
gTLDs exist?
Yes, no, and yes. Registries should be free to organize under any business model which they
deem proper.
The free market is quite capable, in our opinion, of determining the merits of any particular
business
model. Some examples of this would be strong brand-identification (and exclusive control) of a
given
TLD, a shared and completely open model, or a shared-but-restrictive model with an association
of
registrars tightly controlling business policies and practices. We believe that only the free market
is
qualified to determine the best business model for administering a particular TLD, and that the
successful
models will flourish while others fail of their own accord.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for registrars? Who determines
them?
We believe that there should be threshold technical requirements for TLD
servers, but not for registrars
other than the promotion and protection of free market interests (ie: protection against a firm
gaining a
significant percentage of the total TLD namespace in use). Technical requirements exist to
protect the
network from instability and lack of ability to resolve a given name. There is no technical reason
to set
thresholds on the registrars themselves, and the two organizations, while related, are
not directly tied to
each other in all business models (ie: a registrar could "outsource" the DNS service for a given
TLD)
17. Are there technical limitations on the number of domain name
registrars?
No, other than those imposed by a particular software design (properly the decision of a
gTLDs
ownership, whether individual or by consortium).
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the namespace
raised by increasing the
number of registrars?
Yes, but only to the extent of communication and clear statement of policies and practice.
Since the
United States, as well as most other countries, already have statutes related to the misleading of
consumers, this appears to be adequately covered by existing laws.
19. Should there be a limit on the number of gTLDs that a registrar can
administer? Does this depend
on whether the registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights to a gTLD?
We believe that there does need to be a strong limitation on the number of
gTLDs that a given registrar
can administer to prevent the concentration of market power and the potential deleterious effects
on the
free marketplace. EDNS and MCSNet have proposed that the limit be 10 gTLDs under control
or
registration authority by any single registrar, and that this limit be independent of the organization
method of the gTLD(s) in question.
20. Are there other issues that need to be addressed in this area?
Once again, we believe you have been very thorough and covered the matter under
consideration well.
E. Trademark Issues
21. What trademark rights if any should be protected on the Internet
vis-à-vis domain names?
The Internet is a communications media. It is not fundamentally different than
print, radio, television or
any other form of media, including individual spoken words. For this reason, the rights and
enforcement
mechanisms related to trademarks should track the existing legal protections which are
accorded under the
law. Specifically, there should be no further protection afforded a trademark owner on the
Internet than
in any other media. Today, this is not the case. In any other media, a trademark owner who
alleges
infringement must prove this in court in order to enjoin a potential infringement. However, under
NSI's
current policy, a simple allegation is often enough to cause a domain to be rescinded
or placed out of
service.
22. Should preliminary review be done?
No. The policing of trademarks is properly the domain and responsibility of their holders.
The Internet
must not become a place where trademark owners are able to run roughshod over people who
would, in
any other form of commerce or means of communication, be found not to be infringing a given
mark.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark rights be
protected vis-à-vis
domain names?
In any other form of commerce, we have existing means of resolving those disputes, usually
revolving
around the court system of the country where the infringement is alleged to have occurred. The
Internet is
no different those who allege a violation of trademark rights should take their issues to a
court of
competent jurisdiction for adjudication. It is impossible for the Internet to recognize
the disparate legal
systems which exist around the world. The Internet is not a new world order
it exists within the existing
legal codes of the sovereign states which it traverses. Appropriate protections already exist for
trademark
owners under these legal systems, and disputes should be addressed to those tribunals.
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented?
A requirement to publish the registration information for any given domain under a TLD
would
significantly ease the protection of trademarks. Similar to the publication requirement that exists
today
for corporate and dBA registrations under United States law, this would be simple to implement
and very
inexpensive.
Steps beyond this are, once again, attempts to impose a different set of legal requirements on
the Internet
than exist in any other form of commerce and are inappropriate.
25. Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate that they have
a basis for requesting a
particular domain name?
No. Trademark owners have the responsibility under the law for policing their own marks
and enforcing
their rights with relationship to violations they believe have occurred. There exists no reason to
expand a
trademark owner's rights on the Internet, and we should, as a matter of public policy, not expand
trademark rights based on the media in use at a given time.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and registrars affect the
number and cost of resolving
disputes?
Greatly expanding the number of gTLDs would actually reduce the number of
disputes. For example,
http://apple.records and http://apple.computers would not conflict. Today, there can only
be one
http://apple.com, which is bound to lead to a dispute. A
publication requirement (say, through a widely-distributed Usenet newsgroup) would further
reduce the cost of policing and searching for potential
infringements from the situation we have today where no effective notification of use exists.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain
name, are there
technological solutions?
Yes, but they require cooperation between the parties (ie: a "meta page" which references
both companies
on the initial load). The best solution is an expansion of the namespace so that http://american.airlines
doesn't conflict at all there is only one American Airlines, but there are thousands
of firms with the
potential right to use the domain name http://american.com.
28. Are there other issues that should be addressed in this area?
We believe you have, once again, been very thorough in your discussion of the issues related
to this
section of the NOI.
We thank you in advance for consideration of our comments.
###
Number: 345
From: Jim Dixon <jdd@vbc.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 2:29pm
Subject: comment on Internet domain names
Attached is a statement on behalf of EuroISPA, the European Internet
Services Providers Associations, in reply to the Department of
Commerce Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration
of Internet Domain Names, docket number 970613137-7137-01.
--
Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net
tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("chief@ispa.org.uk","secretariat@i...
EuroISPA
STATEMENT ON THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM
This statement is in reply to the US Department of Commerce Request for Comments on the
Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names [Docket No.
970613137-7137-01].
All sections of the Request for Comments are addressed. Our comments are
italicized.
EuroISPA Background
EuroISPA is a federation of the Internet trade associations of Europe: AFPI in France, ECO
for
Germany, ISPA Belgium, ISPA UK in Great Britain, NLip for the Netherlands, AUI of Spain,
and, shortly, AIIP of Italy. Representing nearly a thousand members, EuroISPA is the
largest
Internet trade association in the world.
EuroISPA is at 30 Rue Montoyer Bte 8, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium. Telephone +32 2 230
7560,
fax +32 2 230 6491
Author
Jim Dixon, VBCnet GB Ltd, 78 Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1QX, United Kingdom.
Telephone
+44 117 929 1316, fax +44 117 927 2015.
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.
We agree. However, it must be recognized that much of the success of the
Internet is due to co-operation, consensus, and above all respect for what works.
The management of the domain
name registration system must be based on models which are known to work. We believe
that
there is serious risk that the system that now seems most likely to be adopted is based on a
flawed model, one which will generate endless disputes.
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.
We concur with this as well. However, the influence of government is likely to
be restrictive and
damaging until there is better understanding by governments of the Internet. The practical
reality is that the Internet is changing at a blinding pace and there are few in government who
have any understanding of it.
Also, the consensus that is needed is consensus among those who manage and use the
Internet.
It is important that industries that feel threatened by the Internet, in particular the
telecommunications community, should not be given undue influence over it.
In short, what is needed is self-governance: governance of the Internet by the Internet
community, by those who understand it and wish it well.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently global nature of the
Internet
and be able to evolve as necessary over time.
Absolutely.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open, robust, efficient,
and
fair.
Of course. However, attention should be paid to non-competitive models where
these are clearly
successful.
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. But the Internet is primarily a system for transferring data. It is not a
judicial system.
Whatever domain registration system is adopted should be designed to avoid or at least minimize
any legal entanglements. Where legal disputes arise, they should be adjudicated by courts, not
by domain name registrars.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of these issues permits.
Indeed. But there is at least one very serious problem with this general principle:
the
.com/.net/.org domains, which are the most widely used in the world, are currently managed by
one company, NSI, as a monopoly. It is important that arguments about prudence not be
used to
perpetuate that monopoly.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name registration systems?
Large parts of the current domain name registration system work very well. In
the UK, for
example, Nominet handles registrations in the .uk domain. Nominet is a
non-profit company
owned by those involved in registering domain names; there are several hundred members.
Members of the general public can register either directly or through Nominet members (Internet
service providers, Web site operators, etc.). The company is run very well and there are
very few
complaints about it.
Nominet operates on a first-come, first-served basis. Anyone registering a .uk
domain name
agrees to an arbitration process in case of disputes. Nominet makes every attempt to stay
out of
legal disputes over domain names. Nominet's success is due in large part to the fact that it
is
managed by people who have been involved in the Internet for a long time and understand and
respect its traditions, particularly the need for consensus.
The InterNIC, which handles registrations in .com/.net/.org, is generally managed very
well.
However, NSI, which currently runs the InterNIC on a contract basis, has a generally poor
reputation in the industry and in particular has been involved repeatedly in lawsuits, often
because of actions perceived by the Internet community as arbitrary.
NSI is managed by people who have no particular interest in the Internet and no
understanding
of its traditions. This is not a minor consideration.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
There are three fundamental problems in the current system. First, while the way
that the root
name servers and "." (pronounced 'dot'), the basis of the name space, are handled was
appropriate for an Internet meant for academics and amateurs, it is not appropriate for today's
Internet, which has become crucial to the operation of many businesses. Secondly,
.com/.net/.org are controlled by NSI, operating as a monopoly. Thirdly, .com is too
popular:
there are simply too many names in .com, and handling it is a serious technical problem.
The root name servers and "." are currently the responsibility of IANA and specifically
Jon
Postel. For whatever reason - presumably lack of resources at IANA - management of "."
has in
effect been delegated to NSI. This gives them the power to decide which Top Level
Domains
(TLDs) can be created and who has control over them. Given NSI's abrasive management
style,
this is unfortunate. Furthermore, NSI has no particular interest in managing "."
well, and so it
doesn't.
The root name servers are the machines which actually hold the top level
directories. One of
these is run by NSI. The others are run on a volunteer basis; most are in the US.
The management of "." would be much improved if authority over it were formally
transferred to
a new organization with endorsement from the Internet community at large; this would be
IANA's successor. We believe that it would be beneficial if the individuals currently
responsible
for IANA, in particular Jon Postel, had seats on this new committee. Others should be
appointed
by Internet bodies such as the existing registries (RIPE, APNIC, ARIN), trade associations (the
CIX in North America, EuroISPA in Europe, APIA in Asia), and academic institutions and
networks such as JANET in the UK. There would be no benefit at all in the appointment of
members from outside the Internet community, and possibly a great deal of harm.
Currently the root name servers contain a mixture of top level directory (".")
information and
.com/.net/.org data. These should be split up and put on different machines. The "."
name
servers should be controlled by IANA or its successor. That organization must have
enough
funding to be able to do this job, although it might very well choose to continue to leave the root
name servers where they currently are.
It would be appropriate for IANA or its successor to also have enough money to fund
continued
development of the DNS software; this is currently done on a volunteer basis by Paul Vixie.
The NSI monopoly over .com/.net/.org should be ended. It is not necessary that
NSI stop
handling these domains. But it is urgent that other registries for these domains be created
and
that NSI be forced to share data with them. Furthermore, obstructionism by NSI should be
expected and severely penalized if it does occur.
The third problem, .com being too popular, is a serious technical problem, but it is
nothing more
than that. This problem should be addressed by the Internet community, which has
historically
been very good at solving serious technical problems.
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?
We believe that what would be best is a diverse system allowing different (but
co-operating)
models to be used simultaneously. There should not be one entity. There should be
many.
For technical reasons, there must be one group, the successor to IANA, responsible for
".", that
is, for the allocation and management of TLDs and for the root name servers. This should
be a
non-profit organization with members appointed from various organizations in the Internet
community. Appointments should be long term. The group should be funded by the
Internet
community; possibly by the TLD registries.
At the next level down are the ISO country code registries and the gTLD ("generic"
TLD, like
.com) registries.
The ISO country code registries already operate well. They follow different
models; most, like
Nominet in the UK, are quite successful.
The gTLD registries could follow any number of models. For .com in particular,
because of its
size, it is preferable that a number of registries be created. These will have to share
data. The
CORE system proposed in the gTLD MOU is a good model for doing this.
However, it should also be possible to create gTLDs that are independent of the CORE
system.
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?
It is important not to overlook the fact that some of the existing domain registration
systems are
quite successful. Nominet, the registry for .uk, is one of these.
In so far as possible, the Internet should manage itself. Given the rapid pace of
change in the
Internet, governmental involvement or any involvement by outside organizations such as the ITU
or WIPO is likely to be counter-productive.
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 are popular for good reasons and many companies have substantial
investments in
them. It would be exceedingly unwise to force their abandonment. On the other
hand, it would
be desirable to apply some pressure to move US users into the .us name space where this is
appropriate, simply to relieve pressure on the .com name space.
Companies with an international presence are going to want a name in .com.
This is rational.
But there is no reason for every corner store in the United States to have an international
name.
The use of ISO country also simplifies some trademark disputes and should be
encouraged.
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?
These questions have been answered above.
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 co-ordinate?
It is widely accepted that the Internet address space will be exhausted in the foreseeable
future.
This problem is being dealt with and is largely irrelevant to DNS.
There do not appear to be scaling problems with the DNS in the near term, except
possibly with
.com. Once again, this is a technical problem of the type that has been solved very
successfully
by the Internet in the past and its discussion here does not seem useful.
Interoperation of the root name servers is not currently a serious problem but may
become so in
the fairly near future, because of NSI's role. As discussed above, nine of the root name
servers
are currently mixed "." and .com/.net/.org name servers. It is important that the "." domain
be
split out and put under the clear authority of IANA's successor as soon as possible, preferably
before the 1 April 1998 end of the NSI contract.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
See the preceding paragraph.
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?
Yes of course. However, the DNS system can easily tolerate many more gTLDs
than currently
exist, at least hundreds more.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
Yes. It would be quite beneficial to create gTLDs that correspond to specific industries
or
business areas. This would relieve pressure on .com.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the scalability of the
name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs?
There seem to be no technical problems, unless thousands of gTLDs are created.
However, it is
important that new gTLDs be created reasonably slowly and carefully, to minimize disruption
and disputes. Also, whatever mechanism is established for creating new gTLDs must not
be such
as to lock in only one approach to the problem.
Specifically, there is no technical reason why all registries for new gTLDs should belong
to one
super-registry, like CORE in the gTLD-MOU proposal. It should be possible to create
new
registries or groups of registries that do not belong to CORE or establish alternatives to
CORE.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country code
domains?
They have little to do with ISO country code domains.
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
None that have not been already addressed.
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?
We believe that variety is desirable. Probably where a gTLD registry has
exclusive control over
a gTLD, it should be a non-profit organization. There are serious technical
problems in
developing shared registries, but these can be dealt with so long as they are addressed soon
enough (specifically, in time to permit an orderly transition away from NSI's monopoly control
of .com/.net/.org). Exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs can certainly exist.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and what
responsibilities
should such registrars have? Who will determine these and how?
It is quite important that registrars be financially stable and technically
competent. They are
responsible for the orderly operation of their registries and interoperation with other registrars
where registries are shared. Orderly operation covers a wide range of factors, from good
billing
practices, backing up data, and avoidance of legal disputes. The group succeeding IANA
should
ultimately have responsibility for setting down requirements and operational standards for
registrars. Where a group of registrars share a common database, they may also create a
common supervisory body (CORE in the gTLD-MOU model).
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name registrars?
For all practical purposes, no. Nominet, who manage the .uk name space, have
over 600
members who are independent registrars.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space raised by
increasing
the number of domain name registrars?
Where the domain names are not shared, no. Where registrars share a common
data base, yes,
but these are obviously solvable. The operational requirements of the domain name system
are
many times simpler than those of airline reservation systems or stock exchanges.
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, diversity is to be preferred, so fewer gTLDs per registrar is better. If
a registrar has
exclusive control over a gTLD, financial collapse of the registrar would be catastrophic for
users, so multiple registrars per domain is better. However, there may be special
circumstances
arguing for different policies, so this sort of consideration is best left to whoever has authority
over ".", IANA's successor.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
None that can be addressed in the time available.
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-à-vis domain names?
Wherever possible this question should be addressed by local law and local
courts.
However it has to be recognized that in general trademarks should have nothing to do
with
domain names. In the UK, for example, trademarks are specific to an industry, and there
can be
many companies with an equal claim on a name. Where an "international" gTLD such as
.com
is involved, there is no rational way to invoke trademark law. What we would suggest is
that in
nearly all cases registrants asking for domain names with international scope should be required
to forfeit the protection of national trademark laws.
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?
Requiring preliminary review is quite undesirable. It is likely to drive costs up
and introduce
delays that will be unacceptable to users. The only exception is where the review can be
automated and based on generally acceptable simple principles.
The preferred model is always first-come, first-served. Registries should require
anyone
obtaining a domain name to accept an arbitration process. Wherever possible the registrar
should not be involved in the actual arbitration.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark rights be protected on
the
Internet vis-à-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 Internet does not make law and cannot judge legal disputes. Any domain
name registration
system should be designed to minimize the number of disputes, require that any disputes go to
arbitration, and then insofar as possible direct disputes that cannot be arbitrated into existing
legal channels.
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?
Where a registry confines itself to an ISO country code and the ISO country code
corresponds to
a legal jurisdiction, this question can be easily answered, but the answer depends upon the local
legal system.
Where international domain names such as .com are involved, the best principle would
be that
registrants have no rights under trademark laws. They would now forfeit their right to
argue
that the user of a domain name was "passing off", that is, attempting to impersonate another
party. The claimant could seek redress in the courts. Where the registry is given
conflicting
orders by two different courts of competent jurisdiction, the registry must have the right to
withdraw use of the name entirely.
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?
Once again, for ISO country code registries this question is easily answered, but the
answer
varies from country to country.
However, the general principle is that this would impose an undue cost and an undue
responsibility on the registrar. "First-come, first-served" should be the default rule.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars affect the number
and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
If the principles set out above are followed, trademark disputes would be
minimal. However, if
all of the complexity of international trademark law is allowed in, the costs involved would
explode as the number of gTLDs and registrars increased and the financial stability of the
registrars would be seriously at risk. It is vital that the connection between trademarks and
domain names be severed.
Furthermore, as a general principle, legal responsibility should always remain with the
registrant.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain name, are there
any
technological solutions?
No. DNS is universal. Such cases should always be settled on a
first-come, first-served basis.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
We believe that it is of fundamental importance that trademark conflicts be kept out of
the
Internet. Old law should not be used to cripple new technology. And therefore
we believe that as
few trademark issues should be addressed as possible.
###
Number: 346
From: Richard Hovey <HoveyR@mail.dec.com>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/18/97 2:57pm
Subject: DIGITAL comments on DNS noi
I am responding on behalf of Digital Equipment Corporation (DIGITAL) to
the Department of Commerce "Request for Comments on the Registration and
Administration of Internet Domain Names."
On May 1 DIGITAL signed the generic Top Level Domain Mememorandum of
Understanding, and attached the following statement of concerns
[ also posted at http://www.itu.int/net-itu/gtld-mou/decadd.htm ].
We believe this action and statement are responsive to questions on which
the Department has requested comment.
Richard Hovey
Corporate Strategy and Technology
Digital Equipment Corporation
--------
DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION ATTACHMENT TO ESTABLISHMENT OF A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON THE GENERIC TOP LEVEL DOMAIN
NAME SPACE
OF THE INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM (gTLD-MoU)
As the first computer vendor to be connected to Internet and the first
to register in the ".com" domain, DIGITAL is particularly pleased to be
the first to support the efforts of the IAHC and other founding
organizations to sustain the Internet's growth and stability in an
international setting. We also thank both the IAHC for bringing the
proposal forward and those organizations running the naming mechanisms
for the current Top Level Domains.
DIGITAL believes that the principle enunciated in the MoU that the
Internet Top Level Domain name space is a public resource and subject
to the public trust is fundamental to the stability and future evolution
of the Internet.
We view the step of signing the Memorandum of Understanding as a
beginning and not the end of a process, and are attaching to our MoU
this set of concerns we believe must be addressed as the process
progresses. These concerns are among the issues Digital intends to focus
on as we participate in the next phase of work.
o Consensus building:
Many affected parties, including governments, consumers, and commercial
concerns, have not yet fully considered the issues embodied in the MoU
or represented their concerns to their satisfaction. We expect the
process going forward to be fully open to views from all interested
parties in order to extend the public consensus which is the foundation
for the Internet.
o Stability of existing generic Top Level Domains:
The MoU indicates that the existing gTLDs; such as ".com", are not
immediately subject to the provisions of the MoU, but foresees that
eventually they may be included. Plans need to be developed which
ensure the existing gTLDs will not be disrupted in the future or
subjected to IP address re-assignments.
o Stability of name registration:
Competitive, geographically dispersed registration may increase the risk
of name conflicts. We will work to see that the structure and
implementation of any system for any new gTLDs will not compromise the
integrity or accuracy of the Internet domain name system and will
continue to support the rapid rates across the Internet to avoid
barriers to growth.
o Preserving Intellectual Property Rights:
Administration functions for evaluating and resolving trademark issues
need further clarification and we intend to work with other parties to
develop a consensus-driven regime for the allocation of domain names that
respects the intellectual property rights of all and the established
legal mechanism for protecting these rights. The process for resolving
conflicts in domain names must extend and not replace established legal
procedure.
DIGITAL believes the MoU is a very good beginning. However, DIGITAL
reserves the right to reconsider its support until these issues, among
others, are successfully resolved. We are supporting the MoU now because
we do think it is a good beginning, and we are optimistic that the issues
DIGITAL and others will raise can be successfully resolved.
04/30/97
###
Number: 347
From: Barbara Dooley <bdooley@cix.org>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 3:37pm
Subject: CIX Response with Member List
Request for Comments on the )
Registration and Administration ) Docket No.
970613137-7137-01
of Internet Domain Names )
Please accept this as the filing with the Member List attachment.
Respectfully,
Barbara Dooley
Executive Director
Commercial Internet eXchange Association
1041 Sterling Rd. Suite 104A
Herndon, VA 20170
v. 703-709-8200
f. 703-709-5249
www.cix.org
Before the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
Washington, DC
Request for Comments on the )
Registration and Administration ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
of Internet Domain Names )
Comments of the Commercial Internet eXchange Association (CIX)
Introduction. Within the last four years, the Global Internet has been
transformed from a largely research and academic-oriented network to one that is predominantly
commercial. The commercialization of the Internet has been led by the private sector, principally
but not exclusively US information technology and new media firms, with the active
encouragement of the US Government.
This process of commercialization will reach an important milestone in early
1998 when the National Science Foundation's (NSF) cooperative agreement with Network
Solutions, Inc. (NSI) to register and administer domain names for certain generic top level
domains (gTLDs) ends. Administrative responsibilities for the DNS pursuant to this agreement at
the US Government's behest will soon be exercised through new institutional arrangements,
possibly by new individuals and entities. A smooth transition over the next few years to a
permanent self-governing Internet administrative structure is essential if the Internet's commercial
growth is to continue.
The specific issue of gTLD expansion within the DNS is significant as a result of
the Internet's growing commercial role. Domain name space is one of the critical elements of the
Internet along with IP addresses, IP protocols, the physical transmission and routing plant, and
Web sites. Achieving the best solutions on issues of this magnitude warrants time since major
modifications to the Internet's crucial components such as DNS may occur slowly once changes
are adopted and implemented.
In l991 the Commercial Internet eXchange Association (CIX) established a
private commercial exchange point in California as an alternative to the network that was
operated for the US Goverment. Today CIX is the largest and oldest trade association of Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) with almost 170 members from the United States, Asia/Pacific, and
Europe (a recent list of members is attached) and continues to operate the California exchange
point. CIX members represent a wide variety of ISPs, ranging from large providers to backbone
carriers to smaller regional and local networks and state trade associations.
ISPs are an essential component of the Internet community. They provide the
Internet user's physical connection from the local telephone loop to the Internet from their local
point of presence. Of particular relevance to this docket is the fact that ISPs also help commercial
customers to apply for a domain name, renew it if desired, and obtain their Internet addresses.
Some ISPs may also provide Web design or hosting services or help process transactions for their
commercial customers although these functions are not considered part of their Internet access
service. In some countries where the registry is operated commercially, ISPs may have a formal
role in managing the country registry. Thus, ISPs play vital roles both in helping to construct
parts of the Global Information Infrastructure and facilitating the presence of commerce on the
Internet.
CIX welcomes the US Government's request for comments on changes to DNS
registration and administration of generic TLDs since a stable DNS is vital to the smooth
operation of the commercial Internet. Destabilizing changes to the present system could
profoundly affect our members' operations and services and the consumer's Internet service
quality. While changes to the current DNS will be necessary in the future to accommodate the
Internet's explosive growth, maintaining network stability, security, and connectivity during this
transition period must be the US Government's and industry's primary goal. Stability and
connectivity must also result as well from proposals to change the DNS as the US Government's
role diminishes in importance.
The US Government has a unique historical responsibility for the foundation of
the modern Internet as a result of its funding and developing of IP network technologies and the
role of the Department of Defense in its early history. This historical role and authority have
crucial legal consequences and shape the debate on Internet administration during this transition.
CIX will (1) address the five issue sets identified in the notice: appropriate
principles; general/organizational framework issues; creation of new gTLDs; policies for
registries; and trademark issues; and (2) propose changes to improve the management of existing
commercial namespace such that it will help meet the burgeoning demand for commercial names
for the immediate future while creating relatively minor disruption in the Internet and user
communities.
CIX believes that its proposed modifications (1) will be relatively inexpensive,
efficient and simple to administer; (2) result in lower costs for DNS users; (3) stimulate
competition among registrars; (4) will be competitively neutral; (5) give policymakers additional
time in which to devise long-term solutions; (6) better meet the needs of the commercial sector
better than some more drastic proposals; and (7) respond to marketplace forces.
The proposals are intended to apply to commercial situations and to address
issues that affect business. They incorporate and extend current
practices existing in the domain
names system and are intended to be evolutionary in character and appearance and can work with
other proposals to alter the DNS.
A. Appropriate Principles
CIX enthusiastically endorses the principles enumerated in Part A as there can be
no disagreement about their value. CIX proposes three additional principles for inclusion in this
section.
a. CIX agrees strongly with the proposed statements affirming the leading role of
the private sector, consensus-based management, competition, and self-governing mechanisms.
Any proposal to expand the number of gTLDs or significantly alter current DNS procedures must
satisfy basic due process requirements both formally and substantively.
Critical questions have been raised about the authority of
decision makers and
will subside only if those asserting leadership consult with representatives of significant Internet
stakeholder groups. Therefore, CIX recommends the addition of the following principle on
openness and inclusiveness:
"_. Policymakers with authority to make decisions on domain name issues
should consult
widely with the representatives of affected stakeholder groups and ensure that its
processes are inclusive and that creditable views receive appropriate
consideration."
b. Consistent with the growing commercial importance of the Internet, CIX proposes the
following new principle that stresses a reliance on market forces to determine which domain name
changes are needed by the commercial sector. This proposed new principle also provides CIX's
answers to several questions posed in the instant notice, such as whether ".com" should be
dropped. If business users prefer a ".com" domain, that gTLD should continue. When additional
business-related gTLDs are needed, representatives of commercial users, including small business,
should be actively consulted for their views on the number and names of the new gTLDs through
formal, open, and public procedures.
"_. Modifications to the registration and administration of gTLDs and country
TLDs
which affect commercial enterprises, including the addition of new gTLDs, should be
responsive to market forces and take into account the views of business users and their
Internet vendors."
CIX also endorses the principles expressed in (b) relating to the responsibility and
accountability of policymakers. Only enforcement of due process can ultimately sustain
responsibility and accountability, and CIX recommends the addition of the term "enforcement" in
Paragraph A, so that policymakers will clearly understand that public accountability is expected
and required and will be sustained by appropriate and effective enforcement.
c. Finally, CIX recommends adding a third new principle to Part A on the legal status of
the namespace. It has been treated as a private resource for many years, which does not
necessarily mean that there should be trafficking in desirable second level domain names as private
property. On the other hand, there have been recent assertions, notably in the gTLD-MoU, that
the namespace is a public resource held in public trust, a position that implies resource scarcity
and, indeed, that can be used to justify governmental regulation. Unlike IP addresses or telephone
numbers, the number of domain names is far less severely constricted and can be devised easily.
They are not technologically essential to the operation of the Internet but provide the ease of use
of alphanumeric identifiers. Therefore, CIX recommends adding
the following paragraph at the
end of the principles section:
"_. The TLD namespace is a private resource subject to reasonable limits
developed
and agreed to by the Internet community on a consensual basis."
The translation of principles into a workable transition plan would require considerable
time even if there were a consensus about the problems and remedies. To give the interagency
committee adequate time in which to conclude its task, at the conclusion of this comment period,
the committee should first determine the US Government's principles. Second, it should then
solicit proposals for a transition to a permanent DNS namespace and registry system based on
these principles, which might include ideas which have already been formally proposed such as
those suggested by the IAHC, eDNS, and other organizations. Alternatively, the Executive could
impanel a US Government committee to craft the transition plan, similarly as the NSF led the
thoughtful and stable transition from NSFnet to commercial backbones. As part of this process,
the panel should continue to solicit the views of non-American individuals, companies, non-profit
organizations, academics, and governmental entities.
Since the highest priority is to ensure network stability and security during the transition,
the US Government should take concrete steps to achieve these goals. Furthermore, if the
requirements for a stable, proven DNS gTLD structure are not in place by April 1, 1998, the
United States Government should extend its agreement with NSI for a time certain to prevent
registry or administrative problems. Sensitivity to the concerns of individuals and entities located
outside the United States should not automatically preclude a transition plan that is anchored in
the United States with a potential US Government oversight role during the transition, since
currently the majority of Internet users and resources are located in the US, as long as the Internet
continues to evolve into a fully global infrastructure with international administrative
infrastructures and governance.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Proposals to change DNS registration and administration have been stimulated by the
imminent end of NSI's current cooperative agreement with the NSF and, to a lesser extent,
complaints about the quality of registry services, trademark disputes or limitations in the current
DNS design. There is an appealing, superficial attraction to the argument for fundamental
institutional changes since the original DNS was created to serve a far smaller user community.
Thus far, however, there is disagreement as to the need for and the timing of additional gTLDs, as
the large majority of gTLD registrations appears to be concentrated in the commercial space and
from North American customers.
CIX proposes the following propositions for this section on framework issues:
Incremental evolutionary recommendations that result in minimal necessary changes
are usually preferable to radical changes on which there may be no community
consensus.
Changes which will significantly affect commercial users and their Internet providers
should be undertaken after formal and substantive consultation with their
representatives in developing these proposals. It is understood that only the views of
those stakeholders and stakeholder groups who choose to participate in open
processes can be used to develop policy and new administrative forms.
Membership in the permanent policy and administrative bodies should be balanced and
inclusive of major Internet stakeholder groups.
Minimal governmental involvement and private sector leadership continue to be valid
principles. Any significant increase in governmental participation or influence on
Internet policies or in Internet governance can be justified only after comprehensive
public debate supported by the public record.
National governments and international governmental organizations' appropriate roles
are to help stabilize the Internet (if needed); facilitate necessary changes if the private
mechanisms fail; and to offer counsel.
Market forces will most efficiently determine the need for new gTLDs and the
disposition of old names.
During the transition to a new DNS regime and thereafter, it is appropriate for the US
Government to play a stabilizing role based on its historic legal authority as long as
this role is limited and the system moves towards a genuinely global character.
On the basis of these principles, CIX will comment on the existing system, selectively
discuss proposed alternatives and propose a potential compromise consisting of ideas drawn from
a variety of sources.
Question 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of
current domain name
registration systems?
The disadvantages of the current gTLD system were largely inherent in its initial design,
and administrative decisions such as national monopolies on registration authority, and lack of
sufficient commercial resources and attention. National anomalies in administrative practices, and
legal uncertainties present problems to public and private sector policymakers. There was no
procedure prescribed through which new gTLDs could be created when needed.
There were advantages as well, including DNS' private sector origins, the design's
simplicity, ease of use and understanding and versatility. On the whole, there can be little
question that the DNS has worked quite successfully and has been an important factor in the
expansion of the Global Internet.
Question 2. How might current domain name systems be
improved?
CIX believes that only simple steps are needed to mitigate the alleged lack of desirable
commercial names. In addition to the possible creation of new gTLDs, CIX proposes that
commercial users in the US should be offered the use of the ".us" country TLD, with a "com us."
second level domain (SLD) available to them.
Second, an experts panel should study and report why the ".us" is perceived as too
complex by commercial users, comparable practices of other national registrars and the "us"
registrar and mandate reforms to the ".us" TLD space to attract more business users, thereby
reducing demand for ".com". Similar reforms to simplify and improve the use of country TLDs
are taking place elsewhere, most notably in Canada.
A second way to expand namespace to satisfy commercial demand would entail the
"cloning" of the existing ".com" name space. Such cloning could enable, for example, multiple
"smithcompany.com" with virtually the identical domain name except for a slight modification to
the ".com" with the addition of an extension in that space (for example, ".com1," ".com2," etc.)
While cloning does not resolve trademark conflicts, it could mitigate substantially the demands for
the same namespace by identically or similarly named companies.
Question 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 limitations of the current DNS have sometimes been attributed to NSI even though
the naming system conventions, with their inherent problems, and the number of gTLDs were
fixed prior to its cooperative agreement with the NSF. Moreover, there is widespread
disagreement whether there is a systemic DNS "crisis" that justifies new institutions and
bureaucracies.
CIX proposes that the private sector organization assume responsibility for registering,
administering, and managing the commercial domains in the US TLD through a non-profit entity
with delegated authority from either the Federal Networking Council or NSF. This group would
be the US Registrar for the ".com.us" second level domain (SLD) and set SLD commercial use
and policies and be responsible for marketing, registration, and administration. It would be
governed by a board of representatives of the commercial sector.
The new commercial board members, after its initial organization, would be elected to
two-year terms and would represent stakeholder interests rather than an individual company or
trade association. It is intended that elections ensure wide participation by representatives of
qualified organizations, promote responsiveness, encourage diverse views and inclusive policies,
and prevent the emergence of entrenched, self-perpetuating interests.
With the exception of an Internet standards organizations like the IETF, no other
individual organization would enjoy guaranteed representation. In carrying out its functions, the
new commercial board could issue an RFP for an organization(s) to handle registration and
administer the domain, develop the operational procedures and rules under which the registries
would operate, as appropriate.
The board would be required to operate under open and transparent rules and regulations
and be subject to audit and due process requirements.
CIX suggests that the interagency committee raise with the
NSF the possibility of using
the funds being collected for infrastructure purposes by NSI at the direction of the NSF (perhaps
exceeding $25 million) to support financially the start-up costs of the new ".com.us" registry and
its non-profit board and perhaps to support similar efforts in Latin America where Internet service
is new and expanding. Registry activities would be particularly appropriate for being seeded
since the money was originally raised though levies on domain names.
An additional financial issue should also be resolved at this time. NSI's current fees
include a substantial (30% of the total) amount for infrastructure purposes at the direction of the
NSF, which has not yet determined how the fund should be used. This "infrastructure surcharge"
is in effect a tax which has been applied arbitrarily to only one segment of the domain name user
community and has fallen disproportionately on US users. If an "infrastructure surcharge" needs
to be collected, it should be applied and distributed in an equitable manner. This current 30
percent supplement should be discontinued and the fees reduced accordingly.
Question 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?
While no situation is precisely analogous to the Internet governance model, the example of
the North American Numbering Plan, which was formerly a monopoly function within the private
sector, might be applicable to the current situation. However, it is also important to remember
the differences as well, which include the essentially commercial significance of name space and
the fact that names are not limited as are numbers.
This question also raises the critical issue about the proper roles of national or
inter-governmental/non-governmental entities. The Internet has flourished in large part precisely
because until recently it lay outside the traditional regulatory attention of governments, which
have concentrated instead on the centralized telephone monopoly. Instead, both inside and
outside the US, the Internet was largely constructed by private entities operating through
non-governmental structures.
CIX believes that the proper role of governments and intergovernmental organizations is
limited to that of counsel and support and is deeply concerned about the growing influence of
international governmental organizations, best illustrated by ITU's and WIPO's inclusion as
permanent members of the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee. CIX reaffirms its views that
government regulation tends to slow economic development and global growth of the Internet if
extended beyond legitimate but limited consumer protection functions.
Question 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 disposition of old gTLDs and creation of new ones are properly left to be determined
by market forces. If companies want to continue using the ".com" name, it is because they have
determined it has value to them. Commercial users' decisions should be respected and not be
dictated by political or bureaucratic fiat which ignores their preferences by terminating the ".com"
gTLD or creates unneeded new ones. Likewise, the private sector will indicate when additional
names are needed and what they should be. A comment period could be opened to solicit
opinions on the need for additional gTLDs and their proposed names. Only after the business
sector has had an opportunity to comment for the public record should new gTLDs be created.
Question 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?
Question 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?
There are no publicly available technological solutions to solving the many domain name
registration issues at this time. There are questions as to the timeline for the development of these
shared databases with heavy real-time demands. Therefore, extensive technical trials and
experiments must still be conducted constantly to ensure that answers devised on the basis of
computer models workin practice.
The domain names controversy could be readily resolved
through use of directory
databases, which can easily scale to growth and would diminish the demand by some firms for
distinctive domain names if they can be reached easily. Moreover, directories would resolve some
trademark issues as well since a multinational corporation would have a single address with only a
limited prospect for trademark disputes. The creation of global Internet directories would be a
complex technological task requiring additional research and development, but efforts are
underway.
The possibility of using existing Internet private sector organizations such as ARIN, RIPE
and APNIC for the coordination and implementation of root server architecture should be
explored.
Question 8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
The transition to a permanent DNS structure will be critical to ensure network stability.
With legal and technical stability foremost in mind, NSF has alternatives to ensure that it is clear
who has the ultimate legal and operational responsibility for its current databases and root server.
It will also be necessary to begin working with the major technical and professional Internet
organizations such as the IETF and IAB to develop protocols, schedules, flow charts, and work
plans, objectives, and identify areas for additional research.
Question 9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
This question asks specifically for issues that were not listed above. CIX believes that
there are legitimate concerns about the great disparity in the treatment of the gTLDs and the
country TLDs by the former IAHC for reasons that were never explained. As a result, it appears
that the United States and, to a lesser degree, Canada, would be disproportionately affected by its
proposals for restructuring the existing system since the use of ".com" is widespread in North
America. Moreover, the US will be affected by any attempts to shift the infrastructure ownership
to another locale, e.g., Switzerland.
CIX also notes that there are critical questions about the authority for various parties to
take certain actions affecting Internet administration in the absence of either explicit and verifiable
delegation. Clearly, the authority to administer certain critical tasks derives from the work
performed in behalf of the US Government. As a result of its early volunteer work, the IANA,
located at the University of Southern California, assumed authority to designate the national
registrar for country top level domains in each country and to allocate IP addresses. In addition,
the IANA also assumed responsibility for administering the ".us" TLD. However, the legal
authority to do perform these tasks is ambiguous as it was never codified nor is it substantiated in
any legally verifiable form. The interagency committee should clarify the questions of authority
by drafting a statement that reaffirms the position of the FNC and NSF as the sole legitimate and
legal sources of authority, which will be delegated permanently to a successor at the end of
transition.
An important issue that is not addressed in the questions is
future management of the root
server infrastructure, which is currently handled by NSI and which is crucial to the operation of
the commercial Internet.
Finally, CIX recommends that the means be found to open up country TLDs as well as the
gTLDs and that international initiatives be taken to harmonize varying DNS policies which are
found to affect gTLDs.
C. Creation of New gTLDs
Decisions on creating new gTLDs should be left to the market, which will determine
whether new ones are needed, when, and, if so, which ones, far better than any politician or
engineer. Market data will show where there is a demand and users' preferences. Both sound
commercial and engineering principles indicate the need to make no changes which might
destabilize the infrastructure or create consumer confusion.
Question 10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy
considerations that
constrain the total number of different gTLDs that can be created?
As a general proposition, there probably is no technical problem to adding gTLDs or
country TLDs. Country TLDs have been added at a fairly rapid rate recently with no problems
reported. From a business perspective, the problem may not be technical but rather potential
market confusion. At this time, further research, planning and development of ways to
accommodate changes to the existing system beyond a limited number of gTLDs or country TLDs
is needed to achieve support for our goals of a more competitive, flexible DNS.
Question 11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
Concerns that name space in the ".com" registry is being depleted and that complementary
business gTLDs are required were once a rationale for restructuring DNS registration and
administration. Documentary evidence of systemic problems with the ".com" gTLD have yet to
be substantiated, but anecdotal evidence suggests the need for increased options for commercial
users. Irrespective of the heightened demand for commercial
names, CIX believes that its
proposed changes to increase use of the ".com" as second level domain within ".us"; operate that
SLD as an attractive namespace for many commercial enterprises, and to consider an expansion of
the generic space under some schema, for example by the cloning of ".com," could satisfy
foreseeable business demand and give policymakers and the Internet community ample time in
which to develop sound, fair long-term solutions which scale to future needs.
Question 12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
guaranteeing
the scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs?
According to some experts, the issue is efficiency -- not technical possibility. The business
manager may also question the additional complexity if the system becomes more confusing -- and
perhaps more difficult to use for the ordinary consumer.
Question 13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about
ISO
country code domains?
CIX sees no reason to distinguish between gTLDs and country TLDs in some cases as
when names could be substituted, for example, when an American firm has the option for
registering for ".com" or ".com.us". This is also true for non-US applicants who can choose
between ".com" or a country TLD and a space in the "com" SLD. In the end, price and service
may determine the final choice.
Different national registrars have diverse policies, some of which may reflect national
conditions without any external impact. The desirability and feasibility of harmonizing DNS
policies deserves serious study since national policies can have international effects, and a review
of the registration and administration of ".us" is particularly urgent because of this country's heavy
demands for domain names, the brand value and symbolic importance of the US's country code,
and the leadership which the US exercises on Internet matters. Decisions to modify and adapt
".us" for commercial purposes and create a new registration and management structure should be
undertaken prior or in parallel to implementation of the final DNS system.
D. Policies for Registries
Question 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?
While there has been strong disagreement even among experts, there appear to be
significant technical and systems obstacles at this time to the use of shared registries for gTLDs
and hence to having multiple registrars, even those domains with a relatively low level of activity -
not to mention busy ones like ".com" and ".org". Shared registries for gTLDs presently do not
exist, and many questions must be answered first before the software is available to enable the
competitive model to be achieved. Policymakers and managers must define their business
requirements with granularity before the necessary software programs can be developed, such as
order of processing applications, effect of delays in receipt of e-mail applications, etc. It is
unclear now how long it will require to overcome technical limitations. The interagency
committee's transition plan should be realistic in assessing the technical problems, provide
flexibility for unanticipated delays, and base the transition plan on successfully solving problems
rather than artificial schedules.
Once a gTLD (or country TLD registration) becomes competitive, registrars must follow
similar policies to ensure uniformity in information collected and processed and in policies to be
followed in that domain.
There is no reason why exclusive and non-exclusive registries should and could not
coexist. Experience and research may show that it will be easy to migrate some of the existing
gTLDs to a competitive environment, while others may move more slowly. Further, new gTLDs
which are designed to be competitive from their inception obviously would not face the problems
of existing domains and might succeed as competitive registration and administrative business
models.
Question 16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name
registrars,
and what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these and
how?
CIX's proposal for a private sector board to administer the commercial space in the US
TLD envisions this task to be farmed out to technically experienced organization[s] to develop
registrar qualifications and procedures. There are alternatives to delegating this task of setting
registrar requirements, as proposed by CIX. Standard qualifications might include technical
knowledge and skills, ample back office operational skills, billing and financial experience,
financial resources, and information technology experience. CIX recommends that registrars be
required to escrow their billing records with a designated authority in the event they leave the
business or go bankrupt, so customers are adequately protected.
It is not clear that the handling
of applications for domain names alone is a reasonable business without providing additional
services such as Internet access, design, hosting, etc.
Question 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?
Limiting the number of different gTLDs a registrar can administer is the type of detailed
policy questions that should be deferred until we have more experience with the permanent DNS
structure and the market for registration services.
E. Trademark Issues
Trademark issues have tended to dominate discussion of the business problems generated
by gTLDs registration and administration although such issues are a small, albeit highly
significant, subset of the overall business issues which should influence policies in this area.
Trademarks are critical to multinational corporations with global brands and which deploy
ample legal resources to and protect their brands. This is not true for the bulk of companies
globally whose primary consideration is simply to establish a viable commercial presence on the
Internet rather than a domain name will mislead or confuse. Therefore, increasing the availability
of commercial namespace is at least as important as the trademark issues which are dealt with
extensively in the gTLD-MoU.
Question 21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks, common law
trademarks, geographic indications, etc.), if any, should be protected on the Internet
vis-à-vis domain names?
The Internet vastly increases the scale and immediacy of trademark issues. However, it is
unclear exactly how current national protection policies conflict with the Internet and how, if at
all, national policies are deficient. Before new international arrangements and institutions are
created, there must exist a better understanding of national trademark regimes in the digital
environment.
An essential early step in improving understanding of DNS trademark conflicts and
solutions should include comprehensive hearings by the US Patent and Trademark Office, its
foreign counterparts, and, perhaps, the appropriate Congressional committees. Such hearings will
improve our understanding on the impact of the DNS on trademark law and which trademark
policies and institutions are inadequate in the new digital environment. The Department of
Commerce's efforts in this docket begin this important educational process, but in and of itself,
may not elicit sufficient information from trademark experts and ISPs for a comprehensive
overview of the problems or solutions to DNS trademark disputes.
Question 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?
CIX strongly supports intellectual property rights as a cornerstone of the modern
information-based economy and acknowledges the problems some trademark owners have
confronted with DNS domain names. ISPs would like to be part of a solution that is balanced,
effective, and consistent with Internet technology.
Timely resolution of trademark disputes is essential, and the gTLD-MoU attempts to deal
with this issue through WIPO constituted challenge panels. That function is valuable, but it is not
at all clear why it justifies granting an international governmental organization a seat on its policy
council or whether DNS trademark is so important as to justify allocating two committee seats to
organizations concerned solely about trademarks even as business and commercial organizations
lack representation. If, in the end, it is agreed that WIPO's dispute resolution services are
needed, they can be provided under contract to the appropriate organization.
Question 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?
Trademark issues should not be allowed to dictate registration procedures to the detriment
of all commercial users and other business considerations. For example, preliminary delays in
processing registration applications would inconvenience applicants and could even cause a
substantial business problem for those whose needs are time-sensitive. Additional databases
devoted solely to checking registered trademarks and tradenames would likely increase
registration costs to all applicants and ISPs. Applications which require the applicant to
demonstrate a basis for requesting a domain name would surely cause processing delays, raise
preparation costs (perhaps even involving legal help), impose a burden on small businesses, and
involve more administrative burdens for uncertain benefits. Before policy and organizational
changes are adopted, there should be a base level of understanding of the extent and gravity of
problems, benefits and costs of various proposals, alternatives, and the time frame in which the
solutions are needed.
The proposal in this question stems an earnest attempt to solve a problem, but it deserves
a separate NOI since its implications are so far reaching. As in several other questions requesting
responses to detailed proposals, it is possible that a satisfactory solution will gradually only with
experience and time. CIX's concerns, noted above, are motivated by the potential impact on
innocent commercial customers and the fact that this proposal shifts part the burden from the
prospective plaintiff/challenger to the applicant and the service provider who handles the
registration application.
Question 27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single
domain name, are there any technological solutions?
Additional namespace as proposed by CIX can be created by exploiting existing
technologies and may help solve some trademark disputes because two or more identically
denominated entities could share a similar domain name. Otherwise, a domain name address
would be exclusive to the original applicant within the gTLD or country space. Disputes over
registered names of strong global or regional brands would not be solved by CIX's proposal.
CIX appreciates the opportunity to provide its views on these important issues involving
the development of the Internet as a commercial network, its critical components, and the
establishment of permanent administrative mechanisms in this process. The roles of Internet and
Online Service Providers and the business community across the globe are central to the
successful growth of the Internet. CIX looks forward to continued participation in the
interagency committee's process and in other domestic and international fora which deal with
critical Internet issues and the
interests of network service providers.
Respectfully submitted,
COMMERCIAL INTERNET EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION
Barbara A. Dooley
Executive Director
Eric Lee
Public Policy Director
Robert D. Collet
Chairman of the Board
Commercial Internet eXchange Association 1041
Sterling Rd. Suite 104A Herndon, VA
20170
(703) 709-8200
Commercial Internet eXchange Association Members
August 1997
@ Home
a2i Communications
ACSI
Apex Global Information Services
Aliant Communications
American Network Inc.
ANS CO+RE Systems
Ascend Communications
Ashton Communications (AICnet)
Asociados Espada
AT&T
AT&T Jens Corporation
ATMnet
Atson, Inc.
BBN Planet
Bekkoame Internet, Inc.
British Telecom
Bull HN Information Systems Inc.
Cable & Wireless Internet Exchange
Centnet
CERFnet
Comnexo
CR Internet
CRL Network Services
Crocker Communications
CTD Technologies, Inc.
CTS Network Services
Cybergate, Inc.
Dart Net Ltd.
Data Research Associates, Inc.
Data Xchange
Datanet Communications Ltd.
Demon Internet Limited
Digital Equipment Corporation
Digital Express Group
Dimension Enterprises
DirectNet Corporation
E-Z Net
easynet DV GmbH
Easynet Group Plc
Electronic Systems of Richmond, Inc.
Emirates Telecommunications
EPIX
Epoch Networks Inc
Eskimo North
EUNet BV
EuroNet Internet BV
Exodus Communications
Fiber Network Solutions, Inc
Fibrcom, Inc.
Fujitsu Limited
Genuity, Inc.
GetNet International
Global One
Global Village Communication
GoodNet
GridNet International
GST Internet, Inc.
Hitachi
Hong Kong Supernet Limited
Hookup Communications Corp.
Hewlett Packard
Hurricane Electric
I-2000
IBM Global Network
ICon CMT
Inet, Inc.
InfoCom Research Inc.
Integrated Network Services
Intermedia Communications Inc.
Internet Bermuda Limited
Internet Corporativo, SE de CV
Internet Exchange Europe
Internet Initiative Japan (IIJ)
Internet Prolink SA
Internet Public Access Corp.
Interpath
Interserve Communication (H.K.) Ltd.
IPF.Net International
ITnet SpA
IUnet s.p.a.
JC Information Systems
JTNET Research Institute
Kokusai Denshin Denwa, (KDD)
Korea Telecom
Lafitte, Morgan & Associates
LDS I-America
Logic Telecom S.A.
Logical NET Corp. (Micros)
MCI Telecommunications
Mikrotec
MIND (Mitsubishi Electric Network
Information Co.)
Minnesota Online
Nacamar Data Communications GmbH
NEC Corporation
Netcom
NetDirect Internet
netINS, Inc.
NETRAIL
NetNet
NetVision
Netway Communications
New York Net
Novia Internetworking
Octacon Ltd.
On-Net
Osaka Media Port Corporation
OSI de Guatemala, S.A.
OTSUKA SHOKAI Co.,Ltd
Pacific Bell Internet
Pearl Vision
Pilot Net Services
Planet Online Ltd.
PSINet
Qwest Communications
RACSAnet
Renater
Rapid Systems, Inc.
Red Creek Communications
Singapore Telecom
SOVAM Teleport
Sprint
Sun Microsystems
Synergy Communications
Tchui Data, Ltd.
Telecom Finland
Teleglobe, Inc
Telewest Communications, Ltd.
The Internet Mainstreet (TIMS)
TheOnRamp Group, Inc.
Thoughtport
Threeweb Corporation
TogetherNet
Tokai Internetwork Council
Tokyo Internet Corporation
Total Connectivity Providers
Toyama Regional Internet Organization
U-NET Ltd.
USIT United States Internet, Inc.
UUNET PIPEX
UUNET Technologies
USAGate
VBCnet (GB) Ltd
VoiceNet
Voyager Networks, Inc.
Web Professionals
WebSecure
Verio
###
Number: 348
From: president- <parker@mibor.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 3:02pm
Subject: domain system
The domain system works and should not be changed. If the new systems is
implemented it would cause confusion to the end user along with a flood of
domain dispute policies. While the new system will solve some problems, it
will likely create far greater ones that cannot be reversed. Not only will
the new system create more trademark disputes but will also create market
confusion to the end user. We need to remember its the end user who really
controls the FUTURE, and yes the Internet leaders need to hold there hand,
but confusion and frustration detracts the end user from enjoying the
Internets full potential. I feel the Internet needs to be more stable
before the new system is and IF implemented. I think there needs to be more
than one register to the existing domains. However, we need to maximize
and stabilize the all ready existing domains. Please do not add more
top-level domain names. These views are only my opinion. thanks
Peace and Productivity
Chad Folkening-President
DigitalPCS.com
317-844-0074
Parker@mibor.net
###
Number: 349
From: "Robert L. Shearing" <robert@priori.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 3:04pm
Subject: Priori DNS Comments
Attached are the comments of Priori Networks, Inc. in Docket No.
970613137-7137-01. Your cooperation is filing them is much appreciated.
Filing Instructions
Mail comments in paper form to Patrice Washington, Office of Public Affairs, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Room 4898, 14th St. and
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230,
or
Mail comments in electronic form is dns@ntia.doc.gov. Comments submitted in electronic
form should be in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, or ASCII format. Detailed information
about electronic filing is available on the NTIA website, Error! Bookmark not
defined..
Paper submissions should include three paper copies and a version on diskette in the formats
specified above. To assist reviewers, comments should be numbered and organized in
response to questions in accordance with the five sections of this notice (Appropriate
Principles, General/Organizational Framework Issues, Creation of New gTLDs, Policies for
Registries, and Trademark Issues). Commenters should address each section on a separate
page and should indicate at the beginning of their submission to which questions they are
responding.
Horzontal lines below represent page breaks.
NB. The filing deadline is 1700 hrs EDT (UTC-4), 18 Aug 1997.
Document available at: http://www.priori.net/NOI
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No.
970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Priori Networks, Inc.
Robert L. Shearing
2893 El Camino Real
Redwood City, CA 94061
President and CEO
August 18, 1997
Summary
A. Appropriate Principles
Principles a-f
Other principles
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Questions 1-9
C. Creation of New gTLDs
Questions 10-14
D. Policies for Registries
Questions 15-20
E. Trademark Issues
Questions 21-28
F. Other Issues
1. Priori Networks, Inc. (hereinafter "Priori") believes that the existing Internet DNS is
politically unstable, and that there is a serious risk of Internet partition at the end of the
existing contract between Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") and the National Science
Foundation at the end of March, 1998.
1. Priori submits that the largest source of that instability is the lack of a democratic
self-governing mechanism to administer the "root" of the DNS. The creation of such a
democratic self-governing root administration is an urgent priority to the Internet
Community as a whole.
1. Priori submits that the second largest source of instability is the existence of a series of
artificial barriers to the registration of new TLDs directly with the root administration.
These barriers are an accident of history, and are not justified on technical, legal or
political grounds. In the future a corporation such as IBM corporation should be able to
register the domain "ibm.", and not be forced to choose "ibm.com." or "ibm.xyz."
1. Priori submits that a Constitutional Convention to formally create a new root
administration should be held as soon as possible, with participation by all interested
individuals and organizations, including representatives of the U.S. Government and other
national Governments.
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No.
970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Priori Networks, Inc.
1. Priori Networks, Inc. respectfully submits comments in this proceeding. Priori Networks,
Inc. is a national Internet backbone specializing in selling Internet connectivity to Internet
Service Providers throughout the U.S. Like other every other business that depends on the
continued growth and vitality of the global Internet, Priori would be hurt severely if the
Internet's Domain Name System were to fragment into political chaos.
A. Appropriate
Principles
a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name registration system should
be encouraged. Conflicting domains, systems, and registries should not be
permitted to jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet, however. The
addressing scheme should not prevent any user from connecting to any other
site.
1. An inherent characteristic of the Internet's Domain Name System is that it is
hierarchical
in nature. This means that, for the system to function effectively, all of the networks that
constitute the Internet must at least tacitly accept that there is a single, authoritative root
or "." Once below the root, however, there can be any number of domains at each level in
the hierarchy.
1. This has two significant consequences for competition. First, competition at the root
level
is simply impossible. The day that "competition" appears is the day that the
interoperability of networks that makes the Internet so useful begins to break down. DNS
policy must never forget this fact. It is a huge political challenge to get millions of
networks to agree to anything, let alone that there must be one unchallenged authority at
the root level of the DNS, but it must be achieved if the Internet is to avoid partition.
1. The second consequence is there is no technical barrier to unlimited competition at every
other level of the DNS hierarchy. Although people can argue about what they think is the
"best" ratio of the number of domains at one level of the hierarchy to the number at
another level, there is nothing inherent in the structure of the DNS or the BIND software
that operates it that limits the number of domains at any level other than the root.
1. This point is not well understood by the Internet community, but it has major
implications
nonetheless. Specifically, there is no necessary reason to limit the number of TLDs, or
SLDs, or another LDs. In other words, the assumption that URLs need end in .com or
.firm or .us is false. There is no technical or administrative reason that IBM should not
have as its domain simply "ibm" so that its web site would be found at www.ibm. Priori
Networks could just as easily be www.priori. The requirement to type a ".com" or ".org"
or ".us" at the end is an accident of history. Because this particular accident is largely
responsible for creating the current legal and political chaos, this would be an appropriate
time to change the system.
1. Some have argued that the BIND software would not be able to use caching properly if
there were hundreds of thousands or millions of TLDs, but this has never been proven, nor
is it an inherent part of the software design. For those who feel strongly about this
argument, however, we point out that it would not be difficult to create a "hidden" group
of TLDs, one for each letter of the alphabet. Thus, www.ibm would actually be
www.ibm.i, where the "i" is the first letter of the SLD and is added automatically by the
software (it would not be typed by or visible to the user - he or she would see only
www.ibm).
1. Elimination of the artificial limit on TLDs would interfere with a number of business
plans
that are premised on becoming a "registry" for one of a limited number of TLDs, but it
should be done nonetheless. This does not mean, however, that companies should not be
free to create new TLDs and attempt to convince others to register in them for a fee.
However, logic would dictate that most organizations (and individuals for that matter)
would prefer not to add a .com or .xyz at the end of their domain name if there is no
requirement that they do so.
1. It follows from this that the concept of "competing registries" is dually flawed. On the
one hand, there can be no competition with the administrator of the root that allocates
TLDs (because it is the root that must "point" to each and every one of these TLDs). On
the other hand, companies that attempt to become a "registry" are not really necessary if
companies and individuals are free to apply directly to the root administrator to obtain a
new TLD (although it is within the realm of possibility that many or most people would
prefer domain names with a .xyz suffix at the end).
1. This does leave room for companies that seek to assist applicants for TLDs in registering
with the root administration. Indeed, this is the exact equivalent of what many companies
are doing right now in assisting applicants with their applications for .com, .net and .org
SLDs from Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI). There is no reason that companies should not
be allowed to purchase, for a fee, assistance in dealing with a root registry that is
effectively a quasi-governmental agency. Attorneys, lobbyists patent and trademark
agents and many other industries have been created by the free market to assist
organizations and individuals in interacting with governmental and quasi-governmental
authorities.
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.
1. These mechanisms should be developed by the "private sector" with private sector
defined
as "anyone who seeks to interconnect their network with the networks that constitute the
Internet."
1. Input from governments should be as welcome as inputs from any other interested
individual or organization.
1. Stability of the DNS is an absolutely critical goal.
1. Misunderstanding of this term "consensus" is responsible for much of the political crisis
surrounding domain names. Consensus is absolutely necessary in the sense that every
network that wishes to interconnect with the other networks that constitute the Internet
must accept the decisions of a single root administration. Consensus is impossible in
the
sense that it defies human nature to expect all of the diverse users of the Internet to agree
on what the appropriate policies of the root administrator should be. Differences of
opinion will always exist, and, in order to win the consent of all parties, these differences
must be resolved in favor of the will of the majority, determined by an actual vote taken by
an authorized and fair method.
1. The mechanism for root administration must be a self-governing one for the simple
reason
that there is no official government entity on the planet that has jurisdiction over the
Internet as a whole. Governments are, of course, users of the Internet, however, and
therefore an important part of the necessary self-governing.
1. It is crucial for the root administration to adequate define responsibilities and maintain
accountability if the Internet is to avoid fragmenting into various political factions.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently global
nature of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over time.
1. Because of the inherently global nature of the Internet, governments, no matter how
well-intentioned, are not capable of governing the root administration on their own.
1. The key to successful evolution over time is to create a stable framework for the root
administration via a written Constitution with provision for Amendment over time. Below
is a Draft Constitution for the Agency for Internet Names and Numbers (AINN), one
possible name for a self-governing organization that would administer the root.
CONSTITUTION OF THE AGENCY FOR INTERNET NAMES AND NUMBERS
We the People of the Internet Community, in order to promote more complete
interoperability of the individual Networks that constitute the Internet, insure
harmonious relations between the various Networks that constitute the Internet, and to
secure the Blessings of Liberty to all the Networks that constitute the Internet, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the Agency for Internet Names and Numbers
(AINN).
ARTICLE I.
SECTION 1. All policymaking Powers granted herein shall be vested in the
Membership of the Agency for Internet Names and Numbers.
SECTION 2. The Membership of the AINN shall be composed of those
individuals and organizations that pay the required Membership fee and submit a duly-completed
application.
The Membership of the AINN will elect a Board of Trustees on an annual basis and
will determine the responsibilities of the Board on an annual basis.
SECTION 3. The Membership will vote on major policy issues at regularly
scheduled elections held at least twice/year; provided, however, that a special election
may be called at any time by a petition signed by at least five (5%) of the AINN
Membership.
SECTION 4. The Membership will keep a Journal of its Proceedings,
including the results of its Elections, and publish this journal electronically on the
Internet.
SECTION 5. The Membership will have Power to determine the prices
charged for globally unique identifiers, whether administered by the AINN itself or by
contracted outside entities.
To provide for organizing, operating and maintaining whatever registries of Internet
globally unique identifiers it determines are necessary to
To make all policies, rules and regulations necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in
the AINN, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
SECTION 6. No bill of attainder or ex post facto policy, rule or regulation
shall be passed.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the AINN, unless appropriated by the
Membership, and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures
of all AINN Money shall be published from time to time.
ARTICLE II
SECTION 1. Management of day-to-day operations of the AINN shall be vested in a
General Administrator of the AINN. The General Administrator will be selected by
the Membership.
SECTION 2. The General Administrator shall from time to time provide the
Membership with Information on the state of the AINN Administration, and
recommend measures for their Consideration.
ARTICLE III
SECTION 1. The judicial Power of the AINN shall be vested in one Judicial Review
Board, and in such inferior tribunals as the Membership may from time to time ordain
and establish. The members of the Judicial Review Board will be elected by the
Membership.
SECTION 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases arising under this
Constitution and the policies, rules and regulations of the AINN.
ARTICLE IV.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given to the public Acts, Records, and judicial
Proceedings of every court of competent jurisdiction in every sovereign nation. The
Membership may by general policies, rules and regulations prescribe the Manner in
which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
ARTICLE V.
Amendments to this Constitution shall be proposed by a Majority Vote of the
Membership or a Majority Vote of the Board of Trustees, and shall be valid as Part of
this Constitution when ratified by a two thirds vote of the Membership.
ARTICLE VI.
This Constitution, and the policies, rules and regulations which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof, shall be binding on all Networks that choose to be connected to
the Internet.
ARTICLE VII.
The Ratification by two thirds of the Delegates to the AINN Constitutional
Convention shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open,
robust, efficient, and fair.
1. Yes. See paragraphs 1-16 above.
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.
1. Yes.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of these
issues permits.
1. Yes. The Internet DNS is at great political risk. There is presently only one entity with
the administrative capability to administer the entire root. That entity, NSI, is a
corporation whose contract to administer the .com, .net. and org domains expires at the
end of March, 1998. It is extremely uncertain whether or not that organization, or any
other organization, will be accepted by the Internet community as having binding authority
over the root administration after that time. If no single organization is accepted as
binding authority over the root administration, the Internet will partition, with potentially
catastrophic consequences.
1. Support of the U.S. Government for a Constitutional Convention to create a new
democratically governed root administration would significantly increase the likelihood
that such a Convention would take place and that it would succeed in preventing the DNS
from disintegrating into political chaos after March, 1998.
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems?
1. The principal advantage of the current domain name registration system is that it works.
Not perfectly, but well enough to make the Internet tremendously useful to individuals and
organizations around the world.
1. The principal disadvantage of the current domain name registration system is that it has
fostered tremendous political instability. The corporation that largely administers the root,
NSI, has a fiduciary duty to maximize the investment returns of its shareholders, not to
maximize the effort expended on behalf of the Internet community or to minimize the
costs to the Internet community. This is the source of much hostility toward NSI in the
Internet community, even though it is nearly impossible to define what specifically would
have been done differently if NSI had been a self-governing organization controlled
directly by the Internet Community for the last four years.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
1. A new Membership-based self-governing root administration should be created by the
Internet Community. (See the proposed Constitution of AINN above.) This entity would
exercise binding authority over the root administration. This entity might choose to
contract with private entities, including NSI, for the performance of certain functions, but
the organization would be responsible for directly setting policy based on the majority will
of its members.
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?
24. See paragraphs 1-23 above.
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?
1. Given the sheer scope and scale of the global Internet, by far the most relevant models
are
the actual governments of the Western democracies. The concepts of a written
Constitution, separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, democratic voting
mechanisms, a procedure for Constitutional Amendments - all of these are as crucial to the
survival of Internet self-governance as they are to the survival of Western democracies.
(Yes, democracy is possible without a written Constitution, but there are number of
advantages to having one.)
1. Governing mechanisms appropriate for a small private club or an industry trade group
can
be used successfully for something as narrowly focused as a network numbering plan or
spectrum allocation. They can no longer be used successfully in Internet governance. The
"governed" are now so numerous and diverse that obtaining direct consent of the
governed is absolutely necessary if the Internet is to avoid disintegrating into political
chaos.
1. The AINN would be an international non-governmental organization, and would have
the
critical role described in paragraphs 1-23 above.
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. gTLDs should not be forcibly retired from circulation, but it is likely that the majority of
Internet users would prefer to go directly to the root for an individual TLD (www.ibm
rather than www.ibm.com, see above.)
1. Requiring geographic or country codes would be a mistake in a Multi-National world.
Multi-National corporations do not want to be known by 200 seperate TLDs (ibm.co.uk,
ibm.co.us, ibm.co.to, etc).
1. The .com registry should be allowed to shrink naturally according to market demand.
31. There is no necessary link between gTLDs and ISO country code domains.
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?
32. See paragraphs 1-23 above.
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?
1. The only way to ensure that root servers continue to interoperate and coordinate is to
create a democratic self-governing organization to administer the root (root servers plus
their relationships to TLD servers). The most likely way that such an organization could
be created is if for the Internet Community to call a Constitutional Convention for the
purpose of creating such an organization. See paragraphs 19-32 above.
1. Another possibility would be for NSI to be converted directly into the necessary
non-profit self-governing organization. This latter option would have a number of advantages,
but would be much more difficult to achieve politically. NSI's shareholders would have to
be "bought out" somehow, and determining a price at which such a transaction would take
price would be fraught with difficulties. The only realistic possible sources of funds to buy
out the NSI shareholders would be future revenues from domain name registration or U.S.
government funds. The former involves difficult valuation issues; the latter relies on U.S.
taxpayer funds that are not readily available for this purpose.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
1. The new self-governing root administration should be created immediately. The
organization would then work closely with NSI in effecting a transition.
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations that constrain the
total number of different gTLDs that can be created?
1. No. The number of TLDs, generic or otherwise, can and should be virtually unlimited,
so
that most of what are today called SLDs are tomorrow called TLDs.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
37. Yes. See paragraphs 1-23 above.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the
scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs?
1. There are no technical problems with increasing the number of TLDs that are incapable
of
ready solution. The problems with the DNS are by and large political rather than
technical.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
code domains?
39. There is no necessary link between the two.
1. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
N/A
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?
1. In a DNS without restrictions on TLDs, the notion of "gTLD registrar" would tend to
become obsolete. The owner of the domain ibm. (presumably IBM corporation) would
itself be a "TLD registrar." Still, some individuals and organizations would prefer to
register in other TLDs, including gTLDs administered by others, so the question remains
relevant. We suggest that gTLDs be handled in the same manner that all TLDs are
handled, on a first-come, first-served basis.
1. Any sharing between "registries" should be on a purely voluntary basis. In a system
where
there is no restriction on the creation of new TLDs (anyone can apply for and receive any
one that is not already taken), there are no competitive issues interfering with the use of
exclusive TLDs.
1. There is no reason exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs could not coexist.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and
what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these and
how?
43. There should be no barriers to becoming the owner/registrar of a new TLD.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?
44. No. See paragraphs 4-5 above.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space
raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
45. None that are not readily solvable. See paragraphs 1-23 above.
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?
1. No and No.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
1. N/A
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?
1. Trademarks should be protected as they have been for hundreds of years, by the parties
involved through either private dispute resolution or via the courts. The Internet
community does not have jurisdiction over trademark law.
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?
1. The self-governing entity responsible for root administration should behave in the same
manner with respect to trademarks as any large corporation would. Would Time
Magazine sell a full page ad to a General Motors Cars, Inc., a maker of toy cars?
Probably it would decline to do so in absence of proof that no trademark conflict exists
with the "real" General Motors car company. Likewise, in "obvious" cases like this one it
would be reasonable for the self-governing body to deny registration of the domain
generalmotors. to anyone other than the car company.
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?
1. In all non-obvious cases the self-governing body should decline to take responsibility for
researching the potential conflict, for notifying the parties to a potential conflict, or for
referring one or more parties to "dispute settlement." Instead, it should simply register
applicants for TLDs on a first-come, first-served basis, and let any conflicts that develop
be resolved between the parties, either privately or through the courts.
1. Aside from a preliminary review process, trademark rights on the Internet should be
protected via national courts. The Internet community, and therefore any self-governing
organization that it creates, does not have jurisdiction to resolve trademark disputes.
Therefore, the self-governing organization should only take a position on a trademark
dispute where it believes it is clear that the governing law of the appropriate jurisdiction
would clearly require that a domain name registration be denied.
1. There is no appropriate role for national/international governmental/nongovernmental
organizations, other than as stated above.
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?
1. By allowing anyone to register any domain in any new TLD. See paragraphs 1-23
above. In this system, speculators intending to register domains (i.e. gucci. or kodak.)
solely for the purpose of extracting settlement payments from corporations eager to avoid
the expense of litigation would stand out like a sore thumb. These registrations could
easily be denied as obvious cases by the root administration, and, if they inadvertently
slipped through the self-governing organization, could be reversed easily in national courts
via summary proceedings rather than prolonged litigation.
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?
1. No basis should be required or even requested unless the officials of the self-governing
organization believe that the registration would represent an obvious trademark
infringement. If there is any ambiguity at all in the context of the application, the
registration should be granted and the burden of enforcement placed on the trademark
holder, where it traditionally lies. Any other policy is doomed to swamp the root
administration in the resolution of trademark disputes.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars
affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
1. Allowing anyone to register any TLD absent an obvious trademark violation would drive
the cost of resolving trademark disputes to the cost of resolving trademark disputes in
almost any other context. The existing artificial shortage of TLDs is creating large
numbers of unnecessary trademark conflicts.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain
name, are there any technological solutions?
1. No. Trademark issues are legal and political rather than technical.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
N/A
N/A
Annex 1
Service List
*********************************************************
Robert L. Shearing voice: +1-650-482-2840
President/CEO fax: +1-650-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
*********************************************************
###
Number: 350
From: Tony Rutkowski <amr@netmagic.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 3:18pm
Subject: DNS NOI Comments
The attached comments are respectfully submitted by
Anthony M. Rutkowski.
(signed)
Anthony M. Rutkowski
13102 Weather Vane Way
Herndon VA 20171
tel: +1 703.437.9236
Document available at:
<http://www.wia.org/pub/amr-dnsnoi-comments.html>
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information
Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No.
970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Anthony M. Rutkowski
[signed by]
Anthony M. Rutkowski
13102 Weather Vane Way
Herndon VA 20171
USA
18 Aug 1997
mailto: amr@netmagic.com
tel: +1 703.437.9236
fax: +1 703.471.0596
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary
A. Appropriate Principles
Principles a-f
Other principles
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Questions 1-9
C. Creation of New gTLDs
Questions 10-14
D. Policies for Registries
Questions 15-20
E. Trademark Issues
Questions 21-28
SUMMARY
The subject matter of this proceeding is a key component among several fundamental
transitions in the evolution and scaling of the Internet and its applications. The creation,
development, operation, and administration of the Internet over the past 20 years has - until
only the past few years - occurred under the auspices of the United States Federal
Government. The responsibility and overall management of Internet identifiers including
generic domain names has remained under Federal auspices. In a fashion similar to the
well-considered transition of ownership and control of the Internet backbone to a stable
private-sector arrangement three years ago, it is now appropriate through this proceeding to
accomplish the same for the administration of Internet identifiers, including domain names.
The existing arrangements have been and remain effective and satisfactory for the vast
preponderance of Internet providers and users. Generic domain names are used and of
interest almost entirely in the United States especially for branding and marketing. There
is no need to act urgently. There is, however, a need: to understand much better what users
want; to understand what is technically and operationally feasible; to devise appropriate
policy objectives; to allow some experimentation to occur in providing root, root-server, and
registration services, to avoid attempts by various secondary groups especially
intergovernmental organizations - to claim "governance" authority; and to generally put in
place the lawful and effective processes, arrangements, and models by which the private-sector
can undertake the policy making and administrative responsibilities long undertaken
by the federal government and its contractors.
This situation is similar to the same kind of transition effected more than a decade ago in
conjunction with the implementation of the A&T Consent Decree and the creation of
arrangements now known as the North American Numbering Plan Administration
(NANPA). Similar open, industry-driven institutional and process arrangements with
antitrust liability protection and appellate review provided by an appropriate federal
government agency. Because some identifier services like those supporting DNS are more
akin to directory services rather than physical number assignments, there is also likely
greater flexibility in allowing a relatively unfettered market to occur.
Continuing flexibility and responsiveness are particularly significant for the Internet arena
where technologies and applications are changing so dramatically. For example, the existing
domain name system may need to evolve significantly to support the use of mobile software
agents or new electronic commerce implementations.
The least desirable outcome is one where one particular set of parties unilaterally assumes
dominant control by sheer assertion, where intergovernmental organization responsibilities
and processes are put in place by formal agreements, or where top-down institutional
arrangements become effected that are closed, sheltered, and unresponsive to real
stakeholders and users.
The diverse Federal agencies instrumental in conducting this proceeding are to be
commended for doing so, thereby providing a critically important open public forum for
gathering views on the important questions and issues identified. Going forward, those same
agencies not only have a unique opportunity, but an important obligation to take the
necessary subsequent steps to put into place a NANPA like mechanism that brings industry
and users together on a continuing basis to openly develop the information, criteria, policies,
and administrative practices for domain names and other Internet identifiers.
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information
Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No.
970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Anthony M. Rutkowski
1. These comments are respectfully submitted by Anthony M. Rutkowski. The qualifications
of Mr. Rutkowski are well-known and a matter of public record. He possesses degrees in both
Electrical Engineering and Law. Over the past thirty years, he has held many positions which
dealt with many of the issues raised in the inquiry, including Chief of International
Telecommunication Regulations and Relations Between Members at the International
Telecommunication Union, FCC Engineer, Adjunct Professor at New York Law School
(teaching the graduate program in international telecommunications law), Research Associate
at MIT, and industry positions with General Magic, Sprint, Horizon House, Pan American
Engineering, and General Electric. He has enjoyed leadership positions in many diverse
Internet, WWW, legal, and telecommunication organizations, has appeared on several
occasions as an expert witness before committees of the U.S. Congress, and authored scores
of related published articles and several books. He is presently Vice President of Internet
Business Development at General Magic, Inc, of Sunnyvale, California, but filing in a personal
capacity, and not necessarily representing its views. See
<http://www.chaos.com/rutkowski.html>
A. Appropriate Principles
a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name registration system should
be encouraged. Conflicting domains, systems, and registries should not be
permitted to jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet, however. The
addressing scheme should not prevent any user from connecting to any other
site.
2. This principal in its present form is too abstract and general to be useful. The principal
subject matter of the inquiry happens to be one instantiation of an array of existing and
possible name systems, products, and services that exist, are specified, or may evolve for use
with applications running across the distributed, heterogeneous private network of networks
commonly referred to as the Internet. Within each of these instantiations including the
present predominant one - there are a multitude of possible architectures and implementations
that may or may not in whole or in part be capable of or benefit from expansion and
competition in providing the services and products. From a public policy standpoint, it is not
clear why such Internet related name system services and products should be treated any
differently than another enhanced, private networks and services.
3. Along similar lines, it is intrinsically difficult to specify what the "Internet,"
"interoperation," or "connecting to" are, much less specify them as principles. Furthermore,
name systems support applications running across the Internet, not the Internet, qua Internet.
In practice, it is users, industry, and the marketplace that define these attributes.
4. As Internet pioneer Einar Stefferud has admonished in public statements, the sole technical
operational requirement is "coherency" as part of a general desire to further widespread
connectivity. There is no other technical operational requirement that can or should
serve as a
public policy principle. Thus, it is apparent that there are significant antitrust implications
underlying this proceeding which needs to be recognized and openly discussed . Private
organizations on their own cannot establish and attempt to implement other criteria for who
can or cannot enter that marketplace, including attendant enforcement mechanisms. Doing so
creates an antitrust conspiracy.
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.
5. This is a desirable principle, although it is unclear what purpose "input from governments
serves." With perhaps a single exception, the desirable roles of government in this matter are
largely procedural, and associated with: 1) assuring lawful and appropriate transition from
existing legacy implementations, 2) stable, open, public, industry-driven processes and
institutional mechanisms for achieving consensus on policies and administration, 3) keeping
other government and intergovernmental organizations from encroaching into this arena, and
4) providing antitrust guidance, liability protection and associated appellate relief. In light of
para. 4., above, the antitrust-related role assumes substantial, inescapable significance. This is
not a matter that Federal government can simply abandon to the private-sector. If there are
public policy reasons for limiting a freely open market in domain name services and products,
it is the government that must determine and implement those policies.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently global
nature of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over time.
6. This is a desirable principle. However, "inherently global" should not necessarily imply
only
a conventional international connotation. What we are dealing with here are unique private
identifiers for use among private information systems. These identifiers sometimes in the form
of language expressions constituting names. There are many different ontologies and
communities of interest potentially involved and it is this breadth of scope to which
"global"
should refer.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open,
robust, efficient, and fair.
7. This seems like a desirable principle, although the quality of "nondiscriminatory" should be
included. This non-discriminatory treatment should apply worldwide for the processes
employed not only to users of DNS services and products, but also to providers as they seek
to enter markets. In addition, the framework itself should be consistently applied for all
similar instantiations.
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.
8. This seems like a desirable principle, although the notion of "should promote" seems too
narrow and should be amended to allow for multiple external means of conflict resolution such
as existing administrative and judicial mechanisms. The number of conflicts in this arena in
practice have been comparatively miniscule, and existing judicial processes have proven
comparatively very effective. Conversely, the notion that entirely new conflict management
mechanisms need to be established especially mandatory, far-reaching, new
intergovernmental ones when most of the conflicts are likely to arise in the U.S. seems
particularly inappropriate if not ludicrous.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of these
issues permits.
9. This principle is inappropriate and unneeded. Although unnecessary delay should not
occur, there is no urgency of any kind associated with his matter other than staying actions by
some parties especially intergovernmental organizations - to acquire unlawfully and
inappropriately the responsibilities and authority in this matter presently effected by the
Federal government and its contractors. This is a wholly artificial exigency, and it is far more
important to effect a transition to a stable, accountable, responsive, and effective industry
framework that will establish significant precedents, serve as a governance model, that
everyone must live with for some significant number of years.
Other principles and related issues related to domain names.
10. There are other principles that deserve recognition. These include the private resource
character of domain names, related First Amendment expression, and the stakeholders
affected.
11. Some parties in the ongoing discourse on domain names especially some
intergovernmental organizations have sought to characterize domain names as a radio
spectrum like "limited global public resource" for purposes of assuming jurisdiction and
effecting traditional international managed cartel governance models. The issue is whether
domain names are treated a "public resource" to be administered by an ITU-type bureaucracy
or conversely as globally unique, registered private name expressions managed by private
entities. Denominating domain names as a global public resource seems at best a perversion
that is orthoginal to reality, and a poor public policy making choice that has significant
permanent administrative implications. Thus, an additional principle should be adopted that
asserts "domain names are globally unique private expressions that describe an open network
based information object."
12. Domain names in the final analysis are language expressions. Increasingly, they are being
significantly used for marketing products, services, and ideas. Yet no free expression related
principles were included in the Notice of this proceeding. At the international level, this is a
growing issue that some institutions and governments deign to control with an apparent
intent to prevent the use of domain names that may be undesirable or offensive to some
peoples or groups. A principle relating to domain name expressions both personal and
commercial should be adopted - invoking instruments such as the First Amendment in the US,
and Human Rights Declaration and World Trade Organization agreements internationally.
13. Significant economic investments are at stake here - by existing registrants, by existing
registrars, by other affected parties. In the real business world, countless millions of dollars
have been invested in establishing and using names within markets. In the United States in
particular, generic domain names have become an exceedingly important vehicle for
establishing and maintaining recognition for corporate and organizational brands, products,
and services. It is inescapable and pervasive via every medium from television, radio, and
printed publications to billboards and cereal boxes. Some argue that branding is indeed the
most significant issue going forward, and that given a market based commerce approach, the
subject deserves significant attention in the form of a principle.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems?
14. Existing domain name services and products which include registration services,
root-server services, and DNS software function well, have found enormous public
acceptance,
and have produced comparatively miniscule disputes and problems worldwide. This is
supported not only by the facts, but also by statements by business leaders and public officials
in the U.S. and other regions and countries. Indeed, the primary expressed concerns deal with
the instabilities and changes being unilaterally pursued by several parties and
intergovernmental organizations purporting to have "governance" authority.
15. However, the existing scheme just grew by default with very little thought or
consideration - probably the inevitable result of closed processes attendant to long-standing
government management and contractor practices established for the Internet as a component
of the Defense Data Network (DDN). Not only have there been no public processes for
determining administrative policies and making decisions, there were no public procedures or
decision making records. Although this may have been perfectly acceptable and effective in
the past, it seems generally agreed that this is not a regime appropriate for large-scale Internet
implementation in a commercial marketplace.
16. In addition, grant of monopoly registration franchises to entities in other countries for
2-letter domains frequently government agencies or entities wholly under the control of
government agencies with little or no private-sector role seems wholly inappropriate for a
private Internet infrastructure. Even in the United States, the DOD DNS root management
contractor in conjunction with a National Science Foundation project, assigned the
responsibility to a closed arrangement operated by the University of Southern California.
Because this proceeding involves Federal government in transitioning its existing
responsibilities to future arrangements worldwide, it should playing a proactive role in
establishing or shaping open, industry-oriented arrangements for top level domain policies and
administration.
17. Even the technical operational arena there are major potential disadvantages to the
existing domain name system. For example, there are a small group of TLDs that have
organizational connotations, and a much larger group that have geopolitical connotations. By
contrast, various agent naming standards groups have given the matter rigorous consideration
and developed a system of flexible naming ontologies. See, e.g., Agent Management,
FIPA'97 Draft Specification at http://drogo.cselt.stet.it/fipa/spec/17611.htm.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
18. As noted above, the improvements involve many elements: transitions in responsibilities
away from the Federal government but dealing with attendant antitrust issues; coupled with
the establishment of go-forward, open, user-oriented process and institutional models for the
system worldwide. In the short-term if the aggressive related activities of
intergovernmental
organizations could be abated - the existing arrangements could readily be continued, together
with a combination of technical study and entrepreneurial experimentation.
19. The agent environment is potentially much more complex and varied than the relatively
simple one dimensional existing DNS environment. Since we're now at a fairly significant
point of establishing future directions, policymakers, industry, and users should use the
occasion to take a somewhat broader, harder look at what purpose the DNS will be serving in
the future, and what the ontology (i.e., structure of naming) should be for that future? (The
term "ontology" is used extensively within computer science, knowledge exchange (esp.
KQML), object, and software agent communities with a connotation and purpose somewhat
similar to "taxonomy" in the biology community. It's a useful concept and methodology
because it recognizes that distributed knowledge structures across Internet like networks are
flexible and autonomous, and that some threshold step of understanding and agreeing on an
ontology is necessary for meaningful communication. The existing Internet DNS is
somewhat application- specific and uni-dimensional - dealing only with places, and presently
has only three ill-defined ontologies: 1) territories (e.g., cnri.reston.va.us), 2) type of
sponsoring institution (e.g., fcc.gov), or a hybrid of the two (e.g., dillons.co.uk). As such,
it's not suitable for more advanced applications that are beginning to emerge where there are
highly distributed arrays of mobile and stationary objects that need to have assigned names.
Naming systems for these kind of applications and systems must necessarily allow for diverse
and flexible ontologies. It's worth reflecting on why anyone would seek permanent
intergovernmental agreements and global administrative structures constructed around a
naming system serendipitously created 12 years ago for an Internet that consisted of a DDN
operation of 2000 hosts with only a handful of simple applications.)
20. As part of this activity, continued treatment of 2-letter geopolitical identifiers as ISO
codes is an open invitation for never ending trouble and formal intrusion of national
authorities. Because the Internet is basically a distributed information system, the identifiers
aren't really tied to any physical notion of geographical exercise of sovereignty. Along these
lines, it seems desirable to have multiple geopolitical identifiers.
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?
21. Domain name services and products of all types should be provided by private-sector
entities except where the domain itself may be the government. The overall responsibilities
for establishing and implementing the ground rules should occur through an open, industry-driven
body similar to the NANPA.
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?
22. As noted above, a NANPA-like model seems appropriate. The nominal sponsoring entity
for antitrust and public policy purposes could similarly be a Federal agency. It is not
necessary and should not be an intergovernmental organization. The Internet and its
applications are private as opposed to public systems, and thus outside the scope
of
traditional intergovernmental organization management responsibilities.
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?
23. There is widespread, large-scale acceptance of the use of generic top level domains, and
the need for such a change is not evident. Furthermore the economic consequences would be
substantial. Lastly, it is not clear on what basis such a change could be mandated. The
evolution of the Internet and its applications will require more flexible DNS ontologies, not a
more restrictive, less flexible one.
24. As noted above, it may well be desirable to establish in the U.S. and facilitate abroad, a
number of alternative country-oriented domains. The history of past .US management and
control was instrumental in the paucity of .US registrations. That problem can be corrected in
several ways, and the focus should be in that direction rather than pursuing restrictive
alternatives.
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?
25. Whatever issues have arisen are non-technical in nature. Within reason, the
technology
can be applied to support a wide variety of architectures, policies and implementations. Root
and TLD administration is bound to root server administration, and effective arrangements
between the various providers will be necessary. The same situation exists with respect to the
vendors of DNS software who presently provide the default tables that are presently
linked
to the root servers. This area of implementation and de facto enforcement of policies also
raises significant antitrust concerns and potential liabilities. These two categories of providers
root-server services and DNS software vendors effectively control the
marketplace for
services under existing arrangements. This has not been an issue in the past because the
overall responsibilities have been born by the Federal government, but will be so in a
substantially private-sector oriented DNS provisioning environment.
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?
26. It is not apparent that scalability of the system is a significant issue. It is not clear what is
meant by "address spaces." As noted in para 25., above, interoperation and coordination is
necessary. However, this can be entrusted to a NANPA like organization.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
27. These are responsibilities being transferred from Federal government and contractor
auspices to new arrangements. The transition is very similar to that paced ten years ago with
the implementation of the AT&T Consent Decree. Virtually identical processes can be used
involving a combination of proceedings, corporation formation, and establishment of the basic
model and processes.
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
28. By the force of events, an issue has arisen regarding the role of United Nations.
intergovernmental treaty organizations, including so-called depository functions which are
in
fact highly proactive, open-ended, and jurisdiction setting . Fundamentally, it is plain that any
involvement whatsoever of such U.N. organizations in the provision of private network
information service operations such as the Internet is not only unneeded and inappropriate at
this time, but also constitute a very undesirable precedent. The involvement that has occurred
over the past year arose from unapproved, aggressive initiatives of permanent secretariats
which itself is a very undesirable precedent.
29. Tolerance of this conduct, much less acceptance of such roles, poses substantial risks for
U.N. system related policies, for Electronic Commerce policies and initiatives, and for the
evolution of the Internet and its applications. Tolerance and acceptance will also encourage
further such behavior. The effects will be permanent and long-term raising the cost of
U.N.
agency contributions, and entwining Internet users and providers in a maze of new U.N.
organization driven legal, policy making and administrative activities over which it will have
no control and likely adverse outcomes. This dynamic substantially endangers the ability for an
industry-driven model to be put into place not only for DNS services, but potentially an array
of other Internet related services as well. These concerns have already been recognized and
initial abating actions taken by the Secretary of State. As part of this proceeding, appropriate
Federal government agencies should take necessary multilateral, bilateral, and unilateral steps
to halt these U.N. specialized agency activities.
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?
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the
scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs?
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
code domains?
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
30. There are no apparent technical considerations that are incapable of resolution other than
the single requirement for coherency. There are, however, an undefined array of practical,
market, and policy considerations that need exploration and resolution in due course by
stakeholders and other affected parties in an open NANPA-like mechanism, and difficult at
best to be determined in this proceeding even if it is useful to raise them for the industry.
31. In information system architectural terms, this is a process of deciding ontologies (i.e.,
structure) and their branches. It involves determining weight given technical, practical,
policy, business considerations, including the tradeoffs and tensions among them. Part of this
involves determining what exactly are the resulting goals being sought. These are rarely
articulated. Is it stability, security, low costs, flexibility, administrative speed? Or is the goal
simply an open architecture for distributed naming services. It might be worth considering in
the context of this proceeding, exactly what are the public policy or business bases for making
these choices. The Internet as a critical infrastructure may modify these choices.
32.. The name "generic" has been pinned onto the current 3-letter TLDs in recent years.
From
an ontology perspective, however, these are really entrepreneurial-type TLDs preponderantly
favored by US entities for marketing purposes. See Generic TLD Trends, Appendix 2. The
entire matter might be usefully dealt with as multiple ontologies that could very well have
different purposes, models, regimes, and institutions. In this context, an "entrepreneurial-type"
ontology (.COM, .ORG, etc) are the least appropriate for binding to complex
international regimes that would be endlessly becoming nvolved in matters that primarily
relate to information services and branding for US business and marketing.
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?
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and
what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these and
how?
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space
raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
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?
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
33. These questions largely parallel and amplify the issues raised and discussed in Section C,
above. They are part of an array of practical, market, and policy considerations that need
exploration and resolution in due course by stakeholders and other affected parties in an open
NANPA-like mechanism, and difficult at best to be determined in this proceeding even if
it is
useful to raise them for the industry.
34. It is important to examine these questions for all gTLDs. There are vast array of possible
DNS ontologies, and these policies may well be different for different DNS ontology classes.
For example, some country-oriented classes may have one set of policies, while quite different
policies might apply to other classes particularly highly desirable marketing and branding
classes. It is not apparent why "one size fits all" policies need to be maintained especially
considering the very heterogeneous, distributed nature of the Internet and its applications.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars
affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain
name, are there any technological solutions?
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
35. Given the existing facts that include 1) more than one million domain names being
registered, 2) a few hundred known disputes arising at most, 3) less than two dozen litigated
disputes, and 4) virtually all generic TLD use and disputes occurring in the United States, it is
appears that the existing arrangements work well and remain efficient and satisfactory.
Furthermore, any intractable disputes arising will almost certainly be resolved under national
law by national judicial systems. Under these circumstances, any new international regimes
are patently unneeded, unwarranted, comparatively highly inefficient, and likely to exacerbate
an already complex conflict of laws environment.
36. It appears, however, that a consensus on trademark-related procedures attendant to
existing registration activities among trademark law practitioners would be useful and could
be attained through a NANPA-like mechanism.
Appendix 1
Internet DNS Historical Timeline
OFFICIAL ACTIONS AND STATISTICS
1985
Q1 DCA/DARPA implement RFCs
920,921, tasks USC-ISI for DNS root management,
SRI International for DNS NIC registrations
Mar SYMBOLICS.COM is first
registered domain - 15 Mar 1985
Apr CMU.EDU, PURDUE.EDU,
RICE.EDU, UCLA.EDU are first registered .EDU
domains
Jun CSS.GOV is first registered .GOV
domain
Jul MITRE.ORG is first registered .ORG
domain
Jul UK is first registered 2-letter domain
Oct 5 .COM, 1 .ORG, 0 .NET, 17 .EDU,
1 .GOV, 2 .MIL, 1 .UK, 1782 .ARPA domains
registered
Oct Internet at 2k hosts (Lottor)
1986
Nov Internet at 5k hosts
1987
Nov Mockapetris writes RFC1034
(Domain Name Concepts and Facilities) and RFC 1035
(Implementation and Specification)
Dec Internet at 28k hosts (Lottor)
1988
Oct Internet at 56k hosts (Lottor)
1989
Oct Internet at 159k hosts (Lottor)
1990
Oct Internet at 313k hosts (Lottor)
- DISA rebids DDN NIC contract
1991
- DISA awards DDN NIC contract to
Government Systems Inc.
May DDN NIC moves from SRI International to GSI
Oct Internet at 617k hosts (Lottor)
Oct 165 .COM, 22 .ORG, 20 .NET, 285 .EDU, 29 .GOV, 20
.MIL, 1 .AT, 29 .AU, 20 .CA,
2 .CH, 15 .DE, 3 .DK, 1 .IL, 2 .IT, 1 .JP, 1 .KR, 1 .MX, 11 .NL, 2 .NO, 2 .NZ, 2 .PR, 9 .SE, 5
.UK, 3
.US domains registered
1992
Jan 31 two-letter domains in use (Lottor)
Q1 DISA allocates .COM, .ORG, .NET,
.EDU. and .GOV to NSF
Mar NSF issues RFP for .COM, .ORG,
.NET, .EDU. and .GOV services
Oct NSF awards contract to Network
Solutions Inc
Oct Internet at 1136k hosts (Lottor)
1993
Jan NSF 5 yr contract to Network
Solutions Inc begins for .COM, .ORG, .NET, .EDU.
and .GOV services
Jan 51 two-letter domains in use (Lottor)
Mar 0.6k COM, 1.1k EDU, 0.5k ORG,
0.2k NET, 103 two-letter domains
Oct Internet at 2056k hosts (Lottor)
1994
Jan 11k COM, 1.4k EDU, 1.1k ORG,
0.4k NET, 115 two-letter domains
Jan 61 two-letter domains in use (Lottor)
Oct Internet at 3864k hosts (Lottor)
1995
Jan 30k COM, 2k EDU, 3k ORG, 2k
NET 140 two-letter domains
Jan 87 two-letter domains in use (Lottor)
Apr Internet backbone network
transitioned to private-sector
Jul Internet at 6642k hosts (Lottor)
Sep InterNIC announces domain name
services charges
1996
Jan 133 two-letter domains in use
(Lottor)
Feb 232k COM, 2k EDU, 17k ORG, 11k
NET, 168 two-letter domains
Jul Internet at 12881k hosts (Lottor)
1997
Jan 796k COM, 3k EDU, 53k ORG, 44k
NET, 197 two-letter domains
Jan 177 two-letter domains in use
(Lottor)
May 1222k COM, 4k EDU, 84k ORG,
86k NET, 215 two-letter domains
Jul US Federal DNS Inquiry Proceeding
published in Federal Register
Jul Internet at 22000k hosts (estimated)
Aug US Federal DNS Inquiry Proceeding
deadline for comments
Other meetings and actions
1996
Jan DNS Workshop, Washington DC
Jan ISOC issues initial plan for assuming
DNS responsibilities
Jun OECD workshop on domain names
Jul USC staff for DOD-IANA contract issue
plan for new domains
Jul Newdom listserve created
Aug USC staff indicate acceptance of new
registry applications
Aug Image Online application allegedly
accepted
Sep Harvard IIP Conference
Sep Operational alternative registries
appear
Oct ACICP meetings on domain name
policy
Oct FNCAC advises transfer of registry
functions to private sector
Dec ISOC creates IAHC with INTA,
ITU, and WIPO
1997
Feb ISOC IAHC committee issues report
asserting DNS powers
Feb Image Online files suit in California
court
Mar PGMedia files suit in NY Federal
court
Mar ISOC IAHC committee issues MoU
Mar First eDNS meeting, Atlanta
Mar European Commission issues
demarché on MoU
Apr DNS Brief filed with federal agencies
by Rutkowski
Apr US Dept of State sends
demarché expressing concerns to ITU Secretary-General
May ISOC-ITU MoU signing ceremony,
Geneva
May Image Online hearing on TRO, suit
withdrawn
Jun ITU Council considers General
Secretariat MoU actions, begins 60-day comment
period
Q2 Multiple DNS confederations emerge
Jul Australian root-server confederation commences
Jul Open Internet Congress meeting on DNS
Jul ITAA DNS workshop
Aug Meeting to select first Australia TLD for AURSC and
activation of the TLD
Appendix 2
Generic TLD Trends
In absolute numbers or even total percentages, the number of gTLDs in
use outside the USA is very small and comparatively shrinking in size.
In Jan 1996, the statistics were:
GTLDs Used Outside the U.S.
Percent Count
..COM domains 15% 10,200
..COM hosts 6% 150,000
..ORG domains 13% 900
..ORG hosts 7% 19,000
..NET domains 43% 2,200
..NET hosts 17% 126,000
.NET top level domains tend to be used by Internet Service Providers
outside the U.S.
Of these, 5-7 percent are in Canada, 1-2 percent in the UK, and the rest
are only a few hundredths of a percent at the most in other countries.
It is likely that the percentages for non-USA use of these domains will
continue to drop because they preponderantly used for marketing and
branding purposes in the United States. The rest of the world appears
to prefer country-oriented domain names.
###
Number: 351
From: greg detardo <detardo@nutechsecurity.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 3:19pm
Subject: detardo@.travel
To Whom It May Concern:
As operators of ".travel" & "travelnic.net", we would like to be included on
any correspondence or committees that involve the reorganization or future
ownership questions as they may inhibit or cause hardship on our ongoing
business as the registry for ".travel". We have spent thousands of dollars
creating our registry and publicizing, etc. We feel any restrictions on
current TLD's would create an unfair marketplace since those running top
level domains have been the forefront of the internet and are innovators
providing additional alternatives to ultimate end users. We would like to
be included in any decisions that your commitee produces in reference to
this topic and would be available for any panel discussions or questions on
how changes would affect our business.
I can be reached at 407-628-1600.
Sincerely,
Greg S. DeTardo
###
Number: 352
From: Don Heath <heath@isoc.org>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 3:21pm
Subject: Internet Society Response to RFC - Docket No.
970613137-7137-01
Please use the subject line above, that reflects "RFC," instead of
"NOI," which was used in transmitting the response from ISOC.
The document previously transmitted is correct, just the subject line
of the transmittal email was incorrect.
Don
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.SMTP40("isoc-trustees@isoc.org")
###
Number: 353
From: Shari Steele <ssteele@eff.org>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 3:27pm
Subject: EFF's DNS comments
This was sent via Fed-X, as well.
Shari Steele, Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1550 Bryant Street, Suite 725
San Francisco, CA 94103
August 18, 1997
Patrice Washington
Office of Public Affairs
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
Room 4898
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230
Dear Ms. Washington,
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a nonprofit, public-interest
organization working to protect rights and promote responsibility in the
electronic world. We thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit
our comments on the current and future systems for the registration of
Internet domain names.
Appropriate Principles
EFF believes the Internet domain name system is a crucial public
resource caught between the triple perils of monopolization,
inappropriate government involvement, and unclear authority. Each of
these problems leads down the path of increased risk of disruption of
service to the entire Internet and persistent conflicts among its users.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation advances the following long-term
public-interest policy principles for the Internet domain name system.
Nothing in these principles should be taken as an endorsement of
government control over resource allocation in the Internet domain name
system. "Public" here means public in the sense of the air we breathe,
not in the sense of a "public" street.
1. The Internet top level domain name space, an essential component of
the operational infrastructure of the Internet, is a global public
resource and must be developed and maintained for the public good.
2. Any administration, use and/or evolution of the Internet top level
domain name space is a public policy issue and must be carried out in
the interests and service of the public, and with the broadest
international public input and participation.
3. Such public policy should balance the interests of current and future
stakeholders in the domain name space to the extent possible.
4. The public, including domain name space stakeholders, can benefit
most from a self-regulatory and market-oriented approach to domain name
registration, administration and growth.
5. Domain name registration and the generic top level domains themselves
must not be monopolized by a single registry, treated as any entity's
intellectual property, or controlled by or from within any single
governmental jurisdiction.
6. Registration services for the generic top level domain name space
should provide for global geographical distribution of registrars.
7. The administration of the domain name system and generic top level
domain registries must provide for domain name portability rather than
making it difficult or impossible for a customer to switch registries.
8. Use of and access to the domain name system must open and flexible,
with participation in the system available to any capable registrar and
domain names available to any user, on a non-discriminatory basis.
9. Internet technical standards and administrative processes should not
be impeded by lack of consensus on separate issues such as international
trademarks.
This EFF position recognizes the Internet Ad-Hoc Committee/Internet
Society/Internet Assigned Numbers Authority "Memorandum of
Understanding
on the Generic Top Level Domain Name Space" (gTLD-MoU). This EFF
position goes beyond the principles expressed in the gTLD-MoU and aims
to establish baseline public-interest principles for long-term stability
and equity of the Internet Domain Name System. The EFF position also
rejects the MoU's "principle" that the interests of one group of
intellectual property holders should outweigh any other group's, or
outweigh any other rights held by individuals and the public. EFF
generally supports this MoU, with these reservations, but is not a
signatory to it.
General/Organizational Framework Issues
EFF is very concerned about the current domain name registration system.
It is a monopoly which has been given to Network Solutions, Inc., a
for-profit company attempting to make as much money as possible and not
acting in the public interest. EFF believes that the National Science
Foundation made a mistake in choosing a for-profit company to manage
such a vital public resource. Now we are afraid this monopoly is going
to take away important public property when its contract expires. In
order to protect the public, the United States government should enforce
the Cooperative Agreement between Network Solutions and the National
Science Foundation and should:
1. Make sure that the public retains ownership in the contents of the
full database of the .com domain.
2. Make sure that the public retains all of the software that Network
Solutions wrote under that government-funded and eventually user-funded
contract. The Cooperative Agreeement specifically requires Network
Solutions to provide a copy of all software code it created at the
termination of its relationship with the National Science Foundation.
Please make sure that this happens.
3. Make sure that people will continue to be able to register in the
.com domain without any involvement of Network Solutions, Inc.
4. Make sure that the $30 million collected for the preservation and
enhancement of the Intellectual Infrastructure of the Internet gets
disbursed to the public. Do not permit Network Solutions to take any of
this money for any reason.
After these four conditions are met, both Network Solutions and all
branches of the United States government should defer involvement in the
domain naming process to the people actually using the Internet, whether
in the form of the Internet Ad-Hoc Committee/Internet Society/Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority or whichever other non-governmental body that
gains the most democratic support from Internet users.
Trademark Issues
The current policy of providing ownership rights in Internet domain
names based on trademark registration is flawed for the following
reasons and should be abandoned:
1. Even the United States Patents and Trademarks Office (PTO) recognizes
that more than one entity can hold a trademark on the same word,
provided that the word is used in completely different business
categories. Failure to provide for multiple uses of the same
trademarked term have resulted in big companies beating up on small
companies using the same terms.
2. Even the PTO recognizes that registration of a trademark creates a
right in the term while the trademark is still pending. The Internet
policy does not recognized registered but still pending trademarks, and
small companies with pending applications have been bullied into giving
up their domain names by larger companies with similar trademarks.
3. There are other legitimate uses of words that have nothing to do with
trademarks that get and deserve legal protection yet are not recognized
by the current policy. For example, Kayvan Sylvan, a man who runs his
own computer consulting business, registered the name sylvan.com.
Sylvan Learning Systems, which holds a trademark on Mr. Sylvan*s last
name, threatened to take that domain name under the current policy. Mr.
Sylvan had to trademark his last name in a foreign country in order to
keep his domain name! There are other examples of nontrademarked, yet
legal, uses of terms. For example, the World Boxing Association might
want to use the domain name knockout.com, even though Hasbro toys has
trademarked the term knockout as the name of a game. This should be a
legally protected use of a domain name.
Many of these trademark disputes can be avoided with the creation of
several additional top level domains. The current policy of taking
domain names away and giving them to those who have the first trademark
gives an unfair advantage to large corporations that have been existence
for a long time, to the detriment of smaller companies who were on the
Internet first. The current policy is flawed and must be repaired.
Thank you again for giving us the opportunity to comment as you work to
formulate United States government policy in this important area. We
would be happy to meet with you and work to create a system that is in
the public interest. Please contact me at 301/375-8856 if I can be of
any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Shari Steele
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("eff-board@eff.org","eff-staff@eff...
###
Number: 354
From: Bob Jakeway
<Bob.Jakeway@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 6:57pm
Subject: domain comments
RE: Internet domain-
I agree with the concept that the government has no overriding need to
become involved with this isssue. I do agree, however, with comments I read
in the New York Times regarding ".XXX". This seems a legitimate method to
help parents restrict access to sites they do not want their children to access.
Robert B. Jakeway
###
Number: 355
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee@cybercash.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 3:38pm
Subject: RE: Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
Thank you for this opportuity to comment. Attached are my comments as a
Sincerely
CC: "Donald E. Eastlake" <dee@cybercash.com>
Memorandum of Comment
DATE: August 19, 1997
TO: Patrice Washington, Off. of Public Affairs,
FROM: Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd
RE: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Docket No. 970613137-7137-01]
Request for Comments on the Registration
and Administration of Internet Domain
Names
CC: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority,
Internet Architecture Board, gTLD-MoU
Policy Oversight Committee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Department of Commerce,
Attached is my response to your above referenced request for
comments. I hope that you find it helpful. In addition, I have attached a copy
of Internet RFC 1958, Architectural Principles of the Internet, which I believe
may provide a useful broad background, particularly as to its rapidly changing
and interoperabilty based nature. Principles 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 from this
document apply particularly to the Domain Name System.
Sincerely Yours,
Donald E. Eastlake, III
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?]
While you have good principles, which I comment on below, missing from
this section are any overarching principles as to why the Domain Name
System (DNS) exists and what it is good for. I think it is necessary to always
keep in mind, when considering any change, that the essential purpose of the
DNS is to
(1) provide stable and (2) globally unique names
that are either
(3a) mnenomic or (3b) systematic.
Going into a little more detail on each on these:
(1) DNS names primary function is to provide a stable cyberspace identity.
When your telephone number changes or your postal address changes or even
you Internet Protocol (IP) binary address changes, people who know your
cyberspace identity are, because of DNS, unaffected for cybersapce
interaction. (Note: some types of cyberspace identity include a user or
account name as well as a domain name but even these identities are, for some
purposes, completely mapped in to a domain name with the user name as the
initial label such as mapping user@host.org.nil to user.host.org.nil.) In fact,
in order to provide aggregatable routing and avert the collapse of the Internet
due to routing tables overflowing, IP binary address renumbering is becoming
and increasingly common and frequent occurrence more or less eliminating
the only plausible other globally unique identifier as insufficiently stable.
(2) DNS names must be globally unique to be of any use. To permit
interpretation, when a name is referenced in a email address or a web link or
any of the many other contexts where a domain is used, it must mean the same
thing to different people. It is a witness to the general acceptance of this
principle that even the most strenuous and, in some causes, fraudulent efforts
of those attempting to set up rogue root zones and rogues top level domains
(i.e., those not recommended by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA)), have never managed to get more than about 0.5% of the Internet to
recognize their names until recently where, for a brief period of time for a
few names, they went beyond fraud and criminally interfered with the
operation of computers owned by the US government and others in attempts to
temporarily secure recognition.
(3a) In the areas of the DNS name tree that are of primary concern in this
inquiry, it is very desirable for DNS names to mnemonic. People should be
able to say them over the telephone, write them on a napkin, and have some
chance of remembering them, at least for a brief period, without too much
confusion. The mnemonic portions of the DNS tree are, at the current stage
of Internet software development, frequently seen by people.
(3b) There are substantial and very important portions of the DNS name tree
that are systematic. For example, there is in "*.in-addr.arpa" part of the
tree, which is used to map IP version 4 binary addresses into the domain name
system so pointers to their primary symbolic name can be found, and
"*.tpc.int" which maps every telephone number in the work into the DNS.
For example, my phone number of +1 508-287-4877 maps into
7.7.8.4.7.8.2.8.0.5.1.tpc.int (i.e., reverse the digits and add periods and
.tpc.int.) This format permits convenient delegation at country code, area
code, city code, etc., levels within telephone numbers. In addition, the "??."
portion of the top level domain name space of DNS, that is, the two letter
TLDs, map all ISO two letter country codes into the DNS and could be
considered a systematic portion. The systematic portions of the DNS tree are
frequently program generated and, except for the ISO country codes, not
usually seen by people.
Portions of the DNS name tree can be classified as either mnemonic or
systematic or divided into contiguous subparts with these characteristics.
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 to the first sentence above, while competition is an important tool, I
believe that the principle that should be encouraged is choice and variety
between stable names and policies, not just competition. While the ISO
country code TLDs and the special .edu and .int TLD provide some variety,
it would be preferable to have some gTLDs shared among competitive
registrars and some gTLDs run by entities under a regulated utility concept,
to provide at least two varieties, rather than to put all of the gTLD DNS eggs
in the basket of one system.
As t the second sentence above, while interoperability is the
paramount virtue of the Internet, I wonder what you mean by "not be
permitted"? There is every evidence that operators and users of portions of
the Internet infrastructure realize this which is why they follow the
recommendations of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, including
IANA's recommendations as to the contents of the DNS root zone, and the
Internet Engineering Task Force, to voluntarily achieve such interoperability.
Certainly no one should be permitted to destroy the interoperability of other
parties through crime, fraud, or abuse, but that is vastly different from an
operator or user knowingly deciding to use a different DNS name space.
Coercive attempts to prohibit this would probably have the opposite effect of
turning a few adolescent rebels who are mostly ignored into martyrs.
Finally, interconnectivity is the result of voluntary cooperation.
While the DNS should not be designed or used so as to gratuitously block
connectivity, many organizations have enclaves containing local machines
which they do wish to have external connectivity. While this does not
interact with gTLDs, there is currently a draft proposal before the IETF to
create a .local TLD to standardize the handling of such hidden areas (see draft
reference in Appendix A).
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.
Yes, and the private sector has made giant strides toward such mechanisms via
the gTLD-MoU and the open process it was arrived at.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently
global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over time.
Yes and the gTLD-MoU allows for such evolution, but I would add that the
governance mechanisms should also recognize regional differences in point of
view.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open,
robust, efficient, and fair.
It's certainly hard to disagree with any of these principles in those cases
where competition is the correct tool.
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.
This is a vital point. Since the most important characteristic to strive for in
domain names is stability, at least on the time scale of the existence of the
entities named, efficient and early resolution of conflicts is important, though
there are other factors of significance. Unless care is taken, the cost of
conflict resolution can dominate the costs of a system.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of
these issues permits.
A firmer foundation from domain name registration is desirable but there
actually does not seem to be any immediately threat of collapse or the like.
B.
General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and
disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems?
There are actually quite a variety of systems. Each ISO country code has its
own, run as it seems fit and has the advantage for providing local autonomy
and express with the disadvantage of possible instability and capriciousness.
Network Solution Inc. approximates a loosely regulated utility and provides a
large capable organization but currently has offices only in the US and while
its prices are regulated by the NSF, it is not at all clear that effective oversight
has been provided for its terms and conditions. The gTLD-MoU proposes a
self-regulated competition model with a likely advantage of low cost and
responsive service and the disadvantage of instability in the existence of
registrars (but not in names if properly engineered).
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
Probably many ISO Country Code systems could be improved but it's their
business.
The NSI system could be improved by requiring the
establishment of offices in other times world regions and changes to its
trademark policies to give less weight to the artifact of registration and more
to the reality of infringement.
The gTLD-MoU system is not yet functioning so operational
improvements are not clear.
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?
This ISO country code domains are properly administered by the
corresponding country if it so wishes. In default of a statement by such
country, IANA appears to have adequate policies.
If NSI or a similar regulated utility model is to continue, some
strong regulatory body would be needed. This is a difficult questions as a
national body such as the US FCC seems inappropriate but the office of
IANA, for example, would have to be beefed up significantly to take this on.
The gTLD-MoU POC is a great start at a balanced
administrative body. To account for regional differences, it should be
augmented by voting representatives for RIPE and APNIC immediately, a
non-voting representative for ARIN to change to a voting representative as
soon as most of ARIN's governing body is elected instead of appoint (i.e., in
two years according to the last by-laws I saw), and similarly representatives of
the proposed African and Latin American NICs should also be added. These
five regional representatives would provide closer feedback to the POC from
those affected by its policies and a good balance between a homogenized
global view and an overly parochial local view.
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?
Domain name registration is really a new thing and it is not clear that any
existing model would server well in setting policy for the creation or
operation of TLDs. Regulated utility or competitive models may work to see
that such policies are carried out, once set, but are not helpful in setting
policies.
There are few if any governmental organizations, particularly at
the international level, used to moving as fast as the Internet does. Nor is the
situation stable. There is continuing engineering to improve the DNS, the
possibility of a new generation DNS II being designed, etc. Many of the
questions in this request for comments seem based on the idea that domain
name to IP address translation is the only important function of the DNS, but
it also provides mail redirection and may in the future provide other services
of equal importance. Any decision making system needs engineering input to
avoid political effort to fine tune an answer to some current problem from
blocking the evolution and growth of the DNS to new uses.
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?
Deleting any top level domain name with a substantial number of users is a
terrible idea that, in any case, would be almost impossible to implement. It
violates the fundamental purpose of DNS because it violates that stability of
existing names. It is exactly the sort of really destructive move that would
cause whoever mandated it (be they governmental or private) to be a laughing
stock and cause most of the Internet to switch to using unofficial and possibly
inconsistent root zones instead of the official namespace. It is this difficulty
in ever eliminating a TLD (generic or otherwise) that implies that great
caution should be exercised in adding TLDs of any type. It would be possible
to freeze new registrations in ".com".
There is no ISO country code TLD management question.
It's up to the countries involved. gTLDs are a whole different matter. But
even ISO and gTLDs are not the whole story. There is .edu and .int and I
believe the evolving set of five regional NICs (ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, etc.) for
the world should each have a TLD which would be rTLD or regional TLDs,
etc.
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?
The primary controversies are social and political. Registrars and TLDs are
inherently dependent on the root zone.
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?
For interoperability, everyone has to use the same root zone contents except
that disjoint sets of root servers could be used. This means that at least from a
logical perspective, a single central authority such as IANA must exist and
almost everyone needs to follow their recommendations.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
In general, new systems should be created to use new TLDs. Only after they
have actually shown themselves be to be not just operational and competent
but significantly superior overall should the transition of any existing
reasonably functional TLD to such a "new" system be contemplated. Even
then, adjustments to improve the "old" system that has been shown inferior
should be considered first. The benefits in terms of organizational robustness
of multiple systems should be considered.
Of course, if the registration or, even worse, domain names
service for one or more TLDs actually collapsed, it would be essential to their
stability as identifiers to get the names back on the air and get registration
services operational at least to the extent to be able to update the locations of
servers and the like, so any transition might be an improvement.
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 are many such considerations:
Technical Considerations:
There are reasons to avoid single letter TLDs. Should the
number of TLDs become very large, solutions involving splitting the server
load for root can be more efficiently and elegantly accomplished if the one
letter TLDs are still available.
As the number of TLDs increases (regardless of whether they
are gTLDs or other kinds), the load on servers grows but this is unlikely to be
a substantial consideration unless insane policies are adopted (such as a free
for all where anyone can grab any unclaimed TLD at no cost resulting in
many computers hammering on some TLD allocation server allocating
absurd numbers of TLDs and overloading root server memory).
Practical Considerations:
In the arena of gTLDs and other TLDs longer than two
characters, mnemonicity should be preserved. Thus no two such TLDs
should be easily confusable in the minds of users. Appendix A to my
comments, below, suggests barring any gTLD that would be a SOUNDEX
conflict with an existing longer than two letter TLD.
Because gTLDs can not practically be eliminated once they
achieve significant use, they should be added with some caution, probably not
more than 10% of the existing number of TLDs as an increment each year.
Policy Considerations:
Two letter TLDs are reserved for two letter ISO country codes,
and so should not be used a generic TLDs.
New gTLDs should avoid violating existing rights in names.
For example, gTLDs should not be globally recognizable country,
geographic, or organizational names. (Such names might be made TLDs
under the right circumstances where the named entity controlled them.)
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
Yes, I believe that additional gTLDs should be created in order to provide
more variety in policies of registration and variety in names.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing
the scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of
gTLDs?
In something changing as rapidly as the Internet, there are no guarantees but
in general, the DNS was engineered to handle deeper names and smaller
zones than are currently in use. Thus, for example, a policy of requiring two
level names to register in a hypothetical not TLD, say .biz, would be
beneficial. Then, instead o of things like unitedairlines.com,
americanairlines.com, etc., you could have the delegation point be names like
united.airlines.biz and american.airlines.biz. With reasonable controls on the
proliferation of second level domain names in such a zone, it would be much
more scaleable. If enough *.airlines.biz registered, the entity running .biz
(either a coordination point for non-exclusive registrars or an exclusive
registrar) could split out airlines.biz to separate server machine and run it as a
separate zone.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO
country code domains?
gTLDs and country code TLDs are very different. The gTLD area is
appropriate for one or more experiments in self-regulation. The ISO country
code domains provide privileged short TLDs to each of the recognized
political areas of the earth.
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
This section and this entire inquiry seem to be based on the premise that
gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains) are the only question. While the
settlement of this question may seem to be the most urgent, I do not believe
that it is the whole story. For example, it would be reasonable to the five
regional IP registries that exist or are being formed (ARIN, RIPE, APNIC,
etc.) should be able to each administer a regional TLD (rTLD). Variety of
user choice is the key.
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?
In as dynamic and rapidly changing environment as the Internet, perfect
answers don't exist and providing choice between a variety of policies is
probably best. Certainly exclusive and non-exclusive TLDs can exist. There
may be a problem in maintaining ".com" because of its dominance but if
new registrations in ".com" were frozen, to create a more level playing
field, it would be reasonable from a policy point of view to have some gTLDs
run exclusively under a regulated utility registrar model and others under a
non-exclusive competitive model.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars,
and what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine
these and how?
Users of domain names frequently build up value in those names and become
dependent on their stability. Steps need to be taken to assure a reasonable
level of stability. For a non-exclusive competitive model, it may be possible
to get away without threshold requirements, by placing the burden on some
exclusive central coordinator to maintain the names. For exclusive TLDs run
under a regulated utility model,
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?
If you are talking about registrars having exclusive control over a gTLD,
there is no reason to believe there would be any more technical limitations
that there are on, say, second level registrars in any particular TLD. For
example, .com has shown that, with great effort and substantial pain,
hundreds of thousands of such registrars can be technically accommodated,
although having that many with different names produces so many names
which are so similar that the resulting cesspool of confusions destroys
mnemonicity.
If you are talking about registrars that are sharing one or more
TLDs via some central coordinating mechanism, it appears from the
operation of such mechanism in the United Kingdom that at least a few
hundred registrars can be accommodates.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space
raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
There is little effect on the name space itself just because of the number of
direct or indirect exclusive or non-exclusive registrars.
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?
There does not seem to be a reason for such a limit for non-exclusive TLDs.
For exclusive TLDs, variety in service and polices would, to some extent,
come from a variety of registrars which tends to imply limits on the number
of TLDs they administer.
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?
This entire issue is grossly overblown with regard to trademarks and has not
been sufficiently considered in relation to national / geographic indications.
The mere use of a name at some level in a domain name, even if that name is
used in commerce or registered as a trademark should not normally be
considered infringement. The questions is, does the use cause actual
confusion in people's minds.
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?
Of course, the most important case would be to review new gTLDs to see
that they do not have important conflicts. For new gTLDs, it seems practical
to announce them months in advance. Of course, with the level of interest in
and conflict concerning DNS, it would be expected that there would be some
complaints against any TLD name.
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?
Within ISO country code TLDs, it is solely the prerogative of the country
involved to resolve such disputes although other national courts can issue
orders concerning operations within their jurisdiction. For generic
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?
It is not possible to prevent all trademark conflicts. People use names to
mean different things. Commercial usage changes, language changes, conflicts
can occur where there initially were none. The value of Aides trademark has
been destroyed by the AIDS disease. So it goes.
It would probably be possible to nearly eliminate registered
trademark conflicts by constructing a part of the DNS name tree with
relatively artificial systematic names mapping all the jurisdictions that register
trademarks and all the categories in which they register them. For example,
foo.17.us.trademark for a trademark registered in category 17 in the United
States. Creating such a system of domain names is fine, if they are used to
provide more choices. But I think they would be unpopular.
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?
Again, variety if the key. It would be good to have TLDs in which such basis
is required and those where it is not. Those where it is required would be
more expensive to administer but might provide more valuable names.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of
registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
I believe that the number and difficulty of trademark disputes will vary with
the number of points of control and the number of policies. Thus, many
registrars with exclusive control would tend to increase the problem.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single
domain name, are there any technological solutions?
The question is misleading. It is only a very recent phenomena that
organizations have actually started to use domain names, such as
amazon.com, as trade marks. Where an entire domain name is a trademark,
there is no possibility of direct conflict. The domain name is globally unique
and so is controlled by and can only have been used in cyberspace by one
entity.
Perhaps you means to ask if there is a technical solution to there
being multiple users of the same "word", such as Apple, as a trademark in
different product/service/geographic areas and the seeming desire of
everyone to register as a second level domain name in .com. There really
isn't much in the way of a technical solution to this problem. How would it
help if you had apple.1.biz and apple.2.biz? The problem is potential
confusion in users minds and I suppose apple.music.biz and
apple.computers.biz would help but to judge who should be in what second
level name would be an administrative nightmare since most businesses
would just try to grab as many categories as possible.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
Appendix A:
TLD "collision" and SOUNDEX
One method that could be used to determine if gTLD names are likely to
"collide" in the minds of users and violate the mnemonicity goal would be
to avoid the creation of any TLDs outside the two letter ISO country codes if
their SOUNDEX Codes collide. Section A.2 below described how
SOUNDEX is computed and section A.1 should that none of the domain
names longer than two characters that exist or are proposed by the gTLD-MoU POC or that I
have proposed in Internet Drafts collide.
Other methods are possible. For example, you could define a "step" as
adding a character, deleting a character, or swapping two adjacent characters.
You can then define the distance between two names as the minimum
number of such steps needed to transform one into the other.
A.1 TLDs Longer than Two Letters by
SOUNDEX Code
SOUNDEX Category Name
A610 existing ARPA
A632 new gTLD ARTS
C500 existing COM
E251 test/doc EXAMPLE
E300 existing EDU
F650 new gTLD FIRM
G100 existing GOV
I510 new gTLD INFO
I530 existing INT
L240 local LOCAL
M400 existing MIL
N300 existing NET
N400 test/doc NIL
N500 new gTLD NOM
O620 existing ORG
R200 new gTLD REC
S360 new gTLD STORE
T230 test/doc TEST
W100 new gTLD WEB
Category explanations:
existing = currently in the IANA recommended root.
new gTLD = the seven gTLDs being created by the gTLD-MoU POC.
test/doc = a TLD suggested for reservation for use in private testing and
documentation by an existing Internet Draft (ID). This would avoid possible
conflicts between names in actual use and those used for expository purposes
and in private testing. The current ID is at
<ftp://ftp.isi.edu/draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-00.txt>. ID's are ephemeral documents that can
lapse or be
replaced at any time by later versions and are deleted when and if they finally
issue as either and informational or standards track RFC.
local = the TLD suggest for use in identifying names of local scope. See
Internet Draft <ftp:://ftp.cybercash.com/pub/dee/draft-eastlake-local-tld-00.txt>. See
immediately above for information on Internet Drafts.
A.2 How to Calculate SOUNDEX
Example: Schmidtzel
1. First delete all spaces and non-alphabetic symbols. Delete all accents,
umlauts, and other diacritical marks. Delete all H and W, unless one is an
initial letter. (Scmidtzel).
2. The first letter of the name becomes the first letter of the Soundex.
(Scmidtzel).
3. For the remaining letters of the name, write down the code number from
the following table. (Scmidtzel=S25033204).
4. Combine all double numbers into one. (S2503204).
5. If the first number is the same as the code number for the initial letter,
delete that number. (S503204).
6. Delete the zeroes. (S5324).
7. Retain one letter and three numbers (S532).
8. If there are fewer than three numbers, add zeroes to the end to make three.
For example, Schell=S400.
NOTE: It is important not to delete the zeroes (vowels) until step 6, because
double numbers separated by zeroes are not to be combined.
###
Number: 356
From: <kconnolly@evw.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 3:54pm
Subject: Response to Request for Comments
It is my honour to transmit the Response of the members of the Policy
Advisory Body ("PAB") established in connection with the Memorandum
of Understanding Respecting Generic Top Level Domains. As indicated
in the attachment (which is in DOS text format), the PAB's internal
procedures require that a document be circulated for at least two weeks
before cloture may be invoked to test the existence of a rough
consensus. While the attachment has been circulated and commented
upon for a longer time than two weeks, it includes revisions which have
been made to reflect its members comments. Accordingly, PAB is
constrained by its own fundamental documents from declaring the
attachment to be other than the statement of the members who have
subscribed to it. However, PAB will supplement this message in two
weeks' time to indicate whether, and the extent to which, this Response
may be viewed as an official statement of PAB. The supplement will be
e-mailed to the NTIA and otherwise appropriately publicized.
Very truly yours,
Kevin J. Connolly
PAB Member
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("pab@gtld-mou.org")
The rapid growth of the Internet has not gone unnoticed by the
self-governing bodies which have, with the assistance of the United
States, fostered the growth of the Internet to date. The International Ad
Hoc Committee was formed in response to an Internet-Draft circulated by
Dr. Jon Postel of the Information Sciences Institute of the University of
Southern California. The process through which Dr. Postel's proposal
has been discussed and refined through broader and broader public input
and consensus-building processes is in the best traditions of the Internet.
The Policy Advisory Body is proud to have been a participant in the
process of building consensus which has lead to the development and
refinement of the GTLD-MoU. On May 1, 1997, with the signing of the
Memorandum of Understanding relating to Generic Top Level Domains
("GTLD-MoU"), the International Ad Hoc Committee concluded its work
and passed the baton along to the bodies mentioned in the GTLD-MoU.
The Policy Advisory Body ("PAB") is one of the bodies established in
connection with the GTLD-MoU. Its role is to provide recommendations to
the Policy Oversight Committee regarding general policy matters,
amendments to the GTLD-MoU and to the Memorandum of
Understanding governing the Council of Registrars. Its role is analogous
to that of the Internet Engineering Task Force, in the sense that PAB
members are uncompensated, driven by a desire to participate in the
development and growth of the Internet, and it makes its
recommendations to a much smaller body (The Policy Oversight
Committee, which in this sense is analogous to the Internet Activities
Board) which is responsible for implementing policies which reflect the
input not only of PAB but of relevant experts and other relevant entities.
The members of PAB welcome this opportunity to comment on the
relevant issues as the United States Government develops its policy in
this crucially-important sector.
This document was prepared by a member of the Policy Advisory Board in
consultation with a number of its members. The document was then
circulated on an Internet Mailing List to all members of the Policy Advisory
Board for comments and suggestions. It was refined in light of those
comments and suggestions, as well as in light of the lessons learned at a
conference, held July 30-31, 1997 in Washington D.C. under the auspices
of the Interactive Services Association, the Center for Democracy and
Technology, and the Information Technology Association of America. The
document was then re-circulated for final comments and input. PAB's
internal ethic calls for members who disagree with a proposed action to
reply to the mailing list, and that an item-by-item poll of membership be
taken if ten or more of the 157 members request it. There have been no
such requests. PAB's internal ethic also calls for a two-week time period
in which members may call for a vote. However, because this document
has evolved in response to comments from members, some portions of
this document have not been exposed to comment by the membership of
PAB for the requisite two-week period. Accordingly, while the major
portion of this document meets PAB's criteria for stating the "rough
consensus" of its community, our adherence to the traditions of the
Internet requires at this time that the substance of this document be read
as the statements of the persons whose names appear below. Any
statement in this document such as "PAB believes" or "it is PAB's position"
should be understood as a declaration of the authors and supporters that
they believe these statements carry the rough consensus of PAB's
membership, ascertained in the manner indicated above. With your
permission, we would like to supplement this submission in two weeks'
time with a formal statement clarifying whether, and the extent to which,
after due opportunity for balloting, this statement can properly be read as
the collective position of the gTLD Policy Advisory Board.
Kevin J. Connolly, PAB Member and Principal Author
Eaton & Van Winkle
Antony VanCouvering, PAB Chair
NetNames USA, Inc.
Rick H. Wesson, PAB Deputy Chair
Internet Business Services
Robert F. Connelly, PAB Secretary
Procurement Services International
John Broomfield, PAB Member
SYSTEL
Dan Busarow, PAB Member
DPC Systems (with Addendum regarding Part E)
Stéphane Guerry, PAB Member
Interdeposit
Robert Nelson, PAB Member
The Internetwork Operating Company, Inc.
Ivan Pope, PAB Member
Netnames U.K.
Werner Straub, PAB Member
Axone Services & Development, S.A.
(with addendum) respecting B1, D15, D20
Alan Sullivan, PAB Member
Top Domain Registry, Inc.
(with addendum regarding B1, D15, D20)
This Response addresses all of the points raised in the Request for
Comments. It is enumerated in accordance with the Request for Comments.
A. Appropriate Principles
PAB believes that the principles set out in the Request for Comments are
generally appropriate. It believes that the principles of subparagraph (a)
should be expanded in one respect, by explicitly recognizing that the root of
the domain name system is a unique resource which must be administered
as a public trust in order to promote the objectives of interoperability, stability,
robustness, efficiency and fairness. PAB believes that explicitly recognizing
that the root of the domain name system is a public trust is the best, if not the
only, means of fostering these principles.
The principle of private sector leadership can be fostered by governmental
observation, comment, and support for proposals which hold reasonable
prospects for stability, consensuality, and self-governance. PAB welcomes
the participation of the United States government in seeing that the final
result is one which adequately defines responsibilities and maintains
accountability. PAB also believes that accountability can be fostered within
the existing framework through the existing functions of the Internet Society,
which is a democratically-operated organization of Internet-aware and -concerned persons
worldwide. As stated in the documentation maintained by
the InterNIC which explains the Internet, "The ultimate authority for where the
Internet is going rests with the Internet Society, or ISOC. ISOC is a voluntary
membership organization whose purpose is to promote global information
exchange through Internet technology."
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems?
The current system must first be identified. PAB draws a distinction between
(a) the ISO 3166 domains, such as the hierarchy of .us domain names, (b)
the generic top level domains (currently, .com, .net and .org) and (c) the
specialized domain names (.edu, .mil, .gov and .int). PAB is concerned only
with the generic top level domain names.
To the extent that there are problems in the ISO 3166 domains, we believe
that the relevant public authorities in each country should decide the extent
to which reform is indicated and the manner in which it should be
implemented. While PAB recognizes that a different structure of the .us
domain could have gone far to prevent the pressure on the .com, .net and
.org domains we are now experiencing, it also recognizes that the opportune
moment for including .com.us, .org.us, and .net.us as second level domain
names has passed. (It is also worth noting that a differently-configured .us
domain might have completely obviated the trademark disputes that create
so much concern today. Nevertheless, the .us domain has not been so
structured, and it does not seem likely that United States companies will flock
to that domain even if it is restructured today.) United States companies
perceive a high value in registering their domains under the generic
international top level domains, and the likelihood of convincing them to the
contrary is small.
Likewise, we do not perceive problems with the specialized top level
domains. Not every enterprise will be granted access to these registries; on
the contrary, only a limited number of entities will ever appear in these
registries; they are, and likely will remain, non-commercial; and there is scant
incentive for the private sector to become involved in their administration. At
the same time, PAB does not believe that a need exists for the creation of
additional special domains. It would be difficult to adjudge the merits of a
proposed special domain, to distinguish a bona fide special domain from an
attempt by a speculator to create a sinecure for profit. It is also hard to
understand why most, if not all, current proposals for special domains would
not fit comfortably within another top level domain.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
A principal advantage of the present system is its vertical integration. For
most registrants, InterNIC stands as a single-source font for domain name
registration, IP number allocation, and root name service. The single-source
aspect minimizes the opportunities for responsibility-shuffling.
The disadvantages, on the other hand, are considerable. Prospective
domain name registrants are confronted with a pricing structure that has
been imposed by unilateral fiat, without the benefits of competition. There
are considerable venues for non-price competition as well, but the
single-source nature of the existing system rules out non-price competition
as well. The contractor to whom InterNIC has delegated the operation of the
domain name system -Network Solutions, Inc.("NSI")- has continued to
charge registrants the full registration fee -covering two years of operation-
even though its contract with InterNIC expires in March 1998. NSI is now the
subject of a civil antitrust investigation by the United States Department of
Justice. Whether NSI has unlawfully exploited its position or not, its position
has considerable potential for monopolization. Moreover, NSI has adopted
policies and practices which PAB believes could never be supported in a
competitive marketplace. Its Domain Name Dispute Policy -discussed below
under Trademark Issues- has been widely, and, we think, soundly, criticized
as irrational and serving no purpose other than to insulate NSI from liability
for secondary or derivative trademark infringement. Other aspects of NSI's
policies and practices bespeak a bureaucratic inertia and unresponsiveness
which would seriously undermine its position in the market if there were an
alternative to using it.
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 most important single change which can be introduced into the domain
name system is competition. Competition in turn will require a degree of
cooperation in order to enable the public to connect seamlessly to content
providers who have chosen to employ different registrars. Competition does
no good if the Internet were to experience the fragmentation that
characterized telephone communications before the advent of the Bell
System. While it might be possible to commit the operation of the central
system to a council of registrars, the potential that coalitions would form and
take anti-competitive action against other registrars is too great to ignore.
The GTLD-MoU addresses this concern by committing policy decisions to the
Policy Oversight Committee, which is charged with administering the system
as a public trust. While the registrars will have a voice in the system, it will
not be loud enough to control the operation of the domain name system.
Further balancing forces are supplied by providing for a Policy Advisory
Body, which is based on the widest possible public input, and which
aggregates the competing demands to build consensus in the traditions of
the Internet.
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?
An existing process that can serve as a model for guiding the future of the
domain name system can be found in the relationship of the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Activities Board (IAB,
formerly known as the Internet Architecture Board, a component body of the
Internet Society). The "standards setting" process is one aspect of the
IETF/IAB relationship, but PAB does not believe that the extreme rigor which
characterizes the standard setting process needs to govern all aspects of the
domain name system reform. While there will certainly be some aspects of
the reform which demand that level of rigor, the development of solutions "as
quickly as prudent consideration of these issues permits" demands that the
standard setting process not be applied indiscriminately.
The network numbering system provides a model only to the extent that it
demonstrates that competitors can successfully share in the use of a fixed
and unique resource, i.e., the universes of telephone numbers and IP
addresses. That model also illustrates the benefits of permitting portability:
just as an 800/888 telephone number assigned to a user by one long
distance carrier can be retained when changing carrier, so, too, a multiple-registrar system
makes it possible for a user to keep a domain name when
changing registrar. Spectrum allocation is not usefully analogous to the
domain name process either. While both processes deal with a unique and
fixed asset, the depth of namespace is so far greater than the
electromagnetic spectrum that the considerations are highly distinct.
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?
PAB believes that any system which would undermine the stability of the
.com registry (as well as .net and .org) would be irresponsible and should be
consigned to the scrap heap. Enterprises on the Internet have far too much
invested in the .com hierarchy for anyone seriously to consider retiring it.
PAB believes that upon the expiration of the cooperative agreement between
the National Science Foundation and NSI, the registration and maintenance
of the .com, .org and .net registries should devolve upon the regime which
administers generic top level domains generally.
The issues relating to ISO 3166 country codes are entirely separable from
those of generic top level domains. PAB believes that each country should
determine for itself, as a matter of national pride and self-determination, how
to administer the region of cyberspace which pertains to its national identity.
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?
Technology-based solutions to current domain name registration issues,
while available, appear to be unattractive. The DNS namespace has turned
out to be much "flatter" than was originally expected. The designers thought
that third-level (and higher) domain names would be used much more than
has turned out to be the case. Thus it might have been expected that a
domain relating to the best-loved rodent on earth would be something like
mickey.disney.com. It has not turned out that way. The public has not used
the Internet in the way that the engineers would like it to be used. Ultimately,
the use of search engines to locate desired content on the Internet will
become second-nature to users. Whether that is implemented by educating
users or embedding search engine invocation in web browsers cannot
presently be predicted.
Another species of available technological "fixes" is available in the greater
use of geographic top level domains. However, the .com, .net and .org
domains have always been populated by predominately United States
domain name holders, while the .us domain has structured itself as
exclusively geographical. While there is a second level domain within .us
that would pertain to nationwide United States enterprises (.dni.us) it is
virtually unknown to the users of the Internet and content providers. Hence
while the technology certainly exists to relieve pressure on the domain name
system, it is unlikely to be used, and it cannot overcome the principal
shortcoming of the existing system -its lack of competition.
The crucial issues regarding the relationship between registrars and gTLDs
with root servers can be simply stated:
(a) There can be only one true root. Fragmenting the root, so that
calls by users for a domain will be resolved differently
depending on whom one asks will spell the end of the Internet.
While it is far from disastrous if a web browser is served the
wrong page, it is very serious if e-mail is sent to the wrong
address.
(b) The root will expand, but its rate of growth must be controlled.
Once a zone is added to the root, it will be as hard as kudzu
to eliminate. Far less harm can be done to the system by
restraining the rate of growth than by allowing the root to grow
in an uncontrolled manner.
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?
First of all, the fundamental relationship between the root servers and the
TLD servers should not be changed. The root servers do not name the
decision whether to add new zones to the root. That decision has, up until
now, been made by IANA. If IANA delegates that decision making authority
to a different body, the root servers should not seize upon that delegation as
an invitation to make these determinations for themselves.
Second, the slow and deliberate growth of the root is crucial.
Third, the number of top level domains must be limited. There are technical
limits on the number of TLDs which are possible, but the number may be as
high as 30,000. The problem lies in the fact that once the door is opened for
registration of top level domains, what principled basis exists for allocating
the small number of domains among the competing applicants? Moreover,
how could the administrators of the system possibly police the creation of so
many top level domains? Keeping in mind that the consequence of allowing
the technical limits to be exceeded is the collapse of the domain name
system, a policy of allowing the root zone to grow rapidly and to large size
appears to be unwise and dangerous.
The practice of enlarging the root slowly is also consistent with the way the
Internet has evolved to date: the service is delivered, used, and then refined
in light of the incremental lessons derived from use. This sort of feedback
loop has served the Internet well in the past and no reason appears at this
time to depart from it. The alternative is to allow the root to grow with such
speed, and to such size, that its collapse becomes inevitable.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
The transition to any new system should not overlook the time-honored
technique for computer system implementation: design the new system;
implement it in parallel, so that both old and new systems operate
contemporaneously; and only then is the functioning of the system committed
to the new software.
It is worth noting that if the Internet evolves in the way the signatories to the
gLTD-MoU anticipate, NSI will be able to retain its existing customer base by
becoming a CORE Registrar. Alternatively, it may well evolve that NSI will
secure an extension of the cooperative agreement under which it has
operated the registration services provided by the InterNIC, or it may secure
a fresh grant of the franchise to provide registration services for the
.COM,.NET and .ORG. domains. The disadvantage in that transition model
is that the owner-developers of the second-level domains within .COM and
its cohorts will be required to abandon their domain names in order to secure
the benefits of portability afforded under the GLTD-MoU.
PAB believes firmly that NSI has no cognizable intellectual property rights in
the .COM, .NET and .ORG registries; that NSI can and should be required
to make the registry databases available to any successor registrar or group
of registrars; and that if NSI is in fact more competent than other registrars,
it can succeed in a competitive environment with other registrars.
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
a. Compelling NSI to surrender the fruits of the cooperative agreement, as
required by the terms of that agreement. At this time, NSI has asserted that
the fruits of its work under that agreement are its own intellectual property.
It has not agreed even to provide a comprehensive report of the work it has
done.
b. Compelling NSI to surrender the domain name database for .com, .net
and .org when its contract expires.
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?
Technically, the DNS can support a fairly large number of top level domains.
The number most often bandied about is 30,000. However, there are several
valid policy reasons for restricting the number of TLDs:
(a) limiting the number of TLDs makes the task of policing intellectual
property rights against infringement more feasible.
(b) limiting the number of TLDs makes it feasible to police the zone files
against the insertion of spurious data, such as the infamous .PER zone.
(a) restricting the number of TLDs does tend to reduce the burden on the
root zone and enhance the performance of the DNS.
From a policy point of view, too, once the growth of the root is substantially
freed of restrictions, it is hard to establish a principled basis for stopping short
of the point at which the system is physically incapable of absorbing new top
level domains. The net result could well be a large number of
underpopulated domains, which benefits no one not the developers of
second level domains in the midst of these wastelands, not the owners of
trademarks who must surveil thousands of top level registries, and not the
:"owners" of the top level domains who will confront a market which will be
glutted by domains with tremendous incentive to engage in predatory
competition. Many of those domains will be beyond the reach of United
States antitrust laws, thus exacerbating the problem.
11. Should Additional TLDs be created?
PAB answers this question in the affirmative. First, there is no alternative to
creating new TLD's if the existing problems are to be redressed prior to
March 1998 (when the NSF/NSI cooperative agreement expires). Moreover,
there is no guarantee that NSI will surrender its dominance in the domain
name registration process when its delegation of the .COM, .NET and .ORG
domains lapses. NSI's SEC filing indicates that it asserts intellectual property
rights in and to the domain name databases, and it intends to continue
operating as the exclusive registrar of the .com, .net and .org domains.
There is no guarantee that NSI will be unable to block other registrars'
acceptance and processing of these registrations.
Consequently, the only reliable solutions to the perceived problems of the
domain name system include the creation of new TLDs. New TLDs will
expand the Internet Name Space to make it possible for companies to
establish a presence in cyberspace which is logically related to their existing
business names. The differentiation made possible by distinct top level
domains reduces the likelihood of confusing similarly-named enterprises in
different markets. Most important of all, the gTLD proposal makes it possible
for the owner of a second level domain to port the domain when changing
registrars. This compels registrars to focus their business efforts on service
delivery rather than the unassailable security that comes from being the sole
supplier of a prized commodity.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing
the scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of
gTLDs?
There is an interrelated set of technical, policy and business concerns, all of
which converge in favor of allowing the DNS namespace to grow slowly, not
precipitately. The Internet paradigm of "deliver . . . use . . . refine" argues in
favor of this approach. The fact that the DNS can be broken by too rapid or
extensive growth points in the same direction. Finally, simplifying the task of
policing intellectual property rights also counsels in favor of allowing the
domain name system to grow slowly and deliberately.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO
country code domains?
The ISO domains are as distinct from the generic TLD's as both the gTLDs
and ISO domains are distinct from .gov, .mil, .edu, .int, and in-addr.arpa.
These are distinct delegations from the root, and they can be managed
independently of each other.
The ISO domains and the gTLDs overlap with respect to IP space
allocations. When IPv6 is adopted, the restrictions on IP space will become
a thing of the past. So far as ISO Domain Name operations are concerned,
we do not believe that the ISO 3166 domain system has significant problems.
To the extent that there are problems, PAB believes that the relevant public
authorities in each country should decide the extent to which reform is
indicated and the manner in which it should be implemented. While PAB
recognizes that a different structure of the .us domain could have gone far to
prevent the pressure on the .com, .net and .org domains we are now
experiencing, it also recognizes that the opportune moment for including
.com.us, .org.us, and .net.us as second level domain names has passed.
United States companies perceive a high value in registering their domains
under the generic "international" top level domains, and the likelihood of
convincing them to the contrary is small.
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?
PAB believes that no registrar should have exclusive control over a generic
top level domain. At the same time, there is no impediment to the
maintenance of exclusive control over specialized top level domains, such as
.int, .mil and .gov. The number of specialized domains should be sharply
restricted to prevent their being used to conceal what are, in fact, exclusively-owned generic
top level domains. The reason for eschewing exclusivity
relates to the maintenance of a free market and ensuring that the developers
of second level domains have full and free portability between registrars.
Intellectual property rights, including copyright and patent, are facially
anticompetitive, but they serve an economically useful purpose in
encouraging the creation of protected works. There is no such creative effort
involved in the establishment of a top level domain.
Moreover, each top level domain is, or should be, unique. There should be
only one .com registry. Having multiple registries for a top level domain
would mean fragmenting the root and would pose potentially insuperable
problems for interoperability. It does not assist in the development of the
Internet as a global communications channel if one user's call for a second-
or higher-level domain within a given TLD is not consistently resolved
irrespective of the user's ISP. The question of multiple registries is quite
different from providing multiple registrars for a shared registry.
The technical limitations on the use of shared registries are just that,
technical. The technology has existed for some time of allowing multiple
users access to a fixed and uniform database. Record-locking and queuing
algorithms exist which are quite capable of overcoming the technical
difficulties presented by a shared registration system.
The problem posed by coexistence of shared and exclusive gTLDs is a
severe one. The Internet has already seen the explosive growth of
registrations in the .com domain to such an extent that new registrants are
finding that most of the attractive domain names have already been
registered. In many cases, the names have been registered by companies
that have no bona fide use for the name other than to sell the right to use the
name, at an exorbitant fee, to those who do have a legitimate use for the
domain. This practice of "warehousing" or "Cybersquatting" is one which
exacerbates the shortage of available domain names and which the existing
registration system is loathe to deter.
The creation of additional top level domains dilutes the power of
cybersquatters by providing additional space in which a legitimate domain
user can register. The ability of the additional domains to diminish
Cybersquatting is enhanced by the adoption of a policy which is adverse to
the hoarding of domain names. Particularly important is the absolute
prohibition on registrars' claiming second level domain names for their own
accounts.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and
what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these
and how?
A threshold requirement is a necessity to ensure that a registrar has the
necessary material ability to provide the registration services which are the
core of its function. A registrar must be able to respond to customer inquiries
through conventional channels (telephone, fax and postal mail) as well as
electronic means. Moreover, since history has shown that the registrar will
serve as a conveniently-fixed target for intellectual property litigation, the
registrar must have sufficient financial depth to deal with the expense
attendant upon responding to lawsuits. Even though insurance may well be
available to some registrars to cover these costs, it is inevitable that some
lawsuits will be cast to fall outside of the coverage of the policies, some
registrars' coverage will lapse, and some registrars -most notably, those
located in Japan- will be unable to obtain such coverage in the near future.
PAB has attempted to foster these requirements by insisting that registrars
have at least $300,000 in capital, and a staff of at least five full time
employees. PAB also encourages those registrars who have access to
commercial general liability insurance including coverage for trademark
infringement to obtain such coverage and keep it in force. PAB is also
exploring whether such coverage could beneficially be maintained by the
Council of Registrars for the protection of the entire system. PAB believes
that these thresholds are set as low as they can be without endangering the
reliability of the domain name system. PAB particularly is concerned about
the loss of credibility and trust that would result if a registrar were to accept
money from domain name aspirants and then fail to remit the registration fee
to the central authority, causing losses to the domain name aspirant.
The core responsibility for a registrar is the authentic transmission to the
shared database of the information necessary to register and maintain a
given domain. The system should also take responsibility for ensuring that
names which are congruent to recognized trademarks are registered only by
those who are duly authorized by the trademark holders to do so. The
practical constraints discussed below, however, make it infeasible to pre-screen domain
registrations. Accordingly, gTLD conforms to the present
practice of allowing registrations to proceed without checking them for
trademark conflicts, and leaves it to the trademark holders to assert their
rights after the domain has been activated. The responsibility for assuring
that congruence has been placed, under gTLD-MoU, with the Administrative
Challenge Panels, to be administered by WIPO That responsibility, under the
gTLD system, has been institutionalized by making it possible for trademark
holders to exclude or totally block certain domain names in advance. A
common misconception is that only a very few trademark holders will be able
to invoke this pro-active exclusion process. In fact, while it would be unusual
for a name to be excluded from all of the generic top level domains, exclusion
from the domains that bear relevance to a trademark holder's business is
expected to be generally available to holders of trademarks which are
internationally known. The gTLD system is intentionally and highly hostile to
Cybersquatting. See below, p. 13.
PAB also believes that the gTLD system fosters the secure maintenance of
the domain name system by facilitating the use of digital signatures in
connection with registration-related transactions.
Other responsibilities of Registrars will be those which are required by market
forces. Under the shared registry approach of gTLD, Registrars will be free
to develop and market enhanced services and functions. When and if it
becomes evident that certain of those functions are essential to the orderly
maintenance of the domain name system, the gTLD regime has the flexibility
to evolve so as to require those functions and services of all registrars. Short
of imposing the requirement, the competitive market approach taken by the
gTLD-MoU will encourage the provision by Registrars of these functions and
services on a voluntary basis.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?
PAB believes that there are not. In theory, there could be an unlimited
number of domain name registrars, all of whom would share access to a
common database.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space
raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
The technical issues relate principally to assuring that the system will remain
as stable with multiple registrars as it is today, with a single registrar. The
approach being taken under the gTLD-MoU preserves this stability by
maintaining a bright-line division between (a) the operation of the domain
name system for lookup purposes and (b) its operation for purposes of
creating new entries. The systems being implemented under the gTLD-MoU
will interface with the global network of nameservers through a single central
database, to be maintained by or for the Council of Registrars. It is
anticipated that the principal difference between the gTLD system and the
existing system operated by Network Solutions, Inc., will lie in the mechanism
by which new domains are entered into the domain name system, without
altering the way in which the domain name information is looked up by users
who wish to access or use the Internet.
The primary policy issues raised relate to assuring that all registrars have
technical equality, i.e., that no one registrar or group of registrars will have
preferential access to the registration database. This equality is essential to
secure to consumers the benefits which are expected to flow from free
market competition. PAB believes that the equality issue can be redressed
through the use of queuing algorithms, which prevent a registrar from
creating more than a single entry in the shared database until the other
registrars have been polled and given an equal opportunity to register. When
and if there are so many registrars that the time lapse in polling all of them
produces palpable delays in processing, the queuing algorithm can be refined
to work with a pyramidal structure of channels which will assure prompt
throughput while preserving the level playing field which is essential to the
fair and equitable operation of a shared database. The name space itself will
not directly be impacted by increasing the number of registrars. The process
of domain name resolution will continue to be distributed, with updates from
the master database on a regular basis. There is no reason to suppose that
the operation of the domain name system will be affected materially by
altering the registration process.
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?
PAB believes that the question of exclusivity drives the question whether a
registrar should be limited in the number of domains it can administer. If
domains are exclusive to a registrar, so that a registrar is the sole source of
registrations in a given domain, it stands to reason that limiting the market
power of registrars, to prevent the development of monopolies, calls for
limiting the number of domains which a registrar may control. Such a limit
has numerous practical problems, since it could be circumvented through
corporate combinations, joint ventures, and a myriad other business
structures which can conceal the reality of the business relationships.
PAB believes strongly that every registrar should have equal and unimpeded
access to registrations in every generic top level domain. Only in this way
can the benefits of free market competition permeate the entire domain name
system.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
The first issue is the establishment of a principled basis for distinguishing
between "specialized" top level domains -- which can be operated by a single
registrar without doing harm to the interest of free competition -- and "private
property" domains, which, if allowed to proliferate, could do significant harm
to the public interest. To put it another way, PAB concurs that there may well
be times when additional domains, over which the Council of Registrars will
not have operational control, can properly be added to the root of the domain
name system without seriously impairing the integrity of the Internet, but at
this time it finds a lack of consensus as to a measurement system which can
be identified in advance for ascertaining whether a proposal is an attempt to
circumvent the public trust nature of the generic top level domain namespace
or is instead a bona fide specialized domain. At present, there is a belief that
such issues will need to be explored cooperatively on a case by case basis,
but this belief has not yet crystallized into any sort of consensus. Neither has
a mechanism for weighing the bona fides of a proposal acquired substantial
support.
A second item, and one as to which, again, there remains a lack of
consensus within PAB, is whether the restrictions on the qualifications of
registrars which currently are applied are appropriate. There is substantial
support within PAB for reducing the threshold qualifications, on the theory
that the presence of unqualified participants in the registration process will
be a self-limiting problem: such registrars will be unable to satisfy the public's
demand for services and will therefore fall by the wayside. The initiative for
lowering of threshold qualifications has not developed sufficient support
within PAB to be proposed to the interim Policy Oversight Committee. A
substantial number of PAB members believe that the qualifications presently
set are needed to assure consistent service delivery and build up public
confidence in the gTLD system, which is, at present, an untried service
provider. The traditional Internet paradigm of "deliver . . . use . . . refine" may
well be the key to the evolution of the Council of Registrars' service delivery
policy. It is entirely possible that once the gTLD system has proven its ability
to deliver consistent domain name registration services, the threshold can be
lowered incrementally to enhance participation in the system. At present,
however, it appears that the threshold qualifications, discussed elsewhere,
will be left in place for at least the immediate future.
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?
At one extreme, the position has been taken that domain names have
nothing to do with intellectual property. That sort of position has appeal for
engineers and technologically-oriented but socially-challenged persons
("techno-geeks"), but it is out of touch with the reality that domain names'
association with intellectual property rights is what creates the economic
value in the domain name system itself.
The question posed in the NOI cannot be answered in isolation from the
threshold issue: by whom the Intellectual property rights in question will be
protected. The values to be protected will vary depending on the agency
which supplies the protection. There are three immediately-apparent
resolutions of the threshold issue, and they are not mutually exclusive:
(a) the domain name system itself;
(b) national court systems; and
(c) international tribunals.
The question also cannot be answered in isolation from the context of the
ongoing dispute over the relationship between domain names and intellectual
property rights. The relationship is not a simple one. Policy-makers in this
arena must distinguish among:
(a) use of a domain name by a business which happens to coincide
with a registered trademark in a different product or jurisdiction
(b) the registration of a domain name by an company for
"warehousing" purposes and
(c) the registration of a domain name by the competitor of a notorious
product or service for the purpose of confusing the consumers or disparaging
the product or service that is suggested by the domain name.
That the domain name system can and should stamp out the warehousing
of trademark-related domain names is explicit in the Memorandum of
Understanding relating to Generic Top Level Domains. The pernicious
practice of "Cybersquatting" adds nothing of value to the domain name
system. Likewise, the use of domain names by competitors in order to
confuse the public or disparage the goods and services that have a logical
connection with the domain name is contrary to the best interests of the
public and the Internet. When it is patent that this sort of unfair competition
was the motive for the registration of a domain name, there is no good
reason for the domain name system to await the adjudication of a court,
national or international; the domain name system can and should act in the
best interest of the public and the Internet.
However, the resolution of competing intellectual property claims is not
something which a domain name system is equipped to resolve. There can
be only one "united.firm," and there is no reason for the domain name system
to displace the first registrant of that name. Neither is it proper for a domain
name system to set itself up to decide whether a holder of Intellectual
property rights has sufficient rights for the recognition of those rights.
Whether a claimant has a common law trademark, or other intellectual
property rights deserving of recognition, is a matter for courts and legislators,
not for the domain name system.
The task is complicated by the fact that there is no authoritative international
trademark registry. PAB believes that the ACP Substantive Guidelines
balance the competing concerns as well as any non-governmental solution
can hope to achieve. It consciously refrains from the judicial function of
deciding whether a claimant enjoys common law Intellectual property rights
related to a domain name. It also consciously refrains from a mechanical
determination that the earliest trademark registration is dispositive of the
domain name dispute. Rather, it charges the Administrative Challenge Panel
with a commonsensical approach to ascertaining the strength of Intellectual
property rights and their proper area of relevance. Thus a trademark for
plush toys should not per se trump the right of an established business to
use its own name on the Internet. PAB specifically disapproves of the
manner in which Network Solutions, Inc. handled the Roadrunner.com
domain name dispute.
In short, the rights that should be protected by the Domain Name System
itself are those which are created or confirmed exogenously to the Domain
Name System. This leaves to nations (and to the extent applicable,
international organizations) the basic legal authority to create and confirm
Intellectual property rights. There does remain a danger of inconsistent
adjudications between different countries. This is not a new phenomenon in
international relations. It was with a recognition that conflicts might arise that
the gTLD regime sought to seat the domain name resolution process in the
Swiss Confederation, a country which has consistently demonstrated special
sensitivity to international relations while at the same time remaining aloof
from entanglements.
The rights that should serve as the basis for protection on the Internet, when
the tribunal is a court, remain a matter for each nation to determine. National
courts determine the obligations of the parties before them, and can affect
the operation of the domain name system indirectly. The Domain Name
System itself would obey the mandates of its governing national court, and
carry out the directives of other national courts only as implemented by the
actions of the domain name holders themselves. Presumably, a registrant
who was ordered by a competent court to surrender a domain name would
inform the registrar, and in that way, the DNS, acting through CORE, would
implement the national court decision, but only indirectly. This is an
imperfect solution, but until wide acceptance for an international convention
can be found, it is the only presently-workable solution.
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?
It is inappropriate to impose on a Domain Name System the
quasi-governmental obligation of reviewing a domain name to ascertain if it
conflicts with Intellectual property rights. There is no easy answer to the
question of how many nations' Intellectual Property registries would need to
be consulted, nor which nations' registries those should be. Neither is there
an easy or logical way to specify, in advance, what to do where the same
Intellectual property rights are vested in different entities in different
jurisdictions.
PAB believes that a prospective registrant should assume the responsibility
of reviewing the Intellectual property rights relevant to its proposed domain
name before investing in the development of the domain. It also believes
that a registrant should have the right --but not the obligation-- to expose a
proposed name to public comment before activating the domain. While such
pre-activation review should not be conclusive, or give the registrant rights
to the domain which are incontestable, the practice of voluntarily submitting
the domain name to public comment is a factor which should be taken into
account in deciding whether to allow the domain name to persist. It remains
one factor among many.
PAB believes strongly that any domain name policy should be drafted and
applied with the objectives of (a) preventing warehousing, (b) precluding the
use of confusing domain names to obscure the authorship or source of
material on the Word Wide Web and (c) encouraging the growth and
development of the Internet.
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?
As indicated above, the self-governance of the Internet is self-limiting. The
gTLD-MoU scheme recognizes this and sharply limits the role which can be
played by the Administrative Challenge Panels ("ACPs"). The objective is to
ensure that the ACPs do not do more than govern the internal operation of
the gTLD-MoU system. The ACPs cannot make decrees which establish the
existence of Intellectual property rights, or mandate the performance of an
act by a domain name registrant or challenger. The final and conclusive
resolution of disputes requires the application of positive law. Courts, in
particular, are limited by basic notions of due process in acquiring and
exercising jurisdiction. Once the process which is due has run its course, the
parties to the process are entitled to have the resulting decree respected and
obeyed. Ultimately, the question whether a domain name dispute has been
conclusively resolved will be determined by the courts which have jurisdiction
over the registrar. For example, a recent notorious domain name dispute
centered around the registration of the yahoo.com.tw domain. The decision
to shut off that domain was taken by the registrar responsible for the Taiwan
TLD. If the holder of the yahoo.com registration had chosen instead to
institute a court proceeding in a jurisdiction other than Taiwan, it would have
fallen to a Taiwanese court to determine whether that other court had
properly exercised personal jurisdiction over the holder of the Taiwanese
domain.
The foregoing states the minimum level of government involvement in
domain name disputes. Whether a greater level of governmental
involvement is called for, and, if so, what form that involvement should take,
is a remarkably complex question. PAB believes that the international
organizations whose briefs involve electronic communication --including ITU
and WIPO-- are the proper fora in which to consider the multifarious policy
considerations bearing on this question. PAB also believes that United
States policy in this respect should be based on recognition that the United
States, as one of the world's premier commercial markets, has a strong
interest in promoting the stability, predictability, and robustness of IP
protection.
It remains important, however, that the United States advance these
objective through international cooperation. The United States has the power
to play the role of a 350-kilo
gorilla with respect to domain names and the Internet generally, but that
would not be in the public interest. It could well lead to fragmentation of the
Internet, as other countries' national pride and the fierce independence of
Internet users generally would react unfavorably.
Accordingly, PAB recommends to the United States that its influence over the
domain name system be exerted through the existing international
organizations, particularly WIPO and ITU.
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 prevention of trademark-domain name collisions is complicated by the
lack of a universal registry for trademarks, and the fact that identical
trademarks can be held by different entities in different jurisdictions or in the
same jurisdiction with respect to different goods and services. Because the
prevention of disputes does not have an easily-identifiable basis, PAB does
not believe that any sort of mechanical rule is appropriate.
While the issues involved here are analogous to those entailed in the use of
"trademark watch" services, PAB does not believe that a registrant should be
compelled to secure the services of an outside contractor or search firm as
a prerequisite to registering a domain name. PAB believes that the domain
name registration process should be as streamlined as possible, and does
not believe that the existing system --which places on the trademark holder
the burden of "policing" the marketplace-- should be revised or departed from
solely in the context of Internet domain names. When and if the international
trademark regime changes to remove or relieve that burden, then it would
naturally be incumbent on the domain name system to revise its policies and
procedures. Until that happens, and except to the extent that "pro-active"
exclusion, discussed in the next paragraph, is appropriate, it will and should
remain the responsibility of trademark holders to preserve and protect their
intellectual property rights.
At the same time, certain disputes can be prevented through the pro-active
recognition that certain marks are so strong that no domain name which is
identical or closely-similar to a given mark should be allowed. PAB believes
that the decision whether pro-actively to exclude certain domain names from
ever being registered can be made only on a case by case basis.
Even if a "perfect" database could be compiled and kept current, it could not
dispose of these problems. A standard of "confusingly similar" is not
susceptible of automatic or rote application. A lesser standard, such as
"identical," errs in the opposite direction by failing to afford protection to many
legitimate 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?
Part of the charm of the domain name system is the imaginativeness of
names which can be selected by registrants. PAB does not believe in
general that a barrier should be erected in all gTLDs. However, a gTLD
which is based on one's name (e.g., .NOM) can and should require a
showing of a connection between the name of the registrant and the domain
name. Likewise, where a domain has a particular charter (e.g., .museum) a
similar set of considerations applies. (In this context, "charter" refers to the
specific realm covered by a particular top level domain. A domain name
which would be offensive in a commercial domain, such as McDonald's.firm,
would not have the same problem in McDonald.nom, since the charter of the
.NOM domain is to allow individuals to use their proper names to identify their
own second level domains within that namespace.) However, the
requirement that a particular second level domain name be justified prior to
its registration would restrict the growth of the Internet by making the domain
name system subordinate to other sources of intellectual property rights.
By the same token, there is no harm in requiring a domain name registrant
to acknowledge, when requesting the activation of a second level domain,
that it has no claim to the name or reason for requesting it other than that he
likes the sound of the name. Such a policy would simplify the actions of an
ACP which is weighing the claim of a challenger that it has recognizable,
internationally-known intellectual property rights in and to the text that forms
the basis for the registered domain name. It is not expected that such a
consideration, standing alone, would be dispositive, but it can and should be
one factor among many.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars
affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
Improperly handled, increasing the number of gTLDs promises to increase
the frequency of trademark disputes as well as to increase the cost of
policing and protecting the rights of trademark holders, by affording a larger
territory in which those disputes can take place. Likewise, an increase in the
number of registrars, if the registrars are charged with the resolution of
trademark-domain name collisions, promises to increase the cost of
protecting the rights of trademark holders as well as raising the spectre of
inconsistent determinations. While the gTLD-MoU system does not
contemplate that registrars will resolve trademark/domain name collisions,
that process may well be a feature of other domain name systems.
It is for these reasons that gTLD-MoU contemplates a system under which
the internal policy of the regime is administered consistently by a single
organization, separate and distinct from the domain name registration
process. These considerations also underlie the contemplated policy of
permitting pro-active exclusion of domain names based on the existence of
sufficiently-strong Intellectual property rights.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain
name, are there any
technological solutions?
If the Internet and its domain name system were concerned solely with the
World Wide Web, then it would be reasonable and possible to implement
special domains which would subsume the disputed domains and permit
users to select among the contentious domains. For example, a request for
www.united.biz might refer the user to www.united.dis[putes], where the
system would serve a menu page with pointers to www.united-airlines.com,
www.united-vanlines.com, and www.united-video.com. The problem with this
approach is that the Domain Name System must also serve the needs of
other protocols, including telnet, rlogin, ftp, and e-mail. Those facilities
-especially e-mail-require automatic functioning rather than a human-driven
menu selection. Until such time as the Internet is redesigned on a clean
sheet of paper -permitting recognition of the World Wide Web as a mass
medium distinct from the other protocols of the Internet, there does not
appear to be a technological "fix" for the domain name system that will
preclude collisions with trademark and other Intellectual property rights.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
PAB believes that a number of related issues are presented, but have been
addressed in the foregoing paragraphs.
**************************************************
Addenda
Addendum of Werner Straub
The need [for specialized domains] does exist and is probably
much greater than that for .rec, for instance.
You can define need as the difference
between cost avoided and cost incurred. A predefined TLD like
.air incurs no cost (as there are no conflicts). The absence of the
.air TLD is costly (airports need to fight for their names in the
unstructured name spaces and advertise their names
because there is no pattern). A predefined space like
air.int is fine, but it does not cost anything less than a .air, so
why bother millions of people with a useless suffix, knowing
that half of those who can remember jfk.air will not be able
to remember jfk.air.int? The same is true for any number of
other potential predefined or managed name spaces, be
it .post or .isbn or .barcode.
It would be much better to argue in favour of these to be
handled by the CORE registrars than saying that they
are not needed because they have not been addressed
by the gTLD-MoU. Moreover, managed name spaces
are a case for industry self-regulation just like the rest
of the domain names.
Addendum of Alan Sullivan
While some members of PAB recognize that a different structure of the
.us (allowing second level functional domain names) would go far to prevent the
pressure
experienced by the current .com, .net, and .org domains, Top Domain Registry
(TDR) does not agree that the opportune moment for including functional second
level .us domains has passed. TDR also believes that opening up the gTLD name
space in a controlled manner provides many more benefits than liabilities. TDR
does not know how US companies would react to functional second level domains
such as .com.us, .net.us, .or .org.us. since these domains have never been
available to US companies. TDR believes it would be healthy for the .us domain
to adopt a functional second level domain name structure, concurrently to opening
up the gTLD
name space.
Addendum of Dan Busarow
DPC generally supports this response. The only substantive difference
is that I do not believe that new gTLDs will ease name collisions.
Competition and portability are the saviors here.
###
Number: 357
From: Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 4:07pm
Subject: Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
Thank you for taking the time to include my comments on this important
issue.
Vince Wolodkin
(703)469-3128
wolodkin@digitalink.com [WORK]
wolodkin@erols.com [HOME]
What follows below are my answers to the questions posed in the NOI, docket
number 970613137-7137-01, Registration and Administration of Internet
Domain names. I am a private citizen of the United States, and the opinions
I put forth are not necessarily those of my employer.
I have been involved professionally with networking systems since 1989 and with
the internet itself since 1992. I was chiefly responsible for putting the
Federal Communications Commission on the Internet. When I left the FCC in
January 1996, I was acting Chief, Network Operations. I am currently employed
as the Senior Engr, Operations for washingtonpost.com. I have been active in
discussions regarding internet governance and domain naming for more than a
year now, and feel very strongly that the ITU approach currently touted by ISOC
is the wrong model for the future growth of the Internet. I believe that TLDs
should be nationalized, and that gTLDs should be removed, not expanded.
B.1) Domain registration is currently handled by a stable, pseudo-regulated
organization which is an advantage. On the other hand, the policies adopted
by NSI, presumably acceptable to NSF, seem illogical at best. The domain
dispute policy is biased and the mad domain speculation market has been
driven by an NSI who once able to accept money for registrations seemingly
stopped using any discretion when allocationg domains. Prior to charging a
$50 fee, NSI questioned organizations who wanted more than one domain name
and suggested that a third level domain was more appropriate.
B.2) By making them more like other systems world citizens deal with everyday.
At first glance, NSI has a world-wide monopoly on domain registrations, but a
closer look reveals hundreds of national registries for ISO country code
domains. Encouraging these ISO registries and minimizing or removing the current
gTLDs may yield good results. More on this in later sections.
B.3) Administration of domains should, at least for a time, be a regulated industry
in the US. Licensing for-profit registries under the .US domain would be an
acceptable solution.
B.4) I'd like to see Domain names be national systems. gTLDs necessarily
require international governance and yet, the internet is not ready for
such a governance. Natioanl name registration systems under country codes
could be a much better system.
B.5) gTLDs should be retired at such a time as the US can be prepared to
license registries under the .US or .USA domain(depending on a choice of ISO
2 or 3 character codes). At such time as registries are ready to operate
under .US, .com et al should be closed to new registrations and moved to
.com.us where all new registrations would go. Current registrants would
be allowed to make use of .com et al for a period of 5 years while
simultaneously using .com.us. THERE WOULD BE NO TRANSFERS ALLOWED during
this 5 year period. Anyone wishing to transfer a .com domain name would be
removed from .com and available only under .com.us.
In essence a gTLD only complicates issues of trademark and governance. There
is no clear ruling body. On the other hand national domains like .US and .UK
provide a clear direction for trademarks. The domain prince.co.uk would NOT i
conflict with prince.com.us. Both can have a valid mark in their own countries.
B.6) Currently, the only REAL problem with domain registration is that next
spring, the NSI/NSF agreement expires, and by that time a system needs to be
in place to continue registrations or the NSI agreement needs temporarily
extended until registrations under .US can take place. The issue of root
servers is important and will need addressed. I see no reason why the US
govt should continue to fund root servers for the world. In fact, under
a national domain system, each country could have their own roots. I
personally see no value multiple "Root Server Confederations". I cannot
grasp how such efforts would do anything but fragment the internet.
B.7) If systems are national, then we only need to worry about our own roots.
In fact, every licensed registry could be required to operate a root. Under
a national domain system, scalability will not be so much of a problem as it is
under a gTLD system.
B.8) NSI could conceivably stay in place to operate .com.us. I know there is
a great deal of resentment toward NSI in the community, though these are mostly
trademark lawyers and people who want to run .com themselves. NSI, if properly
managed, isn't that bad. Other registries would be allowed to serve things like
.guns.us or .butter.us.
B.9) It is very important to move away from gTLDs altogether. They are quite
frankly the wrong model for a global system. I can't think of any similar global
systems in existence today. All similar systems seem to deal with numbers or
frequencies and are more akin to the IP allocation problem.
C.10) Really, there are only policy considerations. There is no real
technical reason to limit the number of gTLDs. There is, however, no good
policy reason to have gTLDs. gTLDs require international governance that
the Internet is just not ready for. National TLDs, however, allow a more
measured approach.
B.11) No. Additional non business class or geography specific TLDs merely
exacerbate existing trademark issues.
B.12) Once again, there are only policy and business issues. Your average
everyday internet user couldn't care less what websites he visits are named,
it is the business, legal and registration interests that desire lots of
gTLDs. They are really not necessary.
B.13) No, they are not. As long as gTLDs are around, country codes will
not prosper because business(or should I say marketing) prefers catchy names
that end in .com. As I have said, Joe Average doesn't care whether he connects
to a website at ntia.gov or ntia.gov.us. In fact, it is quite possible to
allow users within the .us domain to connect to ntia.gov.us by merely
typing ntia.gov.
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
B.14) Just to re-iterate that gTLDs are the wrong model for the internet.
Internet users are typically used to dealing with international and national
boundaries. Businesses are also familiar with this construct as are courts.
Don't allow the ITU and WIPO to destroy the Internet with bad policy.
B.15) There should be NO gTLD registrars. But registrars under .US should
be allowed control over a particular SLD. Perhaps others would be structured
with a shared philosphy. Exclusive and non-exclusive can exist together under
a national TLDs. There should be no gTLDs.
B.16) Requirements should be determined by the NTIA in a seperate request
after the decision has been made to abandon the gTLD system and move to the
more logical national TLD system.
B.17) No. In fact, any ISP that registers domains for it's customers could
act as a registrar as long as there is a meta-registry that they work through.
This is similar to NSI's current implementation of channel-partners.
B.18) As long as it is done intelligently, this should be fine. People of the
United States have long dealt with system renaming and renumbering with phone
numbers and area codes, the interstate system and 911 street re-naming. People
get over it. There is no point in continuing a faulty system like the gTLD system
when changes can be affected to make it right.
B.19) gTLDs should not be created. gSLDs should be created under national
domain names like .US and .CA. gSLD registrars should obviously not be allowed
to have exclusive control over a boatload of SLDs, but what these limits should be
really depends on many other things as yet undecided. Perhaps, vanity SLDs like
.IBM.US and .MCI.US will be allowed. These might be private SLDs in which case
a single registrar might exclusively control many private SLDs.
B.20) gSLDs should be created under ISO country code domains(either 2 or 3 character)
and NO gTLDs should be created.
B.21) Country code TLDs provide for better trademark protection. If you
want trademark protection under the .US TLD then you need a US trademark.
We have seen trademark disputes regarding .com decided in other countries
against US citizens. .COM is a US registry and should only be subject to
US laws. Move .COM under .US.
B.22) I don't see why this review should be done. The application of
registrant for domain name name should merely state something to the effect
that applicant does not knowingly make use of a trademark not belonging to
him in the construction of this unique domainname.
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?
B.23) I believe that national courts are the only appropriate venue for
these types of decisions. Should domain holders be required to seek an
international body to rule in domain disputes. The gTLD model is the
wrong model.
B.24) It seems that should a database be created that it would be in the best
interest of WIPO to create it and make it freely available to potential
domain holders to search. Perhaps, domains could be checked against the
database and an email sent to the registering party such as the following:
"During the registration process for your requested domain XYZ.COM.US, we have
discovered that XYZ is a trademark of the following companies. If you wish to
proceed with this registration, please respond affirmatively to this message"
B.25) No, domain requesters should not need a trademark to have a domain
name. In addition, if a mark holder registers the name XYZ.COM, then first-come
first-serve should dictate that the name goes to the first holder. People
who use a domain and choose not to register it as a trademark should get what those
throughout history have gotten who fail to trademark their product names.
B.26) gTLDs will only make the matter worse as more and more trademark
disputes will arise. On the other hand, an intelligent system of
classification such as by SIC code, would go a long way to removing
disputes altogether.
B.27) No.
B.28) Just to re-iterate. gTLDs are the wrong model. .COM should be closed
to new registrations and the US govt should take up the task of licensing
registrars under .US and place all of .COM, including foreign registrations,
under .COM.US. Foreign registrations are currently a very small percentage
of .COM. If we close the TLDs(other than .INT) then the world will follow.
It's the right thing to do. If you value the future of the Internet you
will make the move to national domains. gTLDs have no long term future and
will only exacerbate the current situation. I don't think it's necessary
to make things worse before we make them better.
Thank you for your time,
Vince Wolodkin
###
Number: 358
From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 4:40pm
Subject: Commenting on DNS reform [Docket No.
970613137-7137-01]
This email is in response to:
> X-URL: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dn5notic.htm
>
> DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
>
> [Docket No. 970613137-7137-01]
>
> Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of
> Internet Domain Names
>
> 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?
>
Comment: This statement implies an over-broad Government role in making
the final determination. It would be more consistent with the Government's
stated intention to say "The Government seeks comment on the principles
by which it should identify the Government interest in the allocation
of Internet domain names and current and proposed practices for the
maintenance (registration and administration) of this namespace."
There is a missing principle: The Government should pursue continuing
clarification of concepts for the concerns (rights and performance
parameters) where it has a lead or follow role to pursue, and to
clearly distinguish these from the concerns where it is most important
for the Government to get out of the way.
Fairness in trade is a concern where there is clearly a Government role.
There is no way we can say that the Government should play _no_ role in
policing the use of names in Internet communication particulary as it
increasingly becomes a platform for commerce.
The conceptual framework exposed by the set of questions asked
here does not line up perfectly, yet, with the boundaries between
concerns where the Government should lead, follow, or get out of
the way. Inadequate assertiveness with regard to proper
Government missions is as evident here as meddling in network
internals that should not be a matter of Government concern.
Nobody has all the answers yet. Thank you for listening.
> B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
>
> 2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
>
New top-level domains should be introduced. These domains should
be administered under a variety of business rules. In
particular, experiments should go forward for commercial TLDs
where the principles of operation, beyond a very limited set of
services guaranteed for all domains in the system, would be
determined by the proprietor of the name-service venture vending
the service of using these names. At least three such domains
should be created, licensed for finite periods to licensees
selected by auction. These top-level-names should have mnemonics
that one can remember, but which _do not_ imply any functional
distinction between the different competitors. Functional
pigeonholing should be practiced for governmental and NGO
addresses, but the commercial ventures must distinguish
themselves by service features outside the domain name.
For a simple example of how the service might vary in this
system, there could be analogs of 800 numbers which are free long
distance calls within a restricted service region. The flatness
of service with regard to everything that looks like a current
DNS name should not be assumed.
Flat-access name spaces should be maintained and the
what-the-market-will-bear, fee-for-service domains forced to
create a service so attractive that it draws market share away
from the current vanilla grade of service.
> 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 current reform initiative should be supported. [Process started
by the ad-hoc committee.]
> 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 should be different classes of TLDs within which the
decision processes and authorities are different. The ISO
national TLDs should be administered by national
authorities. There should be a clearly identified domain (Top
level or short tree) for inter-governmental and non-governmental
bodies whose principal line of business is global, such as the UN
and the WTO, ISO, IEC and IUCN. To get one of these names, you
should have to meet credentials. Likewise, in the US there is a
recognizable class of non-profit enterprises which should have
access to a restricted namespace. But we should not try to
retread .ORG to make it pure in this sense. This should be done
by an enterprise of the US Government because the _defacto_
discriminant for this class of enterprises is tests defined and
applied by the tax authorities of the Federal Government. So
this namespace should be a .foo.US namespace for recognized
non-profit organizations that want to take advantage of their tax
status in connecting with Internauts.
> 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?
>
Generic TLDs should be preserved and geographic naming should be optional.
On the other hand, under the commercialization strategy outlined above,
the service available under the commercial new TLDs will eventually be
so good that the demand for the generic TLDs will plateau or decline, and
their rapid growth of late will not be a continuing problem.
The management issues for country-code domains can be _partly_ separated
from those of gTLDs or domaines mondiales. The healthy model is that
there is a progressively diversified class structure for names where
all domain name spaces are derived from a root class, and end-user services
and governance-doctrine gradually diverges as one gets farther from the
root level.
> 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. See above. Yes. But not Government Issues.
> 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 Government should get off the issue of root servers. Root servers
should be retired in favor of redundant hyperreliable administration
systems, but the Government should be a distant follower in this process.
> 8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
>
Gradually, under constant evaluation.
> 9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
>
Taxation of for-profit namespace ventures to support the whole.
> C. Creation of New gTLDs
>
> 11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
>
Yes.
> 12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
> guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated with
> increasing the number of gTLDs?
>
You have to take some risks. Guaranteed scalability is a perfection
we probably cannot afford.
> 13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO
> country code domains?
>
See above. Progressively varigated namespace is the model that both
integrates and distinguishes these subclasses of domains.
> 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?
>
The government should focus on isolating service characteristics to be
defended and leave the algorithmic solution to the providers.
In other words, I believe that this question is too "inner" to the
realization of Internet service to be a proper concern of the public
or Government.
> 16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars,
> and what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will
> determine these and how?
>
Some trustability should be required. How this is articuated is TBD.
Does not necessarily constrain _who_ the registrar is if there is a
viable audit plan for checks and balances.
> E. Trademark Issues
>
> 21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks, common law
> trademarks, geographic indications, etc.), if any, should be protected
> on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names?
>
We need to continue to grope our way forward on this one. What
rights should pertain is actually a function of what services and
operations are possible. And we don't know that yet.
There are rights on both sides that cannot be made entirely clear
all at once. Eventually, it is possible that parties making
commercial use of the Internet should for that reason have to
make certain disclosures that will facilitate the prosecution of
claims against their business unit. But this is not reduceable
to final writ at this time.
> 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?
>
In general, no. In the specialized cases outlined above, yes. In the
commercial-enterprise domains, this is to be answered by the entrepreneurs.
> 26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of
> registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
>
Minimally.
> 27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a
> single domain name, are there any technological solutions?
>
There are possible solutions. These are a blend of technology and
business negotiation. No pure technological instant fixes.
###
Number: 359
Before the:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of :
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES
Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
Comments of Paul M. Kane,
Director,
Internet Computer Bureau Plc, London.
paul.kane@icb.co.uk
I, respectfully submit the following comments in this proceeding.
I have been a Director of the above company since July 1996, having worked in the
computer industry as a systems analyst/designer since 1983.
I have participated as an invited attendee in at nine public and private conferences
at national and international level on this issue.
I have followed most of the discussions on the IAHC discussion list and as
European Adviser to the Directory Corporation (a signatory to the gTLD MoU), have
followed much of the debate on the gTLD Policy Advisory Board discussion lists.
ICB plc is not a Signatory to the gTLD inorder to remain impartial and objective to
the process of Domain Registration. As a small company at the leading edge of
Internet technology, we believe technology will not be constrained by arbitary rules.
To build consumer confidence in the Internet as a conduit for commercial
transactions requires certanty and security. Consequently we have developed
numerous applications that use technology to resolve domain name conflicts and
promote Electronic Commerce in a stable enviroment.
Paul M. Kane
15th August 1997.
Summary of Comments:
Internet Governance:
1. The global nature of the Internet implies that any one government
should not
have supra-national control of the medium. Each of the United Nations
Organisations, other than WTO, represent the interests of a particular market
sector, and the Internet governance needs to remain non-partisan and conscious
to the dynamic technology that underpins the Internet.
1. IANA is respected as the "guardian" of TLDs and the "dot". Constitute IANA as a
international treaty organisation, with direct funding from Internet constituent
members, namely APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE, and ISO 3166 member countries.
IANA has already developed a stable, consensus-based self-governing
mechanisms. Develop this role by directly involving the private sector, with input
from governments through ISO 3166 registries. Unfortunately the ROOT Servers
are operated on behalf of IANA by InterNIC which also hosts the .COM, NET,
ORG TLDs. Invite IANA to take the operation of the ROOT in-house and
InterNIC to host their gTLDs on servers directly funded by them rather than from
the NSF funding resources. As time is short, it may be necessary to extend
InterNICs contract, under new conditions, to ensure smooth transition to the new
management structure.
Top Level Domains.
1. The DNS architecture is monopolistic by nature and
consequently the number of
gTLDs should be increased, with competition amongst shared and exclusive
Registries.
1. The March 1998 deadline has focused many entrepreneurs minds' as all
proposals ultimately result in a single entity having exclusive power over a
specific gTLD namespace.
1. InterNIC has built a market for Domain Names in one gTLD in particular, namely
.COM. They have been successful and after many years of problems now
operate an efficient registry. InterNIC has been a victim of its own marketing
success. Companies have sought a .COM domain because it is perceived as
the "most likely" domain for "international" companies to be found. Browsers
automatically insert .COM if the user just types a known trademark as an
address. Domain Names are not Trademarks, the DNS is not a directory system
and never will be. The direct association of a Trademark, Registered or
Common Law, with a Domain Name has caused conflicts to arise. Increasing
the gTLD namespace may dilute this conflict if administered correctly,
conversely it could exacerbate the problem if mismanaged.
1. As an organisation InterNIC should reappraise its flawed Domain Name
Disputes policy although there recently seems to have been a change of policy.
The Prince US v Prince UK dispute seems to signal the policy is being
substantially reviewed. Their billing system was chaotic, with long standing
Domain Names potentially being cut-off, although new registrations seem to be
OK. The 30% Internet Structure fund payment for each Domain registration has
inflated InterNICs registration fee above its true cost of $35/year. This Domain
"rental" fee is not particularly excessive, when compared with say a standard
telephone line rentals. As they are a monopoly with relatively static expenditure
downward price pressure should be appropriate.
1. InterNIC's current monopoly position must be concluded and replace with
competition but the mechanics for its replacement are yet to be evaluated, tried
and tested. Stability is of paramount importance. If InterNICs involvement in the
industry is to be concluded, a view I do not support, the six month "wind-down"
provision in the existing contract assists the gentle tranfer to a new system.
1. The IAHC proposal merits support in my view and its introduction should not be
delayed. However, I am unable to substantiate the justification for 7 new
domains in one introduction as opposed to one or two at a time. If seven ( some
inappropriately named) gTLDs are to be introduced they should be implemented
one-by-one based on performance and effectiveness of the system, once
proven. If their Domain operation is successful why limit it to seven. Once a
domain has been designated it is extremely difficult if not impossible to retract it.
1. The rationale for increasing gTLD was to give Trademark Owners the
opportunity to identify themselves using their mark. I remain to be convinced
that existing Domain Name Owners will not be compelled to register in each
parallel domain "to protect" themselves against passing-off or dilution. In which
case increasing the domains in small numbers will have little effect and the
proposal of say 150 gTLDs becomes more and more appropriate. There have
been a number of Domain Name conflicts involving the .COM domain, until the
IAHC system is tried and tested in the market there is no evidence to suggest
that the additions of new gTLDs will not just compound the number of domain
name disputes. Yes we need the IAHC to compete with InterNIC, but stability
and public trust is of paramount importance.
1. Try ONE (or at a push two) new IAHC gTLD initially, to establish operational
effectiveness and verification that domain names disputes do not dramatically
increase. This incremental route has been envisaged by the gTLD MoU as
IAHC have offered no guarantees as to when (if) their proposed gTLDs will be
entered in the Root. In addition, Incremental introduction, gives late entrants to
the Registrar business the necessary incentives and the ability to sell "choice"
names in competition with "first wave" Registrars. This gives the IAHC the
opportunity to obtain greater consensus / participation in the registry process.
1. I welcome WIPO making its Mediation and Arbitration service available to
resolve disputes as National Courts remain a more expensive alternative option.
The ACP process could be used to address disputes in the InterNIC name space
as well, for consenting parties. WIPO is not a signatory to the gTLD MoU
specifically and remains "neutral".
1. Evaluate the other gTLD proposals over a longer time frame, exclusive and
share gTLDs can co-exist providing a firm basis on which to stimulate
competition in the Domain market.
Consumer Protection
1. For Electronic Commerce to gain and retain public trust, security
is the key to
build public confidence. Domain Names do not offer any security because one
can navigate the Internet without using a Domain Name (using IP Address) and
where domain names are used, traffic can be redirected to a spoof site without
consumer awareness.
1. Consumers need to know that they are communicating in the virtual world with
the company known to them in the physical world. Consumers and existing
Consumer Protection Authorities must be able to identify and marginalise
counterfeiters, pirates and passing-off/diluting Internet sites. As a company, ICB
has developed a number of technical solutions to reduce the opportunity of fraud
in the world of Electronic Commerce.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems?
ISO 3166 Registration System
Advantages: Disadvantages:
Efficient
Uncomplicated Controlled monopoly
Regionally Accountable
Frequently cost recovery basis
Distributed Processing
InterNIC Registration System
Advantages: Disadvantages:
Efficient high profit /cost ratio
Uncomplicated Monopolistic
Not regionally accountable
Processing failure/delay affects
global network
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
DNS system
1. DNSs open architecture is fundamentally robust, resilient and efficient.
Diversifying the physical locations of the Primary Root Servers would improve
global interaction and enhance network efficiencies. This process has started
with two Root Servers located outside the USA. Increasing the number of mirror
Root Servers to nodes of high traffic activity would assist reduce bandwidth
wastage, benefit redundancy factors and enhance the political diversity and
international nature of the Internet. (max say 25 Root Servers)
3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should current domain name
systems be administered?
1. The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has done an excellent
job. Long may
this continue. Establishing a legal basis for IANA has advantages and
disadvantages. Becoming a legal entity makes it a target for litigation and
claims for further gTLDs to be added to the Root Zone File are likely to be
forthcoming. Due to the nature of the Internet it may be prudent to ensure IANA
has protection and framework similar to an international governmental
organisations formed by International Treaty.
2.
What should the makeup of such an entity be?
The private sector, with input from governments, should be able to develop stable,
consensus-based self-governing mechanisms. The framework already exists with
ISO 3166 countries having designated and control over their national Internet
Registration Authorities. Constitute IANA such that the national domain registration
authorities, administer and pay for the activities of IANA. If and when there are
gTLD registries invite them to participate and pay for their share of costs for the
administration of IANA.
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)?
1. Rough Consensus seems to work effectively. Network
Numbering is best co-ordinated by ARIN, RIPE and APNIC in conjunction with IANA, IETF,
IESG and
IAB. A Top - Down management model will not work with a dynamic medium
such as the Internet. Too many techie rebels !
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?
1. National Governments are active in promoting trading activity
and co-ordinating
consumer protection measures on the Internet. Consumer protection is key to
the long-term commercial stability of the Internet. An internationally co-ordinated
approach is vital if consumers are to become confident using the medium for
transactions.
5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be retired from
circulation?
1. There are considerable advantages in removing generic Top
Level Domains
from an administrative perspective but the success of .COM and the significant
investments made in the name space indicates that gTLDs are here to stay. The
opportunity for retirement has been lost.
Should geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) be required?
1. Yes. Almost all countries other than the US, predominately use their national
ISO 3166 code. It is jurisdictional and effective. More use should be made of
the .US domain, but it should not be compulsory
If so, what should happen to the .com registry?
1. InterNIC should not have any proprietary rights to .COM domain. It was
employed as a contractor to administer an existing asset. It has administered
the Domain well and has profited from its activities. Any extension to the
contract should be on a cost recovery basis and any legal claims to Intellectual
Property clarified in a supplementary contract. This introduces competition
between the various gTLD registry groups, without disruption.
Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about International
Standards Organisation (ISO) country code domains?
1. A number of ISO 3166 registries seem to think so.
Harmonisation of Domain
Name application forms would help registries share information on Domain
Name holders, but specific regulation is probably best left for determination
within each jurisdiction.
6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain name registration
issues?
1. Yes. Consumers want to directly associate a company known to
them in the real
world with their Internet Address. The actual arrangement of characters in the
Domain Name is irrelevant, provided a direct association can be made from the
Company name to the Web's IP Address. Non-discriminatory directories are the
key to navigating the telephone world, the Internet is no different. We have a
client who provides www.dir.org, an Internet "telephone" directory and as a
company we have a working model of a DNS technical solution.
Are there any issues concerning the relationship of registrars and gTLDs with
root servers?
1. Not sure what is meant here. Registrars sell the name space on
behalf of
Registries. Registrars do not interact with Root Servers only the Registries who
have authorised them. If it is suggested that the Registries of any new gTLDs
should collectively have their own distributed gTLD Root and Domain Name
Servers, running in parallel and connected with IANAs established Root Servers
then, there is considerable merit to this argument from practical, consumer
confidence, security and political perspectives.
1. The DNS already is a distributed database. National domains work effectively
as parallel systems connected to the Root with their own national DNS subsets.
If more gTLDs are added later, by any qualifying party, also with their own
parallel infrastructure, they will have no detrimental effect on the
technical/operational stability of the Root and offers potentially numerous
advantages.
1. One of the prime motivations for increasing the gTLD is to remove any one
entity's monopoly control in the international TLD name space. The experience
of InterNIC scenario, is that by virtue of not being based on a distributed model,
it has a contractor role with significant control. When InterNIC's Root Servers
were fed defective zone file information on the 16th July, all .COM, .NET, .ORG
domains were inaccessible. Also on the 17th July an accidental fibre cable cut
between Washington and New York affected UCL, ULCC, RAL and OXFORD in
England, CNES in France, all sites in Russia and BBSR in Bermuda.
2.
The new gTLD structure should be more robust and based on a distributed
dynamic model, so multiple registry contractors can co-exist servicing the same
gTLD. If one registry contractor is unsatisfactory or has down time, another can
take its place without unduly straining the system. (Distributed Registry) Failure
to introduce this structure could create an InterNIC mirror entity. The IAHC has
not specified the detail of its technical structure for its CORE as yet, but an
overview appears to be a central processing house, similar to the InterNIC
model except with potentially hundreds of authorised "intermediaries" selling the
name space allocated in the CORE monopoly name space. InterNIC has no
authorised intermediaries but a shared repository containing over 1 million
customers.
1. From a political perspective operating CORE as a distributed model enables
registry contractors to be spread over a number of countries which fosters a truly
international Domain.
1. The provision of an international dispute resolution procedure to reflect the
multi-jurisdictional nature of the gTLD name space is a major contribution of the
IAHC proposals. If both shared and monopolistic models are to co-exist it would
be helpful if WIPO would be willing to make its Arbitration and Mediation
services available to any party holding a gTLDs in contention.
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 co-ordinate?
1. Multiple Sub-domains.- multiple sub-domains within each TLD,
either controlled
by the Central Registry (Monopoly CORE) or competing registries as a sub-set
of the Central Registry, (Distributed CORE).
1. More gTLDs - both distributed and monopolistic
1. Navigation requires effective directory services to identify the site in the virtual
world known in the physical world.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
1. Any new system should be complementary and supplementary not in
substitution. The existing system works fine, just needs extension, the idea of
transition to a new operating environment may introduce more problems than it
solves, and should be undertaken gradually, with each element subjected to real
time evaluation.
1. The IAHC propose seven new gTLDs using a new model of multiple sales
outlets called Registrars. The IAHC's progressive approach will enable new
Registrars to join their system of Domain registration as an evolutionary process.
An organisation known as CORE is providing Registry services in a monopolistic
environment. It is not clear if the CORE Registry is a monopoly or a distributed
competitive process comprised of competing data processing houses servicing
CORE. Either way the IAHC recognise that all seven gTLDs may not be added
at once. This incremental scenario is wise.
1. An incremental approach would enable all facets of the new process to be
examined and tested. It may be for example, existing Domain Name holders feel
compelled to register in parallel domains, frustrating the reason for increasing
the name space. It may be that the introduction of additional gTLDs leads to an
exponential increase and compounding of domain name disputes. Either way it
would be prudent to introduce one or two of the new gTLDs now with more later
depending on the market realities. This incremental approach also enables
Registrars who do not enter in the first wave to share in "choice" domains of the
new gTLDs as they are introduced. Failure to introduce an incremental
approach could lead to new registrars effectively being excluded as the "choice"
names would have already been taken.
Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
1. Increasing the gTLDs name space should be considered
supplementary name
space rather than an Internet governance issue.
1. IAHC seeks to build a gTLD reputation for .STORE, .WEB, .PER, .ARTS, by
determining the parameters of allocation within the designated name space.
1. The original intent of the IAHC was to increase gTLD name space, not to provide
a platform for Internet governance. The IAHC introduced its Policy Oversight
Committee for administration of its policies but unfortunately this title has been
misconstrued as has inadvertently become entangled and associated with
governance of the whole Internet Domain Name space. Control of Domain
Names is not a foundation for Internet Governance and control of IANA by one
gTLD interest group, should be resisted.
1. The Internet is driven by private enterprise. Satisfying and protecting customer
interests on the Internet, should be the role of governance.
1. We do not believe this was the IAHC's intent and certainly Internet governance
by such a body (without national representation) should be rejected as it is
technically impossible to enforce "governance" in the traditional sense. The
multi-jurisdictional in nature of gTLDs prevents Nation States from being able to
protect their citizens interests and regulate their markets in the traditional sense.
Consequently any "governance" should not be directed towards fallible Domain
Names but protecting consumers against fraud and deception by co-operation
by consumer protection authorities at an international level.
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?
1. Yes.
2. Technical: - the caching rate of the DNS System, when gTLDs are in the tens of
thousands.
1. Practical - the more gTLDs the more opportunities there are for counterfeiting,
even with stringent domain name allocation procedures. The IP Address
controls navigation around the 'Net not the domain name.
2. During July consumers were confused when identical names in different gTLDs
were used with one service provider emulating the other. Consumers were
duped into paying twice the normal price.
1. Policy - The more gTLDs the higher the potential for deception. .- The larger the
number of gTLDs the more demand for judicial determination and dispute
resolution, by mediation, arbitration or litigation. A means of confirming that a
site owner is who they claim to be is vital for consumer confidence. Verification
and SSL certification offers a degree of consumer protection.
1. We support IAHC's objective to administer a dispute resolution process for their
allocated domains and determining which Registrars will be eligible to sell their
domains. The Internet community appears to want an enlarged gTLD name
space and the IAHC is just one of many organisations potentially able to satisfy
that demand.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
1. Yes but incrementally. Introduce one or maximum two new gTLDs as a trial.
The gTLD system is non-reversible and revocation of existing gTLDs is near
impossible from a consumer perspective. A large section of the market has
demonstrated it wants gTLDs. Certainly there is need for the DNS structure to
be enhanced to enable consumers to identify their chosen retailer on the
Internet, even if they have a trading name that is similar or identical name to
that of a competitor. Only one Domain Name should be allowed per trading
entity. Much of the .COM name space is unused and held by "cyber-squatters".
It may be that increasing the gTLDs will cause multiple parallel registrations in
each new gTLD thereby frustrating real expansion in namespace. Selling
Domain Name space is big business. If the .COM remains, enlargement is
inevitable and should be encouraged to enable the existing monopoly to be
broken.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the
scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of
gTLDs?
1. The methodology of creating scaleable sub domains to ensure the scalability of
the name space within each new gTLD was briefly discussed but was rejected in
the light of pressure from the Registrar community, because Third Level
Domains are a harder sell, than SLD. Rejecting the use of third level domains is
a mistake if the number of gTLDs is to be kept small. The act of tiering the name
space makes it scaleable, selling third level domains like "xyz.CLOTHES.web"
works. If a local shop only trading in France, why not allow
"xyz.VETMENTS.web".
2. The crux is to be able to identify the shop known to the consumer in the physical
world in the virtual world, irrespective of its Domain Name.
3. The technology exists but is not being applied, because the payback time to
recover the investment is too long for most private enterprises.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
code domains?
1. ISO country codes are jurisdictional in nature, gTLDs are
potentially multi-jurisdictional. Management should be viewed separately to ensure national laws
are respected and multi-jurisdictional interests are accountable..
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?
1. A Registrar should not have exclusive control over a Registry offering a
particular gTLD. Conversely, if a Registry offering a particular gTLD has control
over a particular Registrar, the consumer has the potential for demanding
enhanced service and a framework for compliance with standards.
Are there any technical limitations on using shared registries for some or all
gTLDs?
1. Depends how the shared registry is configured. Technology can be liberating or
constraining. Shared and monopolistic gTLDs can co-exist and this will remain.
Opening up .GOV or .MIL for example would be unwise. Introducing user
specific gTLDs may be appropriate.
Can exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?
1. Yes, and their viability will depend on the reputation, quality of service and price
of each gTLD.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and
what responsibilities should such registrars have?
1. The IAHC have set good threshold standards and parameters for registrar
responsibilities. The technical competence of each applicant should also be
assessed. Enforcement procedures to ensure conformity to the registrar's
standards need to be addressed. Will Registrars be removed if they fail the set
standards (with potential liability for wrongful dismissal) or will the standards be
dropped?
Who will determine these and how?
1. If IAHC is responsible for the IAHC gTLD brands and XYZ is responsible for the
ZYX gTLD brand, standards will remain high as reputation, price and quality of
service and competition between IAHC and XYZ will distinguish the "brands" and
determine their success.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?
1. No. The more Registrars the more complicated the process for the Registry to
monitor progress.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space
raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
1. Price. The InterNIC Registry charges consumers $100 per
domain for 2 years,
30% of which goes to the Internet Structure fund. The real cost of an InterNIC
domain is therefore $70 or $35 per year. Is the new gTLD registry system going
to see consumers paying Registrars less than $35/year per domain? What
happens if the basic domain registration fee payable by consumers is more than
$35, is it anti-trust, a cartel or subject to competion law investigation?
19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a given registrar
can administer?
1. My preference is for only a few gTLDs, but the act of
introducing one more gTLD
is a slippery slope to their being hundreds. If all gTLDs are to be accessible to
all equally, users and Registrars alike, then access must be unlimited. The
effect of no limit would be to drive prices down and increase standards as gTLD
Registries compete. In the short to medium term the growth rate in gTLDs may
be exponential and the number of gTLDs and Registries may number in the
hundreds and Registrars in the thousands in a very short period of time.
Conversley, there may hundreds of Registries each with their own gTLD yet few
Registrars, so the consumers must be able to buy directly from the Registry.
1. If the number of gTLDs is restricted, the central administration for DNS (IANA)
may have calls of restricted practices raised and claims of operating a cartel with
litigation forcing them to open up the Root Zone Files to incorporate other
gTLDs. If the IAHC is the only gTLD Registry, then competition within the
registry industry will be constrained and CORE is likely to be sued in
jurisdictions where it is not possible to contract out anti-competitive practices.
Does this depend on whether the registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive
rights to the gTLD?
1. A Registrar submits applications to a Registry and has no explicit control over
the registration practices of the Registry. The Registry administers the DNS for
the gTLD and "owns" the gTLD under its control. The Registry can be exclusive,
like InterNIC, but as mentioned in 6. above, should be distributed shared if a
monopoly situation is to be avoided.
1. Currently, Applicants can apply to InterNIC for a gTLD or they can use the
services of a Registrar. Registrars provide value added services to Applicants
helping them to apply for a Domain Name. Both options provide direct access to
the Registry and via the additional services of the Registrar should be available
to Applicants in the new gTLD framework. Thus in an exclusive scenario, the
applicant should be able to apply to the Registry directly or via a Registrar if
additional value added customer services are required. In a non-exclusive
scenario the Applicant should have to use the services of a Registrar, who
compete with each other in the process of "forwarding" the application to the
application to the Registry.
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-à-vis
domain names?
1. Trademarks and Domain Names are two distinctive identifiers used by
consumers to associate a particular product or service with a specific company.
The two are not related. Even if one had exhaustive procedures for vetting
Domain Name applicants, consumers could be duped by a technically aware
DNS wizard to make the domain name an irrelevance when accessing their
spoof Web site. (Email is more robust) A suggestion is to tackle the "virtual"
problem in the same way as it is established in the physical world..
1. In the physical world, the Trademark Owner, be they registered, common law or
regional rights, has a duty to police and protect granted intellectual Property
interests using the courts of a specified jurisdiction. In the virtual world the same
scenario is possible, if not imperative. Trademark Owners should take active
steps to identify themselves to their consumers. One of our clients,
http://www.trademark.org, have been proactive in this area. Their aim is to
enable consumers to identify Trademark Owners, their Web Address,
irrespective of their domain name, with security and confidence using Intellectual
Property Practitioners as the third party vetting authority.
1. Traditionally Trademarks are identified on registers or in practical use. The
Trademark Owner must apply to be registered or must be active in using a mark,
then must police and be responsible for protecting their derived intellectual
property. In the virtual world, technology can support the generation of physical
evidence in the event of counterfeiting. Such technology should be used to
enable judges to make determinations if and when fraud has occurred.
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?
1. Preliminary review of an application requires determination. Such determination
may be contentious and has little benefit if the objective is to protect a
Trademark Owner. Technology at the control of a fraudsters does not respect a
Domain Name application process, however diligent. Recently, someone used a
flaw in the DNS system, to technically manipulated the "official" Servers to
recognise their alternative gTLD. This flaw has been known by many for some
time. The distinction being that in this instance this person sought publicity for
their actions. If this attack had been malicious the technique could have been
used to map and divert the .COM domain, traffic destined for genuine .COM
sites and the consumer would not have known.
1. Promoting domain names as the means of identifying verified site owners as a
basis for conducting electronic commerce on the Internet , is without foundation
as it will only serve to boost the opportunity value for committing domain name
deception as technology will not be constrained by arbitrary rules.
1. A facility operated by one of our clients, makes it possible to identify that the site
operator is who they claim to be and is the genuine company and holder of a
given Trademark, that has been checked by an Intellectual Property practitioner.
The service is currently registering IP practitioners and I understand it will go live
once 10,000 IP practitioners have enrolled, giving access to a projected 1 million
Trademarks in a secure forum.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark rights be
protected on the Internet vis-à-vis domain names?
Preliminary review inherently requires discretionary judgement. This could be
contention and lead to litigation. In addition it is futile, please see 22 above.
What entity(ies), if any, should resolve disputes?
71. Mediation, Arbitrators and the Courts.
Are national courts the only appropriate forum for such disputes? No
Specifically, is there a role for national/international governmental/nongovernmental
organisations?
72. Yes
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented?
73. Use technology to marginalise the counterfeiters and fraudsters. We have an
operational model and procedures in place today!
What information resources could help reduce potential conflicts?:
74.i) databases of registered domain names - already operated by the Registries.
One cannot have two identical Domain Names therefore first come first served
model is operational with appropriate databases.
74.ii) registered trademarks - is already available, numerous search firms provide
Registered Trademark search facilities, which is far from complete as it excludes
common law marks or regionally granted rights.
74.iii) trade names - difficult to assimilate, and of questionable value in the domain
registration process due to many identical names.
75. If there should be a database(s), who should create the database(s)? How
should such a database(s) be used?
76. There are already numerous databases, provided in the private sector. Their
use is directly related to how they are funded. If it is free to be in the database,
the charge is to view the data. This inhibits use of the database and has the
potential to include information that is not accurate. If it is free to view the
database, there is a charge to be included, and to be an authoritative listing the
information must be verified. Depending on the scope of verification required
before inclusion in the database determines the charge of entry to the
database.
77. To encourage open access to information, an authoritative database that is free
to search, further marginalise the activities of fraudsters. It is harder to compile
but offers more long-term benefits to the community at large.
25. Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate that they have a
basis for requesting a particular domain name?
78. Yes, to obtain additional support from the Registry if the Domain Name is
subsequently challenged.
If so, what information should be supplied?
79. Confirmation of organisational / company name, Trademark or family name.
Documents can be scanned and attached to files or just the salient details noted
where the information is available in the public forum.
Who should evaluate the information?
80. The Domain Name Registry not the Registrar.
On the basis of what criteria?
81. One domain name per person or trading entity or brand.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars affect
the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
82. The Registrars are "post-boxes" for the Registry. The number of Registrars is
unlikely to have any significant effect on the cost of resolving Trademark
Disputes. The more gTLDs the fewer the conflicts if an effective means of
identifying the Domain Names of Trademark Owners on the Internet is used.
Without an efficient means of identifying sites of Trademark Owners, increasing
the number of gTLDs will lead to an exponentially higher the number of passing
off, piracy, cyber-squatting, infringement and dilution and inordinately higher
costs.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain
name, are there any technological solutions?
83. Yes. That is what this company has been working on since I attended the
WIPO meeting in May. We now have a working model !
END of submission.
###
Number: 360
From: Kaye Caldwell <kaye@ix.netcom.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 4:47pm
Subject: Domain Name Comments [Docket No.
970613137-7137-01]
Attached as both a MSWord v. 7 file and a PDF file are comments from
CommerceNet on The Registration And Administration Of Internet Domain Names
[Docket No. 970613137-7137-01].
In the event that there is a problem reading the files as transmitted via
e-mail they are also available on the Internet at:
http://www.softwareIndustry.org/commercenet/dncomments.html
Thank you,
Kaye Caldwell
4005 Miranda Avenue
Suite 175
Palo Alto, CA 94304
415.858.1930 E-MAIL: info@commerce.net
http://www.commerce.net Comments Filed In Response To
Department Of Commerce
Request For Comments On The Registration And Administration Of
Internet Domain Names
[Docket No. 970613137-7137-01]
August 18, 1997
CommerceNet is the leading industry consortium dedicated to accelerating the growth of
Internet commerce and expanding Internet markets. Launched in California's Silicon Valley
in April 1994, CommerceNet's membership has grown to over 150 leading organizations in
areas such as banking, electronics, computers, online services, information service industries,
as well as major end users. Together, we are transforming the Internet into a global electronic
marketplace.
The Domain Name system is a significant component of the Internet. It is an essential part of
making the Internet user-friendly in that it converts a technical numeric-only Internet location
indicator to an indicator which is frequently easy to determine simply by educated guessing.
Unfortunately, the increasing popularity of the Internet has led to disputes over registration
and ownership of specific domain names. CommerceNet appreciates the Department of
Commerce's interest in this matter and further appreciates this opportunity to comment on the
administration of the Internet Domain Name system. We will restrict our comments to the
U.S. Domain Name system and its interaction with the domain names systems of other
countries. We will not address the domain name systems of non-U.S. countries. In our
comments we will use the numbering system provided by the Notice of Request for
Comments, skipping those numbers for which we have no input.
A. Appropriate Principles
CommerceNet agrees in general with the statement of appropriate principles as expressed in
the notice of request for public comments. We note however, that the principles as stated may
not sufficiently address two issues which we suggest should be added or incorporated into
existing principles:
1.) The domain name registration system should enable control of national domain
name systems within each country while ensuring international interoperability
of domain names.
No business, organization, or individual should be required to deal with a foreign entity or
international entity in order to obtain a domain name. If that were required it would
lessen the ability to obtain redress if an entity fails to ensure the easy availability of
domain names.
2.) Care must be taken to ensure that the Internet remains accessible, as a medium
for making information available, to entities of all types and sizes.
As the Administration's Framework for Global Electronic Commerce points out,
"Citizens of many nations are finding additional outlets for personal and
political expression. The Internet is being used to reinvent government and
reshape our lives and our communities in the process." This aspect of the
Internet must be preserved. While competition in domain name registration systems is
an excellent goal, the danger may exist that individuals, non-profits, local government
agencies, and other small non-commercial entities will receive a lower quality of
service, or no service, as compared to large well-funded commercial enterprises. The
government of each country, and in particular the U.S. Government, should ensure
that such a result does not transpire. The value of the Internet is enhanced by the wide
variety of uses it is amenable to. As in many network-type entities, the value of the
network itself increases with each additional use or user the network gains. While
CommerceNet is dedicated to accelerating the growth of Internet commerce and
expanding Internet markets, we believe that the growth of Internet commerce and
expansion of Internet markets is enhanced by the availability of non-commercial
activity on the Internet.
CommerceNet also notes that principle (e) may be especially difficult to achieve. In resolving
conflicts the rights of existing domain name holders must be balanced against the
proprietary rights, particularly trademark rights, of others. We do not believe the correct
balance has been reached. We also note that current existing policies regarding resolution
of disputes over name allocation and management have not been subject to public
participation in their development. We recommend that this oversight be corrected.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name registration systems?
While obtaining a domain name through an ISP or other service provider is sometimes quick,
convenient, and inexpensive, it is reportedly much more difficult to obtain a domain name
directly. This needs to be resolved. In addition, continuous maintenance of a domain name
can also be difficult. Problems have arisen regarding proof of payment, inactivation of domain
names resulting from inadequate payment tracking and notification, and inactivation of domain
names, without due process, resulting from claims of trademark infringement by other parties.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
Certainly better record keeping and notification procedures need to be put in place, indeed
this
may already have occurred. Name dispute mechanisms should be developed with public input
and should balance the rights of existing domain name owners with the rights of trademark
owners. Additionally, specific policies for treatment of trademarks must be developed. For
example, those policies should NOT merely assume that a trademark holder has the right to
"trademark".com or "trademark".org. As detailed further below (see response to question
#21), we recommend that a trademark specific space be created in which trademark owners
have specific rights and obligations within that space, and that those rights and obligations be
isolated from non-trademark-specific spaces to the extent possible.
1. 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 entity or type of entity is not as essential as ensuring that the entities comply with the
principles stated.
1. 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?
We suggest that the government processes for obtaining public input to rules and regulations
are one model which could be used to ensure that domain names registration systems are
fair.
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?
In order to provide continuity, existing generic top level domain names should be preserved.
However, serious consideration needs to be given to whether the continued issuance of such
names should either be discontinued or based on a policy other than "first come first served."
In particular, adding to the domain name space could resolve some controversy. See our
response to question # 21 below for additional details.
1. 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?
Technological measures should be undertaken to ensure that domain names do not become
inactive due to the failure, either technological or commercial, of a registrar.
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
The domain name space should be recognized as belonging to the public trust. All
governments should take steps to guarantee the due process that will ensure the fair and
unbiased availability of domain names.
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 total number of different gTLDs should be constrained by the need to provide a logical
domain name space - for example, there should exist ONE logical space for a given company
to inhabit as its trademarked domain name. The situation in which a commercial company
feels that it must obtain all possible domain names which might possibly contain its trademarks
should be avoided.
1. Should additional gTLDs be created?
CommerceNet believes that the created of additional gTLDs may be necessary in order to
serve the need for a better classification system and possibly to resolve the trademark
issues.
D. Policies for Registries
1. 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?
It is difficult to envision exclusivity and competition co-existing and for that reason exclusivity
should be considered very carefully.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and what
responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these and how?
Registrars should adhere to a common set of principles, with a common oversight body.
Service to non-commercial entities must be ensured.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
Insofar as the domain name space belongs to the public trust and a domain name belongs to
owner, a registrar must not be permitted to claim any intellectual property rights with respect
to its database of domain names.
The question of registrar liability should also be addressed. Provided that an appropriate
mechanism is developed for public input into policy development, and provided that a
registrar follows that stated policy, then registrars should be protected from liability arising
from disputes over domain names.
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?
Trademark rights vis-a-vis domain names should follow similar principles to trademark rights
in the physical world, in particular, trademarks vis-a-vis domain names should NOT be
stronger than in the physical world. If the domain name system needs to be modified in order
to achieve this, then that modification should be undertaken. CommerceNet particularly
supports the concept of creating a trademark domain name space with rules that are similar to
the physical world's treatment of proprietary rights. For example, a mechanism could be
devised to allocate domain names within a product-type classification system and to further
allocate domain names geographically within the trademark domain name space. With such a
separate trademark space, non-commercial use of common words as domain names could
simply exist in a different domain name space. Thus Sun Microsystems and Sun Tea could
inhabit the trademark space, while an educational web page on the sun could exists at
sun.info, for example. Inside the trademark domain name space, the registrar should resolve
name allocation disputes, while outside the trademark domain name space the resolution
should be outside the dispute resolution policy of the registrar, in the courts or following other
procedures appropriate to a particular country.
22 & 23. 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? 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?
Unless a trademark specific domain name space is set up, preliminary review will only result
in
delay for non-commercial entities as well as commercial ones. CommerceNet recommends a
trademark specific domain name space, with review immediately subsequent to allocation
and
a short time period after which disputes must adhere either to a dispute settlement mechanism
or resort to the court system. However, in no case should a domain name holder be deprived
of the use of its domain name without due process. Care must be taken to ensure that any
agreed upon dispute settlement procedure is truly fair - either the mechanism must be
developed with adequate public input or competition in dispute settlement mechanisms must
be ensured by ensuring competition in registries (or both).
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?
No, no basis should be required. Requiring a basis would limit free expression.
Conclusion
In conclusion, CommerceNet believes that accessibility to the Internet, as a medium for
making information available, by a variety of entities is essential, whether those entities are
commercial, individual, governmental, or any other type of entity. Rights of existing domain
name holders must be balanced against trademark rights - and that balance may best be
achieved by creating a separate domain name space for trademark holders. Furthermore,
competition in domain name registries is a laudable goal, but in achieving competition
universal access to the Internet, as a medium for information dissemination, must not be lost in
a commercially competitive environment.
Submitted by:
Kaye K. Caldwell
Policy Director
Direct Dial: 408-479-8743 Direct Fax: 408-479-9247
E-MAIL: KCaldwell@Commerce.net
###
Number: 361
From: "Daniel J. Weitzner" <djw@cdt.org>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 4:48pm
Subject: CDT/ITAA/ISA Filing in DNS Request for Comment
August 18, 1997
Ms. Patrice Washington
Office of Public Affairs
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
Room 4898
14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20230
Dear Ms. Washington:
In response to the July 1, 1997 Request for Comments on the Registration
and Administration of Internet Domain Names [Docket No.
970613137-7137-01], the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), the
Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) and the Interactive
Services Association (ISA) respectfully submit a report from the July
30-31, 1997 Forum on Internet Domain Names.
Report from the July 30-31, 1997 Forum on Internet Domain Names
The July 30-31, 1997 Forum on Internet Domain Names, which was sponsored
by CDT, ITAA and ISA, brought together over 100 representatives from
industry, government, international organizations, and users from around
the world to exchange perspectives on a range of issues including:
* the nature of domain name management and its reform
* trademark issues in domain name management
* governance issues for the domain name system; and
* operational and administrative concerns in considering transitions
to different domain name systems.
The Forum served as a means by which many varied perspectives on domain
names were aired and discussed. The enclosed Report contains a summary
of the Forum proceedings. For each issue covered, a short discussion is
included along with a list of the major areas of consensus among
participants and areas of divergence or identification of questions
still to be resolved.
Together, CDT, ITAA and ISA represent more than 11,000 members and
sponsors in the U.S. and the concerns of Internet users. Our members are
commercial and non-commercial providers and users of Internet services, all
of whom depend on the reliable, competitive, fair and accountable
administration of core Internet resources such as domain names.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue and are
committed to working with the U.S. Government as well as other
organizations in working toward resolution of the complex issues
surrounding domain names.
Sincerely,
Jerry Berman, Executive Director, CDT
Harris N. Miller, President, ITAA
Jeff B. Richards, Executive Director, ISA
===============================================================
[MS Word File attached, ASCII text follows in next message]
CC: Harris Miller <hmiller@itaa.org>
Report from the
Forum on Internet Domain Names
Washington, D.C.
July 30-31, 1997
Sponsored by
Center for Democracy and Technology
<http://www.cdt.org>
Interactive Services Association
<http://www.isa.net>
Information Technology Association of America
<http://www.itaa.org>
Introduction: Forum on Internet Domain Names
On July 30-31, 1997, a group of over 100 representatives of industry, government,
and the public interest community met in Washington, DC to discuss the
increasingly contentious debate over Internet domain names. In two days of
discussion sessions participants exchanged perspectives on a range of issues
including:
the nature of domain name management and its reform;
trademark issues in domain name management;
governance issues for the domain name system; and
operational and administrative concerns in considering a transition to a
different domain name system.
This report contains a summary of the proceedings of the Forum on Internet Domain
Names. For each of the issues covered, a short discussion is included along with a
list of the major areas of consensus among participants and areas of divergence or
questions still to be resolved. As the entire conference was off the record (on
background for the press involved), this summary is not intended to be attributable
to any specific individuals but rather to characterize the conversation more broadly.
In addition to this report. further background material including a "virtual briefing
book" with pointers to most of the materials distributed during the Forum, can be
obtained on the World Wide Web at:
http://www.cdt.org/dns
The organizers of the Forum thank the participants for their candid and well-motivated
contributions to this debate. The Forum was created in the hope of
providing a productive means of gathering the disparate interests involved to
discussing the contentious issues . We look forward to contributing to a process of
addressing this issue so critical to the long-term well-being and potential of the
Internet.
Session 1: Domain Name Management and Its Reform
Moderator: Dr. Robert E. Kahn, Corporation for National Research
Initiatives
Panelists: Don Heath, Internet Society, IAHC
Gabriel A. Battista, Network Solutions
Jay Fenello, Iperdome
Respondents: Brian Kahin, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Ken Fockler, CA Net
The domain name system was designed to meet the need of network users to
address any public node on the network by means of a alphanumeric name lookup
system rather than with an unintelligible number. At one time this mapping of
names to addresses was simple to maintain through a centrally controlled and
widely stored "hosts" file. Today the databases matching "domain names" with
actual network addresses have grown into a widely distributed database system
maintained through a series of "top level domain" (TLD) root servers. In addition
to TLDs for each country (based on ISO 3166 codes such as .us, .ca (Canada), or
.sa (South Africa)), particular attention had been paid to the so-called "generic"
TLDs (gTLDs) -- .com, .org, .net. These gTLDs are not geographically specific, and
have seen particularly high demand worldwide; they are currently administered by
the Virginia-based company Network Solutions Inc. (NSI) under contract to the U.S.
government.
It is widely accepted that a unified approach is needed to the Internet domain name
system. A common approach is essential to maintain the stability and accessibility
of the network. So far, it is not clear that there is any consensus on what that
common approach should be.
Pressure to reevaluate the current system for allocating domain names within the
gTLDs has come from several emerging tensions in the current system:
Congestion in the domain name space -- There are only a finite number of
useful and convenient names. This has led to "collisions" between those
wanting the same names.
Trademark conflicts -- The process for resolving domain names that
correspond with trademarked names remains an open question. A single
domain name may be sought by organizations with similar names each
holding a legitimate trademark in the name.
Governance concerns -- The growing worldwide importance of the gTLDs
has led to concerns about the monopoly over domain name allocation
currently granted to NSI through its contract with the US government -- and
with the level of US control over global domain name allocation.
These issues have become particularly acute with the expiration of NSI's contract
with the US government in March 1998.
Several alternatives for DNS governance were discussed at the Forum's opening
session:
IAHC model -- A detailed system for international, independent governance
of the gTLDs as a public trust. Emphasizes the "public" ownership of
gTLDs, and the need for a self-regulating system independent of national
governments.
NSI model -- Support for a competitive, market-driven system developed with
a strong role for the U.S. government. Emphasizes the need for a global
solution with stability and reliability.
AlterNIC/eDNS -- Support for the ad hoc development of alternative TLDs
and registries without central control. Emphasizes a decentralized, private
sector approach, as typified by the AlterNIC and other ad hoc registry efforts.
There was no consensus expressed at this forum for any of these plans, but there is
emerging and significant overlap in the rationale behind these plans.
Major Areas of Consensus:
All of the participants agreed that there is a need for an ongoing process to
resolve this issue. While there is some disagreement as to how open the
process has been to this point, all acknowledge that further discussion is
needed to reach a critical mass of consensus on the solution.
The domain name issue is of critical importance -- both for the continued
well-functioning of the Net as well as for promoting the decentralized
approach to Net governance that has fostered the growth of electronic
commerce and democratic participation in the information infrastructure.
There is an overriding interest in preserving the stability of the domain name
system, and in avoiding fragmentation of the Internet.
Self-governance of the Internet is the right direction in order to promote these
goals. No one government can or should exercise complete control over the
establishment of the DNS.
Competition is welcomed by all as a useful tool to maximize consumer
welfare and create efficient, self-regulating systems.
Areas of Divergence/Questions to be Resolved:
Is there a domain name crisis? To what extent are the tensions over name
congestion, trademark law, or NSI control critical at this time? How long can
the current system stay in place and remain stable?
What is the appropriate proposal for change in the system?
Arguments for the IAHC proposal contend that the current system is a
fundamentally flawed monopoly, and provides too narrow a name space.
At the same time, fully open privately owned gTLDs are risky for
consumers as well and could create technical instabilities. There is,
however, some optimism that a carefully constructed self-regulatory
framework supported by robust technology would yield a stable and
flexible DNS.
Arguments for the current NSI system are based on the need for a
government role in ensuring the stability of the network such as the role
the Federal Communications Commission has played in establishing the
North American Numbering Council. Broadly sharing large numbers of
new gTLDs may risk the stability of the network.
Supporters of the AlterNIC approach argue that a freely open domain
name space is the most market-driven, least monopolistic, and most
flexible -- and that technical challenges in maintaining network stability
can be met.
"How do we decide how we decide" the future of the domain name
system? The global, shared nature of the Internet -- as well as its track-record for self-regulation
-- present new and open questions concerning the
structure and legitimacy of institutions and processes for governing the
domain name system.
Session 2: Trademarks and Internet Domain Names
Moderator: Mark Hellmann, American Intellectual Property Law Association
Panelists: Kevin Connolly, Policy Advisory Board
Michele Farber, AT&T
John Wood, Prince Plc.
Tim Casey, MCI
Doug Wood, Coalition for Advertising Supported Information
and Entertainment (CASIE)
Respondents: Lynne Beresford, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Susan Anthony, International Trademark Association
John Kamp, American Association of Advertising Agencies
Bill Burrington, America Online
Albert Tramposch, World Intellectual Property Organization
Trademark issues are a central problem in the debate over domain names.
Trademarks identify a vendor or organization; they are names or other marks by
which people can recognize goods and services. Consumers rely on trademarks to
identify sources of information or products. Vendors rely on trademarks to
differentiate their goods and services and promote good will for their products.
Trademark law is designed to protect and promote this valuable investment in
identifying names or other marks. Trademarks are especially important on the
Internet, where traditional business relationships may not otherwise exist,
geographical separation may be great, and reputation thus takes on greater import.
At the same time, the traditional balance of trademark protection must be preserved
to avoid chilling the competitive environment.
Trademark law varies widely internationally. American law is based largely on the
use of a mark. Other countries, and recently the U.S. as well, based trademark on
registration. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been
involved in creating international standards for trademarks, but many of these
issues remain unresolved even outside of the Internet and domain name context.
Emerging tensions in the current domain system include:
Limited space of useful names -- Leading to conflicts between companies or
individuals seeking the same domain name within a given TLD.
Trademark inherently geographically based, while the Internet is global --
Two companies might easily do business under the same trademark name in
New York, California, and Paris. On the Internet, however, they might all
seek the same .com address.
Trademark based on avoiding consumer confusion, yet potential for
consumer confusion is much greater on Internet where the entire world has
access and consumers have little context for identifying the vendor or
product. (For example, does united.com mean United Airlines, Van Lines,
Video Sales -- or some other United?)
Companies have an interest in protecting trademarks throughout the TLDs:
For example, AT&T might want to register att.com, att.firm, att.net, att.inc,
and any other potentially confusing att.* addresses.
Need for clear rules as domain names are marketed -- Current lack of clarity
in rules makes it difficult for companies to invest in marketing their web sites;
it is "a hostile environment for business."
These tensions have created at least two major classes of problems: 1. "Bad
actors" who seek to preemptively register a domain name in the expectation of
reselling it at a high price to a more legitimate user. 2. Mark owners with legitimate
interests in the same mark (for example, Prince Sports Equipment in the US and
Prince plc in the UK, both seeking the prince.com domain name.)
Proposals for the reform of trademark treatment under the domain name system
include:
Addition of new TLDs in order to create a larger namespace -- For example,
under the IAHC proposal different companies could register under xxx.com,
xxx.firm, xxx.net, etc.
Creation of dispute resolution procedures -- NSI and the IAHC proposal offer
arbitration and other legal and extra-legal routes for handling conflicts over
domain names.
Creation of screening process -- including waiting periods and notification
process to allow for challenges to perspective registrations.
Isolation of bad actors seeking to ransom domain names -- Some have
suggested using the expense of registration, or possible statutory measures,
to discourage the registration of names solely for later resale.
Random domain names -- Some have suggested random assignment of
names or numbers, like phone numbers.
The gTLD MOU proposal combines a slightly larger namespace (seven new gTLDs)
with a new dispute resolution system to be administered through WIPO.
Major Areas of Consensus:
Need for stable domain name registration and trademark rules in order for
businesses and others to invest in and maintain the value of their domain
names.
Recognized growing importance of domain name identities to both business
and consumers.
Need for a process, or at least greater collaboration within existing
processes, to create greater consensus.
Need for a global, not-U.S.-centric, policy that is not reliant on the legal
framework in any one country.
Areas of Disagreement/Issues to be Resolved:
Expansion of domain space -- Creates problems as well as benefits. While
providing more names, it requires trademark owners to police more domains.
It may also increase consumer confusion; for example, how do consumers
differentiate united.com, united.firm, united.inc, etc.
Appropriate structure of the dispute resolution process -- How to best
combine non-binding and binding mediation and arbitration, along with
potential recourse to litigation. Choices of jurisdiction and arbitrator also
remain at issue.
Appropriate notification and challenge waiting periods -- Proposals for 30- to
90- day dispute resolution systems may clash with electronic commerce
imperatives for speed.
Session 3: Role of Governments and Multilateral Organizations
Moderator: Henry Perritt, Center for Information Law and Policy,
Chicago-Kent School of Law
Panelists: Robert Shaw, International Telecommunication Union
Albert Tramposch, World Intellectual Property Organization
Roger Cochetti, IBM
Respondents: Richard Beaird, U.S. Department of State
William Black, Nominet U.K.
J. Beckwith Burr, National Telecommunications
and Information Administration
Harold Feld, Domain Name Rights Coalition
The appropriate role of governments in Internet regulation as a whole has been
hotly debated, and the domain names system is one of the focal points of that
debate. While many favor self-regulatory, self-governing, and market-based models
for Internet governance, there is also a sense that some role for government may be
necessary even within those models. Governments have an increasing interest in
maintaining the stability of major infrastructures, including the DNS; to the extent
that the DNS is structured on private contractual relationships, government may
need to play a role as the enforcer of those contracts. At the same time, the
inherently global nature of the Internet calls into question the old models of
government involvement. In addition, government involvement comes with a degree
of caution; in a highly decentralized network, the DNS represents one of the few
points of central control remaining to allow nations or multilateral organizations to
exercise their control over the Internet -- for better and for worse.
Traditionally, only sovereign governments can make, apply, and enforce laws. This
has traditionally meant nation-states with defined borders, a defined population, and
the physical power to exercise coercive compliance with the law. In the context of
Internet domain names, many of these definitions break down. There is no
legitimate sovereign with the coercive authority to enforce rules on the Internet.
This tension has led many to explore the possibilities of private self-governance as
a model for domain name and broader Internet rule-making.
The private self-governance model relies on a contract-based system for domain
name governance, based on market agreements between users, service providers,
domain name registries and domain name registers. The global nature of the
Internet makes the alternative a potential patchwork of conflicting national law both
less desirable and less effective. Moreover, the interactive nature of the Internet
creates new possibilities for effective contract-based choices. Yet such private self-governance
systems face certain challenges, such as:
Who defends and enforces contracts?
How are disputes with different decision-making bodies handled?
How is compliance ensured?
How is basic fairness ensured among large and small entities with
unequal bargaining power?
There may be additional reasons to expect an active role for governments.
Government tends be good at addressing potential market failures, such as
development of public goods and infrastructures, protecting due process, or
promoting the interests of consumers and individuals. Government also may retain
an added stamp of legitimacy based in their own local sovereignty.
The debate about government roles has focused on a continuum of models for
domain name control, including:
"Private self-governance" based largely on contracts and market-based
systems for allocation and registration of domain names with minimal
governmental involvement.
"Voluntary multilateralism" -- Typified by the IAHC MoU, with features such
as its WIPO-administered alternative dispute resolution system, and an
enabling MoU signed by companies and NGOs.
"International legal framework" -- Independent from national governments,
but with due process, perhaps using existing organizations (such as WIPO or
the World Trade Organization), and perhaps based on existing frameworks
(such as the FCC North American Numbering Council).
A more visible role for the U.S. government, beginning with its activities
regarding the Department of Commerce Request for Comment.
Within this spectrum of governance models, the overriding question facing the
Internet community remains one of process and legitimacy: "How do we decide
how we decide?"
Major Areas of Consensus:
The global nature of the domain system dictates that any successful
approach will be outside the control of any single government. This has both
good and bad effects.
There is a shared desire to use private self-governance systems to the extent
possible. (Though there is real divergence on what exactly that extent is.)
To that end, there is a need to act quickly so that increasingly concerned
national governments do not find ways to take over the process. The private
sector needs to get on with working out a private contractual framework.
Many agree that the Department of Commerce Request for Comment
process has the potential to create a process for further achieving consensus
behind a private contractual framework.
Areas of Disagreement/Questions to be Resolved:
To what extent is traditional government needed to support self-governance
systems for the domain name system?
To what extent should national governments retain an interest in the domain
name system based on their traditional interests in the safety and well-being
of their citizenry, the well-functioning of the economic system, and their
consequent interest in the stability of the domain name system and the
appropriate redress of claims by their citizens?
What is the appropriate role of "voluntary multilateralism"? Will it
sufficiently protect all of the important national and international interests,
such as those of consumers and the public?
Level of consensus behind MOU process -- There remains some controversy
about the openness of the process.
Appropriate role of U.S. government -- Does the U.S. government retain any
special interests in gTLDs, and the Internet in general, based on its role in
the creation of the ARPAnet and its continued maintenance of the gTLDS?
How can these governance structures -- particularly non-governmental
structures -- be designed to be responsive to the needs of individuals or
consumers, who tend to be less powerful market players?
Session 4: Administrative and Operational Issues -- Getting From Here to
There
Moderator: John Curren, BBN Planet
Panelists: Dave Crocker, Internet Mail Consortium
William L. Schrader, PSINet
Respondents: Ted Wolf, Jr., Dun & Bradstreet
Alan Sullivan, Top Domain Registry
Jay Adelson, DIGITAL Internet Exchange
Administrative, operational, and other technical issues have a real impact on the
debate on domain name policy. As many have noted, the domain name system is a
running service, used by millions every day. It is also a sensitive system, where a
small mistake can cause a lot of damage. There is a paramount interest in
maintaining the technical stability of the system in transition.
There remains some ambiguity about how, when, and even if a transition to a new
system would happen. Some have noted that it may be possible to run a "shared
registry" model (such as the IAHC model) and the "old system" (the NSI model)
at the same time on "parallel tracks." Such a possibility would depend on the
policies according to which rootservers are operated. In any event, there remains
great concern in some corners about the lead time needed for transition from, for
example, NSI to the IAHC CORE -- and a great concern over ability to get technical
specifications as soon as possible.
Some of these technical issues directly implicate the larger set of issues
surrounding the IAHC MoU and other competing models for domain name
governance. For example, the technical ability to separate domain registrar from
"ownership" of a domain registry might make it possible to break up what many
fear is a natural monopoly. While there is no technical limit on the number of
registrars for a given registry, there may be a practical limit. More discussion is
needed about the processes and technology required to best implement shared
registries.
Major Areas of Consensus:
There is a widespread commitment from all parties to the stability and
robustness of the domain name system and the Internet as a whole.
Care must be taken to assure that necessary processes are developed and
in place to maintain the stability of the DNS in a changing environment.
Areas of Disagreement/Issues to be Resolved:
There still remains a good deal of concern over the IAHC MOU, and what
sort of operational concerns are raised by its potential enactment in advance
of the March 1998 expiration of NSI's contract with the NSF.
There may be a need for more outreach and discussion before enactment of
MOU.
Further exploration of the potential for separation of registry and registrars
my prove helpful in examining the larger questions concerning governance
models for the domain name system.
Conclusion
It is clear from the Forum's sessions that there are significant areas of agreement
among most of the interested parties involved in the debate over domain names.
Among the points of consensus are:
The need for some process to resolve the ongoing issues regarding the
future of the domain name system.
Desire by all parties to do what's best for the Net -- and to avoid
fragmentation of the Internet.
Self-governance and self-regulation are widely regarded as desirable
models for the Internet.
Continued commitment to maintain the stability of the domain name system,
even in a time of transition.
At the same time, there remain significant open questions about the appropriate
model for the domain system moving forward from the March 1998 end of NSI's
contract, the process used to decide upon that model, and the ultimate role of
government in the domain name system. There is a particular need to address
these issues if the Internet is to maintain its tradition of self-governance; otherwise,
national governments and multi-lateral organizations are almost certain to step in,
perhaps in ways that many fear would be damaging to the unique potential of the
decentralized Internet. To that end, it is essential that we keep the Internet
community talking.
Report prepared by Daniel J. Weitzner <djw@cdt.org>
Alan B. Davidson <abd@cdt.org>
For more information contact: Sheila O'Neill, <soneill@itaa.org>
Brian O'Shaughnessy <briano@isa.net>
Daniel J. Weitzner <djw@cdt.org>
Internet Domain Name Forum
Presenters and Respondents
Jay Adelson
DIGITAL Internet Exchange
Susan Anthony
International Trademark Association
Gabriel A. Battista
Network Solutions
Richard Beaird
U.S. Department of State
Lynn Beresford
U.S.Patent and Trademark Office
Jerry Berman
Center for Democracy and Technology
J. Beckwith Burr
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
William Black
Nominet U.K.
Bill Burrington
America Online
Tim Casey
MCI
Roger Cochetti
IBM
Kevin Conolly
Policy Adisory Board
Dave Crocker
Internet Mail Consortium
Michele Farber
AT&T
Jay Fenello
Iperdome
Ken Fockler
CA Net
Don Heath
Internet Society
Mark Hellmann
American Intellectual Property Association
Brian Kahin
U.S. Office of Science and Technology
John Kamp
American Association of Advertising
Agencies
Harris N. Miller
ITAA
Jeff B. Richards
ISA
William L. Schrader
PSINet
Robert Shaw
International Telecommunication Union
Alan Sullivan
Top Domain Registry
Albert Tramposch
World Intellectual Property Organization
Ted Wolf
Dun & Bradstreet
John Wood
Prince, Plc.
###
Number: 362
From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@netnamesusa.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 4:51pm
Subject: NetNames Response to Request for Comments
NetNames is pleased to present a statement in regard to the establishment,
administration, and maintenance of Internet domain names in response to the
Department of Commerce's Request for Comments.
The response is attached in Microsoft Word format. The text can also be
found at http://www.netnamesusa.com/gtld-policy.html.
NetNames has also signed a response submitted by some members of the Policy
Advisory Body ("PAB") established in connection with the Memorandum of
Understanding Respecting Generic Top-Level Domains. We submit this
NetNames Policy Statement in addition because it presents a different focus
on the issues.
With thanks,
Antony Van Couvering
President, NetNames USA
Version 1.4
August 15, 1997
http://www.netnamesusa.com/gtld-policy.html
Note: since this statement was written, eDNS has been
disbanded, and has split up into different groups.
NetNames Policy Statement
on New Generic Top-Level Internet Domains
Contents
Introduction and Summary
Who is NetNames?
Background
Three Competing Models for Creating New gTLDs
Network Solutions Plan
The eDNS Plan
The gTLD-MoU Plan
Conclusion
Sources
Introduction and Summary
Domain names and related Internet addressing schemes lie at the very heart of the Internet,
both commercially
and technically. Insuring the smooth and stable growth of these critical resource is in the interests
of everyone
who uses the Internet.
NetNames is a commercial, global domain name registry whose first-hand experience in
registering domains
worldwide for over two years has given us a perspective which we would now like to make
public.
Having witnessed and monitored first the clamor for, and then the development of, new
generic Top-Level
Domains (gTLDs), NetNames endorses the process begun by the Internet Ad Hoc Committee
(IAHC) and
continued with the signature of the generic Top-Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding
(gTLD-MoU) over two other competing plans sponsored by Network Solutions, Inc., and the
confederation known
as eDNS.
Three models for introducing and managing new (gTLDs) are now being debated:
1. The gTLD-MoU proposal signed in Geneva May 1, 1997 by NetNames and other
companies. This is a
controlled-growth shared registry model.
2. The eDNS model now being implemented in scattershot fashion by members of the
eDNS.
This is a multi-gTLD monopoly model with different owners of different domains.
3. The proposal from Network Solutions published in rebuttal to the GTLD-MOU
proposal.
This is a multi-gTLD monopoly model, or a hybrid monopoly/shared model, with Network
Solutions in either case
owning .com, .net, and .org, the domains they currently control.
NetNames considers the following to be the paramount factors in our decision to support the
GTLD-MOU
proposal and to sign the generic Top-Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding
(gTLD-MoU)
promulgated by the IAHC:
A shared registry model is the the best way to assure the competitiveness in the domain name
registry
business, and for guaranteeing the stability and security of customers' domain name registrations.
The
GTLD-MOU model assures this, the other two plans do not. Domain name portability is
the key benefit for customers in the shared registry model. The customer must
be able to feel secure that the resources invested in advertising, marketing, and otherwise
promoting
his/her domain name will not be lost. Also, the consumer should be protected from
unconscionable fee
hikes.
A shared registry model permits this by allowing a customer to move to a different
registrar without the
change being visible to customers, as is now the case with 800 telephone numbers. The
GTLD-MOU
model allows for this; the customer can easily lose his/her entire investment with the other two
models.
An open and participatory process for developing gTLDs is crucial for the smooth and
rapid growth of the
Internet. There are many interests with stakes in the development of gTLDs: individuals,
governments,
legal and trademark interests, commercial interests, Internet service providers, public policy
groups, and
others. The process of making changes to gTLDs must be open to interested parties. The
GTLD-MOU
model creates a Policy Advisory Body (PAB) open to any interest; there is no parallel body in
either of the
other two plans.
Some measures toward the protection of intellectual property is imperative. The
worldwide domain space
is being flooded by duplicate registrations from companies attempting to pre-emptively protect
their
branded equities and company names. The GTLD-MOU model goes some way toward this by the
creation
of Administrative Challenge Panels to be administered by the World Intellectual Property
Organization
(WIPO). The eDNS group vaguely suggests that "market forces" will sort out the problems;
Network
Solutions' proposal doesn't even mention it -- under their plan, users will continue to be at the
mercy of
the secretive and unaccountable mechanisms now in place.
Who is NetNames?
NetNames is an international Internet Domain Name Registry, a company that works
exclusively with domain
names, based in New York and London. We register domain names for clients in every top-level
domain in the
world, including all of the country-based Top-Level Domains (TLDs), e.g., .de for Germany, .my
for Malaysia,
and so on.
NetNames has extensive experience in this area. Not only do we deal with more TLDs on a
day-to-day basis,
with experience of every kind of cultural and technical difference imaginable, but Ivan Pope, the
Managing
Director of NetNames, Ltd., is a director of Nominet, which administers the TLD the for United
Kingdom, and
has been since its inception.
NetNames has the unique ability to view domain name issues from three perspectives: from
the point of view
of a TLD, from the point of view of the customer, and from the point of view of a commercial
registrar of
domain names. Our clients include 3M Corporation, Citibank, Goodyear Tire & Rubber,
Microsoft
Corporation, Netcom, Netscape Communications, and many other large multinational
corporations. We have
also registered thousands of domains for smaller companies.
What is NetNames' vested interest in this debate? From a financial point of view, we are
neutral. We are a
signatory to the gTLD-MoU, and NetNames will be filing an application to become a Registrar
under the
gTLD-MoU plan, so we have an interest in seeing this plan go forward. We are also a Preferred
Partner of
Network Solutions and receive special treatment from them, including a guaranteed turnaround of
one day for
our domain registrations, and publicity from Network Solutions. We have also been the owner of
the .EUR
domain, an eDNS domains, and in the short term we would almost certainly benefit financially
from the
fracture and fracas their plan would create. We have been keeping abreast of the developments in
all three
camps. Recently, Antony Van Couvering, President of NetNames USA, has been elected Chair of
the Policy
Advisory Board.
We feel that now is the time to make our voice heard concerning the disputes now raging
about the gTLD-MoU signed May 1, 1997 in Geneva, and the competing plans put forward by
Network Solutions, the current
operators of the InterNIC in Virginia, and the group known as eDNS.
Background
In 1995, in part because of a perceived lack of available domain names, but also due to a
chorus of complaints
from end-users and registrars about the operating procedures of Network Solutions, which holds
a contract to
run the InterNIC (the registrar for the common .com, .net, and .org domains), pressure was put
on the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to create new gTLDs. After intense discussion on relevant
mailing lists,
the IAHC was formed from a variety of respected Internet bodies with a mandate to produce a
proposal for the
introduction and governance of new gTLDs.
In response to community concern, the IAHC had as its main task solving several interrelated
problems that
had begun to plague the Internet namespace:
1. Domain hoarding, pirating, and "cybersquatting"
2. Trademarks and their relationship to domain names
3. Dispute resolution procedures for "name collisions," i.e. two or more parties desiring the
same domain
name
4. Secrecy, non-accountability, and lack of community involvement in the domain
registration and dispute
resolution policies developed by Network Solutions, the monopoly registrant of gTLDs.
5. Cost of domain name registration
6. The shortage of "good" domain names
For many months the IAHC floated proposals and solicited ideas, both on Internet mailing
lists and from
private submissions.
After some months of discussion it became apparent that a consensus existed that:
1. New top-level domains should be created as a way to alleviate the crowding of the
domain
space and to
reduce the viability of "cybersquatters."
2. An open, accountable, long-term process for resolving future problems should be
created
3. A "shared registry" model, as opposed to a "monopoly registry" model, should be
created
so that Internet
users would no longer be beholden to the unilateral policies of a single, unaccountable entity. The
key
benefit to the domain name holder is "domain portability", or the ability to find another provider,
without
losing the investment in the name itself. A comparable model is found in the 800 telephone
number
market, where a customer can change long-distance companies without having to get a new
phone
number.
4. The shared registry model should be commercial, and that registrars should compete on
price and services
5. Some attempt should be made to deal with the problem of trademarks and domain names
6. The solution should be global, not "U.S.-centric"
On February 4, 1997, the IAHC issued a press release summarizing its final proposal, and
shortly thereafter
released the text of the gTLD-MoU. Since that time, persons and companies have voiced
objections to the
gTLD-MoU, often upon the demonstrably false ground that the IAHC was not an open process.
Other
objections have been made on the grounds that the IAHC was not legally constituted, a red
herring, since
Internet working groups in general are not legally constituted. Very few substantive objections
have been
made.
The sticking point appears to be the shared-registry model, which had widespread support
when first proposed
on the mailing lists. The shared-registry model directly threatens two groups that have hopes of
windfall
profits based on the monopoly ownership of gTLDs:
eDNS, a loose confederation of small companies with claims to certain gTLDs of their
own invention
(e.g., .earth, .xxx, .mall), had its roots in opposition to the monopoly held by Network Solutions
on the
.com, .net, and .org domains. Since the gTLD-MoU, however, eDNS has found a common
position with
Network Solutions due to their common desire for the creation of monopoly gTLDs.
Network Solutions initially supported the IAHC process, but just before the signing of the
gTLD-MoU in
Geneva, issued a statement critical of the gTLD-MoU, asserting, in essence, that Network
Solutions could
do the job better. We would like to compare the three models -- Network Solutions, eDNS, and
the
gTLD-MoU plan -- based on their merits and flaws.
Three Competing Models for Creating New gTLDs
NetNames believes that competition within a stable framework is essential for the continued
development of
the commercial Internet. With that as our criterion, we went to Geneva skeptical about the
gTLD-MoU, with
several significant reservations about it. We actively participated in the discussions in Geneva with
three days
of very frank questions, and we were satisfied by the answers, and--almost more importantly--by
the open
nature of the process. We therefore decided to sign the gTLD-MoU, and we would like to share
with you our
decision process.
We would like to discuss first the plan put forward by Network Solutions, then the eDNS
plan, and finally the
IAHC plan.
Network Solutions Plan
NetNames strongly rejects the rebuttal paper ("Secure Internet Administration and
Competition in Domain
Naming Services", April 17, 1997) issued by Network Solutions in response to the gTLD-MoU
proposal. We
have read their plan closely and have found it to be self-serving and misleading. It is important to
remember
that the formation and work of the IAHC came in response to the public outrage at the poor
customer service,
the closed decision-making process, and the high-handed and ill-considered dispute resolution
mechanisms of
Network Solutions. Network Solutions has made improvements in the customer service area
recently, but it
continues to be a closed and protective monopoly.
We are left with the unmistakable impression that Network Solutions is attempting to wrest
control of "root"
(or "dot" or ".") from the IANA by raising the specter of a "crisis of credibility" which didn't, until
the issuance
of the Network Solutions paper, exist. IANA, an informal body headed by Jon Postel, has
successfully run
"root" for many years and its leadership in regard to domain name issues has helped insure the
smooth growth
of the Internet. As noted above, IANA was forced to initiate the process which resulted in the
IAHC being
formed in response to a real crisis of credibility at Network Solutions. We believe that IANA
should probably
acquire a legal status to protect it from any future threat of usurpation.
The Network Solutions proposal contains many untrue assertions and semi-truths that to our
mind undermine
their credibility in this arena. In particular, their objections to the gTLD-MoU plan seem flimsy
and self-serving.
1. Network Solutions says that the gTLD-MoU proposal does not recognize the need for
market
branding and that legitimate corporations will not invest in "shared brands." This is a misstatement
of
the problem as well as a misinterpretation of the shared registry model. In fact the gTLD-MoU
proposal is much stronger than other plans with regard to "branding" because not only does a
company have control of its brand, it has security as to its continued existence as well, since under
the
shared-registry model the company can change providers without losing its name. NetNames
consults
with major corporations on this issue every day and we can say without hesitation that this
assertion
has no basis in fact.
For instance, if a company registers "company.web" with one registrar in the shared registry
model, it does not
share the brand of "company", in fact it has exclusive control over that name. BUT it has a choice
of
who it wants to pay to register and maintain that name. NetNames has taken advance orders for
the
new domains from many large American corporations and over 1000 others.
2. Network Solutions says that the gTLD-MoU plan is too complex to succeed. This has
already been
proven untrue in the event. Nominet, the UK registry, has auniversally acclaimed shared-registry
model which was created out of whole cloth, immediately attracted over 100 registrars, now has
over
350, and is completely scalable. It is simple in operation and, working on a cost-recovery model,
has
already dropped its prices by 20%, with another 50% (estimated) drop scheduled for later in
1997.
The assertion that the international aspect is problematic is unsubstantiated and almost certainly
untrue. NetNames deals with countries all over the world every day and sees all the country TLD
templates, which are with few exceptions standardized and closely follow either the RIPE or
InterNIC
template forms.
3. Network Solutions says that the gTLD-MoU approach is too bureaucratic. We find this
assertion
hardly credible coming from Network Solutions, whose bureaucratic high-handedness prompted
the
whole re-examination of gTLDs in the first place. It is also untrue. The gTLD-MoU proposal
closely
parallels the Nominet model, which has a permanent staff of less than 10 and deals easily with a
exponential growth, and (let us stress again) has nearly universal customer satisfaction. Contrary
to
what Network Solutions says, the shared-registry model encourages competition -- competition
based
on service, not on ownership.
4. Network Solutions says that the gTLD-MoU proposal is too narrow. The mandate of
the
IAHC was
narrowly tailored, correctly so. There are a number of other initiatives (e.g., ARIN) to deal with
IP
address allocation. IAHC involvement in these issues would have been confusing and
counterproductive. We feel that this is a non-issue and a red herring.
5. Network Solutions says that the name dispute resolution framework erected by the
gTLD-MoU is
unworkable. Indeed, there are problems with the gTLD-MoU proposal. We would submit,
however,
that many of these problems are close to insoluble -- trademark law, in over 100 years, has been
unable to come up with an international solution. We would note, however, that Network
Solutions'
assertion that there is any technical problem involved in time-stamping registrations from around
the
globe is spurious. The technology exists and is being used every day with great efficiency. We
would
also note that Network Solutions' own dispute resolution policy, which even today is widely
resented,
was a major impetus for the creation of the IAHC.
6. Finally, Network Solutions claims that IAHC has no legal authority. Since IAHC was
constituted
under the authority of IANA, Network Solutions is really saying that IANA has no legal
authority.
Here, we feel, is the motivation for the Network Solutions proposal -- an attempt to wrest control
of
"root" from IANA. Network Solutions, whose own legal status in regard to the domains it
controls is
hardly clear, has written a proposal to muddy the waters and confuse people who don't
understand the
Internet in an attempt to jettison IANA and gain control of "root". It is true that IANA is an
informal
arrangement; it was formed in a time when the Internet was not worth as much money as it is
today,
and working methods were far more informal and cooperative. IANA is nonetheless a
well-respected
group in the Internet community and its directives are applied without question by domain
administrators and other standards bodies worldwide.
NetNames feels that Network Solutions objections to the gTLD-MoU plan are flimsy and
unwarranted, and
serve primarily to enhance Network Solutions' own prospects for profits and control. To have the
key to the
entire Internet controlled by a private company would be a disaster, and we strongly oppose any
attempt by
Network Solutions to gain control of "root".
The eDNS Plan
The eDNS proponents are a loose assemblage of companies and individuals who propose to
allow anyone to
create their own TLD and run it as they wish. NetNames feels that this approach is dangerous and
destabilizing on many counts:
1. The eDNS model would undermine the world Domain Name Service (DNS), which was
designed to
work on a hierarchical model with a limited number of top-level domains. While a large number of
TLDs may ultimately be feasible, and should be at least considered as a policy goal, we don't see
any
point in possibly breaking the system on a whim.
2. eDNS domains are not portable. A customer who invested in promoting his eDNS
domain
would be
stuck with one service provider, namely the eDNS operator. If this operator went out of
business,
raised its rates through the roof, or simply cheated the customer, the customer's investment would
be
lost.
3. eDNS domains are competitive only on the vanity of the name, not on service or goods.
So a customer
might desire to register his or her company under the gTLD ".biz", but find that the service was
so
abysmal that it was not a good business decision. On the other hand, service might be very good
at the
TLD ".scum", but because the name is so appalling the company would decide that it was
undesirable
to register there.
4. eDNS has no domain name dispute resolution policy. From this decision a horrific
scenario arises:
hundreds of new TLDs, and hundreds of companies trying to register in all of them as the only
way to
protect their names. NetNames already has clients who have contracted us to register all their
important trademarks in every possible domain. The eDNS proposal would exacerbate this
problem
exponentially.
The gTLD-MoU Plan
While we have some reservations with this model, NetNames believes that it offers the best
plan now and, far
more importantly, the best process for improving the domain name space in the future.
First, we would like to highlight our PROBLEMS with the gTLD-MoU plan:
1. The administration as outlined in the gTLD-MoU and related documents allowed far too
little input
from outside bodies. The Policy Oversight Committee (POC) is stacked with members from the
so-called "I"
organizations -- IANA, ISOC, etc. We feel that, as presently constituted, there is insufficient
representation
on POC from either the Policy Advisory Board (PAB), which is open to all, or from the Council
of Registrars
(CORE), or from some other important interests.
BUT NetNames received assurances in public that PAB would have representation on the
POC. This reassured
us considerably: first, that PAB would have representation; second, that the IAHC was committed
to an open
process.
2. We felt that using a lottery process for choosing registrars was abominable. The IAHC
members
expressed their distaste for it also, but said that they had no workable alternative. NetNames felt
that the
lottery process kept interested parties out and had the potential for creating a many-headed
monopoly with a
vested interested in keeping additional registrars out.
BUT as of this writing the interim Policy Oversight Committee (iPOC), who are the
successors to the IAHC,
has eliminated the lottery and made registrar status open to all qualified applicants. We take this
as another
indication that the process works and outside voices are listened to.
3. We were very impatient with the idea that there were technical problems with having a
large number
of initial registrars. We hotly contested the validity of this idea.
BUT we were told that actually the reason for keeping the number of registrars to a low
number was a
logistical consideration. We rejected this as an important concern, and since the lottery has been
discarded
there is now no limit on the number of registrars.
We would now like to share our reasons for SUPPORTING the gTLD-MoU Plan:
1. Open Process -- Our interactions with the IAHC and now the iPOC have convinced us
that they are
committed to dealing with the issues at hand in a fair and open manner. We were initially very
skeptical on
this count, but found that our fears were unfounded. The vociferous complaints about how the
IAHC ran a
closed process we now ascribe either to personality conflicts or to professional posturing.
2. Competition Based on Service, Not Vanity -- The gTLD-MoU plan
encourages competition among
registrars based on the quality and value-added features of their service, not simply on
the value of the gTLD
in which they are registering. eDNS relies on the vanity appeal of a given gTLD, and Network
Solutions has
relied on having the only gTLDs available.
3. Domain Name Portability -- The singlemost important aspect of a domain name, from a
customer's
point of view, is that he or she can continue to use it and promote it publicly without fear of
losing it due the
incompetence or unethical practices of their registrar. In other words, investment in the brand
equity is secure.
This is possible with the gTLD-MoU plan, because a registrant can have the name of their choice
as well as
the registrar of their choice. This can hardly be stressed enough.
4. Shared Registry Model -- The shared registry model, a feature of the gTLD-MoU plan
but
not of the
other two, allows for domain name portability and competition based on services. NetNames
knows, from its
close experience with Nominet in the UK, that a shared registry model works, and works well.
5. Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedures -- For many of NetNames' larger clients,
this is the
most exciting part of the proposal. Although it is inevitable that the process would be flawed --
you cannot
map a fluid and flexible name categorization such as trademarks onto a hierarchical unique
namespace such as
domain names -- we believe that the establishment of the Administrative Challenge Panels will
bring
significant relief for holders of trademarks without unnecessarily restricting registration by others.
Most
important in this regard is the "exclusion" process whereby holders of famous marks can petition
to have their
name(s) protected from registration by others.
6. Open to Non-industry Participation -- NetNames believes that a wide range of
companies
and persons
have valuable perspectives on the Internet namespace. These include registrars, of course, but also
ISPs,
lawyers, trademark holders, governments, and public policy bodies. The gTLD-MoU, through its
establishment of a Policy Advisory Board (PAB), has implemented a procedure whereby these
disparate voices
can be heard. The iPOC (formerly the IAHC) has already implemented the overwhelming
consensus from the
PAB that the lottery system of registrars should be abolished.
7. Wide Support Within and Without the Industry -- NetNames has had the unique
opportunity to listen
not only to the loud voices on various mailing lists, but also to its own customers. We have
answered hundreds
of questions, and fielded many opinions, about the establishment of new gTLDs. Most of these
were from non-informed persons who would nonetheless bear the brunt of any changes. We can
attest that the gTLD-MoU
plan is overwhelmingly supported by our customers.
8. Wide support From the Country TLDs -- NetNames works every day with the country
TLDs, and
again, the reaction from these groups (who have good knowledge of many of the problems) is in
favor of the
gTLD-MoU plan. Domain authorities from the NICs of Argentina, China, Guernsey, Japan,
Jersey, Korea
(South), Norway and Switzerland have either already signed the gTLD-MoU or have announced
their
intention to sign. This underlines the international character of the gTLD-MoU plan.
Conclusion
NetNames recommends that any person or organization interested in seeing the Internet
develop with stability
and competition join the plan proposed by the IAHC by signing the gTLD-MoU, which entitles
the signer to a
place on the Policy Advisory Body and a chance to make your voice heard on this very important
step in the
development of the Internet.
We would be pleased to discuss our positions or ideas with any interested person.
Ivan Pope, Managing Director of NetNames Ltd., can be reached in London on +44 171
224-2017, or via
email at ivan@netnames.com
Antony Van Couvering, President of NetNames USA, can be reached in New York at +1
212 627-4599,
or via email at avc@netnamesusa.com
Sources
For the gTLD-MoU Plan and accompanying documents: http://www.gtld-mou.org. Anyone wishing to sign the
gTLD-MoU can find the form and instructions at http://www.itu.int/net-itu/dnsmeet/mousign.htm
For the Network Solutions Plan: http://www.netsol.com/papers/internet.html
For the eDNS Proposals: http://www.eDNS.net
NetNames: http://www.netnames.com
###
Number: 363
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@vrx.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 4:54pm
Subject: REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF
INTERNET DOMAIN
NAMES
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Richard J. Sexton
Richard J. Sexton
Richard J. Sexton
Maitland House
Bannockburn
Ontario, CANADA
Self
18 Aug 1997
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary
A. Appropriate Principles
Principles a-f
Other principles
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Questions 1-9
C. Creation of New gTLDs
Questions 10-14
D. Policies for Registries
Questions 15-20
E. Trademark Issues
Questions 21-28
F. Other Issues
Existing TLD Applications
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
SUMMARY
This document provides some information on the structure of the
names in the Domain Name System (DNS), specifically the top-level
domain names; and on the administration of those domains.
The day-to-day responsibility for the assignment of IP Addresses,
Autonomous System Numbers, and most top and second level Domain
Names are handled by Internet Registries (IR).
The Internet is partly being driven by commercial market forces
using domain names to identify corporate business units which are
known to the public as "brand names"). This document covers some of
the framework necessary to define the purpose, function, delegation,
and use of new top level domains.
Several factors need to be addressed such as why the TLD exists in
the first place, who accepts registrations for the TLD, and what
special purpose (if any) the TLD serves.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Richard J. Sexton
1. Richard J. Sexton respectfully submits comments in this proceeding.
Richard Sexton is actively involved in top level domain name issues.
Richard
J. Sexton has been seeking a resolution to the perceived problem of
Network Solutions unilateral policy decisions since their inception,
favoring an internet community based solution. Richard Sexton
has written and spoken a great deal on this subject in Ottawa,
Washington DC, Wall Street, to educate users, industry and
government to the issues today concerning the Internet Domain
name system.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
A. APPROPRIATE PRINCIPLES
a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name
registration system should be encouraged. Conflicting
domains, systems, and registries should not be permitted to
jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet, however. The
addressing scheme should not prevent any user from
connecting to any other site.
A.a.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
b. The private sector, with input from governments, should
develop stable, consensus-based self-governing mechanisms for
domain name registration and management that adequately
defines responsibilities and maintains accountability.
A.b.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the
inherently global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve
as necessary over time.
A.c.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition
should be open, robust, efficient, and fair.
A.d.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
e. The overall policy framework as well as name allocation and
management mechanisms should promote prompt, fair, and
efficient resolution of conflicts, including conflicts over
proprietary rights.
A.e.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent
consideration of these issues permits.
A.f.1. No. Consensus is more important than speed.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
B. GENERAL/ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK ISSUES
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current
domain name registration systems?
B.1.1 The Internet Domain Name System ("DNS") is a hierarchical,
decentralized database providing a one to one mapping of domain
named to numerical Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses. Every
entity that operates a "name server" is a part of this infrastructure.
This system was created a decade ago and it's evolution has
not been addressed until very recently, when the Internet
community has matured to the point where it is now beginning
to understand the issues central to the problems associated with
it.
B.1.2 Originally the nomenclature of the DNS was divided into
geopolitical entities (the ISO 3166 TLDs such as .us, .ca
and so forth) and international TLDs: .com, .net, .org, .mil,
.gov, .int, .ARPA. .uk was created as an anomaly; it was
in use and popular before the ISO3166 domains were established
and owing to this achieved a de facto legitimizaiton over the
strictly correct and largely unused .gb moniker for Great Britain.
B.1.3 Several events have caused problems.
B.1.3.1 The .COM "zone" is too flat, that is a disproportionate
number of computers are named "something.com". Whereas the DNS
was supposed to be a nomenclature to use arbitrary identifiers
to evenly spread the job of name to address lookups over a
large number of computers, the name www.something.com is now
seen as a cultural identifier, not technology. Businesses
and individuals alike have been fooled by this.
B.1.3.2 The geopolitical ISO 3166 TLD's have been underutilized.
The greatest reason for this is poor management, service and policy
from the ISO3166 registrars.
B.1.3.3 There is a collision between the "purists" to designed
and implemented the DNS nomenclature and commercial interests
to want to share in the recent revenue stream created by
instigation of fees for the most popular top level domain - .com.
There is little interest outside the most ardent of Internet
engineers to operate names such as ".nic, for network
information centers" that are not deemed to have wide
market appeal. The .com domain is most popular for several reasons.
B.1.3.3.1 The performance of the .com registry: "if the
name is not taken, you may use it". By keeping the amount
of domain registration application checking to its minimal
state, domains are delegated as quickly as possible, an
important concept as internet intellectual infrastructure
grows by the second, and any impediment to the information
based economy of the Internet hinders the development of
this global resource.
B.1.3.3.2 The rise in electronic commerce. The growth
of the DNS is quite simple. .com grew as entities believed
the nomenclature of RFC1591 that states .com is for commercial
entities. Thus, the nomenclature has been accepted universally
adopted.
B.1.3.3.3 The desire to participate in a global marketplace. There
is strong resistance by all entities to be identified by the
national country of origin.
B.1.3.3.4 The Internet is self organizing. The ISO geopolitical
nomenclature, as a top level organization of the Internet has
not flourished despite over a decade of advocacy. A
fundamental principle of Internet architecture is that names must
be self descriptive, and when naming computers, it is more important
to know that the computer does, than where it is. Internet technology
makes every other computer on the Internet seem to be directly
attached to any computer that a user chooses; geopolitical
boundaries are artifacts of the preinformaiton age, and serve
no great purpose to the Internet as a whole, other than to
drive policy, to an extent, for physical components of the
Internet infrastructure.
B.1.3.4 The fact that the Internet is self organizing is
both a "bug AND a feature". While this has allowed the best
and the brightest to develop meaningful taxa, others have
created some truly unfortunate names to the detriment of the
average user. Poor understanding and desire for commercial
visibility have driven this.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
B.2.1. By consensus. Anarchy will erupt otherwise.
3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should current
domain name systems be administered? What should the
makeup of such an entity be?
B.3.1. That entity is, by definition, the Internet. Anybody
who wished to contribute and has, demonstrably, something
to contribute, should be able to. This is the fundamental
principle that has fostered the growth of the collaborative
collective that is the Internet.
4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as
models for deciding on domain name registration systems (e.g.,
network numbering plan, standard-setting processes, spectrum
allocation)? Are there private/public sector administered
models or regimes that can be used for domain name
registration (e.g., network numbering plan, standard setting
processes, or spectrum allocation processes)? What is the
proper role of national or international governmental/non-
governmental organizations, if any, in national and
international domain name registration systems?
B.4.1. No. Not even close.
5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be
retired from circulation? Should geographic or country codes
(e.g., .US) be required? If so, what should happen to the .com
registry? Are gTLD management issues separable from
questions about International Standards Organization (ISO)
country code domains?
B.5.1. Policy and "appearance" of a TLD drive it's acceptance. Each
TLD has a policy mandate that defines who can use it, and what it's
used for. For ISO 3166 TLDs this is usually a national sovereign
appointed agency, although the .us and .uk registries are delegated
dnd decentralized with varying measures of success. Migration away
from .com will occur if a cheaper or better alternative, or both,
arises. Some ISO 3166 TLDs have been delegated by national sovereigns
to commercial entities. The lesson here is clear: any entity that
can successfully operate a registry according to it's charter
mandate a policies, should be allowed to do so. If somebody has
a better way to run a registry, this contribution should not be ignored.
"Better" is determined by the Internet community as "rough consensus
and running code.
6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain
name registration issues? Are there any issues concerning the
relationship of registrars and gTLDs with root servers?
B.6.1. Yes, in theory, one single computer can completely automate the
domain registration process. Because there is no process by which
this could have been achieved owing to conflicting contractual and
sovereign interests, this has not happened. Privatization of the
domain registration process without contribution to the intellectual
infrastructure is seen as self serving and harmful.
B.6.2 The set of all name server owner operators determine what
content (names) those machines will carry. The registration of
a name is a very trivial data entry operation that the WWW makes
even easier. Front line support for people who lack an understanding
of the nature of the process, or who have run afoul of the system
due to an error made by the applicant or registry is the only issue
disparate from operational name service.
7. How can we ensure the scalability of the domain name
system name and address spaces as well as ensure that root
servers continue to interoperate and coordinate?
B.7.1. By consensus. Disenfranchised entities do not contribute
to, and harm, global stability and nomenclatural growth and innovation.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be
accomplished?
B.8.1. On a consensual basis, and very, very carefully. There is only
one chance, for all practical purposes, to do this.
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
B.9.1. Yes, besides domain names, contact information (such as
"nic handles") and the whois database contain more information than
domain name and ip address. This had the potential to be a global
directory service, but proprietary interests, which are the
antithesis of the open standards based Internet diminish or
defeat this possibility.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
C. CREATION OF NEW gTLDs
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations
that constrain the total number of different gTLDs that can be
created?
C.10.1. Not in general. Some code changes are required on all name servers
somewhere below 10,000 TLDs. The total number of TLDs proposed is under
1000 in the most liberal case. There is no evidence that this number
needs be is a hard and fast rule, rather it reflects contemporary
operational practices.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
C.11.1. Currently, no "gTLDs" have been implemented. There are
several international TLDs. If the current problems in their
administration can be resolved and consensus on an improved
global nomenclature can be met, then implementation of new TLDs
would be appropriate.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated with
increasing the number of gTLDs?
C.12.1. No.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions
about ISO country code domains?
C.13.1. No. Administration of a TLD according to it's method
and purpose bears no relationship to the name or meaning
implied by the name. This holds true for geopolitical names
and therefore ISO 3166 TLDs.
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
C.14.1. No.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
D. POLICIES FOR REGISTRIES
15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a
particular gTLD? Are there any technical limitations on using
shared registries for some or all gTLDs? Can exclusive and
non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?
D.15.1. That depends on the charter for the TLD. "Shared registry"
is an artificial abstraction. "Sharing registry" is more accurate.
The database of domain names and ip addresses is monolithic. Just
what entities have read/write access to it defines the extent
to which the registry is "shared". Exclusive and non exclusive
TLDs already exist and present no known operational problems.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name
registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars
have? Who will determine these and how?
D.16.1 Yes. a registry needs to be able to fulfill the obligations
of the charter of the TLD it serves. Traditionally empirical
qualification of this process, not mandated bureaucracy has
been the way the Internet does this. Consumers of domain
names determine success of a model; their complaints are
aired on the Internet, most succinctly in the newsgroup
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of
domain name registrars?
D.17.1. No. Any entity that can follow a defined process can
register a domain name. The great majority of this process is
currently automated, fees for service is seen arbitrary in the
case where the registrar performs an action that could be
done as well if not better, by a sufficiently knowledgable
domain applicant, who provides the front line support that
is, in effect a fee based education as to how the process works.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the
name space raised by increasing the number of domain name
registrars?
D.18.1. The policy and technical issues are constant with 1 to
N instantiations of TLD's.
D.18.2 The root servers have always been subsidized by benevolent
entities and volunteers from the Internet community. If the registration
process were run in such a manner and the "price of admission" to
be able to register a domain were raised to the height of being
able to operate a robust and stable name service, there would
be no need to ask questions like this, and no need for "registrars"
per se. Every name server operator must by definition understand the
DNS to be able to program their name servers data records. There is
no special knowledge required to program the root zone name servers.
D.18.3 The business issue is only an issue of late, when the
cost of subsidizing the registration process outgrew the revenue
stream provided for it. The Internet community was never given
a decent chance to rectify this situation, nor encouraged to
do so. Ironic in a culture that had bootstrapped itself into
the most important communications network in the world on the spirit
of free cooperative collaboration. Prior to two years ago
there were no "business issues" and whether there should be
any or not is an unresolved question. There is no technical
reason why this needs to be a "business" at all.
19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a
given registrar can administer? Does this depend on whether
the registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the
gTLD?
D.19.1. This is dictated by the charter of the TLD. If we agree
the USG should "own" .gov, it is appropriate they should be the
exclusive registrar.
D.19.2 A registrar could register into one or many TLD's depending
on TLD charter and technical competence.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
D.20.1. No.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
E. TRADEMARK ISSUES
21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks,
common law trademarks, geographic indications, etc.), if any,
should be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names?
E.21.1 Trademark law is a mature and venerable set of rules to
share names among different geopolitical entities for different
products and or services. Domain names do not fit well into
this model, they do not for the most part recognize geopolitical
delineations, nor do they apply to a consistent product or
service.
E.22.2 Any trademark, whether granted at the state, national or
international level, that prohibits that mark to be excluded
from the free pool of domain names is an unnatural expansion
of trademark law outside it's scope of providing protection
in a certain geopolitical arena and specific area of product
or service, and inhibits innovative growth in favor of
commercial protectionism.
E.22.3 The international trademark issues are nowhere near
resolved. Only the ISO country code domains provide reasonable
relief by constraining the problem to the laws of that sovereign
nation. Network Solutions handling of this problem, in an attempt
to not be the target of unfair litigation has been bad. The IAHC
plan is worse.
22. Should some process of preliminary review of an
application for registration of a domain name be required,
before allocation, to determine if it conflicts with a trademark,
a trade name, a geographic indication, etc.? If so, what
standards should be used? Who should conduct the
preliminary review? If a conflict is found, what should be
done, e.g., domain name applicant and/or trademark owner
notified of the conflict? Automatic referral to dispute
settlement?
E.22.1. No. The slight advantage this gives trademark holders
in prosecuting violators is damaging to the greater good of
the Internet community to be able to deploy sensibly named
information to the Internet. It wold be a shame to bog that
process down due to commercial interests that did not build
and do not understand the domain name system.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should
trademark rights be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain
names? What entity(ies), if any, should resolve disputes? Are
national courts the only appropriate forum for such disputes?
Specifically, is there a role for national/international
governmental/nongovernmental organizations?
E.23.1 Trademark right do not automatically scale to domain
name rights! The International Business Machines corporation
has the domain name ibm.com. They registered it before anybody
else did. ibm.org is owned by and operated in a manner as not
to cause confusion in the eyes of the consumer. Certainly IBM
as a company could have easily, through legal machinations,
obtained or shut down ibm.org, and to it's great credit, it
did not. Instead it sends a clear signal that it understands
the Internet and trademark law, and where to intersect and
where they do not.
E.23.2 Merely registering a domain name the same as a trademarked
term (and it is to be noted that if all current terms were to
be scrupulously reviews, some trademarks should never have been
granted. To extend a flawed system into the Internet would be
wrong) does not imply a trademark violation, it merely means
the same arbitrary string of characters has more than one application
when examined in a global arena. At such time as that arbitrary
string is used in such a way as to formally and technically violate
a trademark, the two entities in dispute have legacy systems to
resolve that dispute. The must be held immune from these disputes
in the nominal case where no malfeasance was involved.
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented?
What information resources (e.g. databases of registered
domain names, registered trademarks, trade names) could help
reduce potential conflicts? If there should be a database(s),
who should create the database(s)? How should such a
database(s) be used?
E.24.1. Trademark violation occurs when a name is used in a way
that causes confusion in the mind of a consumers regarding a particular
product or service, and this is not clear until the domain name is
put to use, so there is no way of a priori determining trademark
violation in domain space.
25. Should domain name applicants be required to
demonstrate that they have a basis for requesting a particular
domain name? If so, what information should be supplied?
Who should evaluate the information? On the basis of what
criteria?
E.25.1 In the case of a private TLD - if we presume the Internet
community delegates .gov to the USG, it is clear the owner of
a TLD can set any requirement it likes. In the case of a public
TLDs, no requirement other than the technical validity of the
data being entered into the database (correctness of IP addresses
of the name servers serving that domain, live operational status
of these name servers) is warranted.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number
of registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark
disputes?
E.26.1. The more entities involved the higher the cost and slower
the speed of resolution.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for
a single domain name, are there any technological solutions?
E.27.1. No.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
E.28.1. No.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
F. Other Issues
F.1 The IANA has served well at editing lists of names and numbers
used in Internet architecture, but has proved abominable as
leadership and setting policy of the DNS.
F.2 The Internet Society, by means of attempting to provide an
umbrella to the various "I*" organizations - IANA, IAB, IETF and
so forth, represents a concentration of power inconsistent with
organize evolution of the Internet.
F.3. International bureaucracies such as the ITU and WIPO have
not "offered to help" fix the problems in todays DNS, instead
they are trying to dictate law. If you want to kill or stifle
the innovative spirit of the Internet, this is how you would do
it.
F.4 The internet community, particularly name server owner/operators
must be encouraged, and helped, to find solutions to the problems
and realities of the current DNS crisis. Without consensus,
there will be a breakdown and the net will splinter.
F.5 Before any expansion of the name space is undertaken, the first
principle of the Hippocratic oath must be very carefully considered:
"do no harm".
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
###
Number: 364
From: Karen Brickley <KarenB@Prince.co.uk>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/18/97 5:28pm
Subject: NOI response from John Wood, Prince plc (in MS Word
format)
A. Appropriate Principles
The Government seeks comment on the principles by which it should evaluate
proposals for the registration and the 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?
Yes, to the extent that they are consistent with the responses to questions below.
Please note that more comprehensive principles are suggested below. See also
the "Principles" document.
A. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Background
The current system may be summarised as follows:
The Domain Name System (DNS) is hierarchical and unitary in structure, distributive
in method and highly scaleable. The DNS is defined by Request For Comments
(RFC) 920 and 1591 authored by Jon Postel (USC).
A domain name is an alphanumerical representation of a unique IP address that
corresponds to each host/node connected to the Internet, for example,
PRINCE.COM corresponds to 194.200.207.65. Domain names can only contain
the letters A thru Z and/or the numerical digits 0 thru 9. Also, there can only be
up to 24 characters. The domain name hierarchy is read from right to left within
the domain name space. Levels are delineated by dots. Therefore, the top level
domains (TLDs) - .EDU, .ORG, .NET, .GOV, .MIL, .INT and .COM, and the
country level domains - two digit country code extensions based on ISO 3166, for
example .UK; are found in the extreme right of the domain name space. The US
does have a country code ((CC), .US), and the .US domain name space is
defined in RFC 1480. To the immediate left of the TLD/CC extension can be
found the second level domains (SLDs), for example, .CO and .AC. There is also
the ability to create a third and even fourth level domain, for example,
CBT.PSYCHOLOGY.UCL.AC.UK.
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has overall authority for IP
addresses and domain names. The administration of the central database and
directory containing all of the IP addresses and domain names is carried out by
the InterNIC (Internet Network Information Center). The InterNIC was initially
made up of AT&T, Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), and General Atomics.
European IP administration and technical co-ordination is carried out by Reseaux
IP Europeens Network Co-ordination Centre (RIPE NCC). Internet IP registry
services for the Asia Pacific region are handled by APNIC.
The TLDs are managed by NSI under a five year co-operation agreement with the
National Science Foundation (NSF) due to expire on March 31, 1998. The
country codes are managed by their respective registries, as are their
corresponding SLDs. The .US domain name space is managed by the
Information Science Institute (ISI) based at the University of Southern California.
The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) software resolves the domain name
against its corresponding IP address. Versions 4.9 and above of BIND are
produced by Internet Software Consortium (Mr. Vixie etc.). BIND is defined in
accordance with RFC 974, 1034 and 1035. The latest release of BIND is version
8 (May, 1997). It is believed that as many as four of the root servers now run on
version 8.
The server architecture follows a tree structure receiving replicated records from
servers above it and caching the results that in turn can be accessed by servers
below. The servers at the top end of the tree are called the root servers. The
server at the very top of the tree is called the alpha server and it contains the
central database including the records for all of the TLDs. It in turn replicates
down to the other root servers on a daily basis all new records to its central
database. Below the root servers sit approximately 35,000 name servers. Name
servers are located in domains, that are in turn divided up into zones. Each
domain has to have one primary server and for practical purposes at least one
secondary server to act as a back-up.
There are thirteen root servers, and all but two are located in the US, (the NORDU
server is in Sweden and the RIPE server is in Holland. NSI manages two root
servers (A, J), ISI manages two root servers (B, L) and the US Defence
Department manages two root servers (G, H). These root servers are managed
primarily by volunteers.
The resolution process is as follows:
A DNS client requests via TCP port 53 of the name server (either in its domain or
pointed at) the resolution of a domain name against an IP address. The name
server queries the zones in its domain for the address. Each zone contains all of
the domain names from its point downward. If the name server cannot locate the
address in its domain it queries the root servers. The root servers track all of the
TLDs.
The registration process is as follows:
An entity or person requests of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) a domain name.
The ISP allocates an IP address from its block allocation of IP addresses from
(ultimately) IANA (in Europe RIPE and Asia APNIC). If a prospective domain
name is to be associated with a TLD. For example PRINCE.COM, then a
request as to use and availability is made of NSI. Assignment of a domain name
is done on a first-come-only-served-basis.
Where the domain name is to be associated with a particular country, a request is
made of that specific registry. If the domain name is available then the IP
address and the domain name are associated, placed on the database of the
respective registry that ultimately reports the record to the central database on
the Alpha server. Interestingly enough, there is nothing to prevent someone from
requesting a domain name from any one of the 200 or so registries in the world,
for example, in the UK, NOMINET. Nor of the registrar within their registry
coming up with innovative second/third or fourth level domain name designations,
for example .COM.US!
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the current domain name
registration systems?
Advantages
The current DNS is simple and it works. There is an obvious limit on the number of
domain names that can exist within a 32 bit domain name space. But, if we look
at availability within for example the very popular .COM domain name space,
there are still an available 3722 possible combinations of domain names.
To those that would say that the system is breaking down due to the explosive
levels of demand for the Internet, their attention should be drawn to the Inverse
Network Technology, Inc. report of June, 1997. The report indicated that the last
quarter saw a drop in the number of failure rates, an improvement in the number
of connection rates and even a speeding up of transmission of data over the
Internet.
It is important to recognise the invaluable service provided by NSI with regard to the
current DNS. There is no substitute for hands-on experience and a tried and
tested infrastructure. NSI has created from scratch a scaleable, robust, and
stable solution. It also provides an efficient cost-effective service. In fact,
according to the OECD, NSI is the least expensive registry of the top 20
registries in the world. NSI for its part claims that, on average, 92% of domain
name registrations are processed within 24 hours. This is no mean feat when
one realises that 18 months ago it took NSI an average of 4 weeks to process an
average of 50% of the applications received. NSI without a doubt represents the
back office of the Internet.
Disadvantages
The registering body for the top level domain names (TLDs) including the .COM
domain name space, is a private, for profit American company, based in
Herndon, Virginia. As such it is accountable only to its shareholders for its
actions.
NSI registers domain names on a first-come, first-served basis. Its operations are
legitimised through a co-operation agreement with the National Science
Foundation (NCR-921842). The initial agreement was for five years and
envisaged a not-for-profit administration of the TLDs by NSI for and on behalf of
the InterNIC. At a peer review in 1994 it was determined that NSI had provided
an excellent service, but due to the demand for TLDs in general and the .COM
domain space in particular, a charging model was now required. This finding led
to Amendment 4 to the Co-operation Agreement (dated September 13, 1995).
The amendment provided that as of September 14, 1995, NSI could charge an
initial fee of $100 for two years and a bi-annual renewal fee of $50. The
amendment also provided that 30% of the fees collected would be placed in an
Intellectual Infrastructure Fund. Consequently, as of March 31, 1997, there was
$20,560,000 in the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund.
Currently, 88% of all domain name registrations with NSI are for the .COM domain
name space. NSI is registering an estimated 3,000 new domain names a day at
$100 a registration. It has already registered over 1.4 million domain names.
RFC1591 had not envisaged a registrar being embroiled in legal disputes over
domain name rights. However, the Juris, Inc., MTV, Hasbro Inc. cases, held that
domain names were subject to trademark law. The growing problem of domain
name hoarding/piracy by individuals and entities in anticipation of a pay-off from
well-established trademark registrants unwittingly drew NSI into legal disputes
between domain name holders and trademark registrants. Consequently, in July
1995, NSI released a guideline document for disputes entitled "The New Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy."
With the increase in the number of cases and their increased complexity, NSI felt
compelled to revise its policy and did so on September 9, 1996. Consequently,
under the revised policy, upon the mere furnishing of proof of a trademark
registration by a trademark registrant, the burden of proof moved to the domain
name holder to show within thirty days:
The existence of a corresponding trademark registration to its domain name; or
Evidence of litigation in any court of competent jurisdiction; or
An indication of a willingness to be assigned a new domain name in substitute for
the domain name in dispute.
Thereafter, NSI would determine whether or not to place the domain name on
hold and in effect end the commercial viability of the corresponding Web site.
Issues of due process and breach of contract immediately come to mind until you
realise you have already signed your rights away! How? The guidelines are
incorporated by reference into your contract with NSI. All you have is a two year
right to use the domain name unless NSI sees it otherwise.
NSI's Dispute Resolution Policy does not take account of the fact that the domain
name holder may have either a state trademark registration and/or common law
rights in a domain name arising out of use. All that the policy does do is highlight
the disparity between domain names and trademarks; namely, that currently
there can only be one global domain name. The holder of the domain name is
then in the enviable position of "winner takes all." This is to the detriment of all
other users of the name regardless of whether their use is related to different
goods or services and occurred only in, for example Arizona or Afghanistan.
On the other hand, under US trademark law, intellectual property rights may arise
out of use and be protected by state registrations or federal registrations or the
assertion of common law rights. However, trademark law is created, developed
and enforced on a territorial basis. Wherein, organisations and individuals are
able to co-exist through the provision of an international trademark classification
system.
Thus, in the recent dispute between Prince plc versus Prince Sports Group, Inc.
over the domain name PRINCE.COM, Prince plc being a purveyor of computer
training and technical services could co-exist under trademark law with Prince
Sports Group Inc., a producer of tennis rackets in trademark classes 41 and 28
respectively.
The effect of the Dispute Resolution Policy is to encourage registrants to assert
their rights in a manner that would not otherwise be afforded it by a court.
Consequently, it has led to an increased number of innocent bona fide domain
name holders being placed under attack by aggressive trademark registrants who
in effect attempt reverse hijacking of a domain name. For example, Prince plc
had enjoyed two years of unopposed use of PRINCE.COM prior to Prince Sports
Group attempting to use the Dispute Resolution Policy to get the domain name.
The private nature of the Dispute Resolution Policy Guidelines has enabled NSI
to change and vary both the content and interpretation of the meaning of the
guidelines. This has led to a great deal of speculation as to the meaning of the
actual policy. For example, section 7 provides for litigation to be in "any court of
competent jurisdiction in the United States". This has been interpreted by NSI to
mean any court that is held to be competent by the US judicial system.
Accordingly, Harrods and Prince plc were able to bring actions in defence of their
.COM domain names in the UK courts. One should observe that the number of
legal disputes directly involving NSI only amounts to some 30 or so cases, this
figure pales into insignificance against the daily registration average of 3,000 or
so new domain name holders. With a total to date of 1.4 million domain names.
The scope of contractual liability of the ISP and/or the registrar such as NSI is
another area of great concern. Issues such as the extent of the agency role of
the ISP for and on behalf of NSI is not clear. There is a need for a standard
indemnification clause in the ISP contract, that specifies that the domain name
holder indemnifies the ISP from liability in any infringement action brought by a
trademark registrant against the domain name holder. Further, there needs to be
a disclaimer placed within the ISP contract explaining that the domain name
holder does not own the domain name, but merely has right of use. On the latter
point, it is interesting to note that NSI has claimed the intellectual property rights
in the central database. That is to say, it believes NSI has the intellectual
property rights relating to the .COM domain name space. This raises really
serious issues as to the ownership and use of the existing .COM domain names
after the co-operation agreement between NSF and NSI lapses on April 1, 1998.
Whereas, the number of legal questions pertaining to domain names are legion
and seem to multiply exponentially by the day, the amount of case law is myopic
and the experience of the judiciary with regard to domain name disputes is very
limited. This can only lead to a great deal of uncertainty and chaos in the short
term, prior to there being a body of mature case law and statute in order to foster
a satisfactory legal framework for domain names.
The recent investigation by the Department of Justice into alleged anti-trust
violations by Network Solutions, Inc. has raised the issue of why was it that the
US Government created a contractual monopoly in the first place?
The first point is that the NSI monopoly only relates to the TLDs and that there
are some 200 registries around the world that administer the country code
domains and their respective SLDs. Therefore, strictly speaking, NSI does not
enjoy a monopoly within the administration of the Domain Name System per se.
The second point is that the Domain Name System is hierarchical and as such
requires the existence of an alpha master server, i.e. the creation of a natural
monopoly. The third and most important point is the fact that the monopoly
concerns only arose when NSI started to make money for, in particular, the
registration of .COM domain names. Ironically, NSI states in the documents it
filed in support of its IPO that it lost money in 1995 and only broke even in 1996.
In other words, it is only now beginning to make a profit.
The events of the early part of the morning of July 18, 1997 highlighted some of
the other problems with the current Domain Name System. Due to human error
at Network Solutions, Inc., a corrupted database was replicated down within the
zone file to the root servers. NSI recognised the problem and rectified it within
less than five hours of its occurrence. However, it transpired that perhaps no
more than two other root servers had any software in place to detect corrupt files.
This vulnerability of the root servers is further exacerbated by the fact that the
vast majority of people administering the Domain Name System are volunteers.
They come to the job not with a certificate of competency or a pay cheque, but
with a love for the Internet. In most cases this would not be critical. However, as
the Internet becomes a significant commercial market place, it is essential that its
DNS administration is fully professional and adheres to the highest standards
possible, in order that there is a stable, robust and online market place in
cyberspace. It should also be noted that although we are moving towards BIND
Version 8. Currently very few of the root servers are using BIND 8.
2. How might current Domain Name Systems be improved?
The current Domain Name System may be improved by the
implementation of the
following principles: evolution not revolution, the creation of a Domain Name
System that is representative, accountable and responsible to all of the
stakeholders in the Internet. The solution must be international in scope,
commercial in nature, and definitive in its legal framework.
International i.e. representing all of the countries that use the Internet.
Representative of all the stakeholders: governments, legal institutions,
commercial entities, technologists and users.
The DNS must make its legislators, administrators and managers
accountable to
the treaty member governments of any new DNS and to its consumers.
Responsible such that all of their actions, decisions and new initiatives
must be
open, capable of change and scrutiny where necessary.
The DNS should be a commercial resource set within the context of
being in the
public trust.
There needs to be a single, integrated Internet.
There should be the ability to have shared access to the central database by the
registries.
All entities involved in the administration and governance of the Internet require a
proper legal standing and well-defined funding mechanism. Accordingly, a treaty
is needed to establish a new Domain Name System. This treaty should enable
there to be a partnership between government and industry, whereby,
government provides oversight and legitimacy and industry provides a self-governance model and
technical infrastructure to the new DNS.
NOTE: It is preferable that reform occur sooner rather than later, in that
the system
is currently small comprising approximately 1.4 million domain name holders,
whereas by the year 2002 there maybe as many as 600 million domain name
holders.
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?
There should be a secretariat and policy making body. The secretariat
should
support the policy making body and oversee the DNS. The policy-making body
should develop policies, rules and regulations for the Internet including the DNS.
3.1 Administrative framework
Registries
Each country should have a registry maintained by a registrar to administer the
domain names under the country code and respective SLDs. A domain name
should only be issued to an individual or entity who resides in the country
represented by the particular country code. Thereby maintaining the integrity of the
designation of origin status commonly associated with addressing and trademark
law. With regard to the TLDs, they should be issued in principle to entities that
operate networks, non-commercial and commercial operations in more than one
sovereign country, i.e. are international in character.
The registries should be supported by fees from their ISPs for domain name
registrations. Each registrar of a registry should submit once a year an operations
report to the policy making body of the DNS. The operations report should provide
statistics on registration numbers and revenues derived, information on current
operational resources and future plans to upgrade resources and train staff.
Regulations should be put in place to ensure quality and standards of registry
performance that ensure a stable, robust and scaleable DNS. All employees who
administer the Domain Name System should have to meet certain minimum
competency standards determined by a practical and theoretical examination. Also,
their equipment should meet specified minimum standards set by the policy-making
body. Also, an inspectorate should be established to ensure that standards defined
by the policy making body are adhered to by the registries as to the quality and
competency of their staff, equipment and facilities. All registries should be
inspected at least once a year.
Every registry should have adequate security and virus checking software, back-up
facilities and a 24 hour help desk. Quality assurance and service are paramount.
There should be a central registry in place to protect the domain names of Internet
users around the world. Therefore, at no time would a domain name holder lose his
domain name even if its country registry went down.
Root Servers
The central database facility and root servers should be governed by similar
principles and supervisory systems as the registries. For example, root server
administrators should have to pass competency examinations, root servers should
have security and virus detection software on them, and the alpha server
administrator should be able to ensure coverage for any root server should it go
down. The importance of the root servers and central database is such that they
should be financed out of fees levied on all ISPs.
Registration Procedure
A prospective domain name holder would apply for a domain name space via an
ISP and have to pay a fee for the service. The ISP would interrogate the country
registry in order to check for the availability of the domain name space applied for.
If it appeared to be available, the ISP would: file an application, take the domain
name holder's fee, notify the domain name holder that such an individual / entity did
not own the domain name, but merely had a right of use bequeathed upon it by the
registry, and have the domain name holder indemnify the ISP against any threat of
trademark infringement litigation.
If the application was successful, the ISP would issue a contract evidencing the
arrangement between the ISP and the domain name holder. The latter would have
three days to decline the terms of the contract. The contract should state that the
ISP would be indemnified from any trademark infringement action that may be
brought by a third party with respect to the domain name. It would also state in
clear terms the responsibilities and liabilities of the ISP to the domain name holder
and the extent to which the ISP could hold itself out as being a representative or
agent of the registry.
The registry, upon receipt of the registration and application fee, would conduct a
domain space and trademark search. The trademark search would be carried out
by a competent examiner capable of carrying out a search of the appropriate
Federal/National/State Trademark registry databases as well as those of the
respective Secretary of States' Corporation database (within the US). If it appeared
to the examiner that the domain name space was available, then the domain name
space applicant would have the application published on a notice server for sixty
days. In the opposition period, a third party may file an opposition to the domain
name holders application. Grounds for such an opposition would include but not be
limited to the third party having pre-existing trademark rights; the domain name
holder's application / registration being obtained through fraud; and/or the legal
incompetence of the domain name applicant to obtain a domain name registration.
Also, the examiner may deny an application on grounds not only of unavailability,
but also on the basis that the issuance of the domain name space would not be in
the public interest.
Finally, certain domain names would be restricted to certain domain name spaces.
For example, all sites related to content of a sexual nature, should be restricted to
sites that have reference in their domain name to the word "sex."
Domain name status
Domain name registrations should be for ten years, renewable in the last six months
of the period for further periods of five years. However, domain names that have
not been used continuously for two years may have their registration revoked upon
the bringing of a challenge by a third party. If a revocation petition is filed by a third
party, the registrar shall give the domain name holder registrant sixty days from the
time of notice of the challenge to appeal against the prospect of revocation.
Revocation should not be granted if the domain name holder demonstrates that
there has been continuous use or that within the next three months the said holder
intends to actively use the domain space once again. The latter defence by a
domain name holder shall be accepted at the discretion of the examiner.
THE POLITICAL FRAMEWORK
1. The Self-Governing Body: introduction
The urgency of the call for a commercial self-governing body should be understood.
There is a need to define how governance would be conducted and what checks
and balances would be provided to make the system accountable and not subject
to abuse. What follows is a detailed structure of the proposed governing bodies.
While some may consider the proposal to be a complex solution, we consider it
essential to have a structure that will be able to effectively manage the Internet
during its evolution into a mature system of governance, able to accommodate
the explosive levels of growth that the Internet is undergoing both now and during
the next five years. As such it provides the appropriate legal framework.
The self-governing body comprises a policy making
body and a secretariat.
The procedures of the policy making body should be dynamic and flexible
in order
to mirror the dynamic environment of the Internet, wherein a year is not a
calendar year, but in a most cases a four month cycle.
The policies of the policy-making body should be administered and supported by
the Secretariat. The Secretariat should comprise of five departments:
government, administration, legal, technological, and consumer.
3.21 The Policy Making Body
The policy-making body would comprise of two chambers - Upper and
Lower
Houses. All its members serving for renewable two year terms.
Upper House
The Upper House would consist of two elements, a Permanent
Council and a
legislative body.
The Permanent Council would consist of one government
representative from each
of the ten largest Internet markets (in terms of use). Each permanent council
member would have veto power over legislation and the findings of any
investigative committees set up in the Upper House. The permanent council would
be able to initiate "fast track" policy, rules and regulation on the basis of a two-thirds
vote of all of the permanent council members in favor of such action. Fast track
means it shall, where necessary, be able to promulgate policy, rules and regulation
within sixty days. However, all acts initiated under the "fast track" mechanism would
have to be subsequently ratified by a two-thirds majority of both houses.
The Legislative Body of the Upper House would be on the basis of one
seat per
country signing the Treaty constituting the new self-governing framework. By a
vote of 75% or more of the membership of the Upper House, other countries may be
added to the body subsequent to the initial constitution of the Upper House. All
proposed changes to the rules, regulations and policies of the Internet should
require a two-thirds majority vote.
The Lower House shall be of equal status to the Upper House. Where a dispute
over proposed regulations, rules or policy arises, there shall be a committee of both
houses to resolve the differences and to formulate the new rules, regulations and
policies. The committee will comprise five permanent council members of each of
the Houses and will be expected to approve findings and/or prospective legislation
on the basis of a simple majority.
A quorum for the purposes of meeting shall mean not less than 34% of the members
of the Lower House are present within the House assembly when a roll call is made
by the speaker of the Lower House. A quorum for the purposes of voting shall
mean not less than two-thirds of the members are present at roll call.
Lower House
The Lower House shall comprise of a Permanent
Council and a Legislative
Body.
The Permanent Council shall comprise of the commercial
representatives from the
ten largest Internet nations. It shall operate in a similar manner to that described
with regard to the permanent council of the Upper House. Except that a veto by a
member of the permanent council of the Lower House may be overridden by a
simple majority of the members of the Upper House permanent council. Why the
latter? Ultimately, public trust should prevail over commercial expediency.
The Legislative Body shall comprise of delegations from each of the
countries
whose member governments ratified the treaty constituting the self-governing body.
It shall operate in a similar manner to that described for the Upper legislative body,
for example, rules regarding quorums for meetings. All votes on policies, rules and
regulations effecting the Internet shall require a two-thirds majority.
The representatives of the Upper House are appointees of the respective
governments, the delegates of the Lower House will come from nationally
recognised and legitimate bodies that represent the stakeholders of the Internet, for
example, the American Bar Association, the Information Technology Association of
America, the American Management Association. There should be representatives
(no more than 3 per caucus) from the legal, technological, consumer, and
commercial communities within each country delegation. The head of the
commercial community caucus shall act as the spokesman for the delegation.
Committees
Ad Hoc Committees
Ad hoc investigative committees may be convened by the Upper or Lower House.
All such committees require a simple majority vote by their respective house to
approve their convening, the composition of their committee and the scope of their
investigation. Their findings and recommended actions shall require the approval of
a simple majority of the house in order for them to be acted upon.
Departmental Committees
The Upper and Lower House shall convene committees to oversee and direct the
five departments of the secretariat. These committees shall consist of ten house
members, five from the upper and five from the Lower House. Committee
resolutions shall be by a simple majority. Committee members shall serve for
renewable terms of one year. All findings by such committees shall be submitted to
the two houses for action. The chairperson of the committee shall come from the
stakeholder community that the committee is ultimately following. For example, if
the committee is overseeing the legal department, then a member of the legal
caucus should chair the committee. Committee membership shall be by secret
ballot and held within the legislative body of the two respective houses. With regard
to a governmental committee it shall be the exclusive domain of the Upper House.
Similarly, the commercial committee shall be the exclusive domain of the Lower
House.
Miscellaneous: rules and procedures and constitutional considerations
It is suggested sessions/timetables of the new upper and Lower House should
follow the pattern of the sessions/timetable of the United Nations.
Each House should elect a speaker who shall oversee and maintain the order,
procedures and protocols of the respective houses. Where there is a tied vote
within a house the speaker shall have the determining vote.
All votes shall be by secret ballot.
Upon a resolution by a House passed by simple majority an independent council
may be appointed to initiate impeachment proceedings with regard to a member.
Upon the conclusion of a independent council's investigation, a recommendation
shall be submitted to the House that initiated the proceedings whether to do
nothing, censure or expel the member. Such action will require a simple majority of
the House.
Any changes to the self-governing body shall require two thirds majority of both the
Upper and Lower House in order to be ratified and become part of the constitution
of the self-governing body.
3.22 Secretariat
Government Department
The Government Department should liase and co-ordinate the activities of the legislative
bodies with the
respective treaty member states governments. It shall submit annually to all treaty member state a
report of the
activities of the self-governing bodies. It shall draft all prospective legislation. It will also provide
the
logistical and functional support to any investigation sanctioned by the legislated bodies.
Administrative department
The administrative department shall be responsible for the accountancy function, legal
representation and
issues arising out of activities by the secretariat and legislative bodies, marketing, public relations
and sales
aspects of the self-governing body. It shall ensure the smooth running of the self-governing body.
The Legal Department
The Legal department shall provide research and counsel for all the activities of the secretariat
and legislative
bodies. It shall create and run working groups investigating the following areas of law,
international conflicts
of law, intellectual property law, contractual law, constitutional law, telecommunications and
computer law,
and any other law impacted by the Internet. It shall submit annual reports on developments in
these respective
areas of the law to the legal committees of the upper and Lower House. It shall also have an
office of
independent council who shall investigate any breaches of the constitution and/or laws by
members of the self-governing bodies. Finally, it shall be responsible for the constitution of the
self-governing body and ensure
that its policies and procedures are current and modified as directed by the legislated bodies.
The Technology Department
The technology department should administer and maintain the hardware, software and
telecoms systems
pertaining to the Domain Name System. It should also set up working groups with regard to the
respective
Internet standards and liase with pre-existing Internet standards bodies including, but not limited
to, the
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Advisory Board (IAB), the Internet
Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) and the American Registry for Internet numbers (ARIN). It shall ensure that
all registries
and administrators for the self-governing body comply with all the standards relating to the
Domain Name
System, for example RFC2010.
Commercial Department
The Commercial Department shall support the activities of commercial entities wishing to do
business on the
Internet. As well as the activities of Internet service providers and other IT organisations
involved with the
infrastructure of the Domain Name System and/or the Internet. It will oversee and draft
regulations and rules
promulgated by the legislated bodies with regard to commercial activity on the Internet. For
example, rules
relating to advertising on the Internet. By virtue of the fact that it will be the commercial entities
who finance
the new Domain Name System, the commercial department that shall include a financial arm
which shall
oversee the distribution of funds designed to ensure the maintenance and development of the
Domain Name
System.
Consumer Department
This department will have a mandate to protect the rights of individual consumers who use
the Internet. It
shall have an Ombudsman who can investigate complaints, impose regulations and sanctions upon
offending
entities. The fees charged by the registries and Internet service providers will also be subject to
review by the
Ombudsman.
The underlying registries shall pay a fee to the self-governing bodies. The registries will be
permitted to act
for profit and therefore charge Internet Service Providers within their registry territory. Within
the
administration of domain names. In turn the Internet service providers may charge end-users for
domain
names.
4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as models for deciding
on domain name registration systems (eg 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 (eg. 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?
1. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as models?
The FCC in its trials and tribulations over the telephone numbering issue
(1-800) clearly came up with a structure and mechanism in the North American Numbering
Plan (NANP)
which would be useful as a model or a case study of how the reform of the Domain Name System
may be
undertaken. It is clear that where there is a resolve and a determination to find a solution, it is
never out of
reach. It is to be noted that one of the issues that arose out of the 1-800 issue was that of
ensuring that an
organisation not only got the requested 1-800 number, if it was available, but also, those numbers
which
were immediately surrounding that number. In light of the NASA.ORG and NASA.COM
incident
recently it is perhaps important to consider whether a prospective domain name holder may be
able to get
other domain names that are considered as being in close proximity to the domain name.
4.2 The Role of Government
1. Provides legitimacy
There is no doubt that there needs to be government involvement, but it must be well-defined
and have a basis
for its legal standing. Therefore, either an international organisation such as the United Nations,
or an
internationally recognised body with the delegated authority to confer effective legal standing
upon a self-governing body will be required. Consequently, a treaty signed at inter-government
level seems the
appropriate mechanism to legitimise any self-governing body.
1. Provides oversight
The danger of a self-governing body becoming "a law unto itself" requires that it be held
accountable to those
treaty member governments that constituted it in the first place. Accordingly, there is a need for
some
form of oversight by government. Only government is likely to protect all the vested interests in
the new
Domain Name System and the rights of parties both large and small who may use the Internet in
the future.
5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (eg .COM), be retired from
circulation? Should geographic or country codes (eg., US) be required? If so,
what should happen to the .COM registry? Are gTLD management issues
separable from questions about International Standards Organisation (ISO)
country code domains?
5.1 TLDs
Historically speaking .NET referred to network providers ie NIC and NOC computers,
administrative
computers and network node computers, whereas .ORG was for "organizations that did not fit
anywhere
else" (RFC 1591). Due to the self evident vagueness of these definitions, a divergent range of
entities have
obtained these TLDs. Accordingly, it would seem appropriate to either redefine .NET and
.ORG, or to
close them to further additions. Because some rather notable entities have already utilised these
domain
name spaces it would seem ill-advisable to retire them from circulation. Thus, the .NET should
refer to a
server directly involved in the DNS infrastructure. The .ORG domain name space should refer to
any non-commercial entities. The .MIL, .EDU and .GOV domain name spaces should remain and
be administered
individually within their respective communities.
5.2 Country codes
To the extent that is practical, entities who do business exclusively in the US should be
required to use .us and
the country code as is required of all other domain name holders around the world. The clear
exception
to this rule should be the .COM domain name space. The country codes provide a key to issues of
venue
and jurisdiction defining where a dispute arises between a domain name holder and a trademark
registrant,
in that the prevailing law should be that of the domain name holder.
5.3 However .COM remains
The .COM domain name space should be retained because:
The .COM domain name space could be used:
1. To support existing famous trademarks and domain names which represent multinational
companies.
2. Entities that exist in countries or industrial sectors that necessitate anonymity. For
example, a
corporation in Israel may wish to do business globally, but is precluded from so doing due to the
embargo.
3. Existing companies that have incorporated into their marketing strategies reference to
their .COM
domain name space and have incurred large expenditures in the support and development of their
existing Websites.
4. The .COM domain is seen as a global designate for commercial activities. The word
"Com" can be
transliterated as an abbreviation for commerce in many languages and as such, further supports
the
global positioning. Consequently, in the commercial world, the proposal to scrap the .COM
domain
name space, for example, in favor of use of .co, .us, would be viewed with outright hostility. In
particular, in light of the fact that compliance with the move from the .COM domain name space
to
the .US domain name space would be costly in both time and money. For example email post
office
administrators would have a huge and complex task in order to reconfigure their post offices from
.COM to .Co or .US. (Please note that a global/international business should be deemed as one
which
derives or intends to derive at least 10% of its business revenue outside the country in which it is
registered as its principle place of doing business).
The .COM domain names could coexist:
The .COM domain names space could be expanded by allowing the
browser, upon selection of a domain
name, to provide a drop down menu. All entities which share that domain name space eg
PRINCE.COM
would have a drop down menu which would identify that there is a corporation producing tennis
rackets in
the US and a corporation providing IT services in the UK. The user could then select the
appropriate
domain name and folder. Thereafter be taken off to the appropriate Website. The drop down
menu would
reflect in its methodology the international trademark classification system and ISO codes in its
determination of the different entities that share the same domain name space.
5.4 TLD and ISO management are separable
TLD management occurs in the US. ISO management arises in and out of the host
country. The sticking
point is the management of the .COM domain names base in that its management and perceived
value has
been global in scope and demand. Companies with global business aspirations and/or actual
business
coupled with those desiring to penetrate the US market view the .COM domain name space as a
vital
entreé. Consequently many businesses around the world have both the .COM and their
corresponding
commercial country code domain name space designation. Interestingly enough, the use of the
.COM
domain name space has created problems with regard to commercial email. For example, where is
jsmith@microsoft.COM actually located? Thus there does seem to be a good case for those
organizations
using .COM to also have a correspondingly commercial domain name space at the country code
level so
that people know where they are.
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?
There have been cases where a dispute has arisen between a trademark registrant and a
domain name
holder where the court has directed that the parties share the same domain name space through
either a
drop down menu or icons. Upon selection of the domain name space by a user, the user is
offered a choice
as to which of the respective web sites the user wishes to visit.
Registrars, gTLDs and Root Servers
There is a need to separate the powers and administrative tasks with regard to the DNS.
Whereas, the
operational management of the DNS that occurs at root server level should remain non-profit, the
registration of the TLDs and SLDs should be on a for profit basis. The rationale of this approach
is that
the DNS architecture requires administrators who merely manage the system and ensure its
day-to-day
continuance. Such persons or entities who make determinations as to who should be on the
database and
who should not be on, should not be motivated by money. The determination should be made
merely on
the basis of availability.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that the TLDs and SLDs have become electronic brand
names and as such
warrant commercial value.
Clearly, the party providing the domain name space owes a duty of care and has a contract to
ensure the
availability and maintenance of what is offered as a domain name space to the end user. However,
the
liability of the administrator of the root server should exclusively begin and end there.
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 co-ordinate?
We could attempt to rationalise the disposition of current IP addresses. Recover delegated
but unused IP
addresses if not already used - perhaps develop the class D and E addresses.
However in the long term DNS needs to take account of IP version 6 and BIND version 8.
For example IP
version 6 will move from a 32 bit Internet address value to 128 bit, alleviating enormously the
demand for
IP addresses. Finally, there will be a need, when IP version 6 is made available, to rationalise the
process
by which blocks of IP addresses are given to ISPs in order to ensure the most efficacious use of
this
resource and avoid a repeat of what has happened up to now.
Although the domain name system allows up to 24 channels including 0-9, A-Z and hence
delivering 3722
permutations of the .COM domain name system, the real issue of domain names is that multiple
organisations cannot share the same domain name.
As long as this is the case there will always be competition for a source resource.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
There is a need to form a joint government commercial task force to:
Ensure that all the relevant stakeholders have been informed of issues surrounding the
reform and
privatisation of the Domain Name System and give an opportunity to respond and provide input
into the
process through a series of worldwide summits.
Formulate a plan based on all current proposals and comment on the Domain Name
System.
Post on the Internet and in all relevant media for a period of 30 days the proposed draft
plan.
Formulate and post on the Internet for comment for 30 days. The technical specifications
for the new
system to the IETF.
Approve of the technical specification and creation of the appropriate software. Also
conduct a pilot test of
the software and then roll out to a control group the complete solution for analysis and
evaluation.
Purchase of relevant hardware and software, buildings and hiring of personnel with regard
to the new
system.
Select and elect members and delegates to the legislative bodies and appoint the
secretariat.
Creation of rules, regulations, procedures, constitution and all enabling laws in treaty
member states to
enable the system to go live.
Select and appoint registries and approve their respective administrators.
On completion of the above the Domain Name System can go live.
It is anticipated that it would take at least 18 months to complete all the above.
Therefore, in the
meantime, NSI should be given an extension to operate through the transition period.
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
There are other issues, but these will require subsequent submissions.
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations that constrain
the total number of different gTLDs that can be created
Although there are no real technical limitations to the number of gTLDs that could
be created, there are practical and policy considerations that should constrain
the total number of different gTLDs that are created. An increase in the number
of gTLDs will place a greater burden on the administration and maangement of
the TLD domain name space.
With every additional relevant domain name space, a large organisation or entity
will feel compelled to obtain each and every relevant domain name space.
Therefore if the rational for the new domain names was to facilitate the inclusion
of new domain name holders, the reality is that large multinationals are far better
placed to take advantage of the new domain name spaces and have more of a
motivation in the short term so to do. Consequently, there will still be a fight for
the finite number of domain name spaces available.
Each additional gTLD, in particular if no standard or guidelines are offered, acts as
the basis for further litigation over domain name spaces. The motivation for the
litigation may vary from the mere vague and ambiguous words in which the
domain name space definition is couched, to the perceived value of the domain
name space. For example, in relation to the .arts Domain Name Space proposed
by the gTLD MOU, what is meant by the word "culture" may vary between the
opinions of Senator Helms and the late Mr Robert Maplethorpe!.
In short, it appears that unless the new gTLDs are accompanied by clear and
coherent definitions and standards/guidelines as to their interpretation, that these
additions become more of a problem than a solution.
11. Should additional g-TLDs be created
No. Instead the existing .COM Domain Name System should be expanded as
suggested earlier and the .US domain space should be utilised by non-multinational organisations
whose primary markets are in the United States.
Outside the US, entities should be encouraged to seek country code domain
names in accordance with the guidelines of their local registry. The exception to
this rule should be those multinationals etc who seek a .COM domain name
space.
Please note that a global international business should be deemed as one which
derives or intends to derive at least 10% of its business revenue outside of the
country in which it is registered as its principle place of doing business.
Due to the unique nature of the gTLDs a higher fee could be charged for initial
setup. The extra fee would justify the added expenses due to its global nature
and perceived prestige in the market place.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the
scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of
gTLDs?
To the extent that the DNS is finite, it leads some to fear they will be left out.
However, the theoretical availability of the .COM domain name space is 3722
which suggests that it represents only a remote likelihood. Practical limits on the
system may suggest it is a limit of approximately 1 billion records - enough for
now - but changes will be needed later. In short, there is manageable scalability
sufficient to meet current demand, and that is the message that needs to be
made. More to the point is that with the introduction of each new gTLD the
likelihood of litigation due to the uncertainty or increased demand goes up
considerably. Obviously a new gTLD means more work for the DNS operations
administrator, but if the manager of the American Numbering plan can cope, I am
sure the DNS manager should also be able to handle the load.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO
country code domains?
gTLDs, in their administration, have taken on a global dimension and as such
require a global perspective. Whereas, country code domains require only
consideration within a territorial, legal, technical and administrative frame of
reference.
TLD management is further complicated by the fact that it falls into two areas that
can either be combined (as presently in the case of NSI) or separated due to
demand:
DNS Operations service provision, i.e., the management of the actual
central
database and the configuration file; the configuration, maintenance, modification,
and (when necessary) upgrading of the BIND software.
Registry services i.e. the provision of registration policy and
administration,
including the review, delegation and when appropriate, confiscation of domain
names. The focus is on: the investigation into the availability of a domain name;
the ensuring of its appropriate delegation, and where necessary, the resolution of
disputes of domain names via arbitration.
On the other hand, due to lower levels of demand than TLDs, country code
management can afford to combine the services and still provide adequate
coverage for its territory.
Finally, it should be observed that the TLD registry is often distracted by increased
levels of litigation activity surrounding the application and use of the TLD domain
name space. Alternatively, country code management faces no where near the
same level of litigious activity.
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
None, at this time.
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?
Exclusive control over a TLD.
The server model of the DNS requires that there be one primary or master server
that replicates down. Thus, the system does promote the delegation of a specific
TLD to a specific registrar with regard to operational management. However, this
does not mean that there can not be competition for the award of the registrations
of TLDs. This competition could be further fostered through shared access to the
TLD database. Therefore, the operation managers competitive edge rests in how
effectively he administers the system. On the other hand users will only register
with an efficient and cost effective registration administrator.
Technical limitations on using shared registries
As long as the software being used is interoperable and configured to facilitate
shared access to the registries, there is no real technical reason why it cannot be
achieved.
Co-existence of exclusive and non-exclusive g-TLDs
Exclusivity is a matter of function not technology. The latter will allow for the co-existence of
exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs. But, such a co-existence may
foster confusion in the minds of the consumer and a fear of fragmentation.
However, the system will break down rapidly if the links and pointers in the
software are not maintained.
It is likely that non-exclusive gTLDs, due to competition, will cost less than exclusive
gTLDs and therefore the market may force out exclusive gTLD registries.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars?
Who will determine these and how?
The requirements should ensure quality of service and competent execution.
Operations administrators must have experience (a minimum of three years) and a
defined level of skill, e.g. CNE, MCSE etc. Registration administrators must have
both experience/technical qualifications with the Internet and legal/examiner
competency/qualifications, e.g. three years experience at their respective PTO.
With time, a standardised exam should be introduced and there should be periodic
inspections of sites to ensure competency.
The registrar must submit a specification of resources including:
The IP address of the two principle servers (that must be operationally independent
of each other) and the identity of all other relevant hardware, software and
personnel. The submission must include reference to resources to maintain and
update all records of servers, nodes, domain name holders, back-up facilities,
software to detect and remedy viruses, to provide adequate security, the provision
of power supply back-up and a mirror site in order to ensure minimal downtime of
the servers and loss of records. The site must demonstrate robustness, scaleability
and interoperability. It must run on the server (at least BIND version 4.9 with a plan
to move to BIND version 8). There must be an undertaking to ensure compliance
with RFC2010. The site must demonstrate its adherence with RFC's 974, 1034,
1035, 2065, 2136, 1996 and 1995. Also, a plan must be in place to ensure the
compliance within one year of starting operations with RFC's 1886 and 1884.
The prospective registry must submit a three-year operations and financial plan.
With regard to the latter, the entity shall have to demonstrate the existence of a $1
million comprehensive liability insurance and $500 000 working capital.
In the case of the Alpha registrar, in addition to the specification of requirements as
stated above, it must demonstrate a plan to ensure that the server will never go
down for more than five hours at a time and during such time there is an adequate
back-up in place. It must also provide an undertaking that all records received for
one day will be replicated down through the DNS tree by no later than the day and a
half after being so received.
Requirements as to the domain name registries/registrars will need to be
established through the policy making body. Similarly they will need to be
supervised by an inspectorate trained and capable of supervising domain name
registry operations.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?
Yes, the number of ISO country code domains and TLD's will define the number of
registrars. There should be a registrar for each country, and one for .COM, .NET,
.ORG, .EDU, .MIL and .GOV.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space
raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
The increase in the number of domain name registrars will in the short term require
greater technical skills to ensure the correct configuration of the files. Such skills
are in very short supply. Also, it may lead to a need to separate the TLD and root
name servers in order to optimise the administration of the DNS. As a practical
matter, there are obviously increased administrative headaches with regard to
keeping all of the domain name registrars in the loop and connected to all the other
respective domain name registrars.
19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLD's a given registrar
can administer? Does this depend on whether the registrar has an exclusive
or non-exclusive rights to the gTLD?
As a matter of principle a registrar should be allowed to operate only one registry at
a time. By so doing, the registrar will be able to concentrate his skills on one TLD,
and thereby, be able to specialise and maintain a high standard and quality of
service.
As stated earlier, there is a need to ensure that there is only one registrar
controlling the operations administrative aspect of each of the TLDs. It is suggested
that the operations function be carried out under an exclusive licence. However, the
registration function does not necessarily need to be exclusive, but can be offered
by a number of entities within a commercially competitive environment via a shared
database. Thereby ensuring that the end user obtains a professional and cost-efficient registering
service for its domain name.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
There are issues but it is not appropriate to raise it at this time.
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?
With the establishment of domain names as electronic brand names and their
subjection to trademark law, there seems no alternative but to protect all trademark
rights that may exist in domain names. However, because in so many ways
currently a domain name is inconsistent with trademark law concepts and analysis,
it must be deemed a sub-set made distinct by its anomalies. For example, domain
names preclude the co-existence of businesses on the Internet that offer different
goods or services, because domain names are unique.
It should be ensured that any domain name application that is purely motivated by a
desire for piracy should be denied as a matter of policy. A simple test of legitimacy
should be applied at the time of the application, like requiring the production of, for
example, a company registration number, copies of the audited company accounts
etc.
There should be no limitation on the number of corresponding domain names to
trademarks that a corporation can attain. This is merely good housekeeping on the
part of the corporation. Further, a corporation should be allowed to register a
domain name consistent with its company name.
There needs to be consideration as to how to protect not only famous trademarks,
but also secondary or inherently weaker marks that are operating as domain names,
which are no less important to the corporate trademark registrant.
Finally, there needs to be a serious review of the implications of the Hasbro case
and its interpretations of the 1995 Federal Trademark Dilution Act. This is because
the decision is so pervasive that it may consequently usher in a wave of vexatious
litigation, the likes of which has not yet been seen in this area of the law.
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 process of preliminary review of an application for a domain
name prior to its registration and issuance. I would refer you back to my response
to question 3.
Components of a preliminary review should include: searches for the availability of
the prospective domain name and the existence of any relevant trademarks. Also,
there should be a period of publication/opposition, in which a trademark registrant is
given an opportunity to challenge a prospective domain name applicant. Finally,
there should be a declaration by the prospective domain name holder of an intent to
use the domain name within three months of it being issued.
The standards that should be applied to the preliminary review should be that of a
reasonable trademark/domain name examiner.
The preliminary review should be conducted by an individual who is competent to
carry out such an examination. Such an examiner should have at least three years
experience at the Patent and Trademark Office or the equivalent.
Where there is a conflict between a prospective domain name holder's application
and a cited trademark registration, the domain name holder will have 30 days to
overcome the conflict to the examiner's objections to the domain name application.
At the end of the 30 day period the examiner may: decline to register the domain
name due to the cited reference or allow it to be registered with the proviso that its
use shall be exclusively limited to the domain name space or allow for unlimited use
of the domain name. In other words, where the examiner directs that there shall only
be a limited right of use of the domain name, it shall act as merely an addressing
mechanism.
The determination of the examiner is final. Any appeal should be on the basis of an
error in fact or law and a petition should be made to the appropriate Trademark
Appellate Court.
1. Aside from a preliminary process, how should trademark rights be
protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names? What entity(iies), 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?
Trademark rights should be asserted by trademark holders and relief sought
through the courts. Jurisdiction and venue for the seeking of such relief shall be
in the territory in which the domain name holder resides. As a matter of principle
the registry shall promote the use of arbitration or informal negotiations between
the parties. In the spirit of RFC1591 the role of the registry shall be limited to
merely informing the parties of a dispute and facilitating their exchange of contact
information. It shall in no way involve itself in the dispute between the parties, in
particular, it shall not place any domain name on hold, but bind itself to the
decision of the court or arbitrator as the case may be.
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?
I refer you to my answer to questions 3, 22 and 23 respectively.
In addition, I would state that conflicts over trademarks would be reduced through
the use of the international classification scheme within the .COM domain name
space. Thereby, allowing parties with different goods and services to co-exist over
the Internet rather than pushing them towards unnecessary litigation in an attempt
to overcome the unnatural limitation of the DNS system and its inevitable result that
the winner takes all.
There is no doubt that a global database of all trademarks/servicemarks/ domain
names and company names needs to be created. Such a database should be
placed under the control of the self-governing body running the Internet. The
secretariat of the self-governing body would be the appropriate resource to create
and maintain the database relying in part on the electronic data provided by all the
country PTOs. Once created the database would facilitate more efficient
registration and protection of domain name rights once they have accrued. In terms
of the assertion of intellectual property rights arising out of the domain names with
the incorporation of the international trade classification system and the emphasis
on the utilisation of the country code-based registries, wherever it is possible, would
ensure more effective territorial enforcement of rights.
Finally, as a matter of principle, the database should be made available to the
public in order that every registrant should be able to check their own details.
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?
Every domain name applicant should provide a basis for requesting a domain name.
The basis should be consistent with the TLD requested. If such information is not
forthcoming then the application should be denied. At a minimum the applicant
should give his name, business or home address (whatever is appropriate in the
circumstances), telephone and fax number and email address. Where the
application pertains to a commercial organisation then evidence should be
furnished in the form of a corporate registration and a set of accounts for the
previous financial year. Such information should be evaluated by the examiner of
the Domain Name Application. The criteria for the evaluation, will be done on the
basis of the examiner's experience and where necessary will resort to the applying
of principles analogous to those in trademark law.
The overarching principle for the evaluation of a domain name application will be
that of ensuring a bona fide application does prevail, but that in no circumstances
should an individual/entity intent on piracy of domain names be allowed to achieve
their objective.
26. How would the number of different gTLD's and the number of registrars
affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
Evidently the more registrars and gTLDs there are the larger the burden of
management upon the DNS administration system. There is therefore a greater
likelihood of litigation arising out of the consequent mistakes and disputes over
domain names. With the increase in the number of disputes, the time for
adjudication will be longer.
1. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single
domain name, are there any technological solutions?
As mentioned earlier in this response, courts have ordered that disputing parties
share their domain name space via the use of either icons mapping to their
respective sites or a drop down menu that facilitates hyperlinking to the said site.
In short, where there is only one domain name space, it is still not difficult for the
website to facilitate the ability to link to other sites and thereby facilitate co-existence albeit rather
uneasily.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
None at this time.
This document has been written in response to the questions asked above. There
are a number of substantial issues that have not been addressed in this document
that can form part of a further clarification to this response as required.
John Wood
Prince plc
011-44-181-748-7448
Email: Johnw@prince.com
www.prince.com/prince
###
Number: 365
From: Marc Hust <mhurst@skyscape.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 4:47pm
Subject: NOI: A Canadian View
There should be grave concern regarding the current ISOC/ITU gTLD MoU plan that is
being implemented.
Jay Fenello, of Iperdome Inc, is absolutely correct in his observation that this debate is not
about the
operability of Top Level Domain Registrations... it is about power. It is about the control of
binding
international law and policy and how these standards will be applied to this new universal
communications
tool known as the electronic information superhighway, the Internet.
For many years the Internet was run among a group of collegians as a vehicle to communicate
among one
another, to trade research data, or to monitor remote laboratories. Commercial use of the Internet
did not occur
on any scale for almost 20 years. Within this time this basketweave of intercity telephone lines and
mainframes was managed, governed, by a small handful of people who, for no other reason, had
the job by
default as they were the only people who understood how the network *ran**could be run*.
Law, policy and
procedure are not as serious an issue when a network is a few hundred thousand hosts deep and
does not
overlap onto other continents.
Today, the Intenet is governed by very much the same people as *always* *it was before*
(the IANA and the
ISOC *can be* *are* considered as part of this group). They are definitely more experienced than
before at
managing the network and setting procedures but they have no where near enough experience to
deal with the
myriad of issues that have sprung up in relation to the communications industry and its effect on
global trade.
The International Telecommunications Union has had little involvement in the Internet and the
autonomous,
community oriented, policy creating procedures (such as RFC's) that have evolved. This acquired
level of
cooperation has allowed "rough consensus" to be the de facto standard in how new policy and
procedure is
implemented on a network wide level. In fact many people have grown to accept that decisions
made by this
process, although they might not agree with the outcome, are the right decision for the moment
due entirely to
the level of input and consideration that is weighed before an idea gets imnplemented. In fact
many have
*characterised the Internet as being analogous to the democracy of ancient Rome* *used the
analogy that the
Internet is the second coming of ancient Rome's democracy.
The gTLD MoU
After a few years of the accepted RFC procedure attempting to tackle the task of adding new
Top Level
Domains to the existing roots Don Heath, president of the ISOC, created the IAHC in attempt to
determine "if"
new TLD's should be added to the root. The outcome was the unmandated gTLD MoU which, as
many know,
among the productive ideas it is to implement there are several very serious issues that effect
international law,
national sovereignty and non-scaling monetary issues.
Some of the more serious issues that need to be addressed are;
- Being a Canadian Citizen, I solicited the IAHC on several occasions to identify the
Canadain government representative who had been consulted and who had granted
permission to
the IAHC/ISOC/ITU/WIPO allowing them to set rules and regulations regarding the
operation of sovereign Canadian businesses that must be accountable to the Canadian
Government and
Canadian Law. This person was represented as being "an official with no name". I later
verified that the Canadian government was never consulted.
In fact, the Canadian government has no official position on these issues as it feels the
industry, the stakeholders, academics and business people, should decide what is best for
the
Internet.
- Much of the operating procedures are dictated by having to operate in the language of
English only. This will complicate issues once
the Internet becomes less English centric and more regional based especially in
emerging nations of the southern and eastern hemispheres.
This also is a violation of constitutional
rights in many countries English is not an official language.
- The involvement of WIPO as the potential "final say" on trademark disputes will cause
many groups to lose their right for legal
recourse in a sovereign jurisdiction. While WIPO claims it has the support of its member
nations
and that its' member nations have no say in these affairs having signed treaties
governing trademark and intellectual property issues, many
governments were never informed that these
liberties were being denied to them and their citizens in regards to these telecommunications
issues.
- The International Telecommunications Union wishes to be the group that controls all of
the domain name and IP space for the Internet. Unfortunately this group does not have
sufficient Internet experience to allow for the
nurturing that has been required by the community that would allow the Internet to
naturally involve. The ITU has predominently been a
standards oriented body. Until recently the Internet has been overseen, to a certain extent
by the
Internet Engineering Task Force. A community based effort that allows input from anyone
who
has a concern about how the Internet is being run. The IAHC circumvented the IETF when
Don Heath sidelined "Draft Postel" in October of last year and handed the Domain Name
debate to the IAHC. This group, that although were involved in the listserv process, held
many of
their discussions behind closed doors and
refused to release the minutes of such sessions to the community as a whole.
It has also a fact that much of these closed door efforts come at the fear of large
corporate entities such as Microsoft and Disney.
These groups, who make the bulk of their revenues off of licencing of intellectual
properties, fear a larger name space will make the policing of infringements on their
properties that much harder to enforce. This is a contradiction of intellectual property law
where many trademarks are industry and application specific.
There is a distinct difference between the usage of properties such as "coke.food" and
"coke.metals"
that many corporate trademark lawyers refuse to accept as realistic. However this is a U.S.
centric issue as the liability of loss of potential income, unlike in most other nations, is a
just
reason to seek retribution for damages or infringements.
The IAHC plan, should not be scrapped, but should be allowed to exit among other private,
industry and
regional government sponsored plans.
The Alternative
Groups that feel that this initiative should be left up to private industry have been waging their
own wars for
years. One camp in particular is the "Alternative DNS" camp.
This group feels that many different models should exist that would allow more choices and
freedoms in how
Internet Domain Names should be deployed, how they should be paid for, how they should be
policed and
whether or not they should be allowed to fall into private ownership.
One movement that should be supported is the model of many cooperating regionally oriented
domain name
services. Countries like Australia, Canada and India are in the process of forming National Root
Server
Confederations. These Confederations operate under the laws of their perspective sovereign
governments and
recognize many different combinations of domains in addition to the NSI legacy root servers. In
countries such
as Australia, where international transit is charged to companies by the kilobit, it has made
economical sence
to localize the traffic for DNS. It is estimated that a DNS server in Australia being secondaried in
the
continental United Sates could cost as much as $24,000 US per year to operate.
This issue is compounded when taken into consideration the various exchange rates that could
be in effect.
Fortunately Australia has a strong dollar.
Dispute resolution should be a mute point. However we must take into account the United
States legal system
and the trend of large cash settlements for potential lost business and damages. In other countries,
international court cases are just to expensive and time inefficient to be an option for resolution.
Businesses in
these predicaments are compelled to negotiate settlements that are amicable to all parties. Under
the eDNS
program all disputes are to be handled in the courts of an appropriate jurisdiction before the root
will act on
rendering a decision. This removes the liability from the registry which is the only appropriate
solution for a
United States based dispute.
The Free Solution
By allowing competing "free market" models the impetus will be to promote negotiation,
compromise and
cooperation. Having several root server confederations recognize one another is the only way you
will foster
free trade, growth and true competition.
It is not in anyones best interest to have a fragmented name space, that is competing ".com's"
or ".web's", that
have parrallel addresses with different content. By opening up the name space to interested parties
industry
groups will be driven to offer higher levels of service and more innovative products and
properties.
An open market would also allow for franchising and recipricating marketing agreements.
Larger registries
could allow smaller companies in emerging nations to compete on a global level for business that
might not
have otherwise had access to certain markets. Until infrastructure in all nations reaches a universal
standard
costs will always give geographically challenges companies distinct disadvantages within their
market
segments.
Last Thoughts...
The US government should be acknowledged for fostering the Interenet to where it is today.
The gTLD MoU is flawed if it is to be "THE" authority for DNS from now on. It should,
however, be allowed
to compete among other models to test its' viability.
Regional Root Server Confederations should be fostered thus allowing soveriegn concerns to
be addressed in
the subject jurisdictions.
Free market private models should be forced to negotiate there way into the root servers by
cooperating with
the regional/national Root Server Confederations.
Delay the formation of any Global Internet Government until after the Domain debate is
settled.
These are my observations from over two years of being involved in the enhanced DNS
debate.
There are no right or wrong answers and no one model should be forced upon the industry or
the world
community.
LET THE MARKET DECIDE.....
Sincerely
Marc Hurst
SKYSCAPE Communications Inc
Toronto, Canada
mhurst@skyscape.net
416.484.4739
###
Number: 366
From: <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 5:21pm
Subject: Iperdome's Response to the NOI
Iperdome's Response to the NOI
This response has been prepared by Jay Fenello, President
of Iperdome, Inc. Jay has a computer engineering degree
from the University of Florida, and experience as a design
engineer who has worked on communications projects at IBM.
Jay also has an MBA in Entreprenuership from the University
of Arizona, through a program that consistently rates as
one of the best in the country. Jay has spent the last
several years providing entreprenuerial consulting to
assorted small businesses.
Iperdome is a startup in the new registry industry. It
was formed exclusively to offer personal domain names under
the .per TLD.
Background
Contrary to appearances, the Domain Name Crisis is *not* about
domain names. It is about control. It's about how the
Internet will look 20 years from now, and who will make those
decisions.
The immediate challenge facing all Internet stakeholders is
how to deal with the IAHC proposal. It is the result of a
process initiated by the IANA, and orchestrated by the ISOC,
ITU and WIPO. While we don't necessarily oppose these four
groups' involvement in Global Internet Governance, we do
oppose their unilaterally deciding to take over this
governance, especially when it was done behind closed doors,
without legitimate authority, and counter to Internet
traditions.
Other problems with the gTLD-MoU are:
* It ignores the vast majority of Internet stakeholders who
have not been and will not be represented in the proposed
governance structure.
* It creates a highly controlled, bureaucratically
administered name space, instead of a free market approach
that has fueled much of the Internet's world wide growth.
* It attempts to implement new global Trademark and IP
policies, without any authority delegated by the sovereign
nations that are being asked to acquiesce to these policies.
If the gTLD-MoU is accepted as the authority to determine what
is and what is not appropriate for the name space, it will
establish the first and only politically authoritative body
for the Internet that is trans-national in influence. Given
the current power vacuum, it is very likely that whatever
precedent is set for domain names will apply to other topics
as well.
Global Internet Governance is much too important to leave to
the IANA, ISOC, ITU, and WIPO alone, no matter how honorable
their intentions are.
Iperdome's Approach
Iperdome believes that the gTLD-MoU is the wrong solution for
Global Internet Governance (GIG), and the wrong solution for
the Domain Name Crisis. It is our opinion that GIG must be
postponed until the Internet has had a little time to mature,
and all Internet stakeholders have had an opportunity to
participate in the process that will profoundly affect them
for many years to come.
By the same token, the Domain Name Crisis must be addressed
quickly. Many companies have been harmed by the
anti-competitive state that currently exists (i.e. PG Media,
IO Designs, and other pending lawsuits), and the NSF has
indicated that they are allowing their cooperative agreement
with NSI to conclude when it expires in March of 1998. IANA's
current role has been questioned, and its future is uncertain.
Iperdome believes that the best compromise will result if we
separate the problem into its two separate components (GIG
<===> fixing the Domain Name Space). Then we can find a
temporary solution to the latter, while diverse groups of
Internet stakeholders formalize a solution to the former, and
larger issue.
Goals
As a point of reference, we have used the following goals to
help us determine what is in the best interest of the Internet
and the Internet Community.
* To keep the Internet open to free and fair competition.
* To limit regulation to the absolute minimum required to
provide stability and fair play.
* To honor the spirit and character that has made the
Internet a world wide phenomenon.
Iperdome's Proposal
In light of our stated goals, we believe that the following
proposal is the best compromise currently available:
"Move .com, .org, .net, .edu, .gov, and .mil under .us"
When the DNS was established, the Internet was primarily a
U.S. phenomenon. The TLDs that were established were
primarily for the U.S. name space. As the Internet went
global, however, these same TLDs became artificially
valuable because they were the only ones that did not have a
two digit country code suffix. Although still primarily
U.S. based, their existence resulted in global addressing
and Trademark issues.
This historical legacy has biased the potential solutions to
the artificial problems that were introduced because U.S.
TLDs did not require the .us suffix.
Rather than rush the implementation of Global Internet
Governance to address these artificial problems with global
addressing and Trademark issues, it makes more sense to fix
the name space before we grow the name space. That means
that .com, .org, .net, etc. should become .com.us, .org.us,
.net.us, etc. The resulting universal domain name space would
then consist of all two character ISO country codes, .int,
and .arpa (a reverse mapped TLD).
Formalize and Provide Appropriate Funding for IANA
To administer this new domain name space, an organization
needs to be established. Given the IANAs wide base of
experience, support and respect, IANA is a logical choice to
administer this process. However, the current shortcomings
of IANA must be addressed before this would be appropriate.
Philosophically, IANA should be established as a non-profit
organization, with a formal charter, board of directors, and
clear lines of authority and responsibility. It's funding
should be directly related to its responsibilities, and the
costs incurred for those responsibilities.
The IANA Function should be restructured to provide (in
conjuction with regional IP Registries) for management and
coordination of assignment and allocation policies for IP
numbers, and coordination and management (in conjunction
with relevant registries) of two letter ISO Country Code
TLDs, .int and .arpa, and coordination with IETF and other
appropriate bodies of port assignments for applications.
Funding should be directly tied to these functions. IANA's
recent arrangement with RIPE and APNIC work perfectly in this
construct with regard to IP allocation management and coordination.
Some form of revenue should also be provided by the newly defined
domain name industry to fund IANAs activities with regard to TLD
supervision.
Open .us to Free Market Competition
This proposal will result in regionally distributed TLDs
coexisting with the new legacy TLDs. Other companies must
also have an opportunity to compete with their own private
and/or shared registries under .us. This is not only consistent
with the laws, traditions, and philosophy of the American spirit,
but this competition will be the driving force that keeps .us
at the forefront of technology in this new industry.
To be fair to the companies that already have
invested substantial risk capital in this new industry,
existing operational registries should get preferential
consideration* under whatever guidelines or policies are
implemented to allocate private registries TLDs. These
decisions should be decided by U.S. Government policy.
(*based on character, capacity, and credit)
Begin Process to Establish GIG
The Internet's world wide appeal requires that any decisions
made on a global basis be made from a perspective consistent
with all major stakeholders likely to be affected by said
decisions. This includes more than just the IANA, ISOC,
ITU, and WIPO. Other stakeholders include:
* Sovereign Governments
* ISPs and other Providers
* Businesses and Vendors
* Academia
* Operators
* Users
While this list may or may not be inclusive, it does
indicate the breadth of representation that must be
accommodated. This will require time, coordination, and
some maturing of existing Internet policies and procedures.
Now is the time to start planning for this eventuality.
Advantages
Some of the advantages to this proposal are as follow:
* 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. (i.e. Italy has decided that domain
names and trademarks are two separate and independent issues).
* Allows U.S. IP, Trademark, and anti-trust Laws to redress
existing grievances under the former .com, .org, etc. TLDs.
* Increases Competition and Choice:
Under .us, open competition would result in a diverse name space.
Classes of services would include, but not be limited to:
- Private registries (.com.us, .per.us)
- Regional registries (.city.state.us)
- Shared registries (.firm.us, .info.us)
- SIC Code registries (.7140.us)
- etc.
===============================
In light of this summary, here is our response to the NOI:
>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?
Yes, however, we would emphasis the following goals:
* To keep the Internet open to free and fair competition.
* To limit regulation to the absolute minimum required to
provide stability and fair play.
* To honor the spirit and character that has made the
Internet a world wide phenomenon.
>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.
>
>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.
>
>f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of
>these issues permits.
>
>B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
>
>1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
>registration systems?
It limits competition, which in turn limits the products,
services, and value that would otherwise be available to
Internet users.
>2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
Encourage and promote additional competition under
various new TLDs. These should not only be different
with regard to TLDs, but also business models, policies,
etc. This diversity will enable the free hand of the
marketplace to provide the best allocation of names,
services, pricing, etc.
>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?
To administer this new domain name space, an organization
needs to be established. Given the IANAs wide base of
experience, support and respect, IANA is a logical choice to
administer this process. However, the current shortcomings
of IANA must be addressed before this would be appropriate.
Philosophically, IANA should be established as a non-profit
organization, with a formal charter, board of directors, and
clear lines of authority and responsibility. It's funding
should be directly related to its responsibilities, and the
costs incurred for those responsibilities.
The IANA Function should be restructured to provide (in
conjuction with regional IP Registries) for management and
coordination of assignment and allocation policies for IP
numbers, and coordination and management (in conjunction
with relevant registries) of two letter ISO Country Code
TLDs, .int and .arpa, and coordination with IETF and other
appropriate bodies of port assignments for applications.
Funding should be directly tied to these functions. IANA's
recent arrangement with RIPE and APNIC work perfectly in this
construct with regard to IP allocation management and coordination.
Some form of revenue should also be provided by the newly defined
domain name industry to fund IANAs activities with regard to TLD
supervision.
>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)?
Not aware of any direct matches.
>What is the proper role of national or
>international governmental/non-governmental organizations, if any, in
>national and international domain name registration systems?
* To keep the Internet open to free and fair competition.
* To limit regulation to the absolute minimum required to
provide stability and fair play.
* To honor the spirit and character that has made the
Internet a world wide phenomenon.
>5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be retired from
>circulation?
Yes - moved under .us. This would be no more difficult
than assigning a new area code for the phone system.
>Should geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) be required? If
>so, what should happen to the .com registry?
Yes - it should become .com.us.
>Are gTLD management issues
>separable from questions about International Standards Organization (ISO)
>country code domains?
Yes - it would be beneficial, however, to use the two character
ISO country codes as the exclusive approved list of TLDs.
>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?
Technology can be used many ways to solve the current shortcomings
of the DNS system. The proper question is:
- Do governments and/or organizations mandate a solution,
or do they allow the free market to provide a solution?
We support the free market approach.
>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?
Move the existing TLDs under .us, then allow each country to
administer policies and procedures consistent with their local
laws and customs.
Restructure IANA as described above to administer this "public,"
globally resolveable name space.
Support open competition and allow private
companies to provide a diverse name space.
>8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
Just like it's currently done with area codes for the phone system.
First, all old .com SLDs will resolve both as .com and as .com.us.
All new SLDs only resolve as .com.us. After some period of time, the
old .com's will be terminated.
>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?
No.
>11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
Yes.
>12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing
>the scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of
>gTLDs?
Technical - no.
Business - yes, see trademark comments below.
policy - no.
>13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
>code domains?
Yes - it would be beneficial, however, to use the ISO country codes
as the exclusive approved list of TLDs.
>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?
Yes.
>Are there any technical limitations on using shared registries for some or
>all gTLDs?
No.
>Can exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?
Yes, and is the optimal solution.
>16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and
>what responsibilities should such registrars have?
Yes, let governments decide for their respective country code TLDs.
>Who will determine these
>and how?
Each country should determine its own policies and procedures
for its corresponding ISO country code TLD based on its local
laws and customs.
>17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
>registrars?
No.
>18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space
>raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
Technical - no.
Business - yes, see trademark comments below.
policy - no.
>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?
Yes, normal tests for monopolistic practices should apply.
>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?
Each country should determine its own policies and procedures
for its corresponding ISO country code TLD based on its local
laws and customs.
>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.?
Depends on the local laws and traditions of the country code TLD.
>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?
Depends on the local laws and traditions of the country code TLD.
>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?
Until a global trademark policy is implemented, trademarks must
be administerd under the local laws and customs as they apply
to all trademarks in that jurisdiction.
>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?
Because many different companies can have the same trademark,
(i.e. acme rubber, acme boots, acme explosives), and since the name
space only allows one reference to the trademark (i.e. acme.com,
acme.web), conflicts can only be avoided by acknowledging that
trademarks and domain names are un-related (as Italy has done).
>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?
See #24.
>26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars
>affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
As the number of TLDs increase, the less TLDs and domain names
will be considered equivalent. Since they *are* different, it
is likely that disputes will decline as this fact becomes clear
to everyone.
>27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single
>domain name, are there any technological solutions?
Yes, but these solutions must be allowed to evolve. Free market
competition will enable these solutions to be implemented faster
and more effectively than any mandated solution.
>28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
=====================================
Regards,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
###
Number: 367
From: Ron Kawchuk <kawchuk@idirect.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 5:21pm
Subject: Electronic Filing of Comments on Internet Domain Names
Re: Electronic Filing of Comments on Internet Domain Names.
Attached are comments from the Canadian Association of Internet Providers.
They are in Word 6.0 format.
CC: "Timothy M. Denton" <tmdenton@magma.ca>
Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet
Domain Names
Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP)
These comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet domain names
are Our mission is to foster the growth of a healthy and competitive Internet service
industry in Canada through collective and cooperative action on issues of mutual
interest. CAIP members and staff have represented the industry before US &
Canadian government agencies, at industry conferences and at trade meetings.
CAIP has addressed issues of Internet governance, regulation of speech on the
Net, contribution/access charges, 3rd party access to telephone and cable facilities,
and copyright issues. In keeping with its mandate, CAIP recently sponsored a
workshop on domain names. CAIP's Code of Conduct , its membership, and policy
positions are available at http://www.caip.ca.
Our comments address all sections (Appropriate Principles, General/Organizational
Framework Issues, Creation of New gTLDs, Policies for Registries, and Trademark
Issues) of the NOI. CAIP notes that there are already certain proposals underway
designed to make changes to the domain name system. We will not focus or
comment on them.
However, we bring forward the message that the process by which the Internet and
Internet governance evolves requires input and participation from all affected and
interested parties. The process is equally important as the result.
It must provide accountability and relevance, involve industry stakeholders, and
provide for broad consultation including with the Internet industry's customers &
users.
CAIP also believes that evolution of National Information Infrastructures are critical
to the Global Information Infrastructure and to the future of electronic commerce.
We suggest that the development of strong National Registries are part of that
evolution.
Summary of CAIP's Meeting on Domain Names
On June 20, 1997, The Canadian Association of Internet Providers and Industry
Canada held a workshop on domain names. A summary of some of the results
and conclusions of that meeting are:
domain name registrars should be granted a qualified immunity from trade mark
and other commercial liabilities.
International generic top level domains are feasible and are a good idea if and
only if they are individually governed by a predictable legal system, which may be
national by default but may also be specified in contracts by reference to model
law
The principles for the governance of top level domains should be embedded in
an international legal framework for which there is a clear national act of
acceptance.
Since Canadians have paid and may continue to pay through the .com .org and
.net NSI registry certain moneys that are earmarked for the intellectual
development of the Internet, some benefit should accrue to Canadians.
There was a consensus that any steps taken by the Federal Government to
reserve certain top level domains (e.g. .canada, .cdn ) in international forums
should not constitute a tacit acceptance that an agency or agencies of the
Federal Government should determine the arrangements by which domain
names are assigned in Canada. There was agreement that the Federal
Government should be included, by way of consultation, in future development of
domain name registries in this country, and in defending the interests of
Canadian citizens in the evolution of international top level domains.
A list of attendees and full meeting notes are located at
http://www.caip.ca/dn200697.htm
CAIP's Replies & comments to the Questions in the NOI
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.
The ideal method for expansion and competition in the DNS must also recognize
an number of factors. For example, certain laws like copyright and trademarks
apply. Conflicts between the global nature of the Internet and the National nature
of copyright and trademark legislation is one of the difficulties faced by of any
International system of domain name administration.
Most importantly, overall consensus and agreement as to the future structure of
DNS is a prerequisite to a robust DNS system.
CAIP notes that it appears that that the expansion of DNS registries might best
evolve on a country by country basis. We note that the DNS registry developed in
England for .uk should be examined as a model which can evolve to an
International framework. A network of similar National registries once
established, might also eventually become responsible for managing and
registering International Top Level domain names such as the current .com .org
and .net for users in their country.
We further note that the DNS is not a true addressing scheme, rather it is more of
a directory, somewhat like an automated Yellow Pages. In a sense, domain
names can be compared to telephony 'vanity' numbers with the domain name text
string having a high intrinsic value and function. In fact we often observe multiple
domain names registered for one site. True Internet addresses which cause
Internet traffic to be routed accurately are IP addresses, currently allocated by
separate registries or processes.
Without preventing a user from connecting to any other site, CAIP suggests that
it is possible and perhaps desirable that certain classes of domain names may
resolve to different IP addresses in different environments & jurisdictions. Thus it
is possible that a user in France looking for information about a particular
company (e.g. IBM) could access IBM's French language site, while a user in
England could reach the English site even though the same domain name may
be used in both cases.
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.
CAIP fully agrees with this statement.
However a prerequisite is the development of an overall framework for Internet
governance including domain names which must be developed by the relevant
stakeholders, including National governments and the Internet Industry.
There was a structure created on behalf of the stakeholders by ARPA, acting as
an agent of a National government and that structure worked internationally and
without controversy until one of the stakeholders asserted their claim that they
could and should treat a public good as their commercial property.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently global nature of the
Internet and be able
to evolve as necessary over time.
CAIP observes that, while the Internet is inherently global, National and regional
jurisdictions, customs and boundaries can and should be recognized in a domain
name system. These 'local' systems can also evolve as necessary over time
within the global environment.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open, robust, efficient,
and fair.
The overall framework must define the scope of cooperative versus competitive
activity. In our view, domain name Registries would perform backroom functions
and would be not-for-profit cooperatives. Registries would be owned and
managed by industry stakeholders, while the agents of the Registries would
function in a competitive market. This would by its nature ensure the other goals
of the overall framework.
A distinction should be made between agents and systems of registration. An
authorized agent would be free to obtain domain names from any appropriate
domain name administration, depending on the needs of their client, the rules of
obtaining the name, cost, or any other factor.
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.
It should also accommodate the different regional cultures, languages and
customs throughout the world.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of these issues permits.
Unfortunately, the current DNS system with a defacto monopoly for International
domain names is contrary to the principles espoused above.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name registration systems?
The primary advantage of the current system is that, by and large, it works. The
various problems it has experienced are the results of the explosive growth of the
Internet, not failure of the overall domain name system.
The primary disadvantage of the current system of international domain
name
registration (.com especially) is the absence of an agreed-upon legal framework
by which the current system or any future international system might work. A
domain name system, which like the Internet itself, grew out of accidental
institutional relationships in the United States has very quickly enveloped the
world without regard to regional or National sensitivities and has become a
defacto monopoly. Naturally this has had international implications, but thus far
there has been no consensus international forum for the resolution of domain
name issues and other issues affecting the evolution of the Internet.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
It can be improved by fostering the evolution of a network of National registries.
Initial funding for these registries, where needed, might well come from the
growing Intellectual Infrastructure fund which is being currently collected as part
of the domain name registration fees.
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?
National registries on a country by country basis would provide the best model.
Each registry should be operated on a not-for-profit basis by the Internet
Industry participants in that country and each country should determine the
structure of its own registries.
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?
The North American (and Canadian) Network Telephone Network Numbering
plan is going through the transition from a monopoly to an Industry managed
resource.
The domain name process for .uk is an excellent model of the type of National
registry model we foresee. See http://www.nic.uk/ for more information about the
.uk model.
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 current .com designation has achieved wide acceptance internationally and
would take some time to 'retire' assuming that were even desirable. We see no
need to retire it at this time. However we recommend that the registration
process be distributed so that future and many of the current registrations reflect
their country of origin (e.g. .com.us and .com.ca etc..)
Over time responsibility for current gTLD registration and management might be
assumed by National registries.
gTLD management issues are NOT separable from country code domains. In
Canada and other countries, a number of factors have led to a majority of domain
names being registered with NSI. National Registrars of domain names
could/should be the registers for gTLDs.
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?
The current DNS issues appear to be as much political as technical in nature.
The fundamental question is how will the DNS structure evolve? While it is
premature to say with certainty, technology solutions can likely accommodate the
type DNS structure which is finally agreed upon.
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?
By stating any fundamental technological constraints as requirements of the
domain name system.
The only way the domain name system will continue to interoperate and continue
to grow is through the implementation of peered, regional distributed platforms
(i.e. DNS mirroring).
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
The transition must proceed in a way which ensures stability during the transition.
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 fundamental question with gTLDs is do we need any new ones? The
existing structure can continue to grow effectively without the advent of new
gTLDs.
However, It appears that very large international corporations and organizations
may well justify having their own gTLDs which could (optionally) point to different
services in different countries.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
Yes, Additional top level domains should be created to the extent that they solve
problems and help the Internet expand. The recent proposals for gTLDs appear
to address the need to compete with .com. Distributing .com to multiple National
registries might be a simpler and more viable, long term solution.
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. Can the existing organizational administrative structures keep up with the
growth requirements?
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country code
domains?
Not really. They are very related and improved management of country code
domains could eliminate many of the gTLD management issues.
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?
gTLDs should be a common/shared resource administered by regional agents
representing the National registries in each country. Moreover, the licensed user
of a gTLD domain name should be able to register it or change his registration
information with any registry. Note the comments at our June 20 meeting about
model law.
Certain exclusive use gTLDs may be assigned in future, but these would
generally be for one Internationally recognized entity such as an International
Corporation or International Agency.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and what
responsibilities should such
registrars have? Who will determine these and how?
The requirements for a registrar were originally determined by IANA . Many
registries exist in some form today. Any minimum criteria should be set by the
stakeholders in those registries to allow the Internet to enter the mainstream of
electronic commerce.
Any threshold or other requirements on agents of National Registrars shall be
determined by rules established by the National registrars.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name registrars?
Depending on what one means by the term 'registrar'. In England for example,
there is only one 'registrar' for .uk, but there are 300+ members who act as
agents.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space raised by
increasing the number of
domain name registrars?
We are already seeing business & political issues with .to and the numerous
proposals and attempts at alternate registries.
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?
We see very limited utility in exclusive gTLDs unless they are assigned to a
specific organization or firm. (e.g. ,int, .un, .ibm ).
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?
Commercial Internet domain names should correspond to the maximum extent
possible with trademark and company names.
Geographic indications should apply to all but large international firms &
organizations.
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?
For commercial applicants, the applicant should certify and provide evidence
that they are able use the domain name requested, though evidence of a
trademark search or similar method as determined by the practices of that
country.
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?
At this time, evolution of domain names should be considered separately from
any evolution of Trademark law. The issues are similar but far from identical.
A system of National Registries and greater use of country domains by
commercial organizations will help considerably by removing a number of the
International trademark conflicts.
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?
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?
For commercial applicants, the applicant should certify and provide evidence
that they are able use the domain name requested, though evidence of a
trademark search or similar method as determined by the practices of that
country. This system is used in the .uk Registry quite successfully.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars affect the number
and cost of
resolving trademark disputes?
Trademark disputes are currently addressed on a National level. If DNS were
more closely aligned with National jurisdictions, trademark disputes might be
localized & minimized.
In its Jan 17,1997 submission to IAHC CIX states:
New top level domains cannot address the national character of trademarks
when a trademark is legitimately used in different countries or situations by
different entities. The potential is for increased problems and litigation rather
than less, which would have a chilling effect on the development of electronic
commerce.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain name, are there
any
technological solutions?
For World Wide Web applications, if there are two or more valid 'rights' for
whatever reason to a single domain name, the Registrar could maintain a web
page corresponding to that domain name which lists the choices for the user.
Simon Higgs and others propose to divide a trademark name space into
numerous trademark/industrial classifications.
CIX has suggested that in areas of trademark or trade-name conflict that multiple
linked gTLDs be used; e.g. .com .co1 .co2 .co3... .c99 could accommodate up to
99 conflicting names. We are not able to judge the merits of this proposal , but it
appears that end-user software could likely be enhanced to automatically seek
out alternates of this nature.
_________________________________________________________________________
Ron Kawchuk, President, CAIP
Ph: 905 279-6417 Fax: 905 279-9418
Internet: kawchuk@idirect.com
Home page: www.caip.ca
###
Number: 368
From: Richard Shu <rshu@inetnow.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 5:31pm
Subject: Response to NTIA RFC regarding DNS administration
To: Ms. Paula Bruening
From: Bob Racko, Richard Shu
Re: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket No. 970613137-7137-01]
The following is response to the Request for Comments on the Registration and
Administration of Internet issued by the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA).
Messrs. Racko and Shu are responding as interested private citizens. They operate root
servers which are part of the Universal Domain Name System (uDNS) root server
confederation. Mr. Shu represents uDNS at the Root Server Confederation (RSC)
roundtable. This roundtable includes the following Root Server Confederations: eDNS,
uDNS, AlterNIC, caNIC, AURSC.
Contact information:
Richard Shu (rshu@inetnow.net)
Bob Racko (bobr@dprc.net)
___________________________________________________________________
______________
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?
The principles are generally appropriate to the registration and administration of Internet
domain
names. However, this section presumes that the U.S. government should solicit and evaluate
proposals. The level of international objection to IAHC proposal is a strong indication that the
evolution of the Domain Name System is an international and non-U.S. centered phenomenon.
Accordingly, the U.S. government should be hesitant to make any unilateral moves such as
endorsing a particular proposal.
The U.S. government needs to determine whether to support or oppose NSI's claim of
proprietary
rights to the .com, .org and .net domains. It further needs to determine which entities, if any,
should rule on the creation of new gTLDs.
Are they complete? If not, how should they be revised?
The principles set forth are more or less comprehensive. We would suggest some changes in
emphasis. Most importantly, the primacy of proprietary rights such as trademarks and service
marks as codified in existing law should be emphasized.
We would also suggest that, although "synchronization of domain names among DNS
servers" is
an ideal to be pursued, lack of synchronization is not fatal to the interoperation of the Internet.
We define two modes through which a DNS server can be "out of synch" with other DNS
servers.
A server can create an active fault by hosting a domain name with a conflicting mapping from the
mapping generally available on other servers. Alternatively, a server can create a passive fault by
failing to carry a domain name generally available on other servers. It should be clear that an
active
fault is much more serious than a passive fault.
Finally, it should be asserted that registration of SLDs can be performed by an entity other
than the
entity which maintains the TLD database. This opens the door to sharing the registration function
for a TLD.
How might such principles best be fostered?In keeping with the country's
strong tradition of
free enterprise, the U.S. government should seek to open up the TLD registration industry up to
market forces by removing barriers to competition.
The U.S. government should seek to discourage, prevent and prohibit anti-competitive
activity. It should seek to promote introduction of additional root servers and TLD registries.
In particular, in recognition of the fact that root server operation and TLD registration require
only a moderate level of infrastructure, the U.S. government should promote the entry of
small-businesses into the industry and seek to prevent large corporations from dominating and
monopolizing the market.
The administration of the Domain Name System should be structured so as to strongly
discourage
active faults. Free market forces should be allowed to act so as to mimimize and ultimately
eliminate passive faults.
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.
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.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of these
issues
permits.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name registration
systems?
Advantages:
Having a single entity perform root service and SLD registration has simplified the
administrative
tasks. Coordination among multiple entities adds complexity to the task.
Disadvantages:The same agency that allows commercial registration in a limited set
of domains also
has final say over what other domains are included in root servers that they administer. This is a
disadvantage as it discourages the introduction of other brands of gTLDs as well as
disenfranchises
those who would offer competitive root service.
The current system discourages the creativity exhibited in other ISO country codes. It does
not
show flexibility at the SLD level. If more flexibility were provided, then the .us domain could be
as
popular as .com.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
The U.S. government should encourage the domain name registry industry to grow by
incentivizing it without subsidizing it or regulating it.
Organizations which have control over the creation and termination of TLDs should not also
provide TLD registration activities because of the inherent confict of interest.
The U.S. government should encourage the use of TLDs that allow entities that wish to
register a
SLD to select an appropriate TLD which characterizes their products, services and activities. For
example, one group of TLDs might correspond to SIC areas. This would reduce conflicts over
proprietary rights.
There is great concern over the desire of some parties to monopolize certain TLDs in the
hopes of
realizing financial gain. We urge that TLDs consisting of non-trademarkable marks (e.g. common
English words) be made non-exclusive. Registration of second level domains in those TLDs
should
be open to all entities that meet the qualifications to be a registry.
The U.S. government should assist in building the public trust by endorsing operational
standards
or encouraging their formation. 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?
Domain name registration should not be performed, subsidized or regulated by governments.
Centralizing DNS operations and/or limiting the number of TLDs does not promote
commercialization or the sustainable growth of competitive offerings.
There are several business models currently in use by root server confederations. Root server
confederations can be commercial, volunteer or non-profit organizations. All three can co-exist:
NSI and AlterNIC (www.alternic.net) iare commercial operations, eDNS (www.edns.net) is
operated on a volunteer basis, uDNS (www.udns.org) is non-profit, pgMedia is a hybrid.
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)?
The current system for registering trademarks and service marks seems to be the best solution
for
exclusive domains based on trademarkable words. Industry self-regulation via certification of
professionals (e.g. doctors and lawyers) is a good model for regulating the TLD registry industry.
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)?
The model of a centralized reservations system handling bookings made on a decentralized
basis by
independent entities (e.g. travel agencies) seems to be a close fit. This does not require or
preclude
a centralized database. A set of cooperating, decentralized databases can also satisfy the
requirements and may, in fact, facilitate the concept of shared TLD registries.
What is the proper role of national or international governmental / non-governmental
organizations, if any, in national and international domain name registration systems?
Governments need to expand the judicial system to handle more volume for
trademark/servicemark
protection and rulings. The structure and procedures of the existing system are well-established
and are well-suited to application in the domain name industry. The major failing seems to be that
the system is overwhelmed by volume. To the extent that governments are unable to expand the
judicial system to handle the increased load, the industry should encourage the use of private
conflict resolution systems such as arbitration.
The primacy of trademark law should be asserted. In particular, governments should insist
that the
'prior-use' principles of of trademark law be strictly applied with respect to domain names.
The government should allow entities to assert exclusive control over only those TLDs that
are
based on trademarks or service marks.
With respect to trademark and service mark issues, the Internet should be considered a
'medium'
like radio broadcasting or magazine publishing. Products advertised in a medium are still
differentiable when they are clearly associated with an industry (soap,food,cars,travel etc.).
5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be retired from
circulation?
No, this would be very disruptive to the Internet. Also, the current gTLDs should not be
closed
(i.e. new registrations of SLDs should be allowed)
Should geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) be required? If so, what should
happen to the
.com registry?
No, but geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) should be kept open and shared as should the
.com, .net and .org gTLDs.
Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about International
Standards
Organization (ISO) country code domains?
Yes. Geographic specialization needs to be encouraged but cannot supplant the economic
benefit of
global economies (including global marketing).
6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain name registration issues?
Yes there are technical solutions to the technical problems. The major obstacles to evolution
of the
TLD registry industry have been political rather than technical. A number of experimental TLD
registration systems (AlterNIC, eDNS, and pgMedia) have proven the technical viability of TLD
proliferation.
The initial failure of the TLD registry industry to cooperate has its roots in the desire to
monopolize the industry for financial gain. Current trends in the evolution of the industry point
towards an increasing willingness to share registration activities for a particular TLD.
Let us first identify what the issues are:
1) Synchronization
This is technically straightforward long as different root servers agree that they want to
synchronize.
2) Shared registration
Root server synchronization (among TLDs) can be resolved with protocols. The issue of
shared
SLD reservations can be addressed by distinguishing SLD registration operations from TLD
server
operations. TLD servers could host a central database that is analogous to the central database
used for airline reservations.
Are there any issues concerning the relationship of registrars and gTLDs with root
servers?
Yes, TLD registrars need to be able to count on the operations of the root servers which
carry their
TLDs. The creation of a new TLD should occur via a protocol which is clearly stated and
consistently applied. Ideally, an automated mechanism should be implemented to process
applications for new TLDs.
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?
Software on root servers should automatically determine whether a registered TLD server
meets
the operational criteria established by industry self-regulatory associations. These operational
criteria should include performance metrics such as latency, response-time and downtime. The
software will automatically de-commission any TLD server that is overloaded or improperly load
balanced and automatically commission any server that requests to be authoritative for any new
TLD via a protocol that requires a week (or a month) of conforming service prior to activation.
Multiple TLD servers may respond as authoritative nameservers for the same TLD,
Timestamps
on name (subdomain) activation can be used to resolve any conflicts. Root servers can clearly
determine first-use and then decommission any TLD server that acts to multiply define a name in
the same domain. This would act as a disincentive for competing registries to create conflicts with
other's SLDs and yet permit multiple TLD servers and registries for the same TLD.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
The U.S. government should endorse and encourage other governments to endorse a revised
protocol for existing root servers. The major player in the industry (NSI) should be invited to
participate in the setup and formation of other root server confederations.
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 are no technical or practical considerations that constrain the total number of gTLDs
that can
be created. This has been proven by the fact that there are over 8 million SLDs in the .com
domain.
By analogy, a root name server could equally handle a very large number of TLDs without
significant degradation in performance. DNS performance is less a function of the number of
TLDs
than it is a function of the SLDs served by a TLD server. It might be argued that proliferation of
TLDs would act to decrease the operational load placed on any single TLD server.
Some entities stand to gain financially by limiting the number of TLDs. The U.S. government
should strenuously oppose as anti-competitive any proposal which seeks to limit the number of
TLDs.
Some parties might assert that there are policy considerations based upon the desire to use the
domain name system as a directory service. While some TLDs are, in fact, structured to provide a
directory service (most notably, the ISO country code TLDs), this approach has generally led to
long, unesthetic names whose directory value is of questionable value.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
No, at least not by governments. The government should neither mandate nor prohibit the
creation
of additional gTLDs. The decision to create or terminate gTLDs should be made by the free
market. This is a crotoca; distinction. The government should not attempt to determine which
gTLDs should be created or even how many should be created. Instead, it should take a
"laissez-faire" approach which allows the free market to make these decisions.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the
scalability of
the name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs?
No. If the majority of gTLDs are shared, the number of TLDs can increase dramatically with
little
effect on DNS operations. The best indication of this is the fact that the .com TLD has over 8
million SLDs and there are no known performance issues directly related to the number of SLDs.
By analogy, a root name server could equally handle a very large number of TLDs without
significant degradation in performance. DNS performance is less a function of the number of
TLDs
than it is a function of the SLDs served by a TLD server. It might be argued that proliferation of
TLDs would act to decrease the operational load placed on any single TLD server.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country code
domains?
Yes. Neither the U.S. government nor any U.S.-centric industry organization is appropriate
for
administering issues regarding resources used internationally because it will create international
disputes. The management of ISO country code domains is properly under the jurisdiction of
each
national government. Ideally, the management of gTLDs should be under the jurisdiction of
self-regulating industry associations. Failing that, the gTLDs should be managed by a
quasi-governmental international organization.
D. Policies for Registries
15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a particular
gTLD?
No. Not if the acronym gTLD stands for "generic Top Level Domain" (e.g., .com or .web).
Exclusive control grants a monopoly which can only be turned into monopolistic competition
through the explosive proliferation of TLDs. An example of this phenomenon is exhibited by the
creation of the .biz, .corp, and .inc TLDs which are nearly identical semantically and can be
differentiated primarily by the entity which hopes to make a financial profit from operating them.
Requiring that registration for non-trademarkable gTLDs be shared reduces the need to have
one's
"own" TLD. If an entity wishes to have an exclusive TLD, they should establish and defend a
trademark or service mark according to existing law.
Are there any technical limitations on using shared registries for some or all gTLDs?
Yes and No. It is useful to differentiate between the function performed by a TLD registry
and a
TLD server. As mentioned earlier, these functions do not need to be performed by the same
entity.
A registry populates one or more TLD servers. This is by agreement with the operators of the
TLD
servers. A TLD server owner may compete with another TLD server owner over the same TLD.
The competition is fair and consistent with interoperability if only one TLD server answers for a
given SLD.
Any conflicts caused by multiple responses for the same SLD can be detected by the resolving
DNS
server at the ISP. Conflicts can posted back to both the TLD servers and the roots who will take
appropriate action including, if necessary, the decommissioning of the offending TLD server.
Can exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?
Yes. In fact, the current gTLDs can either be kept exclusive (to NSI) or made non-exclusive.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and what
responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these and how?
Self-regulating industry associations should establish requirements for domain name
registrars.
These registrars should have as primary responsibility the assurance to the registrant that their
requested SLD does not conflict with a prior registration.
Similarly, industry association should set requirements for root servers and TLD servers. The
primary goal of these requirements should be to ensure the stability of the Internet.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?
None seem evident.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space raised by
increasing the number of domain name registrars?
None seem evident except the possibility of a registrar perpetrating fraud. This, however, is a
risk
that is not unique to the domain registry industry.
19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a given registrar can
administer?
No. Monopolizing the space can be avoided but our experiencce shows that this is best done
by
disincentives rather than by artificial limits. If all non-trademarkable words must be sharable, this
is
a strong disincentive.
Does this depend on whether the registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights to
the
gTLD?
Yes. Exclusive gTLDs must have pre-existing use outside the internet/medium before being
permitted exclusive use of a TLD or trademark within the medium. However, as there is no limit
to the number of trademarks that an entity may possess, it is reasonable to assert that there should
be no limit on the number of trademarked exclusive gTLDs, that an entity may claim.
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?
All trademark rights should be protected on the Internet. This principle should be asserted
with
respect to all forms of Internet activity, not just domain names. Trademark law should treat the
Internet as a broadcast medium which is limited by:
1) geographic scope if an ISO or greographic TLD is suffixed on the name
2) SIC area if it is suffixed by a TLD that is associated with an SIC 'brand' area.
3) international scope if there is no suffix or 'brand' protection then, is a matter of providing
service
until a court of competent jurisdiction serves notice of judgement that is different from the current
name holder.
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.?
No. It is incumbent on the applicant to determine if there is a potential conflict. Preliminary
review
is unnecessary it will add cost to and delay the application process.
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?
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark rights be
protected
on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names?
No service 'holds' or suspensions should be permitted. As a condition of certifying a registry
and
accepting its registrations, each registry should be made to agree to be bound by court decisions.
What entity(ies), if any, should resolve disputes?
The normal judicial system having competent jurisdiction.
Are national courts the only appropriate forum for such disputes?
Not always. International courts of law and other inteernational organizations may be an
appropriate forum. The operating principle should be that marks on the Internet such as TLDs
and
SLDs are subject to the same law as other marks.
Specifically, is there a role for national / international governmental / nongovernmental
organizations?
Yes but existing organizations are adequate. It is unnecessary and unadvisable to invent and
implement an entirely new system which would then compete with the existing system for
jurisdiction.
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented?
Making trademark information widely available and also domain registration information
widely
available. However, it should be considered that the incidence of trademark conflicts is not as
high
or as critical as some would assert.
NSI is currently registering 80,000 names per month on average with 3 trademark conflicts
each
month. It would appear that the problem of trademark conflicts is somewhat exaggerated.
What information resources (e.g. databases of registered domain names, registered
trademarks, trade names) could help reduce potential conflicts?
All of the above mentioned databases would help.
If there should be a database(s), who should create the database(s)?
Creation of the database should be left to private enterprise. There are currently private
services
that provide trademark searches.
How should such a database(s) be used?
It would be advisable for a domain name applicant to search such databases prior to
submitting an
application. A non-refundable application fee would increase the incentive to perform due
diligence.
25. Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate that they have a basis
for requesting a particular domain name?
No. Such a policy would prevents automation of the application process because it adds a
component to the application that requires human review.
If so, what information should be supplied? Who should evaluate the information?
On
the basis of what criteria?
The cost of evaluating the information would have to be passed on to the applicant and thus
raise
the cost of registration for all applicants.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars affect
the
number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
The number of gTLDs has less effect on the number and cost of resolving trademark disputs
than
the taxonomy of gTLDs. If TLDs are generic (e.g. .com, .corp, .inc, .web), then they do increase
trademark disputes. If they are named with more specific categories (e.g. .law, .oil, etc.), then
they
do not.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain name,
are there any technological solutions?
There may be technological solutions but the best solution may be a policy solution.
The existing hierarchy of international, national and state trademark registries follows a
protocol of
respecting first use within a particular geographic extent. The same principles should be applicable
with respect to domain names.
For an SLD name, the issue is already handled. Having multiple TLDs for the same SIC area
(tld-brands) the trademark resolution can be put in the hands of those who are registrars for the
TLD
chosen. The registrars should defer to the courts or form a review body themselves. The quality
of
the decisions will directly affect the profitablity of the registrar.
At higher levels, conflicting international trademarks have resolution which cross
governmental
boundaries. Individual governments best abstain and defer to the existing international bodies (or
offer to educate them).
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
Allowing exclusive ownership / sponsorship / farming or even administration of a TLD
(without
trademark) tends to invite speculation.
Still others used 'external' pressures to maintain control and monopoly of TLDs.
Some attempted to use trademark protection for non-trademarkable names by claiming
waivers
"for Internet purposes" or with a simple prefixing period as in .music to dissuade competition and
increase FUD. This produced additional trademark speculation which would eventually be
overturned but initially kept valid registrars from starting operations.
###
Number: 369
From: dyharma <dyharma@sunset.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 2:30am
Subject: Any Governmet censorship/contron over "free press"
I cannot , in anyway, believe that censorship in any form should be tolerated
..anywhere,anytime! I choose not to view or frequent certain sites.
Pornography. etc. But, I will not impose my beleifs on others..that is a
"family", "parental" responsibility. Not mine. or the governments! Sincerely,
Etta Leach .
###
Number: 370
From: Einar Stefferud <stef@nma.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 6:28pm
Subject: Comments on the Registration and Administration of
Internet Domain
Names by Einar Stefferud (ASCII Format)
------------------------------ break ----------------------------
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments by Einar Stefferud, Network Management Associates, Inc.
Signed by: Einar Stefferud
Einar Stefferud
President
Network Management Associates, Inc.
17301 Drey Lane
Huntington Beach
California 92647-5615
EMail: Stef@nma.com
FAX: +1 714-848-2091
Phone: +1 714-842-3711
18 August 1997
------------------------------ break ----------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary Para. 1-5
Background and Qualifications of Einar Stefferud Para. 6-12
A. Appropriate Principles
Principles Aa-Af Para. 13-18
Other principles Ag Para. 19-24
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Questions B1-B9 Para. 25-50
C. Creation of New gTLDs
Questions C10-C14 Para. 51-55
D. Policies for Registries
Questions D15-D20 Para. 56-62
E. Trademark Issues
Questions E21-E28 Para. 63-72
F. Other Issues
List other issues addressed Para. 73
G. Annex 1
SERVICE LIST Para. 74
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
SUMMARY
1. In my view, the problems of choosing what Top Level Domain Names
should be operationally installed at the Internet's DNS ROOT level
have clearly been on the horizon ever since the DNS ROOT was created.
It was only a matter of time before one or another of the limited set
of original Top Level Name (TLD) registries accumulated a huge number
of registered names, large enough to be perceived as threatening to
the ability of the Internet to continue to operate. In part, this
observation stems from early recognition by some of us Internauts that
the originally chosen names (.COM, .GOV, .MIL, .ORG, .EDU) were not
going to meet all the global requirements of people and organizations
to select a desirable DNS identity associated with such a small list
of "generic" names. From the beginning, DNS names, as used for
Internet Addressing, were obviously going to create a new medium for
establishment of name identities, and we all know how people feel
about protecting "their good names!"
2. So, in time, countries demanded (and received) national Top Level
Domains (nTLDs), and then other parties pointed out that there exist
institutions and organizations that are truly International in their
identity (e.g., NATO) so .INT was established to provide the required
non-national identity. Somewhere along the way, .NET was established
to provide identification for the growing number of ISP networks that
collectively provide various levels of Internet Protocol (IP) service
to the global community. Historically, the DNS TLD name space has
always been expanded whenever a real need was perceived. It should be
noted that each expansion was generally responsive to clearly
perceived Internet needs as they arose from within the Internet
community, though there was a lot of discussion and delay with each
instance of expansion, just to conservatively avoid moving too
rapidly.
3. The DNS problem that has now arisen is that the original czar-like
administrative structure for deciding when something should be done
about adding new TLD names came naturally from the need in the
original ARPANET for some single agency to assure that no naming
conflicts occur. The origins of the Internet Assigned Names Authority
(IANA) grew out of the original ARPANET which was a wholly owned
network in which ARPA controlled all aspects of who could connect a
computer, who would be allowed to use connected computers, and who
would be allowed terminal access to the ARPANET to connect to ARPANET
connected computers. I remember those days very well, when I had
contractual requirements to use the ARPANET to deliver consulting
services to my US Army and other US Government or Government
Contractor clients. With the contract requirements came access
accounts with passwords that allowed me to access the ARPANET.
4. Name conflict avoidance requirements naturally exist in systems of
all kinds, and where a computer network system is wholly owned and
operated by a single organizational entity, it can and properly does
appoint a czar-like authority to register names for use, with rules
for conflicts avoidance.
5. But, the Internet does not have a single owner! The Internet
exists in a new paradigm that is more like an economy which also has
no single authoritative owner, and which also functions just fine
without a singular central authority. The global economy clearly has
no authority appointed to control the use of names in commerce. So,
the Internet needs a new and different distributed responsibility and
authority method for naming conflict avoidance, to replace the
existing IANA. The time has finally come to replace this last
remaining vestigial tail of the ARPANET that has been carried forward
through rapid evolution of the rest of the Internet. It is time to
thank the IANA for its superb service over the years, and move along
to something more appropriate to the shared responsibility and
distributed authority structures of the rest of the Internet.
Unfortunately there is no obvious Internet authority available to
decide what should be done to meet this obvious need for governance.
All existing authorities appear to be inappropriate.
----------------------------- break ------------------------------
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
COMMENTS OF EINAR STEFFERUD
6. Einar Stefferud respectfully submits comments in this proceeding,
as a semi-retired independent consultant with 33 years experience in
the field of Shared Computer Resource Management with focus on the
governance of networks which invariably accompany efforts to share
resources. The Internet is the penultimate instantiation of resource
sharing. Mr. Stefferud focused his work since 1971 on strategic
management and governance of internet environments. DNS governance
issues addressed in this inquiry are central to Internet operation.
7. Before 1970, Mr. Stefferud served (in reverse order): On the
Corporate Planning Staff of System Development Corporation; as Manager
of the Carnegie Institute of Technology Computation Center; as a RAND
Corporation consultant; and as a Graduate Student Assistant in the
UCLA Graduate School of Management. He earned BS and MBA Degrees.
8. From 1975 until 1986, Mr. Stefferud served as Moderator of one of
the first ARPANET Mailing Lists (MsgGroup) which discussed Electronic
Mail issues. Archives are available at <http://www.tcm.org/msggroup>.
9. Between 1980 and 1995, he served as a visiting instructor or
adjunct professor at the University of California at Irvine, teaching
electronic mail, computer networks, and social impacts of computing.
10. He founded Einar Stefferud and Associates in 1969, which was
incorporated as Network Management Associates (NMA) in 1973. To the
present he serves as President of NMA, located in Huntington Beach,
California. Services provided by NMA include working with all levels
of management to deal with the full range of policy, governance,
planning, organization, architecture, implementation, and operating
issues relating to Internet environments. NMA clients have included
Harvard University; First Virtual Holdings;, Microsoft; MITRE Corp.;
Allied-Signal Aerospace; Freeport-McMoRan; Isocor; Infonet;
Soft-Switch; TRW; NASA Ames Research Ctr.; US Army Materiel Command
(including ARDEC, BRL, ASCOM, and TECOM); US Army Computer Systems
Command; FCC; Northrop; Wollongong Group; DEC; SRI International;
Univ. of Arizona; University of California at Irvine; Univ. of
Delaware; Univ. of Kansas; Univ. of New Mexico; Temple Univ.; the
Univ. of Wisconsin; and Brigham Young University and the LDS Church.
11. In 1994, he co-founded First Virtual Holdings Incorporated, with
Dr. Marshall T. Rose, Dr. Nathaniel Borenstein, and Lee Stein, JD.
In 1994, First Virtual mounted the first Internet payment system.
12. He was honored as one of the Top 10 Visionaries in the Computer-
Communications Industry for 1993 by Communications Week Magazine, for
his contributions to the Internet. (Communications Week, 23 Aug 1993)
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
A. APPROPRIATE PRINCIPLES (a-g)
Aa. 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.
13. Absolutely correct.
Ab. 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.
14. Absolutely correct, though governments also have interests, by
virtue of also needing domain names for their networks and a desire to
maintain order in their economies.
Ac. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the
inherently global nature of the Internet and be able to
evolve as necessary over time.
15. Absolutely Correct, with the additional observation that the
global Internet is very much like the global economy in that it does
not have a single owner (but has many owners of its separate parts),
and should not have a single owner of the Whole Internet any more than
should the global economy. After many years (centuries) of killing
each other over this control issue, virtually all people and
governments have come to understand that owning and centrally
controlling any economy is a bad idea. Thus, the Internet, like the
global economy, is another clear instance of self organized human
activity which evolved out of the natural human propensities to engage
in commerce of various kinds. In time, the Internet will simply
become an integral part of the global economy. Thus, governance of
the Internet must over time follow the patterns of organization of the
global economy. If it does not, then the Internet will remain in the
midst of a constant fight over who should be in control of it all, and
will not properly become a smooth running integral part of the global
economy.
Ad. The overall framework for accommodating competition
should be open, robust, efficient, and fair.
16. Absolutely correct.
Ae. 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.
17. Absolutely correct, with an additional observation that the
conflict resolution policies and processes must avoid dependence upon
the notion that some kind of supreme global authority must be
established to decide these matters "for the good of all the people in
the world." This way there be dragons!
Af. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent
consideration of these issues permits.
18. Yes, But! This wording suggests great urgency, perhaps based on
the notion that some kind of terrible collapse will occur unless very
fast actions are taken. This is clearly not the case, so "prudence"
must dominate "quickness!" The Internet will not collapse any time
soon for lack of DNS names!
Ag. Other principles: Openly Distributed Governance Paradigm
19. The Internet, as with many new technologies, has spawned new
paradigms for the architecture of telecommunications, for the
provision of computer services, for the governance of a "network of
networks" (an internet) and for the organization of global society in
general. The Internet might even be causing the greatest paradigmatic
shifts of recorded social history, so it is critically important to
pay attention to the forces unleashed by the Internet. We must not
just assume that only a few forces have been changed in magnitude,
leaving us with the same old pre-Internet paradigms.
20. It is well known, but often forgotten, that changing the cost of
any single economic factor of production by a factor of ten leads to
major economic shifts in society. Consider the impacts of the
automobile (3-6 Mile per hour to 30-60 MPH yields a factor of 10), and
the airplane (30-60 MPH to 300-600 MPH yields another factor of 10),
and look at the impacts of these two new technologies over the last
100 years. Then consider that the Micro-logic industry has been
delivering a factor of 10 for each 5 years since 1950, and the
Telecommunication and the Software industries have each been
delivering a factor of 10 each 10 years since 1960, derived from the
basic advances in micro-logic, coupled with learning curve gains of
their own. Then consider that the Internet introduced another (as yet
unmeasured) factor on top of it all by enabling broadly open
interconnection of autonomous networks with interoperation among
interconnected end-systems. Taken all together, it is my conclusion
that we are looking at truly major paradigm shifts of many kinds in
our economic and social fabrics. We need to adjust to the new facts.
21. Looking back over the 27 year history of the ARPA/NSF Internet, I
conclude that beyond faster micro-logic, cheaper telecommunication and
better cheaper software, the main paradigm shift produced by the
Internet stems from a new found ability to successfully build a
"network of networks" wherein no single agency holds unilateral
control over the whole global system, which we call the "Internet."
22. The single most salient difference between a Network and an
Internet is seen in the way the Internet operates very successfully
without singular central controls for most of its functions. TCP
(Transmission Control Protocol) and UDP (User Datagram Protocol) are
both end-to-end protocols, utilizing software that runs in the end
user's computer hardware and operating systems. Most other Internet
protocols utilize the services of either TCP or UDP. This arrangement
shifts most aspects of control from internal network administrators to
computer host administrators and end users of systems "at the edges"
of the Internet, and this relegation of control functions to the edges
enables the Internet to function with very weak (or almost non-
existent) central controls.
23. This then is the core paradigm shift introduced by the Internet!
By removing the need for central control administrators, the Internet
greatly reduces the complexity of its "core" and relegates complexity
to the "edges" where local end-point controls can be and are applied.
This closely parallels an open (or free) economy, with most economic
decisions being made at autonomous local levels by organizations and
consumers, within global and national policy settings.
24. Thus, it is my experienced and logical conclusion that the
Internet must be kept "open" to free entry and "free" from central
global controls, for the purpose of maximizing its social and economic
values to our global and local societies. This, for me, is the single
most important "APPROPRIATE PRINCIPAL" for this inquiry.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
B. GENERAL/ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK ISSUES (B1-B9)
B1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current
domain name registration systems?
25. At all levels subordinate to the DNS Top Level (ROOT) Zone,
administrative control is downwardly distributed, which affords great
flexibility to respond to needs at all levels below the top. This is
the primary advantage of the DNS.
26. At the Top Level (ROOT) Zone, the choices of TLD names are
severely constrained by historically imposed central global authority,
which severely reduces the choices available for Second (SLD) Level
Zone Domains. This is the main disadvantage of the current domain
name registration system.
B2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
27. Simply opening up the ROOT Zone to allow free selection of TLD
names in response to free market demands would reduce the pressures
and the conflict complications which have so recently become painfully
obvious to most observers. The original TLD choices made a decade ago
are no longer adequate. The Internet has been doubling in the numbers
of connected users and hosts roughly every 13 months since 1970. This
means that the Internet has passed through approximately 10 doubling
periods between 1986 and 1997. The Internet is now approximately
1,024 times larger than it was in 1986.
28. Further-more, the greatest mass of new SLD names have been
registered in only one of the TLD registers (i,e,. .COM).
Interestingly, this load does not seem to present great operational
difficulties for DNS name resolution by .COM, which essentially proves
that DNS technology is capable of massive increases of scale by adding
capacity at the edges of the Internet, without modifying the core. In
short, DNS technology is amazingly robust and trouble free, except at
the ROOT where registration of new TLD names has been arbitrarily
restricted by reason of central (czar-like) control ideas about what
names should be allowed at the top level. The difficult problems are
entirely political and administrative, not technical.
29. Thus, the singularly most important thing to do is to find a fair
and open means to free up the supply of TLD names and to meet market
demands for Top Level DNS Names. DNS technology has already been
demonstrated to be capable of scaling up a single registry to hold
more than 1 million DNS names, and it is difficult to see why the ROOT
cannot be allowed to scale beyond several hundred TLD names.
B3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should current
domain name systems be administered? What should the makeup
of such an entity be?
30. A very basic requirement is to avoid central bureaucratic control
of the number and kind of choices to be made for new DNS TLD names.
31. In my experience, there is only one kind of governance structure
that can work for the Internet DNS to avoid arbitrary central control.
This is the "Customer Cooperative Business Model" where-in the
customers are given ownership control of the board of directors, and
in turn receive management information about operating budgets,
operational performance, and policy matters. The "customers" should
have the right to openly enquire about any aspect of ROOT operations
and get accurate information in return. Hopefully, such information
would already be openly published, but to assure that this will
actually happen, the "customer right to know" must be written into the
organizational charter of whatever entity is created to administer the
global policies and operations of the INTERNET DNS ROOT Zone. We
already have direct experience with what happens when a less than
fully open group (e.g., the IAHC/iPOC/CORE) attempts to take control
of selection and assignment of TLD names. I note here that the IAHC
(International Ad Hoc Committee) was created in reaction to the fear
that other, also not fully open, groups might seize control.
B4. 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?
32. Yes, the above mentioned "Customer Coop Model" (in paragraph 31)
is well suited to the business of decision-making for all enterprises
that are in charge of fairly administering operation of shared
resources. This model has actually been tested in various NMA client
institutions, including some that are normally thought to be highly
authoritarian. (See the list of NMA clients in paragraph 10, served
by my NMA consulting firm.)
B5. 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?
33. Generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com) should absolutely
not be retired from circulation! Especially not if done in favor of
requiring use of National TLDs (e.g., .US). The mere existence of the
current gTLD registers has been instrumental is constraining various
National "country code" nTLD registries, which have diligently
asserted monopoly control over Internet access in their countries by
arbitrarily controlling registration of names in their nTLD registers.
I know personally of cases where nTLD administrators severely hampered
open access to the Internet to universities and other academic
research institutions, in the interest of forcing the use of expensive
and unreliable National PTT X.25 circuits to reach Internet Service
Provider (ISP) connection points in other countries.
34. Historical central monopolistic control of telecommunication has
always been rooted in monopolistic central control of service number
and name spaces. One of the main reasons why the great ITU/ISO OSI
(Open Systems Interconnection) efforts to build an alternate OSI based
Internet have failed is because the OSI standards were written in such
a way as to give national agencies central control over OSI domain
name registrations for X.400 EMail addressing, and for "Distinguished
Name" (DN) registrations for both X.500 Directory use and for NSAP
names (the OSI equivalent of DNS names which map to Network System
Access Point (NSAP) addresses for connected systems and hosts). In
the US, ANSI operates the OSI name register, and charges $1,500 per
name for each registration. Amazingly few names have been registered.
35. Further, X.400 domain names have two levels (ADministrative
Management Domains - ADMDs, and PRivate Mangement Domains - PRMDs).
PRMD names are lodged in registers that are operated by ADMDs and
ADMDs are generally required to be Network Service Providers who
operate with bilateral agreements between all pairs of connected
providers. Anyone can actually register an ADMD name, but it is
useless until a bilateral agreement is signed to enable exchange of
mail with any or all other ADMD operators. Such agreements entail
payment of fees for passing traffic. This arrangement seriously
inhibited deployment, and prevents use of the OSI protocols in the
open Internet.
36. This arrangement leads to a requirement that for any company or
person to register a PRMD name, they must first contract for mail
relay services from an ADMD. No other source for PRMD names has ever
been developed because of the long standing telecommunications
tradition of controlling service provision by means of controlling the
name spaces. Several years ago, I developed a scheme for mapping
Internet DNS names into PRMD names for entry into an Internet ADMD
register (c=US, A=INTX), but it was never adopted because it had no
value without also having an associated operational Mail Transfer
Agent (MTA) to exchange mail with other ADMDs, according to bilateral
agreements to be signed by the Internet and the other ADMDs. Of
course, there is no one to sign such agreements on behalf of the
Internet, and no one to operate (and pay for) the (c=US; A=INTX) MTA.
37. Because of the X.400 naming scheme, deployment of X.400 on the
Internet either requires the above mentioned A=INTX MTA, or it
requires all other X.400 MTA operators to connect to the internet and
deliver Internet mail as addressed to Internet addressees, without
charge for delivery. All ADMD operators would also have to accept
posted mail from the Internet without charge. The key concept here is
that in the Internet, all users fully pay for both sending and
receiving all of their Internet mail, while the X.400 business model
calls for senders to pay for both sending and final delivery. This
requires settlement between the sender's and recipient's MTAs. The
problem stems from X.400 Service Providers collecting all fees on one
end of the delivery system, as is the historical custom in monopoly
telephone and telegraph (ITU) systems. It should be obvious here as
to why these two business models will never interwork, because they
exist in two very different paradigms which have no interworkable
business interfaces. X.400 is simply not Internet technology!
38. Thus, centralized name space control is in direct contradiction
to the primary operational character of the Internet, and the gTLD
name spaces are the main mechanism for escape from monopolistic
controls. With the gTLDs in place, it is not possible for anyone to
gain monopoly control of Internet services in any region of the globe.
It is interesting to note that creation of gTLDs for the Internet
might be considered some kind of interesting accident caused by IANA.
39. Unfortunately, name space control is exactly what the ITU and its
monopoly oriented supporters are now trying to seize, in the name of
"husbanding" the DNS name space in the "public interest" as a "public
resource". It is my conclusion that the monopolistically oriented ITU
must not gain control of any portion of the DNS gTLD policy space, The
IAHC effort is just the first incremental step in their efforts to
steer the Internet back into the old paradigms of centrally controlled
networks with complex cores to deal with all manner of unneeded
administrative aspects of monopolistic business models.
40. Thus, in a a most insidious and subtle way, we (of the Internet)
are now confronted with an extension of the great primordial struggle
over who is going to control whom, as though the world cannot function
unless some singular agency is in central control of everything. In
my view, we are now engaged in a virtual war over control of Internet
space. At least we have graduated from Hot Wars with millions of
casualties, to Cold Wars with only thousands of casualties, and now to
Virtual Wars with very few physical casualties, but potentially
enormous economic and social casualties.
41. So, the .COM registry should be continued without interruption,
but should be recompeted in some fair way. It is possible that it
might be considered for "shared registrar" treatment, though doing so
would require that a .COM sharing governance structure be set up
either before the bidding (which is very likely impossible) or the
bidding should be set up to select partners in the shared registry
venture, which after winning the bid would collectively create a new
governance structure in the manner of a customer co-op, and then take
over control of the .COM register. In any case, the the gTLD name
space should be opened up to afford other avenues for competition.
42. It is my recommendation that .COM simply be recompeted, with the
winner of the auction to operate it according to commitments made in
its winning bid to provide service. The winner should be selected in
terms of (1) prices to be charged for registrations, (2) services to
be offered, (3) policies to be applied, and (4) governance and
mangement structures to be employed.
43. gTLD management issues are clearly separable from issues of ISO
3166 country code (nTLD) domains! They are in a completely separate
name spaces, with clear and well defined boundaries between them,
though they can and will certainly compete against each other for
customers. Some nTLD names will obviously be attractive for certain
lines of commercial business (.TV comes easily to mind). Which are,
and which are not, is the luck of the draw from the manner of ISO 3166
assignment of country codes. I do suggest that this inquiry
specifically not concern itself in any way with the manner of
administration that ISO applies to its ISO 3166 nTLD name space, which
is also used for other purposes related to OSI naming systems.
B6. 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?
44. The current DNS TLD Naming problems have no significantly hard to
resolve technical components. The only technical problems stem from
devising new protocols to share registries among multiple registrars!
Interestingly, a lot of work has already been done by the "alternate
root" community to develop and install software to handle a shared TLD
ROOT. Quite likely this same software can also be used to share lower
level registers, or serve as a point of departure for development.
45. The primary problem is that of avoiding conflicts and dealing
with "race conditions" where-in two registrant's applications are
tendered at virtually the same time. It seems clear to me that
technical problems of register sharing are already well understood in
the database industry, which leaves a residual set of socio-economic-
political problems to be resolved by some new kind of governing
structure. In the meantime, the IAHC has commissioned someone to
develop software to handle multi-registrar registers, and it remains
to be seen whether they will develop a better solution than has
already been developed by the "alternate root" community. A
comparison of their technologies should be very interesting to see.
46. For the most part, the problems are primarily political, social
and economic. To the extent that there are technical problems, they
are clearly resolvable, as shown by the scalability of .COM, and the
already deployed technologies of the so called "alternative root
services" that have popped up among people trying to fill the vacuum
created by the current paucity of gTLD name registers.
B7. 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?
47. Collision prevention enforcement is almost automatic in the DNS,
in that any entry of two different values in a given register for the
same DNS name will invalidate one or both of them, such that it is
very hard for contentious name grabbing to work to anyone's advantage.
Operationally, all that is needed is an automated ROOT Zone collision
prevention protocol which must be required to be used by all Root
server operators. This rule will also be self enforcing, in that any
ROOT server that does not use the agreed upon collision prevention
algorithm will find that they are not giving out the same information
as other ROOT servers, and their customers will find that their DNS
names are not properly resolvable by all Internet users. Thus,
customers of algorithm violating ROOT server registries will surely
complain or move to other servers, while savvy IP router and host
administrators will only point at ROOT servers that operationally
conform to the collision prevention algorithm, and the entire Internet
DNS system will thus police itself.
48. Beyond collision detection and prevention, it is very hard to see
any limits to scale of the DNS, as long as there are enough TLD names,
and this can be provided by simply opening up the name space to allow
operators to meet market demands. The entire "scale" problem of the
moment has been artificially created by maintaining a closed gTLD name
space.
B8. How should the transition to any new systems be
accomplished?
49. Do nothing until a new Customer Cooperative style Internet ROOT
Zone Governing Structure has been be placed in operation, and then
open up the DNS ROOT for new market driven gTLD names. Country coded
nTLD names are already in a separate isolated (two letter) name space
controlled by ISO Standard 3166. The nTLD name space administration
and policy should remain separate from the gTLD name space
administration and policy, but the operators of the nTLD DNS Zones
must must also participate in the new Customer Cooperative Governing
Structure which will control operation of the DNS ROOT Zone. This
arrangement will provide defacto competition between the nTLD and gTLD
DNS Zones to moderate the monopolistic tendencies of some countries
and of the traditional international telecommunications infrastructure
which is still mired in its original central global and national
monopolistic control mentality.
B9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
50. There will be some problems of dealing with a backlog of gTLD
registers that have managed to jump the gun and claim intellectual
property rights to various new gTLD names. We can let them slug it
all out in open courts of their choice, in whatever jurisdiction they
might choose to use. To assist here, someone should try to set up
some kind of completely voluntary arbitration system, to serve as an
escape for those parties who wish to obtain a fair and impartial
resolution without messing with civil court systems. In some cases,
it might just happen that the only satisfactory resolution is for all
claimants to agree to put their contested name off limits for all, or
submit to a bidding process for the right to use the contested name,
with the arbitration fees to be used to offset the losses of the
loser(s), or contributed to a pool of funds that support Internet
development. In short, I am certain that fair and reasonable means
can be developed to deal with this problem which has arisen because of
the vacuum created by the current closed DNS TLD administration.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
C. CREATION OF NEW gTLDs (C10-C14)
C10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations
that constrain the total number of different gTLDs that can
be created?
51. Certainly not! Clearly there are ways to deal with the problems
if we can agree to proceed with an open effort to resolve them. We
have good evidence already that good solutions are possible, based on
already deployed schemes.
C11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
52. Yes, absolutely! This is the only solution that has merit.
C12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated
with increasing the number of gTLDs?
53. None that need to exceed the already demonstrated scaling
capacity of the DNS as already shown by the scaling of .COM.
C13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions
about ISO country code domains?
54. Yes, Absolutely! Except that having gTLD registers in addition
to ISO country code domains is actually a very good thing! In this
way, they are related in a solid positive way.
C14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
55. None that come to mind at this time.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
D. POLICIES FOR REGISTRIES (D15-d20)
D15. 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?
56. Some gTLD registrars should be exclusive and some should be
shared. Sharing or not sharing of a register by registrars is one
possibly useful dimension of competitive offerings. Some registration
customers will value sharing, and some will not, and an open market
should be used to make the choices. There should in fact be no
distinction between shared and unshared TLD registries in terms of
their being honored by a shared ROOT Zone register administration.
D16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name
registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars
have? Who will determine these and how?
57. I am not sure that any threshold requirements (to be enforced by
some licensing or franchising agency) will be useful or enforceable.
This is because the power of each IP router and Internet connected
host to choose which ROOT server to query resides with the router or
host administrator, and any customers of unreliable registrars will
soon find that they have signed up for poor service. If they stay
with poor service, they deserve what they get.
58. If some customers are happy with poor service, then what
authority does anyone have to force them to become unhappy? If they
do not figure out that they are primarily hurting themselves, why
should anyone else care? I strongly feel that an open free market is
the best tool for setting the required operating thresholds for
registers and registrars. It is a long standing tradition in the
Internet that each and every end system's performance is the
responsibility of the end-system administrator, and no one else's!
Making this someone else's responsibility creates a need for central
authority, with complex and extensive rules for making people conform.
D17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of
domain name registrars?
59. None that I can think of, as long as the DNS registrar space is
hierarchical (as it already is) and has an adequate TLD name supply.
D18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the
name space raised by increasing the number of domain name
registrars?
60. Only the issues of intellectual property rights and prior claims
to ownership of such rights. It is my position that such problems
already exist with the current situation, all-be-it, at the lower SLD
levels (e.g., .COM registrations). As things turn out, the current
central control of names at the gTLD level forces the same conflicts
down to lower SLD levels when one TLD (e.g., .COM) becomes synonymous
with the DNS ROOT in the minds of the public. This is what has
happened with .COM. The public tends to think that .COM is "The DNS
ROOT". The public is slowly beginning to learn that .COM is not the
root, because other TLD names are beginning to be noticed. In due
course, many of the current very large corporate and institutional
domains will want to move up to owning their own TLD. ".IBM" comes
quickly to mind. ".MSFT" is another, while ".MS" cannot be assigned
to a non-country. I see no problem whatever with allowing such TLD
registrations. Surely IBM and Microsoft and others are fully capable
and motivated to do a very good job of operating their very own TLD.
Indeed, IBM and Microsoft already do so with IBM.COM and MSN.COM!
D19. 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?
61. I see no need for such limits, as long as the gTLD name space
remains freely open to new entries for new gTLD names, whether they
utilize shared or unshared register policies.
D20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
62. None that I can think of at this time.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
E. TRADEMARK ISSUES (E21-E28)
E21. 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?
63. The Internet is entirely International in scope and reach, in
keeping with the primary concept of all gTLD names. Therefore,
resolution of this problem (trademarks) for the Internet requires that
it also be solved for all other related International activities. I
do not see any way to solve this problem for the Internet alone,
without also solving it for all other international economic,
commercial, governmental or social situations. Therefore, in my view,
it is wrong to impose an "Internet-Only" regime to cope with the very
messy and unresolved international registered trademark situation.
Indeed, an Internet-only regime would likely make things much worse,
in general.
E22. 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?
64. I would expect it to be very wise for all prospective registrants
to voluntarily engage in a process of checking for possible conflicts
and challenges to any intended DNS name registration, before tendering
an application. This concept implies that all registers must be
easily searchable to avoid the kind of expense now required to obtain
trademarked name search information. Indeed, it would also help in
other realms of trademarking if all trademarks were readily searchable
via the WEB. Just put them where AltaVista can find and index them,
and let the public do their own searching!
65. I do not see any way to internationally impose some kind of
pre-screening by some anointed agency. For one thing, what will
happen if the screening fails to prevent a challenge? Who will be
liable for damages? I would expect this liability to fall on the
screening agency, thus absolving all registrants of all responsibility
for making careful choices of names! In this situation, what agency
in its right mind would sign up for the duty? And what fee would they
have to charge for their screening service to pay for their liability
insurance?
66. Or worse yet, such a screening system may well lead to global
central control of all second level DNS names, or perhaps even lower
levels. This way there be dragons!
E23. 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?
67. As mentioned above in paragraph number 63, the problem is not
solvable for the Internet alone in an international vacuum created by
the lack of similar trademark problem resolution in other venues.
Just because the Internet is pushing the intellectual property law
envelope is not a good reason to single it out for different
(isolated) treatment. As of this point in time, national courts do
appear to be the only avenue that is open for adjudication of
disputes. As also mentioned above in paragraph 49, it might well be
reasonable to establish some kind of arbitration service to be made
available to those parties that might decide to use it in place of
national courts, but it must be a voluntary system, and be developed
in concert with any new DNS Cooperative Governance systems.
E24. 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?
68. Conflicts cannot be prevented in the Internet, any more than
naming conflicts in other venues can be prevented. This problem has
existed globally for a very long time, but has not appeared to need
really serious global attention until now that the Internet is pushing
the envelope. Fortunately for the Internet, any solution now proposed
will have to also account for Internet requirements. Of course,
trademark data bases should certainly be deployed on the Internet as
part of any solution to the general problem, as databases must always
be deployed in systems that solve such problems.
E25. 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?
69. Only if other uses of potentially trademarked names are also
regulated in the same ways. What information is now required for
other applications for international trademarks? Why should the
Internet suffer additional special requirements of this kind, when
other naming activities are not targeted? I believe that full and
open disclosure of existing trademarks in searchable data bases is by
far the most reasonable way to proceed. This does not require any new
basis or new criteria, and certainly does not involve creation of some
new police force.
E26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number
of registrars affect the number and cost of resolving
trademark disputes?
70. First, a larger number of gTLDs will offer potentially
conflicting parties more alternatives for registration in
non-conflicting ways, and thus reduce the inherent number of
conflicts. The current level of conflicts is clearly due in large
part to the paucity of gTLD registers, and even so, the number of
conflicts is actually quite low, compared to other commercial arenas.
E27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for
a single domain name, are there any technological solutions?
71. Certainly it should be easy to check lists of registered
trademarks wherever they may exist, if they exist. Any trademarking
service in any country should be required by international treaty to
publicly post or publish their list of registered names so that they
may be searched via the Internet. Of course, the Internet DNS already
does this, because any DNS registered name is not in fact registered
if it cannot be resolved by DNS query to its registration server. The
only thing now required is for all trademarking services to publish
their registrations on the Internet so that they can be publically
queried for possible conflicts. What is the point of keeping
tradement information secret until after someone innocently violates
it? Or, is it the case that trademark information is kept secret so
as to afford legal services a reason for charging high prices for
privileged access to public information? This business of keeping
trademark information more or less hidden from public view is, in my
view, a greater cause of our DNS difficulties than is the DNS itself.
E28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
72. None that come to mind at this time.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
F. OTHER ISSUES
73. Some sense of the history of the Internet is needed to illuminate
how things evolved to the current situation with a czar-like DNS TLD
administration, while almost all other Internet operational functions
enjoy distributed responsibilities and distributed control. Some of
the needed historical perspective was presented in the SUMMARY at the
beginning of these comments. Beyond this, it is important for the US
Government to carefully analyze how it has caused the current DNS
naming system to be developed under contract to the US Government.
This analysis should include resolution of the questions of ownership
of the .COM and other gTLD registrar franchises as part of resolving
how to deal with new arrangements for .COM and the other existing gTLD
registers that have already been created.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
Annex 1
SERVICE LIST
LIST OF PARTIES TO WHOM I PROVIDED COURTESY COPIES.
74. None at the time of this filing.
Respectfully submitted by Einar Stefferud
President
Network Management Associates, Inc.
18 August 1997
CC: Einar Stefferud <stef@nma.com>
###
Number: 371
From: <B5FYCR3@LEGAL.BELL-ATL.COM>
To: "dns(a)ntia.doc.gov" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/18/97 7:25pm
Subject: Bell Atlantic's 8/18/97 Comments re: Internet Domain
Names
The cover letter and comments are attached (2 separate documents).
In the Matter of:
The National Telecommunications and Information
Administration's
Request for Comments on the
Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names
(Docket No. 970613137-7137-01)
Comments Before the NTIA of
Bell Atlantic Corporation
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
I. Governance structures for the Registration and Administration of
Internet Domain Names must
protect valuable Intellectual Property, namely trademarks and service marks.
I. Given the growth of the Internet and the potential to instantaneously proliferate
international
trademarks at the rate of 1.2 million new names a month(1)
the United States Government should
work to establish internationally binding rules to protect intrusion on protected trademark
interests.
Until such rules are established, the United States Government should protect against a shift of
domain name trademark governance from United States courts to: a) an unlimited number of yet
to
be created international entities or registries as presented in recent ad hoc proposals; b) the laws
of
other countries; and c) the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
II. Trademark protection measures -- such as: a) registration and review procedures
for all Internet
Domain Names; b) a "confusingly similar" standard for rejection of new names; and c) adequate
enforcement and remedies for companies whose trademarks are infringed -- should be
incorporated
into any new governance structure for the registration and administration of Internet Domain
Names. Long term, the United States Government should seek to harmonize trademark law,
through an international trademark treaty, with protections similar to those afforded trademarks
under United States law.
I. The current governance structure for the registration and administration of Internet
Domain
Names, particularly the National Science Foundation's cooperative agreement (NSF agreement)
with Network Solutions Inc. (NSI) to register and administer second-level domains for three
top-level domains should be extended for at least six months beyond its expiration in March 1998.
This
is in order to give the industry and governments time to put into place a new governance scheme
that adequately protects trademark rights.
I. The assignment and management of Internet Domain Names in a world where global
economic
commerce is a reality will necessitate a concomitant support structure capable of billions of
transactions efficiently executed between parties who are instantaneously found and verified. Bell
Atlantic urges international cooperation with governments, non-governmental organizations and
the
private sector to forge lasting solutions. The Company welcomes an open process with
participation from a broad cross section of interested parties, recognizing that the Commerce
Department's request for public comment, is an important first step.
Bell Atlantic appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Commerce Department's
Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names.
The Company is a leading international telecommunications business providing services and
products which support the Global Information Infrastructure. It is one of the largest
international telecommunications companies in the world, with a large and extremely valuable
trademark portfolio, consisting of nearly 1000 trademarks for a wide variety of goods and
services. The overriding concern with various recent ad hoc proposals for systems that
allocate and manage generic top level domains (gTLDs) is with trademark issues.
Governance Structures Must Protect Valuable Intellectual Property
Bell Atlantic believes that governance structures for the Registration and Administration of
Internet Domain Names must protect valuable Intellectual Property, namely trademarks and
service marks. The existing domain name registration system should only be expanded after
consistent policies are developed to protect trademark owners' rights by ensuring that there
are viable, inexpensive and binding dispute resolution processes governing all stakeholders --
domain name registries, trademark owners and potential domain name registrants.
Ad Hoc Proposals Present Legal Problems for the Protection of
Trademarks
Current proposals to create domain name challenge panels through WIPO, for example, are
not currently structured in such a way to offer either binding resolutions of intellectual
property disputes or an adequate legal standard to prevent cybersquatters and other infringers
from misappropriating trademarks. Such proposals also present certain legal challenges. For
example, the Internet Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) Final Report(2)
and Internet Policy Oversight
(IPOC) Committee Revised Guidelines(3)
discuss the creation of Domain Name Challenge
Panels administered by the Arbitration and Mediation Center of WIPO and staffed by
undefined "experts" in the fields of intellectual property and domain names. These experts
need to be defined and selected based on a series of agreed upon criteria. Also, the Challenge
Panels can only decide whether someone is entitled to register a particular domain name.
They will not have jurisdiction to decide disputes beyond this narrow focus, including the
domain name registrant's use of the name outside the registration process, the provision of
injunctive relief, damages or many other related issues. Consequently, if a trademark owner
wishes to prevent infringers from using a particular name, such owner will need to initiate
expensive court proceedings throughout the world.
Also of concern are the thorny jurisdictional issues that will arise when a trademark owner is
located in Country A, the infringer is located in Country B and the domain name registry is
located in Country C. For example, a United States trademark owner in Country A may not
be able to establish jurisdiction in the United States and will be forced to sue the infringer in
Country B or Country C. This is because requirements for registering marks vary in each
country. For example, some countries permit trade names (company names) to be registered
as trademarks and others do not. Legal standards for determining when one mark infringes
another will also vary on a country by country basis. What one country decides is infringement
may be permissible in another. Consequently, infringers can take advantage of these
differences and forum shop to increase chances of successfully infringing registered
trademarks.
Yet another issue, is that the WIPO Challenge Panels will not prevent the registering of
Domain Names that are confusingly similar to trademarks. Articles 2 and 8 of the IAHC's
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Generic Top Level Domain Space of the Internet
Domain Name System state that a policy shall be implemented to prevent, in appropriate
circumstances, the registration of a second-level domain name in any of the Counsel of
Registrars (CORE) gTLDs which is identical or closely similar to an
alphanumeric string, that
for purposes of the policy, is deemed to be internationally known, and for which a
demonstrable intellectual property right exists. Under United States law, the standard for
infringement is not whether a mark or name is identical or closely similar, but
whether it is
confusingly similar to that of another. Under the current proposals, infringers could
easily
modify their domain names in minor ways to obtain registrations. This standard will again
force trademark owners to litigate in foreign fora in hopes of enforcing their rights.
Additionally, the WIPO Challenge Panel process will not result in final and predictable
outcomes for trademark owners. The IPOC Proposal indicates that the WIPO Challenge Panel
process is subject to being re-opened by any person and unknown third parties may have the
right to intervene. Moreover, even if a favorable outcome is obtained through such process, it
is not final because any dispute may be brought at any time before, during or after the
challenge procedure to a national or regional court. If an infringer was dissatisfied with the
outcome of the Challenge Panel process, it could initiate an action in a country, whose laws
may be favorably disposed to such party, and force trademark owners to engage in expensive
foreign litigation. Further, the Challenge Panel, may on its own initiative decide to modify a
second level domain name in lieu of excluding it. In such cases, the Challenge Panel would be
amending marks and deciding issues in potentially dangerous ways. For example, the
Challenge Panel's decision to modify a second level domain name could be done in such a way
to weaken the trademark owner's rights in the mark it was seeking to enforce or it could
actually be modified to infringe upon another unrelated party's trademark rights.
Another problem inherent in the MOU is that the "internationally known" standard is not
sufficient to protect most trademarks. The MOU language will enable the
Challenge Panels to
prevent third parties from registering domain names that are identical or closely similar to
trademarks deemed "internationally known." The IPOC Guidelines indicate that to be
"internationally known," a mark must be registered in at least 35 or more countries in at least
four geographic regions for the identical goods and services. To be "globally known," the
mark must be registered in 75 or more countries for the same goods and services. This policy,
at best, would protect only the largest trademark owners from preventing others from
registering names that are identical or closely similar to their primary company name. It
would not protect the myriad of other valuable trademarks large companies own that may not
meet the "internationally known" or "globally known" standards. It also does not protect the
mid-size and small trademark owners from domain name infringements. Further, the
requirement that the trademark owner have a registration in multiple countries for "the same
goods and services" is doomed to failure. Because trademark laws vary, most trademark
owners will not own worldwide registrations for "the same goods and services" but a variety
of descriptions depending on the interpretation of each country's trademark registry. Even if
a company meets the standard in a particular proceeding, the Guidelines are silent on whether
the Challenge Panel's decision would have a stare decisis effect in other challenges, or
whether the trademark owner must come forth with this evidence in perpetuity.
In summary, given the growth of the Internet and the potential to instantaneously proliferate
international trademarks at the rate of 1.2 million new names a month(4)
the United States
Government should work to establish internationally binding rules to protect intrusion on
owned-marks. Until such rules are established, the United States Government should protect
against a shift of domain name trademark governance from United States courts to: a) an
unlimited number of yet to be created international entities or registries as presented in recent
proposals; b) the laws of other countries; and c) the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO).
Possible Solutions: Ensure Trademark Protection Measures
Trademark protection measures -- such as: a) registration and review procedures for new
Internet Domain Names; b) a "confusingly similar" standard for rejection of new names; and c)
adequate enforcement and remedies for companies whose trademarks are infringed -- should
be incorporated into any new governance structure for the registration and administration of
Internet Domain Names. Registration procedures should include a sworn statement that: there
is a bona fide intention to publicly use the domain name within 60 days of its registration and a
bona fide intent to continue using it for the foreseeable future; the domain name will be used
for a particular stated purpose; the domain name, to applicant's knowledge, is available for
use and does not infringe upon the rights of any party; and the applicant explains the basis for
its claim to the domain name.
The United States Government should endorse a pre-screening process
that would allow
registrars to search for trademark "hits" before allowing a conflicting domain name. In
particular, the idea of a voluntary database should be explored where trademark owners of
registered marks would be permitted to place their mark in the database. Before the registrar
could allow a domain name application to proceed, the domain name would be searched
against the database. If a confusingly similar mark were revealed by this preliminary search,
the registrar would refuse registration and notify the trademark owner of the attempt to
register. Disputes could be referred to dispute settlements. This is not a novel idea under
trademark law. In fact, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, before allowing an
entity to register a particular trademark, will conduct a search of the applicant's mark in its
public database, and will reject such application, if a confusingly similar mark is found in the
search.
In addition to pre-screening for marks, it is critical that all approved domain names be part of
a "publication" process or waiting period to allow trademark owners the opportunity to
challenge the registration of such domain names. As in the case of the pre-screening process,
this idea is taken from the trademark registration process currently in place in the United
States Patent and Trademark Office. All legitimate trademark rights should be protected on
the Internet vis-à-vis domain names, however, registered trademarks, as is the case in the
United States, should be given greater weight in any domain name conflict as prima facie
evidence of the validity of the mark. Proof of a registration would allow a registrar with the
necessary proof to pre-screen conflicting domains. Common law marks could be protected in
a challenge before the domain name challenge panels or courts of law, only if the owner can
establish secondary meaning that the common law mark is protectable. Of course, because
international trademark laws vary, this issue requires harmonization, as soon as possible, of
international trademark laws.
Registrars should also be subject to a consistent set of registration and dispute resolution
policies that encourage meaningful and effective procedures for: ensuring accountability by
domain name registrants; allowing complainants sufficient information through an application,
pre-screening and publication process to pursue appropriate legal remedies against
extortionists and infringers; reducing "deadwood", i.e., unused domain names; increasing the
available pool of domain names; and ensuring fair and legally supportable decisions regarding
domain names. Finally, fees for domain names should be
set at a significantly high enough
level to discourage cybersquatting and hoarding of domain names.
In order to give the industry and governments time to put into place a new governance
scheme that adequately protects trademark rights, Bell Atlantic proposes that the current
governance structure for the registration and administration of Internet Domain Names,
particularly the National Science Foundation's cooperative agreement (NSF agreement) with
Network Solutions Inc. to register and administer second-level domains for three top-level
domains, be extended for at least six months beyond its expiration in March 1998. NSI, as the
primary register of the .com, .gov and .org gTLDs is an entity located in the United States and
therefore, most cybersquatters and other infringers using NSI to infringe trademarks can be
held accountable by being sued in United States courts. NSI's policy to place domain names
"on hold" subject to proof of a federal registration and other information, while certainly
problematic in some respects, has been somewhat more effective in protecting the
registrations of domain names that are identical to trademarks owned by third parties. On the
other hand, many controversies and disputes have arisen over NSI's policies concerning
trademark disputes. NSI will not engage in any pre-screening for trademark problems, nor
pre-publication of domain names prior to registration. NSI has not historically removed
deadwood from its registries, promptly required payment of fees, or set fees at an appropriate
level to discourage cybersquatters from hoarding trademarks for illegal commercial purposes.
Both the advantages and disadvantages of the current domain name registration system must
be recognized and taken into account when creating new governance structures for the
registration and administration of Internet Domain Names.
Harmonize Trademark Law
Long term, the United States Government should seek to harmonize trademark law, through
an international trademark treaty, with protections similar to those afforded trademarks under
United States law. Currently, each country creates and enforces its own trademark laws.
Many countries of the world adopt a common law trademark system, which allows trademark
owners to obtain exclusive rights by using a distinctive mark in the specific geographic areas;
other countries adopt a civil law system in which the act of registering a trademark is the
primary manner in which trademark rights are secured.
Bell Atlantic proposes that the United States Patent and Trademark Office working with other
Intellectual Property offices from other countries, the World Intellectual Property
Organization and the private sector, place among its highest priorities the goal toward
harmonizing world trademark laws. Just as WIPO convened an international conference
creating two new treaties to address copyright protection in the digital age, the domain name
issues require similar treatment for resolving trademark disputes in the digital age.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Bell Atlantic proposes to work cooperatively to forge solutions to protect
Intellectual Property on the Internet, particularly valuable trademarks that represent a
company's brand to consumers. The assignment and management of Internet Domain Names
in a world where global economic commerce is a reality will necessitate a concomitant support
structure capable of billions of transactions efficiently executed between parties who are
instantaneously found and verified.
We also urge international cooperation with governments, non-governmental organizations
and the private sector to forge lasting solutions. Bell Atlantic welcomes an open process with
the participation of a broad cross section of interested parties, recognizing that the Commerce
Department's request for public comment, is an important first step.
Respectfully submitted,
Bell Atlantic Corporation
By: ___________________________
Sarah B. Deutsch, Esq.
1320 N. Court House Road
8th Floor
Arlington, VA 22201
703-974-8450
1 Network Solutions Inc. Report April 17, 1997.
2 Final Report of the International Ad Hoc Committee: Recommendations for
the
Administration and Management of gTLDs, February 4, 1997.
3 [Revised] Substantive Guidelines Concerning Administrative Domain Name
Challenge
Panels, Interim Policy Oversight Committee, May 23, 1997.
4 Network Solutions Inc. Report April 17, 1997.
###
Number: 372
United States Department of Commerce
National Telecommunications and Information
Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
Request for Comments on the ) Docket No.
970613137-7137-01
Registration and Administration of )
Internet Domain Names )
COMMENTS OF AMERICA ONLINE, INC.
William W. Burrington
Director, Law and Public Policy
Assistant General Counsel
America Online, Inc.
Suite 400
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-4303
202/530-7880
202/530-7879 Fax
BillBurr@aol.com
May Liang, Assistant General Counsel
and
Julie Garcia, Senior Counsel
America Online, Inc.
22000 AOL Way
Dulles, VA 20166-9323
August 18, 1997
Introduction and Comment Highlights
Headquartered in Dulles, Virginia, America Online, Inc. ("AOL") is the world's largest
Internet online provider, with over 8.5 million members. In addition to our U.S. members,
through joint venture partnerships, the AOL brand is presently offered to consumers in
Canada, Europe, Japan.
We are pleased to provide our comments on the current and future system(s) for the
registration of Internet domain names. We applaud the U.S. Government for initiating this
inquiry process. The issues surrounding the registration and administration of Internet
domain names are complex, and the ultimate outcome of this ongoing analysis and debate
is critical to the continued growth and global success of the Internet online medium and
its significant benefits for the world's consumers. AOL remains committed to being an
active, constructive and responsible participant as we work together to solve the Internet
domain names issue.
The present international debate surrounding the administration of Internet domain names
centers around three key issues: (1) the need for additional generic top level domain
names ("gTLDs") to expand the name space available globally for the rapidly growing
Internet; (2) the need to enhance trademark protection and global brand identity for those
global, branded entities wishing to do so, and (3) the need for a pragmatic and effective
international governance mechanism for Internet domain names to administer the system
and resolve disputes. Our comments below address each of these three key issues.
First, we recognize the need to expand the Internet domain name space in
light of this
global medium's continued rapid growth. Our sense is that the IAHC proposal for seven
(7) new gTLDs (e.g., .biz, .firm, .store) was based on the sense that more gTLD space is
needed, but was not based on any rational criteria. For this reason, and to allow for the
enhanced trademark protection of domain names, we propose creating forty-two (42)
gTLDs that match exactly the forty-two (42) international classes in which trademark
owners can register their goods and services (see our comments to questions 21-27).
Second, we propose the creation of a new "trademark top level domain name" ("tTLD"),
such as .aol, .ibm or .mci. The tTLD would be reserved for those global brand entities who
wish to enhance and protect their global brands in cyberspace (see our comments to
question 2 below).
Finally, we favor the creation of a private-public partnership representative of the Internet
online industry, nonprofit organizations, user groups, and perhaps the ITU and WIPO to
set policy for the administration of Internet domain names, select new registrars, and
resolve disputes.
A. Appropriate Principles
AOL supports the six (6) basic principles by which the
Government should evaluate
proposals for the registration and administration of Internet domain names. We believe
the principles can best be fostered through a balanced, open and solutions-oriented
dialogue between the Internet online industry, nonprofit organizations, user groups,
governments and other interested parties.
B. General/Organizational Framework issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration
systems?
There are many advantages of the current domain name registration system, including the
fact that domain names are split by country to provide clear parameters, there are
technical advantages to the current system, and the present system is relatively simple
and easy to understand for the Internet online consumer.
We believe the primary reason for this inquiry is to address the shortcomings of the current
system, mainly the interrelationship of domain name registrations and registered
trademarks, governance of domain name registration systems, conflicts among domain
name systems, processes for dispute resolution, and scalability issues. Specifically, the
present system handicaps entities seeking global brand development and identity, it
provides inadequate treatment of trademark law principles, and the present system is
inadequate to handle the growing volume of domain name requests.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
The first issue we feel needs to be addressed concerns the authority of organizations or
individuals to provide domain name service. In order to avoid total chaos in the name
space, a body "with teeth" is needed at the international level, which grants authority for
registration so that the name space is uniform and presents a "single view" no matter
where one uses the Internet. How this would be enforced is a separate matter. Clearly,
if there are competing systems for domain registration (like eDNS), the system will be
confusing at best. Therefore, an international private-public forum including perhaps the
ITU, WIPO, IANA, INTA, ISOC, IAB should be created with the aim of granting authority
to organizations to provide registration services, and with the power to enforce their
decisions (i.e., punish those who do not play by the rules).
Once we have a single entity which grants authority for registration services, registrars
need to be contracted to perform that service. The system should be distributed but
coordinated. Competition amongst registrars is in the interest of the Internet community,
so no registrar should have a monopoly over any given TLD. Thus, more than one
registrar should be able to make changes to records within a given TLD.
Having addressed authority for registrars, and the registrars themselves, the next issue
is that of top level domains ("TLDs"). The current recommendation is to add new generic
top level domains ("gTLDs"). However, any organization with a global brand will simply
cross-register in all new gTLDs, which is not the intended effect. While the intent is to
create new name space, with the inevitability of cross-registration (e.g., aol.com, aol.biz,
aol.web), the goal is doomed to fail.
However, if large organizations with international brand status were allowed to own a TLD
of their own, much of the cross-registering could be avoided, making new gTLDs a real
and workable option. Thus, we propose the creation of a new category of international
top-level domain names. Under this proposal, certain trademarked, global business
names would be allowed to function as top level domain names, but only to the extent that
they are international brands, such as .aol, .att, .ibm. or .msn. This would redefine what
constitutes "top level" domain names to a limited number of international brands. For
purposes of this proposal, we could call these "trademark top level domains," or "tTLDs."
Additional gTLDs could be added as secondary level domain names for use by regional
or national brands. Each secondary level domain name would be valid on a per country
basis. Under our proposal, an entity desiring to secure a tTLD would be required to
undertake the following steps:
< The entity applies for and receives the tTLD, having met the requirements to be
determined by the international governing body. So, for example, AOL would apply for
and receive the .aol tTLD registration if it satisfies all the requirements.
<
< AOL would be permitted to keep and use its currently registered gTLDs, such as
aol.com and aol.net, but would not be able to register for any new gTLDs, unless they
were unrelated to the aol.XXX or .aol domains.
If the tTLD is not allowed, then new gTLDs will fail and serve to cause more confusion.
Therefore, we oppose the creation of new gTLDs, unless there is a provision to allow
tTLDs as well. Of course, standards will need to be created to serve as a benchmark in
deciding which organizations will be allowed to have tTLDs. They will also have to pay a
larger annual fee for the use of their tTLD.
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 registrars should be selected based upon a matrix of factors, including
technical
issues like connectivity and high availability operation; service issues like a minimum
number of support staff to handle phone calls and e-mail, and economic factors, like the
fees that they would charge for their services.
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?
We do not see any realistic or relevant models in other areas that can be helpful in
deciding on domain name registration systems. The private sector and related nonprofit
entities should play the primary role in this area, not national or international government
bodies.
5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be retired from
circulation?
No. The .com TLD (or any of the other existing TLDs) should not be decommissioned.
The purpose of implementing additional gTLDs is to increase the available name space;
by effectively turning off any of the existing ones, the only action that happens is that
second-level names move from one TLD to another, thus not relieving the name space
issue.
Should geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) be required?
No. For those entities that desire/require a global presence, their tTLD will suffice. Since
barring registration of new names in gTLDs would be a requirement for these tTLDs to be
created, the issue of registering the same second level name for the same entity in a large
number of geographically assigned name spaces is eliminated.
If so, what should happen to the .com registry?
Fundamentally, nothing should change for the existing .com registry.
Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about International
Standards Organization (ISO) country code domains?
Depending on the context, most likely yes, these are separable and separate issues. Any
dispute for a domain name registered under an ISO3166 country code TLD would be
handled locally in the same country in which the domain name is registered; there would
not be any foreign concerns about that domain name. Issues concerning gTLD names
would either be local, following the same aspect of a country code domain name, or
international in scope. For these issues, the scope would more than likely span multiple
national jurisdictions. With the implementation of tTLDs, these issues should reduce in
number as more entities desiring a "global presence" migrate to their own tTLDs.
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?
There are no known technical solutions. As for issues regarding registrars, please see
question 3 above.
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?
Currently, the system is not very scaleable due to the limits imposed by the size of the
UDP packet. The system needs to migrate to TCP, which will have the downside of
increasing traffic, but will allow for a greater number of root servers. Given that there is
an authoritative body for granting registration rights, interoperability of the root servers is
not much of a problem. The authoritative body would control the root servers and TLDs
would be delegated to registrars at the root server level.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be
accomplished?
Please see our answer to question 2.
(please skip to question 10)
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 are no technical issues. From a practical point of view, the number of gTLDs would
have to be limited in some respect as to their intended purpose, much in the same fashion
that the original TLDs (.com, .edu, .net, etc) have been. For example, what is the
difference between the intended use of .com versus .biz? Any new gTLDs that are created
should be distinct enough in their intended purpose to minimize the chance of confusion,
as well as the need by name holders to register their domain name in both TLDs, thus
needlessly filling the available name space. Please see our discussion below regarding
trademarks in our comments to questions 21-27.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
We oppose the creation of new gTLDs without simultaneously creating our proposed
tTLDs for global brands.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the
scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs?
Our tTLD proposal removes almost any objection we have to the creation of additional
gTLDs. If the guidelines set forth in question 10 above are followed, there should not be
any major issues concerning scalability of the name space that is available with the
establishment of new gTLDs.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO
country
code domains?
Please see our response to question 5 above.
(please skip to question 15)
D. Policies for Registries
15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a particular
gTLD?
If the proper tools are in place, it is possible for multiple registrars to manage a TLD, but
there must be some form of control in order to keep the database for that TLD from being
out-of-synchronization.
Are there any technical limitations on using shared registries for some or all of
the
gTLDs?
In reality, no. There are many different software tools that would permit this to be done;
the issues lie in the areas of policy and implementation.
Can exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?
Yes. If shared registries can be implemented, there is no reason why these would be
looked at any differently from an exclusively managed gTLD, with respect to how the
network obtains the data from the root nameservers.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and
what
responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these and how?
Technical requirements are necessary to assure that servers are always reachable and
that they have enough bandwidth and low enough latency to provide good service. They
should maintain a large enough customer service staff to provide rapid response to
customers. In addition, there should be coordination between registries to prevent
stockpiling of domain names and inappropriate requests for too many non-exclusive
domain names. If competition is allowed in the registrar market, these considerations
should take care of themselves.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?
None that can be foreseen.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space
raised
by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
Technically, there should not be any issues. Assuming that guidelines are established for
TLD registrars (see response to question 16 above), there should be few, if any, business
or policy issues. To the extent there are some issues, these include coordination,
trademark and piracy, stockpiling and consumer confusion issues.
19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a given registrar
can
administer?
Limits should probably be placed on the number of TLDs any given registrar can
administer. This should probably be based on the number of potential domain name
registrars that have expressed interest and have met the qualifications of becoming a
registrar. One of the purposes of adding new gTLDs is to distribute the management of
name registry among multiple registrars; having a registrar manage most of the gTLDs in
existence would defeat this goal. Another approach is to limit registrars to issuing gTLDs
within their jurisdiction. For example, country registrars are limited to issuing gTLDs in that
particular country, and the international body would be limited to issuing the tTLDs to
international brands based upon whatever standards are developed.
Does this depend on whether the registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights
to
the gTLD?
No. Exclusivity or non-exclusivity of any given gTLD should be based primarily on the
number of names that are forecast to be requested in the TLD. For obvious reasons, there
should not be more than a handful of registrars managing any given gTLD. Likewise,
having multiple registrars managing a low-volume TLD doesn't make much operational or
business sense.
(please skip to question 21)
E. Trademark Issues
We note at the outset of this section that the topic of trademarks as applied to the issue
of domain names and the global Internet online medium, is not only complex, but crucial
to the implementation of stated U.S. policy to promote electronic commerce. Domain
names are in fact a branding vehicle from which the merchants of the electronic economy
will launch their good and services to the world.
Companies like AOL, among many others, large and small, are building the global brands
of cyberspace and electronic commerce. Our domain names their consumer friendliness,
their universal brand identity and appeal, and their protection worldwide are and will
increasingly become the branded "currency" of global electronic commerce. The
possibilities are great that such global cyberspace brands will conflict with national
trademarks. The need for clear public policy in this complex and critical area is even
greater.
Thus, we urge the U.S. Government to consider our preliminary Comments below and the
overall issue of trademarks vis-à-vis Internet domain names deserving of a separate
analysis and debate among interested parties both here and internationally. We hope the
U.S. Government will work closely and quickly with the private sector to initiate such a
process.
21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks, common law
trademarks,
geographic indications, etc.), if any, should be protected on the Internet vis-à-vis
domain names?
A domain name is an address, similar to One Rockefeller Center, and arguably does not
function as a trademark under law. The system of international classes for trademarks
poses a virtually insurmountable obstacle to incorporating trademark protection into the
current domain name system because there are 42 classes of goods and services in which
a company can obtain a trade or service mark. Unless the domain name system somehow
took those classifications into account, it would not be possible for all trademark holders
of a certain mark (for example, McDonald's) to obtain a domain name that reflected their
trademark rights and status.
This does not mean that trademark holders have no protection against those who would
seek to use their marks unfairly as a domain name -- they still have redress under dilution
law, misappropriation, disparagement, and various state business torts. This would limit
the trademark actions to cases in which the mark was truly famous or misappropriation
affected a company's business or reputation.
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 no preliminary review from a trademark standpoint. This would embroil
the registrar in a field in which they do not have expertise, particularly because the same
name can be a registered trademark for different entities in different classes. Consistent
with trademark principles and case law, the onus for policing the marks should be on the
trademark owner.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark rights be
protected on the Internet vis-à-vis domain names? What entity(ies), if any, should
resolve disputes? Are national courts the only appropriate forum for such
disputes? Specifically, is there a role for national/international
governmental/nongovernmental organizations?
Disputes should be resolved through the current dispute resolution mechanisms in each
country. Otherwise, we would merely be adding a layer of complexity to each trademark
dispute because the party that loses at the registrar level could simply resort to the courts
anyway. Therefore, the courts and each jurisdiction's governmental trademark body
should remain the entities responsible for resolving disputes.
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented? What information
resources (e.g. databases of registered domain names, registered trademarks, trade
names) could help reduce potential conflicts? If there should be a database(s), who
should create the database(s)? How should such a database(s) be used?
Conflicts can be minimized if the domain name system were changed to include 42 domain
name extensions that mimic the 42 current international trademark application classes.
That way, each trademark owner could obtain a domain name commensurate with the
class of goods or services for which it obtained a trademark registration. In addition to the
tTLD concept proposed in our comment to question 2 above, we propose the creation of
42 gTLDs that match exactly the current 42 international trademark application classes.
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?
The only criteria for registering a domain name in terms of trademark protection should be
that the entity and domain name cannot be fraudulent.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars
affect
the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
We would expect the legal costs to rise significantly.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain
name, are there any technological solutions?
One solution would be to create the 42 gTLDs that match the 42 international classes in
which trademark owners can register goods and services.
25616
###
Number: 373
From: "Justin W. Newton" <justin@priori.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 9:47pm
Subject: Comments
Filing Instructions
Mail comments in paper form to Patrice Washington, Office of Public Affairs, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Room 4898, 14th St. and
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230,
or
Mail comments in electronic form is dns@ntia.doc.gov. Comments submitted in electronic
form should be in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, or ASCII format. Detailed information
about electronic filing is available on the NTIA website,
Paper submissions should include three paper copies and a version on diskette in the formats
specified above. To assist reviewers, comments should be numbered and organized in
response to questions in accordance with the five sections of this notice (Appropriate
Principles, General/Organizational Framework Issues, Creation of New gTLDs, Policies for
Registries, and Trademark Issues). Commenters should address each section on a separate
page and should indicate at the beginning of their submission to which questions they are
responding.
Horizontal lines below represent page breaks.
NB. The filing deadline is 1700 hrs EDT (UTC-4), 18 Aug 1997.
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No.
970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of The Internet Service Providers' Consortium.
Justin W. Newton
2893 El Camino Real
Redwood City, CA 94061
Public Policy Director
August 18, 1997
Summary
A. Appropriate Principles
Principles a-f
Other principles
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Questions 1-9
C. Creation of New gTLDs
Questions 10-14
D. Policies for Registries
Questions 15-20
E. Trademark Issues
Questions 21-28
F. Other Issues
1. The Internet Service Provider's Consortium (hereinafter "ISP/C") believes that the
existing
Internet DNS is politically unstable, and that there is a serious risk of Internet partition at
the end of the existing contract between Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") and the National
Science Foundation at the end of March, 1998.
1. ISP/C submits that the largest source of that instability is the lack of a democratic
self-governing mechanism to administer the "root" of the DNS. The creation of such a
democratic self-governing root administration is an urgent priority to the Internet
Community as a whole.
1. ISP/C submits that the second largest source of instability is the existence of a series of
artificial barriers to the registration of new TLDs directly with the root administration.
These barriers are an accident of history, and are not justified on technical, legal or
political grounds. In the future a corporation such as IBM corporation should be able to
register the domain "ibm.", and not be forced to choose "ibm.com." or "ibm.xyz."
1. ISP/C submits that a Constitutional Convention to formally create a new root
administration should be held as soon as possible, with participation by all interested
individuals and organizations, including representatives of the U.S. Government and other
national Governments.
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No.
970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of ISP/C
1. ISP/C respectfully submits comments in this proceeding. ISP/C is an international trade
Association made up of Internet Service Providers. Like other every other business that
depends on the continued growth and vitality of the global Internet, ISP/C members would be
hurt severely if the Internet's Domain Name System were to fragment into political chaos.
A. Appropriate Principles
a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name registration system should
be encouraged. Conflicting domains, systems, and registries should not be
permitted to jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet, however. The
addressing scheme should not prevent any user from connecting to any other
site.
1. An inherent characteristic of the Internet's Domain Name System is that it is
hierarchical
in nature. This means that, for the system to function effectively, all of the networks that
constitute the Internet must at least tacitly accept that there is a single, authoritative root
or "." Once below the root, however, there can be any number of domains at each level in
the hierarchy.
1. This has two significant consequences for competition. First, competition at the root
level
is simply impossible. The day that "competition" appears is the day that the
interoperability of networks that makes the Internet so useful begins to break down. DNS
policy must never forget this fact. It is a huge political challenge to get millions of
networks to agree to anything, let alone that there must be one unchallenged authority at
the root level of the DNS, but it must be achieved if the Internet is to avoid partition.
1. The second consequence is there is no technical barrier to unlimited competition at every
other level of the DNS hierarchy. Although people can argue about what they think is the
"best" ratio of the number of domains at one level of the hierarchy to the number at
another level, there is nothing inherent in the structure of the DNS or the BIND software
that operates it that limits the number of domains at any level other than the root.
1. This point is not well understood by the Internet community, but it has major
implications
nonetheless. Specifically, there is no necessary reason to limit the number of TLDs, or
SLDs, or other LDs.
1. Some have argued that the BIND software would not be able to use caching properly if
there were hundreds of thousands or millions of TLDs, but this has never been proven, nor
is it an inherent part of the software design. Caching of responses is based on the
frequency a domain is queried. No matter what the TLS or SLD being queried, its
likelihood of being in a cache is directly linked to its use. If a SLD or TLD is used
frequently, it will be cached.
1. Elimination of the artificial limit on TLDs would interfere with a number of business
plans
that are premised on becoming a "registry" for one of a limited number of TLDs, but it
should be done nonetheless. This does not mean, however, that companies should not be
free to create new TLDs and attempt to convince others to register in them for a fee.
However, logic would dictate that most organizations (and individuals for that matter)
would prefer not to add a .com or .xyz at the end of their domain name if there is no
requirement that they do so.
1. It follows from this that the concept of "competing registries" is flawed. There can be
no
competition with the administrator of the root that allocates TLDs (because it is the root
that must "point" to each and every one of these TLDs). Competition amongst registries
registering the same TLDs adds unneeded technical and political complexity.
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.
1. These mechanisms should be developed by the "private sector" with private sector
defined
as "anyone who seeks to interconnect their network with the networks that constitute the
Internet."
1. Input from governments should be as welcome as inputs from any other interested
individual or organization.
1. Stability of the DNS is an absolutely critical goal.
1. Misunderstanding of this term "consensus" is responsible for much of the political crisis
surrounding domain names. Consensus is absolutely necessary in the sense that every
network that wishes to interconnect with the other networks that constitute the Internet
must accept the decisions of a single root administration. Consensus is impossible in
the
sense that it defies human nature to expect all of the diverse users of the Internet to agree
on what the appropriate policies of the root administrator should be. Differences of
opinion will always exist, and, in order to win the consent of all parties, these differences
must be resolved in favor of the will of the majority, determined by an actual vote taken by
an authorized and fair method.
1. The mechanism for root administration must be a self-governing one for the simple
reason
that there is no official government entity on the planet that has jurisdiction over the
Internet as a whole. Governments are, of course, users of the Internet, however, and
therefore an important part of the necessary self-governing.
1. It is crucial for the root administration to adequate define responsibilities and maintain
accountability if the Internet is to avoid fragmenting into various political factions.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently global
nature of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over time.
1. Because of the inherently global nature of the Internet, governments, no matter how
well-intentioned, are not capable of governing the root administration on their own.
1. The key to successful evolution over time is to create a stable framework for the root
administration via a written Constitution with provision for Amendment over time. Below
is a Draft Constitution for the Agency for Internet Names and Numbers (AINN), one
possible name for a self-governing organization that would administer the root.
CONSTITUTION OF THE AGENCY FOR INTERNET NAMES AND NUMBERS
We the People of the Internet Community, in order to promote more complete
interoperability of the individual Networks that constitute the Internet, insure
harmonious relations between the various Networks that constitute the Internet, and to
secure the Blessings of Liberty to all the Networks that constitute the Internet, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the Agency for Internet Names and Numbers
(AINN).
ARTICLE I.
SECTION 1. All policymaking Powers granted herein shall be vested in the
Membership of the Agency for Internet Names and Numbers.
SECTION 2. The Membership of the AINN shall be composed of those
individuals and organizations that pay the required Membership fee and submit a duly-completed
application.
The Membership of the AINN will elect a Board of Trustees on an annual basis and
will determine the responsibilities of the Board on an annual basis.
SECTION 3. The Membership will vote on major policy issues at regularly
scheduled elections held at least twice/year; provided, however, that a special election
may be called at any time by a petition signed by at least five (5%) of the AINN
Membership.
SECTION 4. The Membership will keep a Journal of its Proceedings,
including the results of its Elections, and publish this journal electronically on the
Internet.
SECTION 5. The Membership will have Power to determine the prices
charged for globally unique identifiers, whether administered by the AINN itself or by
contracted outside entities.
To provide for organizing, operating and maintaining whatever registries of Internet
globally unique identifiers it determines are necessary to
To make all policies, rules and regulations necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in
the AINN, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
SECTION 6. No bill of attainder or ex post facto policy, rule or regulation
shall be passed.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the AINN, unless appropriated by the
Membership, and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures
of all AINN Money shall be published from time to time.
ARTICLE II
SECTION 1. Management of day-to-day operations of the AINN shall be vested in a
General Administrator of the AINN. The General Administrator will be selected by
the Membership.
SECTION 2. The General Administrator shall from time to time provide the
Membership with Information on the state of the AINN Administration, and
recommend measures for their Consideration.
ARTICLE III
SECTION 1. The judicial Power of the AINN shall be vested in one Judicial Review
Board, and in such inferior tribunals as the Membership may from time to time ordain
and establish. The members of the Judicial Review Board will be elected by the
Membership.
SECTION 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases arising under this
Constitution and the policies, rules and regulations of the AINN.
ARTICLE IV.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given to the public Acts, Records, and judicial
Proceedings of every court of competent jurisdiction in every sovereign nation. The
Membership may by general policies, rules and regulations prescribe the Manner in
which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
ARTICLE V.
Amendments to this Constitution shall be proposed by a Majority Vote of the
Membership or a Majority Vote of the Board of Trustees, and shall be valid as Part of
this Constitution when ratified by a two thirds vote of the Membership.
ARTICLE VI.
This Constitution, and the policies, rules and regulations which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof, shall be binding on all Networks that choose to be connected to
the Internet.
ARTICLE VII.
The Ratification by two thirds of the Delegates to the AINN Constitutional
Convention shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open,
robust, efficient, and fair.
1. Yes. See paragraphs 1-16 above.
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.
1. Yes.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of these
issues permits.
1. Yes. The Internet DNS is at great political risk. There is presently only one entity with
the administrative capability to administer the entire root. That entity, NSI, is a
corporation whose contract to administer the .com, .net. and org domains expires at the
end of March, 1998. It is extremely uncertain whether or not that organization, or any
other organization, will be accepted by the Internet community as having binding authority
over the root administration after that time. If no single organization is accepted as
binding authority over the root administration, the Internet will partition, with potentially
catastrophic consequences.
1. Support of the U.S. Government for a Constitutional Convention to create a new
democratically governed root administration would significantly increase the likelihood
that such a Convention would take place and that it would succeed in preventing the DNS
from disintegrating into political chaos after March, 1998.
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems?
1. The principal advantage of the current domain name registration system is that it works.
Not perfectly, but well enough to make the Internet tremendously useful to individuals and
organizations around the world.
1. The principal disadvantage of the current domain name registration system is that it has
fostered tremendous political instability. The corporation that largely administers the root,
NSI, has a fiduciary duty to maximize the investment returns of its shareholders, not to
maximize the effort expended on behalf of the Internet community or to minimize the
costs to the Internet community. This is the source of much hostility toward NSI in the
Internet community, even though it is nearly impossible to define what specifically would
have been done differently if NSI had been a self-governing organization controlled
directly by the Internet Community for the last four years.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
1. A new Membership-based self-governing root administration should be created by the
Internet Community. (See the proposed Constitution of AINN above.) This entity would
exercise binding authority over the root administration. This entity might choose to
contract with private entities, including NSI, for the performance of certain functions, but
the organization would be responsible for directly setting policy based on the majority will
of its members.
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?
24. See paragraphs 1-23 above.
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?
1. Given the sheer scope and scale of the global Internet, by far the most relevant models
are
the actual governments of the Western democracies. The concepts of a written
Constitution, separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, democratic voting
mechanisms, a procedure for Constitutional Amendments - all of these are as crucial to the
survival of Internet self-governance as they are to the survival of Western democracies.
(Yes, democracy is possible without a written Constitution, but there are number of
advantages to having one.)
1. Governing mechanisms appropriate for a small private club or an industry trade group
can
be used successfully for something as narrowly focused as a network numbering plan or
spectrum allocation. They can no longer be used successfully in Internet governance. The
"governed" are now so numerous and diverse that obtaining direct consent of the
governed is absolutely necessary if the Internet is to avoid disintegrating into political
chaos.
1. The AINN would be an international non-governmental organization, and would have
the
critical role described in paragraphs 1-23 above.
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. gTLDs should not be forcibly retired from circulation, but it is likely that the majority of
Internet users would prefer to go directly to the root for an individual TLD (www.ibm
rather than www.ibm.com, see above.)
1. Requiring geographic or country codes would be a mistake in a Multi-National world.
Multi-National corporations do not want to be known by 200 seperate TLDs (ibm.co.uk,
ibm.co.us, ibm.co.to, etc).
1. The .com registry should be allowed to shrink naturally according to market demand.
31. There is no necessary link between gTLDs and ISO country code domains.
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?
32. See paragraphs 1-23 above.
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?
1. The only way to ensure that root servers continue to interoperate and coordinate is to
create a democratic self-governing organization to administer the root (root servers plus
their relationships to TLD servers). The most likely way that such an organization could
be created is if for the Internet Community to call a Constitutional Convention for the
purpose of creating such an organization. See paragraphs 19-32 above.
1. Another possibility would be for NSI to be converted directly into the necessary
non-profit self-governing organization. This latter option would have a number of advantages,
but would be much more difficult to achieve politically. NSI's shareholders would have to
be "bought out" somehow, and determining a price at which such a transaction would take
price would be fraught with difficulties. The only realistic possible sources of funds to buy
out the NSI shareholders would be future revenues from domain name registration or U.S.
government funds. The former involves difficult valuation issues; the latter relies on U.S.
taxpayer funds that are not readily available for this purpose.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
1. The new self-governing root administration should be created immediately. The
organization would then work closely with NSI in effecting a transition.
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations that constrain the
total number of different gTLDs that can be created?
1. No. The number of TLDs, generic or otherwise, can and should be virtually unlimited,
so
that most of what are today called SLDs are tomorrow called TLDs.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
37. Yes. See paragraphs 1-23 above.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the
scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs?
1. There are no technical problems with increasing the number of TLDs that are incapable
of
ready solution. The problems with the DNS are by and large political rather than
technical.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
code domains?
39. There is no necessary link between the two.
1. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
N/A
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?
1. In a DNS without restrictions on TLDs, the notion of "gTLD registrar" would tend to
become obsolete. The owner of the domain ibm. (presumably IBM corporation) would
itself be a "TLD registrar." Still, some individuals and organizations would prefer to
register in other TLDs, including gTLDs administered by others, so the question remains
relevant. We suggest that gTLDs be handled in the same manner that all TLDs are
handled, on a first-come, first-served basis.
1. Any sharing between "registries" should be on a purely voluntary basis. In a system
where
there is no restriction on the creation of new TLDs (anyone can apply for and receive any
one that is not already taken), there are no competitive issues interfering with the use of
exclusive TLDs.
1. There is no reason exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs could not coexist.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and
what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these and
how?
43. There should be no barriers to becoming the owner/registrar of a new TLD.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?
44. No. See paragraphs 4-5 above.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space
raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
45. None that are not readily solvable. See paragraphs 1-23 above.
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?
1. No and No.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
1. N/A
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?
1. Trademarks should be protected as they have been for hundreds of years, by the parties
involved through either private dispute resolution or via the courts. The Internet
community does not have jurisdiction over trademark law.
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?
1. The self-governing entity responsible for root administration should behave in the same
manner with respect to trademarks as any large corporation would. Would Time
Magazine sell a full page ad to a General Motors Cars, Inc., a maker of toy cars?
Probably it would decline to do so in absence of proof that no trademark conflict exists
with the "real" General Motors car company. Likewise, in "obvious" cases like this one it
would be reasonable for the self-governing body to deny registration of the domain
generalmotors. to anyone other than the car company.
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?
1. In all non-obvious cases the self-governing body should decline to take responsibility for
researching the potential conflict, for notifying the parties to a potential conflict, or for
referring one or more parties to "dispute settlement." Instead, it should simply register
applicants for TLDs on a first-come, first-served basis, and let any conflicts that develop
be resolved between the parties, either privately or through the courts.
1. Aside from a preliminary review process, trademark rights on the Internet should be
protected via national courts. The Internet community, and therefore any self-governing
organization that it creates, does not have jurisdiction to resolve trademark disputes.
Therefore, the self-governing organization should only take a position on a trademark
dispute where it believes it is clear that the governing law of the appropriate jurisdiction
would clearly require that a domain name registration be denied.
1. There is no appropriate role for national/international governmental/nongovernmental
organizations, other than as stated above.
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?
1. By allowing anyone to register any domain in any new TLD. See paragraphs 1-23
above. In this system, speculators intending to register domains (i.e. gucci. or kodak.)
solely for the purpose of extracting settlement payments from corporations eager to avoid
the expense of litigation would stand out like a sore thumb. These registrations could
easily be denied as obvious cases by the root administration, and, if they inadvertently
slipped through the self-governing organization, could be reversed easily in national courts
via summary proceedings rather than prolonged litigation.
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?
1. No basis should be required or even requested unless the officials of the self-governing
organization believe that the registration would represent an obvious trademark
infringement. If there is any ambiguity at all in the context of the application, the
registration should be granted and the burden of enforcement placed on the trademark
holder, where it traditionally lies. Any other policy is doomed to swamp the root
administration in the resolution of trademark disputes.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars
affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
1. Allowing anyone to register any TLD absent an obvious trademark violation would drive
the cost of resolving trademark disputes to the cost of resolving trademark disputes in
almost any other context. The existing artificial shortage of TLDs is creating large
numbers of unnecessary trademark conflicts.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain
name, are there any technological solutions?
1. No. Trademark issues are legal and political rather than technical.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
N/A
N/A
Annex 1
Service List
**************************************************************
Justin W. Newton voice: +1-650-482-2840
Senior Network Architect fax: +1-650-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
Legislative and Policy Director, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
**************************************************************
###
Number: 374
From: Giselle Aguiar <icreate@creativeye.com>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/18/97 10:53pm
Subject: domains
I think Network Solutions should continue to maintain the existing domains
and the new company maintain the new ones. That way there won't be any
confusion or possible down time on any sites.
Giselle Aguiar
Creative Eye Marketing - Over 2 years in Web site development and marketing
http://www.creativeye.com
Need some good news? Visit The Good News Cafe
http://www.goodnews.com/goodnews
Christian Singles Online - Celebrating our 2nd year and our 6th wedding!
http://www.christsingles.com/singles
###
Number: 375
From: "Edward G. Girard" <jerry@southeast.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns),NTIADC40.SMTP40("Ricky_Bash...
Date: 8/18/97 10:05pm
Subject: A recommendation to the U.S.G's Notice Of Inquiry (NOI)
re: the Internet
DNS situation.
This constitutes my contribution to the USG's NOI
regarding the Internet DNS situation.
I believe this is the simplest, fairest, and, meaningfully
correct method, of restoring the DNS, to a workable
solution.
I recommend and totally agree; that, bringing the internet
DNS second-level-domain suffixes under each country's unilatteral
country codes will solve the hierarchial problems; which,
unilatterally exist today, within the DNS.
I believe; that, this segregation does serve, to relegate the "control"
problem, to the individual elements within each country's legal, and,
other infrastructure(s).
I do also believe, agree, and, recommend; that, the growth of the
internet DNS, must be allowed, to become determined, by growth through
rational consenus, and, selection.
No one, group(s) person(s), corporation(s), or, entity(ies) must be
allowed to usurp contol, function, or, continuity, of the inherent
characteristic(s) of the DNS, to overcome the fair, equal, and,
persistent access of the DNS, to the exclusion of any other person(s),
group(s), corporation(s) or entity(ies).
Sincerely,
Edward G. Girard <jerry@southeast.net>
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org","newdo...
###
Number: 376
From: "nina@borinsky.demon.co.uk"
<Nina.Borinsky@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 3:18am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Nina Borinsky do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 18, 1997 03:16:34 EDT
Nina Borinsky
###
Number: 377
From: "ConradM@USA.NET"
<Mathias.Conrad@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 3:40am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Mathias Conrad do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 18, 1997 03:38:55 EDT
Mathias Conrad
###
Number: 378
From: "brmeijer@ATMM.NL" <Bas.Meijer@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 4:10am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Bas Meijer do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 18, 1997 04:08:30 EDT
Bas Meijer
###
Number: 379
From: "geert@xs4all.nl" <Geert.lovink@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 6:22am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Geert lovink do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 18, 1997 06:21:18 EDT
Geert lovink
Geert Lovink
p.o.box 10591
NL 1001 EN Amsterdam
###
Number: 380
From: "dsnider@alltel.net" <Daniel.Snider@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 7:06am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Daniel Snider do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 18, 1997 07:05:22 EDT
Daniel Snider
Daniel Snider
P.O. Box 130
White Springs, FL 32096
###
Number: 381
From: "agalloway@rhizome.com"
<alex.galloway@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 12:09pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I alex galloway do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 18, 1997 12:08:06 EDT
alex galloway
###
Number: 382
From: "wolfgang@thing.net <Wolfgang Staehle<FONT
SIZE="1"><SUP>TM</SUP>" </FONT@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 3:07pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Wolfgang Staehle<FONT
SIZE="1"><SUP>TM</SUP></FONT> do hereby
support
the design of the expanded toplevel Internet namespace which is currently
operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s name.space(tm) service, located on the internet
at http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 18, 1997 15:03:32 EDT
Wolfgang Staehle<FONT SIZE="1"><SUP>TM</SUP></FONT>
###
Number: 383
From: <Surfyy@aol.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/14/97 4:16pm
Subject: Petition
My addition.
Chris Adams
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 Christopher S. Adams 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 ultimately reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
Chris Adams
###
Number: 384
From: "seltzerm@pilot.msu.edu"
<Michael.Seltzer@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 3:55pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Michael Seltzer do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 18, 1997 15:54:17 EDT
Michael Seltzer
Lyman Briggs School
Michigan State University
Holmes Hall
East Lansing, MI 48825-1107
###
Number: 385
From: "newmedia@mcimail.com"
<Mark.Stahlman@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 4:52pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Mark Stahlman do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 18, 1997 16:51:30 EDT
Mark Stahlman
###
Number: 386
From: "hacker@pgi.net" <D.J.Hacker@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 5:41pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I D. J. Hacker do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 18, 1997 17:40:12 EDT
D. J. Hacker
Premiere Graphics International
150 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10011
###
Number: 387
From: "dennis.driscoll@factory.com"
<Dennis.Driscoll@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 5:29pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Dennis Driscoll do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 18, 1997 17:28:02 EDT
Dennis Driscoll
c/o Old Devil Moon
511 East 12th St
NYC NY 10009
###
Number: 388
From: "pdr@echonyc.com"
<Paul.DeRienzo@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 11:11pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Paul DeRienzo do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 18, 1997 23:10:16 EDT
Paul DeRienzo
###
particular gTLD? Are there any technical limitations on using
non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?
given registrar can administer? Does this depend on whether the
registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the gTLD?
law trademarks, geographic indications, etc.), if any, should be
protected on the Internet vis-à-vis domain names?
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.?
rights be protected on the Internet vis-à-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?
registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark
disputes?
single domain name, are there any technological solutions?
###
Number: 217
From: "bluefin@thing.net" <Hatsumi.Asaka@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/9/97 12:53am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Hatsumi Asaka do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 9, 1997 00:51:37 EDT
Hatsumi Asaka
###
Number: 218
From: "jagware@ibm.net" <Joe.Givens@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/9/97 1:20am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Joe Givens do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 9, 1997 01:18:49 EDT
Joe Givens
Since this country was founded on competition, why should we be subjected
to the monoploy of the internic?? Name.space fosters competition in this
burgeoning industry, IMHO
###
Number: 219
From: "MTM@aon.at" <ads.GmbH.-.Peter.Kuhlang@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/9/97 1:57am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I ads GmbH - Peter Kuhlang do hereby support the design of the expanded
toplevel Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 9, 1997 01:55:36 EDT
ads GmbH - Peter Kuhlang
MTM@mycity.at
we hace registrated:
MTM.firm
ESC.firm
###
Number: 220
From: "adler@sachsen.de" <Mathias.Adler@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/9/97 3:53am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Mathias Adler do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 9, 1997 03:51:54 EDT
Mathias Adler
01157 Dresden
Meissner Landstrasse 127
###
Number: 221
From: "scharn@il.us.swissbank.com" <N.Scharnagl@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/9/97 5:27am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I N.Scharnagl do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 9, 1997 05:25:49 EDT
N.Scharnagl
###
Number: 222
From: "mspiteri@maltanet.net" <Marcel.Spiteri@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/9/97 8:23am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Marcel Spiteri do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 9, 1997 08:22:02 EDT
Marcel Spiteri
"Valley View" flat,
Valley Str.,
Mellieha SPB14,
MALTA.
Free the net!!!
###
Number: 223
From: "fk@bln.de" <Frank.Kunkel@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/9/97 8:30am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Frank Kunkel do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 9, 1997 08:29:00 EDT
Frank Kunkel
###
Number: 224
From: "bonita@4dcomm.com" <Bonita.Walker@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/9/97 11:51am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Bonita Walker do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 9, 1997 11:50:20 EDT
Bonita Walker
###
Number: 225
From: "churn88@aol.com" <Janie.Angus@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/9/97 4:12pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Janie Angus do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 9, 1997 16:11:15 EDT
Janie Angus
###
Number: 226
From: "kjr@ap.net" <Kevin.Shepherd@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/9/97 7:20pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Kevin Shepherd do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 9, 1997 19:16:14 EDT
Kevin Shepherd
###
Number: 227
From: "ahochber@iname.com" <Alex.M.Hochberger@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/9/97 9:34pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Alex M. Hochberger do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 9, 1997 21:33:01 EDT
Alex M. Hochberger
305 NW 111th Ave
Coral Springs, FL 33071
###
Number: 228
From: "regwhit@yorku.ca" <Reg.Whitaker@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/9/97 11:08pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Reg Whitaker do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 9, 1997 23:06:26 EDT
Reg Whitaker
Department of Political Science
York University
Toronto Ont M3J 1P3
CANADA
###
Number: 229
From: instant@aracnet.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/10/97 4:17am
Subject: It is time to expand available domains
The addition of these additional domain names is imperative to the
continued growth of the web. I have a business called Instant Impact
Communications and can't get a domain that comes close to my commercial
name. The domain names instant.com, instant.org, instant.net, impact.com,
impact.org, impact.net and even imstantimpact.com are all taken by other
companies. A domain name trader recently offered to sell me the rights to
instant.com for several thousand dollars versus the original two-year
registration cost of just $100. Not only is this practice extortive, it
prevents my customers from associating my site name with my business. In
addition to expanding the available domains, the arbitration process for
copyrighted domain names should be streamlined to make certain that
companies with proprietary trademarks and business names don't lose their
domain names to Internet speculators. Please expedite the addition of new
top level domains on the Internet at your earliest opportunity.
Christopher Vetter
Instant Impact Communications
"Making the world a better place, one web site at a time."
cvetter@aracnet.com or 503-648-1529
###
Number: 230
From: "trend@worldaccess.nl" bruining@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/10/97 5:31am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I bruining do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel Internet
namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s name.space(tm)
service, located on the internet at http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or
http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Sunday, August 10, 1997 05:30:04 EDT
bruining
P.O.BOX 6051
3002 AB ROTTERDAM
###
Number: 231
From: "barto@ahk.nl" Bart.Oomen@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/10/97 7:47am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Bart Oomen do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Sunday, August 10, 1997 07:45:45 EDT
Bart Oomen
O.Z Achterburgwal 55-1
Amsterdam
The Netherlands
###
Number: 232
From: <southbrook-lan@voyager.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/11/97 9:48pm
Subject: COMMENT ON INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES
First, minimize government mucking about - that which they do best,
mucking up the works, that is.
Second, minimize the cacademics' participation - this matter is not
one well suited to ivory tower hypotheses. We will be living with
the consequences for some time to come.
Third, make them manifestly meaningful, i.e., banking industry=bnk,
publishing of all natures=pub, smut=xxx, etc., with particular
consideration for transparent clarity English as well as as many
other languages as possible - with an
eye to (a) same or similar meaning, and (b) avoidance of contradictory
interpretation. (Remember the Chevy Nova that did not sell well in
Latin America because Nova comes across as "no go?"
Fourth, deeply involve those (techies and management) that will have
to explain the system as good and reasonable, and who will have to
make it work on a daily basis.
James B. Graves
Forbes Computer Co.
Post Office Box 427
Holt, Michigan 48842-0427
###
Number: 233
From: <FinanciaCo@aol.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/11/97 6:25pm
Subject: Domain names
A spectre is haunting America! The spectre of Internet Solutions, Inc.
Compounding the reckless registration policies of this outfit, unsupervised
by NSF, and abetted by ISPs that have capitalized on the mutual greed, a
govenment dictated solution to the chaos is needed.
The "first come - first served" exculpatory excuse by Internet Solutions does
not square with the real world of trademark and intellectual property laws
and customs. Do not believe any of Internet Solutions, Inc. policy on dispute
resolutions. It is a smokescreen that rivals Hitler's Goebles.
I am the victim of a thief registering my fanciful, distinctive, unique, and
now famous trademark that has been used in commerce since 1983. They now
mistakenly believe that they have property rights to my trademark by virtual
of their .com system. I have furnished sufficient proof of ownership
including the PTO sending a direct fax copy to their outside counsel. I have
refused sending the original PTO binding and and am perplexed at their latest
demand for a certified copy that is merely the same thing with a ribbon
affixed.
Their contributory infringement prohibits me from using the intuitive address
for FINANCIA that has worked well on AOL's members page but caused me to have
to use FinanciaCo on the www domain. Later when financia is available I will
have to give them another $100. and perhaps even another $100 to register
Financiainc. Is not this game in need of redress?
Sincerely,
Darrell J. Bird - Financia@aol.com
###
Number: 234
From: Louis Epstein <le@main.put.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/11/97 1:10pm
Subject: Domain Names...Too Easy to Get!
I note that you are accepting comments on the future administration
of domain name registration on the Internet.
In a nutshell,it is FAR too easy to get a domain name for insufficient
reason.For users to get their own domain names is the Net equivalent of
incorporating cities in their back yards.You do not need and should not
want a domain name unless you are going to support a large number of
users over an exclusive fixed internet link.The proliferation of
www.lookeelookeemamaIgotmyveryowndomain.com sites is bad namespace
usage and harms network performance.
Now there is pressure for more gTLDs,to further aid the unwarranted
prioliferation,which is of course promoted by those standing to make
money in the process.I say no...there should be no gTLDs not with
clear differentiation from all others in their function.
Obviously,administration has to be done in such a way as to prevent
duplication of names,or they become useless.The prevention of
price-gouging should be done by regulation,not by competition.
The registration of domain names may be a growth industry,
but unreasonable growth sprouts weeds and waste.Government
solutions should not be aimed at helping a feeding frenzy,
but at reining it in.
Louis Epstein
Putnam Internet Services
###
Number: 235
Office of Public Affairs
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
Room 4898
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
and Administration of Internet Domain Names
INTA Government Relations Program Coordinator
International Trademark Association
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-6710
###
Number: 236
From: "antoine@eci.com" <Anthony.Tong@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/11/97 3:16pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Anthony Tong do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 11, 1997 15:05:25 EDT
Anthony Tong
###
Number: 237
From: "rick@rickster.com" <Rick.Frankel@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/11/97 3:28pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Rick Frankel do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 11, 1997 15:26:41 EDT
Rick Frankel
###
Number: 238
From: "zod@walrus.com" <Charles.Hope@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/11/97 6:59pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Charles Hope do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Monday, August 11, 1997 18:57:59 EDT
Charles Hope
###
Number: 239
From: "Vic O'Dell" <webmaster@thesmokies.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 12:34am
Subject: Public Comment on the Domain Names
I think that the domain name extensions should reflect geographic location
(i.e. domain-name.com.423 or domain-name.net.932 or domain-name.gov.55).
Where a number such as an area code or country code separates the
businesses or organizations and decentralizes trademark/domain-name
problems to a smaller area for better control. The Internet is a
decentralized communication system and should not be governed by a
centralized organization. If there arises an issue on the national or
international level, then a central organization can act as arbitrator to
settle a dispute.
For example, some business names are so popular that they resurface in each
state in the US. You can have an "AAA Automotive" in New York and Texas or
"AAA Automotive" can decide to form a national chain and apply for a
foreign license in each state, thereby protecting their business name.
Vic O'Dell
###
Number: 240
From: "ivo@reporters.net" <Ivo.Skoric@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 11:05pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
Just recently there were five more Top Level Domain names added to the
meager list of already available options. The administration that guides
that standard admits to its inadequacy system and to the technical
feasibility of the pgMedia proposal. Therefore, unless there are some moral
or political reasons that we are not aware of in a democracy, there should
be no obstacles in adopting and implementing their idea.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 23:03:00 EDT
Ivo Skoric
###
Number: 241
From: "100131.2223@compuserve.com" <Tilman.Baumgaertel@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 5:05am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Tilman Baumgaertel do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 05:03:58 EDT
Tilman Baumgaertel
###
Number: 242
From: "pkalocsa@counsel.com" <Paul.Kalocsay@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 11:17am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Paul Kalocsay do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 11:16:01 EDT
Paul Kalocsay
###
Number: 243
From: "kaas@usa.net" <Kelsey.Francis@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 1:45pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Kelsey Francis do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 13:44:24 EDT
Kelsey Francis
###
Number: 244
From: "jrives@mindspring.com" <Joel.M.Rives@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 4:24pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Joel M. Rives do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 16:22:03 EDT
Joel M. Rives
###
Number: 245
From: ajs6f@virginia.edu <adam soroka@zero.tolerance.org>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 4:49pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I adam soroka do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 16:48:07 EDT
adam soroka
###
Number: 246
From: admin@imail.org <Warwick Berg@zero.tolerance.org>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 6:17pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Warwick Berg do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 18:15:04 EDT
Warwick Berg
###
Number: 247
From: "water@ddgn.com" <Julietta.L.A.@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 6:53pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Julietta L.A. do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 18:52:28 EDT
Julietta L.A.
22 Bushwick Ave. #3
###
Number: 248
From: "cernyr01@doc.mssm.edu" <Rosaria.Cerny@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 8:57pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Rosaria Cerny do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 20:55:49 EDT
Rosaria Cerny
###
Number: 249
From: "SUDIVA@aol.cvom" <Colleen.Cortes@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 8:59pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Colleen Cortes do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 20:58:11 EDT
Colleen Cortes
###
Number: 250
From: "abodor@flotsam.com" <Andrew.Bodor@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 9:03pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Andrew Bodor do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 21:01:42 EDT
Andrew Bodor
NYC
###
Number: 251
From: "colleenwerthmann@hotmail.com" <Colleen.Werthmann@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 9:13pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Colleen Werthmann do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 21:12:00 EDT
Colleen Werthmann
c/o Werth-Mania!
166 Suffolk Street #2B
NYC, NY 10002
###
Number: 252
From: "Jas1001001@aol.com" <Jason.Zuzga@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 9:48pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Jason Zuzga do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 21:45:47 EDT
Jason Zuzga
###
Number: 253
From: "mooses@aol.com" <Jack.Aronson@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 9:51pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Jack Aronson do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 21:51:04 EDT
Jack Aronson
New York, NY USA
###
Number: 254
From: "dsolomon@xs4all.nl" <D.A.Solomon@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 10:16pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I D.A. Solomon do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 22:15:09 EDT
D.A. Solomon
###
Number: 255
From: "dmilford@interport.net" <Doug.Milford@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/12/97 10:45pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Doug Milford do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 22:43:41 EDT
Doug Milford
632 East 11th Street, Apt. 13
New York, NY 10009
###
Number: 256
From: <ALLENJS@detroitedison.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/13/97 4:17pm
Subject: DNS management
Sirs:
I believe that the administration of top-level domains should be opened
to organisations which can compete on basis of service and cost. The
Internet is too important a resource to leave at the mercy of a bumbling,
beauracratic, monopoly such as network solutions, inc., who has no
commitment whatsoever to customer satisfaction.
peace,
Joshua Allen
###
Number: 257
From: "mpreven@pipeline.com" <Marc.Preven@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/13/97 1:17am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Marc Preven do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Wednesday, August 13, 1997 01:15:51 EDT
Marc Preven
###
Number: 258
From: "misfits@gol.com" <Tom.NAGAE@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/13/97 1:35am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Tom NAGAE do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel Internet
namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s name.space(tm)
service, located on the internet at http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or
http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Wednesday, August 13, 1997 01:34:09 EDT
Tom NAGAE
###
Number: 259
From: "kossatz@thing.at" <Max.Kossatz@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/13/97 11:01am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Max Kossatz do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Wednesday, August 13, 1997 10:59:57 EDT
Max Kossatz
###
Number: 260
From: "wizard@muu.autono.net" <Ville.Venell@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/13/97 5:38pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Ville Venell do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Wednesday, August 13, 1997 17:36:57 EDT
Ville Venell
###
Number: 261
From: "aah@thing.ch" <Andreas.A.Hagenbach@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/13/97 6:03pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Andreas A.Hagenbach do hereby support the design of the expanded
toplevel Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Wednesday, August 13, 1997 18:01:42 EDT
Andreas A.Hagenbach
Erlenstrasse 20
CH-4058 Basel
Switzerland
###
Number: 262
From: "crunch@host.net" <John.Draper@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/13/97 6:26pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I John Draper do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Wednesday, August 13, 1997 18:25:28 EDT
John Draper
Waco, TX
###
Number: 263
From: "state505@escape.com" <hagop.tumayan@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/13/97 6:29pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I hagop tumayan do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Wednesday, August 13, 1997 18:28:14 EDT
hagop tumayan
###
Number: 264
From: "foo@tiac.net" <Fumi.Itoyama@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/13/97 7:04pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Fumi Itoyama do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Wednesday, August 13, 1997 19:02:34 EDT
Fumi Itoyama
###
Number: 265
From: "mbills@versionmedia.com" <Mitchell.Bills@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/13/97 9:16pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Mitchell Bills do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Wednesday, August 13, 1997 21:14:26 EDT
Mitchell Bills
Connecticut
###
Number: 266
From: "xander@escape.com" <Alexander.Clifton@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/13/97 9:25pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Alexander Clifton do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Wednesday, August 13, 1997 21:24:14 EDT
Alexander Clifton
###
Number: 267
From: "sugerbean@sprynet.com" <yutaka.sato@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/13/97 12:18pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I yutaka sato do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Wednesday, August 13, 1997 12:16:33 EDT
yutaka sato
###
Number: 268
From: <Pabatan@kiki.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/14/97 6:04am
Subject: Comments On Domain Name Strategies
Comments on Internet Domain registration :
I have a company registered as Business Information Technology Management,
abbreviated as BITMAN. However, there is a graphic design company already
registered as WWW.BITMAN.COM. In order to resolve issues like this it will
be better if domain names could be registered according to the industry
sector they operate in for example, in situation the graphic art company
will registered as :-
www.graphics.bitman.com
While my company that is in the IT sector will be registered as :-
www.it.bitman.com
And if there is a law firm with the same name it will be :-
www.law.bitman.com
The company I currently work for is called Knowledge Insight and normally
call themselves KI, which means you will expect their web site to be
www.ki.com, but this site is already used by another company.
I believe that this will do a great deal in actually distinguishing
organizations and resolve conflicts among domain name systems. Please
contact me on Peter@KIKI.COM if you are interested in my ideas, or you
want me to do more research work on this issue.
Sincerely,
###
Number: 269
From: "Gymer, Keith" <GymerK@hlcec1.agw.bt.co.uk>
To: 'NTIA - DNS COMMENTS' <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/14/97 7:53am
Subject: BT Response to US Government RFC - Part 1 - A (a to f)
This is the formal response on behalf of British Telecommunications plc
(BT) to the US Department of Commerce Request for Comments on the
Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names. For
convenience, the questions raised in the document are reproduced
indented >, with BT's responses in plain text below. BT has responded
to all questions.
Owing to email limitations the response is being sent in three parts.
In the event of any problems with this email, or for clarification or
further comments on any of the issues raised here, please contact:
Keith Gymer
BT Group Legal Services
Intellectual Property Department
8th Floor, Holborn Centre
120 Holborn, London
EC1N 2TE, UK
Tel: +44 171 492 8129
Fax: +44 171 242 0585
>DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
>
>[Docket No. 970613137-7137-01]
>
>Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet
Domain Names
>
>AGENCY: Department of Commerce.
>
>ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.
>
>SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce requests comments on the
>current and future system(s) for the registration of Internet
>domain names. The Department invites the public to submit
>written comments in paper or electronic form.(1)
>
>DATES: Comments must be received by August 18, 1997.
>
>ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to Patrice Washington, Office
>of Public Affairs, National Telecommunications and Information
>Administration (NTIA), Room 4898, 14th St. and Constitution
>Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
>for electronic access and filing addresses and further
>information on submitting comments.
>
>FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Bruening, NTIA, (202) 482-1816.
>
>SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
>
>Electronic Access and Filing Addresses
>
>The address for comments submitted in electronic form is
>dns@ntia.doc.gov. Comments submitted in electronic form should
>be in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, or ASCII format. Detailed
>information about electronic filing is available on the NTIA
>website, http://www.ntia.doc.gov.
>
>Further Information on Submitting Comments
>
>Submit written comments in paper or electronic form at the
>above addresses. Paper submissions should include three paper
>copies and a version on diskette in the formats specified
>above. To assist reviewers, comments should be numbered and
>organized in response to questions in accordance with the five
>sections of this notice (Appropriate Principles,
>General/Organizational Framework Issues, Creation of New gTLDs,
>Policies for Registries, and Trademark Issues). Commenters
>should address each section on a separate page and should
>indicate at the beginning of their submission to which
>questions they are responding.
>
>Background
>
>The rapid growth in the use of the Internet has led to
>increasing public concern about the current Internet domain
>name registration systems. According to Internet Monthly
>Report, registration of domain names within a few top-level
>domains (.com, .net, .org) has increased from approximately 400
>per month in 1993 to as many as 70,000 per month in 1996, the
>overwhelming majority in the .com category. The enormous growth
>and commercialization of the Internet has raised numerous
>questions about current domain name registration systems. In
>addition, the present system will likely undergo modification
>when the National Science Foundation's cooperative agreement
>(NSF agreement) with Network Solutions Inc. to register and
>administer second-level domains for three top-level domains
>expires in 1998. Resolution of these issues will also affect
>the future operation of the National Information Infrastructure
>(NII) and the Global Information Infrastructure (GII).
>
>The United States Government played a central role in the
>initial development, deployment, and operation of domain name
>registration systems, and through the NSF agreement as well as
>Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) agreement(s)
>continues to play a role. In recent years, however, Internet
>expansion has been driven primarily by the private sector. The
>Internet has operated by consensus rather than by government
>regulation. Many believe that the Internet's decentralized
>structure accounts at least in part for its rapid growth.
>
>The Government has supported the privatization and
>commercialization of the Internet through actions such as the
>transition from the NSFNET backbone to commercial backbones.
>The Government supports continued private sector leadership for
>the Internet and believes that the transition to private sector
>control should continue. The stability of the Internet depends
>on a fully interconnected and interoperable domain name system
>that must be preserved during any transition.
>
>Various private sector groups have proposed systems for
>allocating and managing generic top level domains (gTLDs). The
>Government is studying the proposals and the underlying issues
>to determine what role, if any, it should play. The Government
>has not endorsed any plan at this time but believes that it is
>very important to reach consensus on these policy issues as
>soon as possible.
>
>The United States Government seeks the views of the public
>regarding these proposals and broader policy issues as well.
>Specifically, the Government seeks information on the following
>issues:
BACKGROUND
British Telecommunications plc, trading as BT is the UK's major
telecommunications operator. BT is a world leader in the provision of
international communications networks and services. BT has numerous
operating alliances across the globe, including its principal
collaboration with MCI Communications in the Concert Communications
joint venture providing internet infrastructure (e.g. Concert Internet
Plus) and services. This business will expand in future through the
imminent merger of BT and MCI's businesses.
BT is also a major trade mark owner, and as a consequence has been the
target in several cases where its trade marks have been misappropriated
in domain names by unprincipled speculators with no rights to such
marks. BT has also experienced the situation where another entity has
acquired a domain name incorporating a mark to which it and BT both have
legitimate rights in the real world. Such pre-emptive legitimate
registration of a domain name under the present systems, however,
excludes any other party from using the same name in cyberspace
regardless of the fact that both can happily co-exist in the ordinary
course of business.
BT has been actively involved in commenting and in discussion
particularly with interested parties in the UK and Europe during the
evolution of the IAHC/iPOC proposals.
These experiences highlight the two issues which, in our view, it is
essential to resolve in order to allow the internet to fulfil its
optimum potential and provide an efficient and effective medium to meet
the needs of consumers and business for reliable and secure services in
the 21st century information age. These are:
1. That the DNS should be structured to allow businesses which have
legitimate rights to use names and marks in the real world without
conflict to be able to use the same names in cyberspace also without
conflict and without discrimination. Businesses use marks and names for
identification and to give customers assurance about whom they are
dealing with. Domain names, therefore, certainly can and do perform a
trade mark function on the internet.
Fundamentally, a more equitable and formal structure for the allocation
of names and a move away from the inappropriate first-come, first-served
model - FCFS - (which is really first-come, ONLY-served) would seem to
be desirable. The current essential uniqueness of domain names coupled
with a simplistic FCFS system only encourages a "land rush" approach to
grabbing of names to prevent others getting them or to hold potential
users with legitimate rights to ransom for their preferred names. What
is needed is a more sensible, orderly system which gives businesses and
consumers confidence that the interests and rights of all (not just the
fastest to register) will be properly considered and balanced. Domain
names need to be as available for use as trade marks are in the real
world, whether a business comes early or late to the net.
2. As noted above, it is unsatisfactory that the first to register a
domain name should be able to exclude any other business with legitimate
real world rights from using the same name or mark in a domain name
when it could not maintain such exclusivity in the real world.
Conversely, however, trade mark owners are entitled to prevent those who
have no such legitimate rights from misappropriating their names and
marks in domain names. Owing to the instant international reach of the
internet and the corresponding potential for rogue registrations to
cause significant immediate damage to a trade mark owners rights, it is
essential that any domain name registration system should have an
effective and fast dispute resolution procedure to resolve such
conflicts and to deter such piracy. Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), of
course, does have a dispute policy (see
http://rs.internic.net/domain-info/internic-domain-6.html ). However,
it has been criticised as inadequate and lacking transparency by trade
mark owners and domain name holders alike (see e.g. Carl Oppedahl's
comments at http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht and the International
Trademark Association's comments at http://www.inta.org/intaprop.htm ).
BT itself has had the unsatisfactory experience whereby NSI's policy has
not been applicable to rogue registrations of domain names such as
british-tele.com and bt-mci.com, for example.
In this respect, BT considers the alternative dispute resolution and
administrative challenge proposals originally produced by the Internet
International Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC) and which are being refined by the
Interim Policy Oversight Committee (iPOC) offer significant improvements
over NSI's policy and have the potential to be fairer and more
effective.
The merits of alternative proposals for domain name administration will
stand to be judged against these two principal criteria.
>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?
The IAHC in its gTLD-MoU (see http://www.gtld-mou.org/ ) has provided a
clear statement of the basic principles which it believes should apply
to the administration of domain names. BT considers that these basic
principles are sensible and realistic and worthy of support. They are
certainly preferable to some of the principles underlying the
alternative models we have seen proposed by NSI, PGP Media, eDNS,
Alternic and others. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the fact that BT
has serious concerns about other details of the IAHC's proposals, BT
would be prepared to endorse the basic principles in the gTLD-MoU and
would commend the US Government to do likewise. These principles are:
(a) the Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) name space is a
public resource and is subject to the public trust;
(b) any administration, use and/or evolution of the Internet
TLD space is a public policy issue and should be carried out
in the interests and service of the public;
(c) related public policy needs to balance and represent the
interests of the current and future stakeholders in the
Internet name space;
(d) the current and future Internet name space stakeholders
can benefit most from a self-regulatory and market-oriented
approach to Internet domain name registration services;
(e) registration services for the gTLD name space should
provide for global distribution of registrars;
(f) a policy shall be implemented that a second-level domain
name in any of the CORE-gTLDs which is identical or closely
similar to an alphanumeric string that, for the purposes of
this policy, is deemed to be internationally known, and for
which demonstrable intellectual property rights exist, may be
held or used only by, or with the authorization of, the owner
of such demonstrable intellectual property rights.
Appropriate consideration shall be given to possible use of
such a second-level domain name by a third party that, for the
purposes of this policy, is deemed to have sufficient rights.
>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.
BT certainly believes that competition in services for registration is
desirable. The IAHC proposal for shared registries, therefore, which
allows for competition between registrars is preferable to NSI's
monopoly control of registration in the existing gTLDs.
However, "expansion" of the DNS is a different issue and this requires
wider and deeper consideration. The proliferation of non-specific
gTLDs, even to the limited extent presently proposed by the IAHC, will
inevitably result in a diminution of the utility of the DNS generally as
a meaningful alternative to less memorable number strings (IP addresses)
and will pose an increasing problem for trade mark owners in policing
unauthorised use of marks in domain names and consequent infringement or
dilution of established trade mark rights.
There is a case for controlled expansion of the DNS to allow for
properly qualified, and industry specific gTLDs where these can
facilitate identification of businesses and improve usability. There is
also a case for an alternative "shared" gTLD (see below for further
discussion) as an option for resolving the first issue (equitable rights
to use real-world names in cyberspace) identified in the preamble above.
BT believes that an expansion of the DNS by adding the seven new gTLDs
as currently specified by the IAHC, with allocation continuing to be
made by a simplistic FCFS process is inappropriate. The likelihood
is that such expansion will only replicate and multiply the problems
already experienced with existing gTLDs. They are not adequately
structured to allow different businesses with legitimate rights to the
same name to have equitable access without risk of conflict or
confusion. This lack of distinguishing structure and the FCFS
allocation system will mean that, if they can, businesses will be
obliged to try to register their key marks in each new gTLD in order to
strengthen their association with those marks and to exclude others as
far as possible. The addition of new gTLDs has been discussed by BT
with representatives of other major trade mark owners, the UK Trade Mark
Registry, the European Commission, European ISO3166 country code
registrars (e.g. Nominet UK) and others - the overwhelming weight of
considered opinion is against the addition of any more general gTLDs at
this stage. Whilst, as the International Trade Mark Association and
others have observed, the addition of only seven new gTLDs is
potentially less prejudicial than the 150 or more that have been
advocated by some from the "internet community", we firmly believe that
NONE should be added for now.
Accordingly, BT recommends this aspect of the IAHC plan should be
thoroughly reconsidered and that no new gTLDs should be added at least
until the IAHC plan has been proven to work with the existing gTLDs
(.com, .org and .net). Obviously, this implies that steps must be taken
to ensure that NSI's monopoly control over these gTLDs is transferred to
iPOC on expiry of NSI's present contract with NSF in March 1998.
From a business and operational perspective, stability and consistency
in the administration of the DNS are highly desirable. The DNS must be
managed to allow universal access to any valid address. Fragmentation
of the DNS and conflicting alternative systems must be avoided. This is
particularly important in the case of gTLDs. BT supports the IAHC call
for all gTLDs to be administered according to the same principles as
specified in the gTLD-MoU. Ultimately, it would also be desirable to
encourage ISO3166 National Registries to operate according to the same
principles and with consistent procedures. However, this is clearly
likely to be a longer-term objective, which might require the internet
equivalent of the WIPO Trade Mark Law treaty to establish!
>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.
BT strongly supports the implementation of private-sector led
self-regulatory mechanisms for DNS management, with governmental input
where relevant. To this end, the IAHC/iPOC initiative is a commendable
precedent. However, BT considers (and we believe the iPOC itself
recognises) that the appropriate balance of the various stakeholders who
need to be involved in the process is yet to be established. At the
moment, BT's impression is that the process is still substantially being
"technically driven" rather than genuinely "market led" (i.e. those with
technical expertise and those internet-specific businesses with a
specialist technical interest are pushing for more gTLDs, for example,
while the wider business community is unconvinced that they are needed
or that they will resolve the perceived problems with the existing
system.) In these circumstances, BT would suggest that the balance of
representation on iPOC (or any successor private sector management body)
should evolve to have greater mainstream business and ordinary
(non-technical) consumer/user representation and the weight of
representation from the technical side should be reduced. Thus
additional representatives might be drawn from groups like the
International Chamber of Commerce or other business organisations
world-wide as well as from mainstream consumer organisations.
>c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the
>inherently global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve
>as necessary over time.
This is an essential. The internet has grown from its original US roots
into a truly international medium. It would be inappropriate and
counterproductive now for any national government or any self-governing
body to treat it as a parochial asset (although ISO3166 national
registries obviously remain free to establish national rules for domain
names under their respective national country codes). More
specifically, it is desirable that the DNS should become more flexible
and less anglo-centric, so that other non-English/American character
sets, for example can validly be used. This is an important issue for
members of the European Union where there are many languages in use
other than English!
>d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should
>be open, robust, efficient, and fair.
Again, BT completely supports these principles. And we reiterate that
the "fairness" must extend to enabling equitable access to domain names
for all with demonstrable rights (not just the most "internet aware" who
happen to be fastest to register under existing systems). However great
are the claims for the growth of the internet, there are more potential
users still to connect (who will legitimately want representative domain
names in due course) than there are connected now.
>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.
As indicated above, BT considers this to be a major issue. It is much
to be preferred that a policy framework should enable and promote
settlement of any conflicts and elimination of disputes BEFORE names are
registered and allowed to go live. It is unsatisfactory and
commercially prejudicial both for domain name registrants and trade
mark owners to have disputes arise after use of a domain name has taken
place for any length of time.
To this end, the IAHC proposal to establish Administrative Challenge
Panels (ACP) for fast track administrative review of challenges together
with options for pre-registration publication and for post-registration
suspension during adjudication of a challenge is a positive step. The
IAHC proposals to require substantive details from a potential
registrant (as would be required from a trade mark applicant) and
submission to a defined jurisdiction are also welcome.
However, the iPOC's present plan to open its proposed new gTLDs to a
free-for-all on day one with no provision for provisional applications
before that is a recipe for provoking conflicts and for encouraging
rip-offs. It may evoke fond memories of the Oklahoma land rush as the
internet-aware scramble to stake their claims, but now just as then,
there will be other groups who consider they would have prior claims to
the "land" (or names in this case) which should not be pre-empted by
such a manifestly crude system of allocation. If the internet is to
evolve seriously as a mainstream business tool then it needs a more
mature approach to administration in a civilised and orderly fashion,
not according to some rough traditions of frontier law dating from the
nineteenth century.
When a new trade mark law is introduced these days (such as the
Community Trade Mark) it is common practice to accept applications prior
to the start date, to accord all such applications the same priority and
to resolve any conflicts equitably. If unqualified new gTLDs are to be
introduced, then BT considers an analogous procedure should apply to
discourage rip-offs and to provide a genuinely equitable opportunity for
all who might have legitimate rights to use any given name.
Similarly, applications for domain names in the new gTLDs could be open
for a reasonable period (say six weeks) before the start of operation of
the new gTLDs. In the event of multiple applications for any given
domain name in the new gTLDs, those domain names would NOT be delegated
immediately, but the claimants would be told to resolve their competing
claims in some mutually acceptable fashion (and subject to some rules to
prevent spurious claims and dilatory behaviour). For example, the
claimants might adopt different names, modified to distinguish the
parties and/or might agree to sharing the primary (contested) domain
name. This would i) reduce the potential for the new CORE Registry to
get involved in disputes; ii) remove the opportunity for FCFS
pre-emptive grabbing of non-exclusive names which simply favours the
net-aware (and the technically adept at flooding the CORE registry with
applications at zero hour); iii) promote resolution of disputes BEFORE
registration; and iv) result in a more equitable allocation of domain
names giving more companies a chance of obtaining at least a share of a
name to which they might have a claim.
>f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent
>consideration of these issues permits.
BT would encourage an early international adoption of a practical
framework for DNS management consistent with the basic principles
expressed in the IAHC gTLD MoU. The only clear deadline which we are
aware of in this respect is the 31 March 1998 expiry of the NSI contract
with the National Science Foundation (NSF). It would obviously be in
the interests of all parties for the future administration of the
existing gTLDs to be specified before then. As we understand it, the
NSF can oblige NSI to hand over the necessary data to enable others to
administer these gTLDs if desired. BT would recommend that NSF should
assert this right and transfer responsibility for administration of the
existing gTLDs to iPOC. NSI's interests as a registrar could be
sufficiently preserved by "grandfathering" NSI as a Registrar under the
gTLD-MoU (provided NSI then agreed to abide by the gTLD-MoU principles).
From: "Gymer, Keith" <GymerK@hlcec1.agw.bt.co.uk>
To: 'NTIA - DNS COMMENTS' <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/14/97 7:55am
Subject: BT Response to US Government RFC - Part 2 - Q1-20
>B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
>1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain
>name registration systems?
ADVANTAGES:
i) IF one is first to register then one gets completely EXCLUSIVE rights
to a domain name even if one would not be able to exert such exclusivity
in the real world. Thus, for example, there is only one apple.com (the
computer company) even though there are several other companies who
could also legitimately use the trade mark "APPLE" in the real world.
ii) A trade mark owner can use NSI's dispute policy to force a
registrant with no demonstrable rights to relinquish a disputed domain
name.
iii) The acquisition of domain names is generally a quick, automated
process which is significantly faster and cheaper than obtaining trade
mark registrations!
DISADVANTAGES
i) If a domain name is already registered to a holder with legitimate
rights then that party has completely EXCLUSIVE rights regardless of
whether any other party might have equivalent rights to use the same
name in the real world (thus what is an advantage for the first to
register is a disadvantage to everyone else who might also have
legitimate real world rights - remember, it's not just FCFS, it's first
come, ONLY served!)
ii) Unscrupulous or covetous trade mark owners can attempt to use NSI's
policy to force legitimate users to relinquish a disputed domain name
(see the PRINCE.COM case).
iii) The existing gTLDs have been over-used by entities which are
parochial and not genuinely international. Thus registrations which
ought more logically to be under national country code domains have been
made in .com, .net and .org as these are seen as more "prestigious".
iv) the original distinction between .com, .org and .net has not been
enforced by NSI and therefore has not been respected by domain name
registrants. Consequently, where a commercial, non-network business
might previously only have had to worry about trade mark infringements
by rogue registrations under .com, now trade mark owners must monitor
and act against registrants in .net and .org as well. This demonstrates
the ineffectiveness of simply adding gTLDs without requiring and
enforcing objective criteria for registration in those domains. Thus
.net was intended to be for organisations with network infrastructure,
but that requirement was not enforced and so the utility of .net as a
separate and distinct name space from .com has been lost. Similarly,
.org was intended for non-commercial organisations, and this distinction
has also been lost because it has not been enforced.
v) The registration details required by registrars like NSI are often
insufficient, although NSI is by no means the worst offender. Most of
the national ISO3166 registries make little or no information available
on domain name registrants. There are numerous instances of false IDs
and email addresses being used to obtain domain names, particularly by
so-called "cybersquatters" or domain name pirates who register
well-known names and then attempt to sell them to the legitimate owners
of rights in those names. The inaccuracy and inadequacy of registrant
information frequently makes it problematic for a legitimate trade mark
owner to track down and take action against an infringer who has
misappropriated a mark in a domain name.
vi) The databases of ISO3166 registered domain names are frequently
unavailable altogether for any checking - i.e. there is no WHOIS
facility at all. (In contrast, NSI provides a rather good WHOIS
service).
vii) Many of the national ISO3166 registries have far too restrictive
policies on who may register what names. Whilst these systems can
almost completely eliminate disputes under the relevant ISO3166 country
code, effectively what happens is that the disputes are transferred
elsewhere (e.g. to .com) as businesses seek to get the names they
originally wanted in a national TLD in one of the gTLDs.
>2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
i) For gTLD administration, adopt the basic principles in the IAHC
gTLD-MoU.
ii) Generally, for all domains, adopt more sophisticated and independent
dispute resolution systems (cf. the ACPs proposed by the IAHC).
iii) Make more use of the national TLDs - national TLDs should be
encouraged to adopt more open registration policies generally (subject
to providing adequate structure under the national country code).
iv) In particular, make .us more attractive for US entities
v) Establish structural requirements for gTLDs and/or other means for
enabling equitable use of real world marks in domain names (cf. Issue 1
in the preamble above).
vi) Add new gTLDs only where these distinguish classes of business and
assist user access and where registration can be subject to objective
tests for qualification (e.g. .air might be established for IATA
airlines with qualification determined by IATA). There is also a strong
case for having a content-specific gTLD (and corresponding SLDs under
nTLDs) such as .xxx or .sex. Sexually explicit services could then be
legally required to operate with domain names in this gTLD (or SLD under
an nTLD) which would make it much simpler and easier to control access
to such sites to protect children for example.
vii) Require sufficient application details (and evidence of
qualification for entry in class-specific gTLDs) from any registrant as
would be required for a trade mark application - the IAHC proposals are
exemplary in this respect. Make registration revocable if the details
are falsified or qualifications shown not to exist.
viii) Reintroduce and enforce the original intended qualifications for
registration in .org and .net (this might need to be phased in over a
period to avoid excessive disruption to existing registrants who do not
meet the relevant criteria but who have been allowed to register because
of the absence of enforcement by NSI).
>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?
i) All gTLDs should be administered by a genuinely international body
with representatives of all potential stakeholder interests. The IAHC
proposal provides a practical basis on which to establish such a body,
although, as noted earlier, we do not believe that iPOC as presently
constituted yet represents all relevant stakeholders. Ultimately, we
feel the representation will probably need to give substantially greater
weight to mainstream business and consumer interests if it is to be
genuinely market-led rather than technology-driven.
Obvious constituencies with a representative interest would include:
Technical:
IANA
IETF
CORE/Registrars
Business:
Mainstream business organisations (e.g. ICC) from all the geographic
regions
Consumers:
ISOC (net-aware bias?)
Mainstream consumer organisations from the geographic regions
Legal:
INTA
International Telecomms/Legal
ITU
WIPO
BT particularly supports the involvement of the ITU and WIPO as
absolutely appropriate given the nature of the subject matter and the
issues concerned. Through their membership of these international
bodies, national governments can provide appropriate input and direction
to the initiative to manage gTLDs and allow the internet to develop as a
genuinely global resource with no individual Government exerting a
proprietary claim to the whole. Although some commentators have
criticised the ITU and WIPO actions, BT believes such criticisms are
misguided and that the ITU and WIPO bring absolutely invaluable
experience at the international level in dealing with the communications
and intellectual property issues which affect the DNS. The active
participation of these bodies brings the benefit of real-world expertise
and credibility to the DNS administration. The informal procedures
which were effective in the initial development of the internet are no
longer appropriate given the scale of the network growth. More formal
organisation and processes are required in which WIPO and ITU are well
qualified.
ii) For the ISO3166 nTLDs, it would seem similarly desirable for all
relevant national stakeholders to have appropriate input into the
administrative decisions for registration of domain names under their
national country code. Thus, for example, for .uk one might reasonably
look to Nominet (the .UK Registry) to extend consultation on
administration policy issues to include parties such as (say) the
Confederation of British Industry/ ICC(UK), the Consumers Association,
the Institute of Trade Mark Agents, and the Department of Trade &
Industry.
>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?
The DNS certainly needs to be as scaleable as the telephone numbering
plan. This suggests that it also needs to be more formally structured
and organised both at first and second and possibly at the third level
of the domain name if the advantage of having meaningful mnemonic names
is to be preserved.
The proper and essential role of international organisations like WIPO
and ITU has been discussed under 3 above. BT believes that at gTLD
level national Governments should channel their advice and
recommendations via such international organisations and should not seek
to exert any individual control (other than where necessary to establish
effective international administration of gTLD namespace - i.e. in the
US case by assuring the NSF requires NSI to pass administration of the
existing gTLDs to iPOC.)
>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?
It has been suggested (and it would be technically possible) that all
existing gTLD names should be migrated to be under .US (i.e. .com would
become .com.us etc.). However, this would clearly cause major
inconvenience to existing registrants and is probably not a realistic or
necessary option. If more detailed structure is adopted at gTLD level,
then it may be appropriate to stop further registration under existing
gTLDs if replacement gTLDs with more specific registration requirements
were to be introduced. The same applies to .net and .org.
Presently, there are two gTLDs .edu and .mil which are not genuinely
international and are expressly reserved for US entities. Consistent
with this national restriction, it would be desirable to migrate
registrations under these domains to be under .us. As the number of
registrations affected is many less than under .com, this would appear a
reasonable and practical option.
It would certainly be helpful to encourage more use of ISO3166 nTLDs,
particularly by organisations with only a national presence. However,
it would probably be considered unreasonable to make this mandatory
given the widespread commercial appeal of gTLD registrations.
gTLD management issues are separable from ISO3166 nTLD management
issues, as INTA has observed (see INTA Response
http://www.inta.org/rfcidns2.htm ), for historical and political
reasons. IANA has always been prepared to allocate national authorities
independent control over the administration of their own country code
domains. Universal attachment to National sovereignty is likely to
dictate that countries will want to retain that independence. However,
BT considers that it would be highly desirable to work towards
establishing international agreement (perhaps through an "International
Domain Name Administration Treaty" under the auspices of ITU/WIPO)
setting minimum consistent standards as, for example, the Trade Mark
Law Treaty does for Trade Mark Law. The objective would be for nTLDs to
have consistent standards for such matters as name allocation,
application information and dispute policy.
>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?
It would be possible (at least for websites) for internet browser
software to be adapted to enable more structured domain names to be used
to improve usability and help users access the businesses they require.
Already, browsers can assume elements of a uniform resource locator such
as "http://www." and the concluding ".com" so that a user merely typing
in "microsoft" can immediately be taken to Microsoft's website. Thus,
for example, browsers could provide users with pick-lists of countries
(by country code) and type of business (e.g. by using Yellow Pages
classifications) so that a user might select (say) "Airlines" or "Foods"
and by typing "United" be taken to United Airlines or United Foods as
the case may be. Such a facility would vitiate the present perceived
advantage of obtaining the shortest domain name (there can only be one
united.com, but united-airlines.com and united-foods.com would obviously
be more helpful to a user seeking one or the other). Other
technological options utilising shared domain names, for example, could
also be feasible to alleviate the present problems and reduce conflicts.
The roots servers are critical to the operation of the internet as
recent problems experienced by NSI have demonstrated. It is vital that
they are maintained by a trusted authority independent of any individual
registrar, for reasons of operational security and reliability and to
remove the potential for partisan monopoly control as exercised by NSI
at present. In this respect, BT considers the IAHC proposals for CORE
offer a practical and preferable alternative to the present
NSI-controlled system.
>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?
If the DNS is to be properly scaleable to meet future needs then more
radical solutions for the DNS structure are required than the piecemeal
addition of new gTLDs as presently proposed under the gTLD-MoU. BT
believes the introduction of new gTLDs should be postponed for this
reason.
Co-ordination and interoperation of the rootservers should be assured by
placing them under control of an appropriate single authority such as
CORE which is independent of any individual registrar. For political
reasons and possibly to provide greater international resilience, more
rootservers should be established outside the US (where most presently
reside).
>8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
BT believes that the transition to any new system should be progressive
and deal with acknowledged existing problems first. Specifically,
therefore, considering the administrative systems proposed by the IAHC
offer an improvement over those presently adopted by NSI, BT recommends
the first step should be to transfer administration of the EXISTING
gTLDs (.com, .org, .net) to the iPOC and to assess how this change works
BEFORE proceeding to introduce any further new gTLDs.
In order to achieve this transition, as noted above, it is understood
that the NSF must instruct NSI accordingly. If so, then obviously this
should be done as soon as possible to allow time to plan a smooth
transition which causes the minimum disruption to the continued
operation of the internet.
>9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
These issues cannot be considered in isolation, but impact upon and are
affected by other issues, particularly any policy regarding protection
of trade mark rights in relation to domain names.
>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?
We are not aware of any technical constraints. However, as indicated
above, BT does not believe it would be desirable either for practical or
policy reasons to expand the number of gTLDs in an unconstrained and
unstructured manner. To do so would diminish the basic utility of the
DNS over a numerical system and would significantly increase the risk of
cyber-piracy for trade mark owners.
>11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
At this stage, NO! See the reasons already given above. Simply adding
new gTLDs without qualification is not an effective solution to the
long-term scaleability which is required. A much more structured system
of industry specific gTLDs (and second level domains under nTLDs) with
strict qualifications for name registration in such specific gTLDs is
more likely to provide a usable solution.
>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. As noted in the response to Question 10 above and elsewhere,
scaleability based on the continued use of more memorable names in place
of numerical addresses will require a formal and logical structure to be
introduced if the utility of the DNS is to be preserved. Otherwise,
the unstructured proliferation of gTLDS would have significant
disadvantages particularly in increasing confusion and making it more
difficult for users to find what they want.
>13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
code domains?
See the relevant answer to Question 5 above.
>14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
See the response to Question 9 above.
>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?
Under the IAHC model, the preference is for shared registries and
potentially unlimited numbers of registrars with no registrar having
exclusive control over any one gTLD. As a system which should enable
competition without necessarily requiring the proliferation of new
gTLDs, BT believes it is a desirable model. However, in the longer term
there must be some doubt about the ability for large numbers of
registrars to survive commercially and ultimately one would anticipate
that the number of registrars active in providing registration in all
shared gTLDs may be small. In such circumstances it will be important
to ensure that quality of service and effective competition is still
maintained.
In certain circumstances it may be appropriate for a registrar to have
sole control over a gTLD, but this would probably only be appropriate in
cases where a gTLD has a very limited number of potential registrants
who must meet special criteria (cf. .int). In such cases a registrar
might conceivably be given a specific charter and be subject to
stricter controls on matters of service and charges, for example.
We are told that it is not intended that there should be any technical
limitations on the use of shared registries for any or all gTLDs.
However, we understand that the development of the necessary software is
likely to take longer and be more complicated than originally predicted.
As shared operation on the scale required is reportedly untried, a
cautious approach to its introduction would seem prudent. This would
also suggest that it might not be wise to expose the software to an
uncontrolled flood of applications on day one, but to roll it out
gradually, perhaps starting with .org and proceeding via .net to .com
and then to any new gTLDs if introduced.
Exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs should be able to co-exist without
problems provided the rootservers are appropriately managed.
>16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name
>registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars
>have? Who will determine these and how?
From a competitive perspective, it is obviously desirable that the
barriers to entry are not set unreasonably high. However, we believe
that the IAHC is right to demand a relatively high level of threshold
requirements from new registrars. It is important that customers should
be able to rely on a registrar being adequately resourced to provide a
consistent, reliable service. A high standard of integrity and probity
is also to be demanded to ensure that a registrar does not abuse its
trust, for example, by encouraging misappropriation of trade marks in
domain names. The IAHC thresholds were developed after considerable
analysis of such issues and therefore should provide a reasonable guide
to what standards ought to be applied.
>17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?
Not so far as we are aware.
>18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about
>the name space raised by increasing the number of domain name
>registrars?
Yes. To ensure that the integrity and reliability of the DNS is
maintained it is important that Registrars are subject to strict
standards of conduct. It would be very undesirable to find registrars
abusing their privilege. One important requirement established by the
IAHC is that registrars must be established in a jurisdiction which
applies certain minimum standards of protection for intellectual
property rights. This is of especial concern to trade mark owners who
do not want to find rogue registrars promoting "cybersquatting"
(misappropriation of trade marks in domain names) in jurisdictions with
weak trade mark laws.
Under the IAHC model, BT believes that it will be particularly important
that CORE should enforce its rules and act promptly against any rogue
registrar which fails to adhere to its contractual obligations in this
respect. Discipline must be applied to deter abuse of the system.
>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?
There should be no reason to limit the number of shared gTLDs that a
registrar might choose to operate in. If the choice of gTLDs it wishes
to register in is left to the registrar, then it will be important to
ensure that sufficient registrars do operate in each shared gTLD to
ensure effective competition.
As noted above, it should be exceptional that a private registrar is
accorded exclusive control over a gTLD.
>20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
See the response to Question 9 above.
From: "Gymer, Keith" <GymerK@hlcec1.agw.bt.co.uk>
To: 'NTIA - DNS COMMENTS' <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/14/97 7:55am
Subject: BT Response to US Government RFC - Part 3 - Q21-28
>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?
All trade mark rights need to be respected, whether registered or common
law. Geographic indications will also merit protection to the extent
legal rights are available. However, achieving the appropriate level of
protection is not a straightforward matter.
Trade marks are inherently subject to national rights which are
generally specifically limited by territory and class of business.
Trade marks are not normally unique. Frequently, several different
businesses may each have rights to use the same mark in the same
jurisdiction but for different goods or services. Trade mark rights are
restricted to distinctive signs (words) which are not descriptive of the
relevant goods or services. Thus generic words are not protectable as
trade marks. Neither, in general, are geographic names.
In contrast, under existing gTLD policies: domain names do not need to
include any territorial or business identification; domain names must be
unique, so only one entity may ever have a particular domain name;
descriptive, generic and geographic names may all be registered.
In these circumstances it is easy to see how conflicts of rights can
arise and not so easy to see how the system might be modified to reduce
or avoid such conflicts.
However, as courts in many jurisdictions have already determined,
trademark law most certainly does apply to domain names and trade mark
rights can be infringed and diluted by use or registration of trade
marks in a domain name.
Consequently, the domain name system needs to be adapted to deal with
the problems this raises. As explained in the introductory pre-amble,
there are principally two issues:
1. That the DNS should be structured to allow businesses which have
legitimate rights to use names and marks in the real world without
conflict to be able to use the same names in cyberspace also without
conflict and without discrimination.
2. That trade mark owners are entitled to prevent those who have no
such legitimate rights from misappropriating their names and marks in
domain names.
To deal with the first of these issues the logical solution is to import
relevant features of trade mark law such as territorial and business
restrictions to the extent required. In the case of territorial
limitation, it would seem appropriate to encourage greater use of the
ISO3166 nTLDs. For business distinctions, it might seem logical to
construct a system using distinctions such as SIC (Standard Industrial
Classification) or existing trade mark classes as a basis for industry
specific gTLDs. However, the former is probably too general and the
latter includes many different businesses in each class. A more
flexible and practical classification may come from consolidation of
Yellow Pages categories. Thus one could envisage introducing an
international system of business-specific gTLDs (and SLDs under ISO3166
nTLDs) familiar to users world-wide and based on Yellow Pages! However,
coupled with intelligent browser software the potential exists to use
plain numeric gTLDs, each associated with a particular business, which
the browser would then convert into the appropriate language for users
in different countries. Thus a gTLD code .1234 might be displayed on a
browser as the category for [automobile] businesses in the US, [cars] in
the UK and [voitures] in France.
To enable effective protection of trade mark rights, as noted in the
preamble, the key is the establishment of an open and independent
fast-track dispute resolution procedure. In this respect the ACP model
developed by the IAHC is promising. However, BT is concerned that it
may be too restricted in its application unless any party with
registrations in more than one country is able to make use of it.
>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?
It would be preferable, as we have previously indicated, for potential
conflicts to be resolved before a domain name registration is allocated
or used.
However, in the case of unstructured gTLDs, it is clearly impractical to
undertake comprehensive world-wide checks for any possible conflicts
internationally. Unfortunately, most trade mark registers are not
accessible on-line and the detailed databases which would be needed to
provide a reasonable degree of confidence in any international checking
procedure simply do not exist at present.
In these circumstances, again, the logical path to reduce the potential
for conflicts is to incorporate more effective territorial and business
distinction in the structure of the DNS, and to provide effective
challenge procedures (similar to conventional opposition procedures in
trade mark law) to allow rights holders to challenge domain name
registrations which may conflict with those rights. The IAHC model
provides a good basis for developing an appropriate challenge procedure.
Additionally, it would help to educate users to consider and respect
trade mark rights when selecting a domain name. It is also essential
that any DNS administration should have policies which actively
discourage "cybersquatting" and trade mark piracy. At its simplest
level this must mean that applicants with no demonstrable rights to a
name will not be able to retain that name in the face of a challenge
from a party which does have such rights. This is not to say that the
policy should then automatically re-allocate the disputed name to the
challenger. Indeed, where more than one party may have demonstrable
rights it is always going to be considered inequitable by one or other
for a policy to attempt to choose between parties who each have a
legitimate claim. This is another reason which again suggests there is
a need to consider a more sophisticated allocation policy than
First-come, Only-served or re-allocation to the first challenger. This
issue needs further review. For example, a policy which mandated that
disputed names would not be delegated and which encouraged parties to
select distinctive variants on the name in dispute might be more
appropriate if the DNS is to be able to cope with the anticipated
problems from the increasing scale of demand. Alternatively, a scheme
which had a resolution procedure whereby any parties with legitimate
claims could share a disputed domain name (subject perhaps to payment of
premium fees to discourage mere hangers-on) might also be practical for
new domains. Again we believe more radical solutions to the allocation
of names are required, beyond merely adding new gTLDs, to maintain the
utility of the DNS.
In ISO3166 nTLDs, where it is logically possible to make a presumption
that the jurisdiction of the relevant nation will prevail, it would seem
potentially practicable to have the applicant (or registrar) carry out a
check of registered trade mark rights in that jurisdiction (assuming the
relevant Trade Mark Register is readily accessible electronically). An
applicant would then be on-notice of potentially conflicting rights and
a registry might set its policies to require sufficient distinctive
structure to distinguish names where conflicts might otherwise arise.
So, for example, GUARDIAN Insurance might be distinguished from GUARDIAN
Newspapers in the UK by business class: GUARDIAN.ins.uk
GUARDIAN.news.uk. Again, the principle is to add logical structure to
remove the potential for conflicts.
>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?
As noted above, preferably, disputes should be resolved voluntarily by
the parties. Domain name policies should be structured to facilitate
and encourage this.
National Courts will always provide the definitive judgments in trade
mark conflicts. Administrative DNS procedures should be directed at
minimising the need for recourse to the Courts, but must ultimately
always leave it open for trade mark disputes to be subject to formal
jurisdiction in a Court of applicable law. In this respect, the IAHC
ACP procedures are properly to be seen as "administrative" in that they
are to be restricted to making decisions on whether or not a disputed
domain name should be registered. BT supports the WIPO role in the
administration of such procedures and considers that it is appropriate
in the international context of gTLD administration that a specialist
body such as WIPO should be involved in setting up a dispute resolution
system which is independent of the registrars. This is a far more
acceptable system than that practised by NSI where decisions are made in
secret by the registrar itself.
>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?
As noted in the responses to previous questions, in order to best
prevent trade mark conflicts we believe a more radical revision of the
DNS structure is required in combination with policies which are
directed at encouraging constructive solutions by agreement between
disputants.
Whilst it would obviously be helpful to have additional database
resources (such as, for example, provided by the Directory Corporation's
initiatives at http://www.trademark.org and http://www.dir.org ). It
would also be helpful for all national trade mark offices to make
available their databases in electronic form for convenient access.
However, the flexibility of the DNS means that the DNS could provide a
very effective directory function itself without the need for separate
services simply by incorporation of appropriate structure into domains,
for example, by adapting the Yellow Pages categories as we have
suggested in the answer to Question 21 above. It has been argued that
the existing "internet community" with its anarchic preferences would
not accept the introduction of the more formal structure required to
achieve such solutions. It is submitted that it is of far greater
interest for the majority of users and businesses yet to come onto the
internet that a logical and stable structure should exist to facilitate
commerce and communication and ease of use. The old simplicity may be
attractive but a more sophisticated system is essential as the internet
matures into a global medium for use by all.
>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?
As previously noted, a significant problem with almost all existing
domain name registries is the inadequacy and inaccuracy of information
available on the applicants for and registrants of domain names. This
severely hampers legitimate rights owners when seeking to track down or
investigate infringements, not just of trade marks in domain names but
also of businesses infringing copyright or otherwise acting illicitly
from a site.
Both for gTLDs and ISO3166 nTLDs it is very important that applicants
should be required to give adequate contact details such as would be
required for a trade mark application to enable the holder of a domain
name to be identified and tracked down.
The template produced for this purpose by the IAHC/iPOC (see
http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/core-mou.htm at Appendix C) is exemplary in
this respect. BT strongly believes all registries should require such
information from domain name applicants and that domain names should be
subject to cancellation if critical details identifying the domain name
owner and his contact details are falsified. This requirement to
provide such information would act to discourage abuses such as
cybersquatting.
Critical details include:
-Identity and contact details for applicant and basis for claim to
requested name
-Country of establishment
-Name and address of agent for service of legal process
-Warranty of bona fide intention to use and identification of purpose
of use
-Warranty that name requested does not infringe third party rights
-Submission to appropriate jurisdiction.
Registrars should be responsible for ensuring all the required
information is provided and registries should not issue domain names if
any critical information is missing. Provision of false information
must carry the potential penalty of cancellation of the domain name.
>26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of
>registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark
>disputes?
Simply adding additional gTLDs without qualification will inevitably
multiply the problems and expense for trade mark owners in policing and
in pre-emptively registering their marks in each new gTLD. So long as
there is a lack of adequate distinction between the gTLDs, then each new
gTLD will provide a further opportunity for cyber-pirates to
misappropriate valuable trademarks and businesses will consider it
necessary to prevent dilution by registering their important marks in
the new domains as well as the existing ones. In the case of the new
gTLDs presently proposed by IAHC/iPOC, for example, this will inevitably
mean that businesses who might already have THEIRMARK.com will also feel
obliged to try to register THEIRMARK.web, THEIRMARK.info etc. as these
gTLDs do not adequately allow businesses with the same marks to be
distinguished.
>27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for
>a single domain name, are there any technological solutions?
As previously noted, we consider that adding more specific structure to
domain names would significantly relieve the potential for conflict over
a single domain name. Combined with technological solutions in the form
of intelligent browser software, as also suggested above, we believe
such changes in policy need not result in users having to remember
longer names, but could still allow selection by a single mark. e.g.
typing "apple" might then take the user to Apple Computers or Apple
Records depending on the business class selected by the user.
>28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
See the response to Question 9 above.
###
Number: 270
From: Sonny Ferguson <sonny@netgrp.net>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/14/97 5:47pm
Subject: DOMAIN NAME CONFLICT
Please consider that some corporate attorneys are claiming rights to
domain names because of a single word or common name being similar... i.e.
I registered ferguson.com about 21 months ago. Our company was founded in
1953 as William V. Ferguson Company and changed in early 70's to The
Ferguson Company. We have maintain the ferguson.com site since registering
the name.
Several weeks ago, a Washington law firm demanded that we release the
domain to their client Ferguson Enterprises claiming that we infringed on
their trademark [Ferguson Enterprises]. We obviously do not, and do not
intend, to infringe on their trademark.
But in checking, I found multiple domain names registered to Ferguson
Enterprises - NONE of which were active - STRICTLY accumulating names...
fei-inter.com, the-stockmarket.com, plumbsource.com, ferginc.com
Large corporations with large law firms should not be able to threaten
existing domain name strictly as an attempt to force existing domains into
their holdings.
It is interesting that the single court decided dispute is in UK and the
court ruled in favor of the earliest registered site.
I believe that the internic policy that they remove the domain until the
parties settle the dispute only give strength to those disputing legally
registered domain sites and creates an even larger problem.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond to the public comment period.
Sonny Ferguson
President - Ferguson Company
Knoxville, TN
###
Number: 271
From: Wehbe Roger F. <wehberf@pbac.edu>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/14/97 1:44pm
Subject: Domain Names
Drop Internic as sole provider.
Let Courts settle out disputes over domain names.
###
Number: 272
From: Shirley MacPherson <smac@followme.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/14/97 7:47pm
Subject: Re: Name Space
I don't really understand the problem of name space on the internet.
I want it to remain out of the hands of governments and vested interest
groups. Everyone should have the right to make his/her opinions known.
Because large corporations own the press and TV, ordinary people are no
longer able to express opinions that do not coincide with corporate
thought. We are censored. Stories are deliberately ignored. Important
stories are not broadcast. Internet is the only public forum that
expresses all opinions.
As long as the net follows the same laws on libel and decency as other,
publications, there should be no problem.
--
Yours truly,
Shirley MacPherson
smac@followme.com
###
Number: 273
From: Jon Postel <postel@isi.edu>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/14/97 6:45pm
Subject: Domain Name Comments
TO: dns@ntia.doc.gov
Patrice Washington,
Office of Public Affairs,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA),
Room 4898,
14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20230.
( via Electronic Mail)
FROM: postel@isi.edu
Jon Postel
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
c/o USC - ISI, Suite 1001
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
Talk: +1-310-822-1511
Fax: +1-310-823-6714
EMail: IANA@ISI.EDU
Discussion:
Your request for public comments on the domain name system comes in
the context of the Internet community process to evolve the system to
a more open and competitive model. The key committee work in this
process was done by a group called the IAHC.
The IAHC process was as open and as available for public participation
as the organizers and participants knew how to make it. Perhaps there
were important constituencies that were somehow not aware of the
process or slow to realize the significance of the activity.
I believe the IAHC has provided a tremendous public service under
difficult conditions. I am confident that the members of this
committee do not expect to personally gain from the system they have
proposed.
It may be that the IAHC proposal needs to be evolved and expanded to
address the concerns of additional parties, however i do believe that
the work done so far is quite general.
The particulars of the IAHC plan should be flexible, for example, the
exact membership (and member selection procedures) of the Policy
Oversight Committee (POC) may need to be revised, and the exact
choices (and number) of the new gTLDs may need to be revisited.
I firmly believe that moving forward with the IHAC plan (in the
general sense) is in the best interest of the Internet community,
including the users, business, and the technical operation of the
system.
Comments on the questions:
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?
These principles are good. The role of government should be to foster
a fair system of self governance for the Internet that embraces open
competition where possible on a international scale.
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.
Good. Note that competition should be based on price and service and
not on who has the "best" gTLD. Competition should involved not only
the original choice of registrar, but also the continuing use of a
registrar; thus, names must be portable.
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.
Good. And should be based on careful evolution from the existing
mechanisms, practices, and procedures. Continued stable operation for
the existing users is critical. Evolution not revolution.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the
inherently global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve
as necessary over time.
Good. The international nature of the Internet is very important to
keep in mind.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should
be open, robust, efficient, and fair.
Good.
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.
Good. Of course it would help if the system of recognizing
proprietary rights on an international basis were more coherent.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent
consideration of these issues permits.
Good. Rapid action is need to eliminate the current temporary
unusual situation of a monopoly operation.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain
name registration systems?
The current system is fairly simple to use and provides fast service
entirely through electronic communications (in the vast majority of
cases). The big disadvantage is that there is a single company in a
dominant role (in essence a monopoly), such that there is no market
driven check on service quality or price competition.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
By adding a competitive element to the business of registration.
There should be multiple companies in the business of handling
customer requests for registration. These companies should all have
access to the full set of gTLDs, so that the competition is based on
service performance and price, rather than any "ownership" of the more
desirable gTLD.
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 current management by the IANA should be evolved so that the IANA
is a free standing independent entity funded by the community,
particularly those other entities that use its services. This free
standing IANA should be an institution in the sense that in is managed
by a committee or board with procedures for refreshing the membership
of the board as needed and with the responsibility of selecting the
executive an staff to perform the IANA task. Thus this future IANA
should not depend on any particular individuals.
It is possible that an intermediate step would be to change the IANA
from its current position as a task at a research institute at a
university to a separate corporate entity managed by the university
with a council of advisors drawn for key Internet constituencies.
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 two distinct ideas here: the domain names, and the Internet
addresses (32-bit numbers).
The domain names are a structured set of names but not limited in
principle. These are not a scarce resource.
The Internet addresses (32-bit numbers) are by definition a limited
and increasingly scarce resource. The management of these addresses
in somewhat similar to the allocation of telephone area codes or radio
frequency spectrum.
These are both international in scope and generally speaking (except
for the country code TLDs) not generally amenable to management at
the national level. Procedures that work on the international scale
are required.
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?
It is completely impractical to have names that are in wide spread use
stop working. The existing gTLDs must continue in service, to do
otherwise would have great impact on the existing users of the
Internet and seriously impact the stability of the Internet as view by
the business community.
The gTLD management issues can be separated from the management of the
country code domains. Of course, any good ideas, procedures, or
practices should be shared both ways, but they can be treated as
different classes of TLDs and can develop in different ways.
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?
The problem is not technical in nature but rather a social, political,
business issue. The solution is to change the business model to
provide competition. There are no technical roadblocks to
accomplishing this.
There is one technical aspect that needs to be tested - the operation
of a central database to be shared among the multiple companies
providing registration services. This is not a new concept but it
should be proven out before existing service are required to convert
to this model.
There are no technical problem with the relationship of the root
servers and the gTLD servers. Additional gTLD servers can be
introduced with no changes to the existing software.
The operation of the root servers must be separated from the operation
of the gTLD servers. This means the management control should be
separated to eliminate any real or perceived conflict of interest, and
the set of actual machines should be separated for robustness of
operation.
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 scalability of the DNS depends on structure. The more structure -
that is hierarchy - that can be used in the system the more it can
scale. My opinion is that there should be at most about 200 gTLDs
(and there are about 200 country code domains). Thus the root servers
would handle about 400 TLDs total. This is quite reasonable
technically.
The address space (that is the IP 32-bit numeric addresses) must be
allocated in a very conservative manner since it is a fixed resource.
The best scaling (for routing) is to use CIDR blocks effectively.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be
accomplished?
Carefully. Some new gTLDS should be created and some new companies
should start registering users with names in these new gTLDs using a
shared database. This new system should begin operation as soon as
possible to provide a period of proven service before the end of the
current agreement with Network Solutions. Once the new model of
operation is proven successful, then the existing gTLDs should be
added to the shared database and all the registration companies should
be able to register customers under any of the gTLDs (new and old).
NSI certainly is welcome to participate in both phases of this plan.
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
Not at this time.
C. Creation of New gTLDs
New gTLDs should be created, initially a limited number (say 20) and a
few (say 5) added each year until the total reaches about 200.
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy
considerations that constrain the total number of different
gTLDs that can be created?
There are no technical issues that limit the number of gTLDs to less
than a million. There may be practical and policy reasons to strongly
limit the number of gTLDs to provide stability and minimize user confusion.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
Yes, to provide diversity, and access to simple domain names by the
holders of not-so-strong trademarks.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated with
increasing the number of gTLDs?
There are no technical problems with increasing the number of gTLDs,
the scalability of the DNS system in technical terms is not an issue.
There may be good business and policy reasons to limit the number of
gTLDs and the number of new gTLDs introduced per year. One of the key
concerns is stability of the system. It may be difficult for
businesses and end users of the Internet to cope with an explosion in
the number of gTLDs.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about
ISO country code domains?
Yes. There need be no technical or policy connection between the ways
in which these are managed. A country code domain may be managed
in was that are responsive to the culture of the country and this may
vary substantially from country to country. Of course, good ideas
about procedures and technology to provide robust and reliable service
should be shared between the gTLDs and the country code domains.
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in
this area?
Not at this time.
D. Policies for Registries
15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a
particular gTLD? Are there any technical limitations on using
shared registries for some or all gTLDs? Can exclusive and
non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?
A key issue is portability. If the customer has registers a domain
name with one registration service and subsequently decides that he
would rather use a different registration service (for whatever
reason, for example, billing problems, service choices) the customer
wants to keep the same domain name. This can be done under the IAHC
shared registries model. It can not be done if a registrar has
exclusive control over a particular gTLD. Technical there could be
some d exclusive gTLDs and some non-exclusive gTLDs simultaneously.
However, i can not see any social, political, or business reason to
have such a situation except during a brief transition period, and it
could be very confusing to the customers.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name
registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars
have? Who will determine these and how?
There should be some minimum business and technical requirements to
enter the registration service business. This should be determined by
a reasonably representative body with business and technical
experience. The applications should be evaluated against the criteria
by an independent third party such as an auditing company.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of
domain name registrars?
There may ultimately be technical limitation of the access to the
shared database, but this type of technology limit changes as the
underlying technology improves. There are not likely to be any
practical limits with this.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about
the name space raised by increasing the number of domain name
registrars?
There are no technical problems to increasing the number of registrars ???
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?
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in
this area?
E. Trademark Issues
The trademark situation is very complicated with respect to domain
names since the trademark situation itself is very complicated. The
basic facts are that trademarks are not unique, and that domain names
must be unique. The reason there is so much trouble about using
trademarks in domain names is that the trademark system is a mess.
Trademarks are not unique: There is no place to register a universal
world wide trademark. There are no globally unique trademarks. There
are "strong" trademarks, these are trademarks that companies that own
them defend very vigorously in all venues and for all usages (example:
"Coca-Cola").
However, there are many more not-so-strong trademarks that are used in
one or only a few counties (or within the United States in one or only
a few states), or used in a particular industry sector (such as
hardware or food). For example, ACME might be the trademark of a
hardware company, and at the same time be the trademark of a coffee
producer. This is allowed because the consumer is unlikely to confuse
the ACME hammers and saws with a beverage. However, there can only be
one ACME.COM since domain names must be unique. If the hardware
company registers ACME.COM first then the coffee company can't have
that name and may feel it has been prevented from using its properly
trademarked name as its Internet identity.
Introducing more generic top level domains may allow more of the
companies with not-so-strong trademarks to have access to using their
"obvious" name as a domain name under one generic top level domain or
another. There are many more small companies with not-so-strong
trademarks than there are big companies with strong trademarks.
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?
This is up to the trademark lawyers and the courts to decide.
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?
And how long should it take? The domain name registration process has
been designed so that it could be completely automated and in
principle be completed in minutes. How much of the "preliminary
review", and "determination of conflicts" can be done in a few
minutes?
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?
This looks like a role for the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO).
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?
If there were a single agreed on list of unique trademarks
and their owners, such checking could be easily performed by an
automated process. So far, no such list exists, it is the
responsibility of the trademark world (not the Internet) to create
such a list. The closest approach to such a list is managed by the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under an agreement
called the "Madrid Convention". However, to date several economically
important countries (including the United States and Japan) have not
signed this agreement.
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?
How would such a process be automated? How would cheating be detected?
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of
registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark
disputes?
It depends on how it is handled. If there is a common dispute
resolution procedure and organization, the number of registrars should
not have any significant impact on the cost of resolving disputes. If
there is a common list of strong trademarks that are not to be
registers except by their owners then even the number of gTLDs should
not be a significant factor in the cost of resolving disputes.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights
for a single domain name, are there any technological
solutions?
No. Two different people can't use the same domain name.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in
this area?
The key is to sort out and rationalize international trademark law,
which is not an easy or short term task, however, these problems will
not go away until it is done.
If the holders of strong trademarks want to have an easy way to
protect the use of their marks in the context of domain names they
need to give the domain name technologist the necessary information.
This necessary information is a list of the strong marks to be
protected world wide. It is up to the trademark users to establish
this list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
###
Number: 274
From: "Goldstein, Mitchell P." <mpgoldst@mwbb.com>
To: 'Commerce' <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/14/97 6:37pm
Subject: Comments on Internet Domain Names
Hope this helps.
QUESTIONS/ANSWERS
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems?
Advantages:
single registry easier to administer
avoids conflicting domain names
allows for networks to interconnect with a uniform system
Disadvantages:
less competition means no reason to innovate
more expensive than it needs to be
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
more organizations requesting domain names under a uniform
system administered
by an international, non-governmental organization
more competition will yield faster registration and more
innovation
agreements and treaties will insure that the system still allows
users to connect to
any system and any site
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?
A nongovernmental organization (NGO) which includes all interests -
government,
research, corporate, family, educational, etc. - should adminster the
domain name
registration system. It should be made up of representatives from
various organizations
(e.g., the UN, educational institutions, industry). It should not
have any official
government representatives on it so that it does not become a
political entity.
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?
It should be administed on a first come, first served basis. An NGO
can ensure that
Internet remains private and still efficient. Governments will only
make it political and
then political and national fights will spill onto the Web.
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?
Generic top level domains should be expanded
.com
.fam (for family and personal domain names)
.mil
.gov
.edu
.org
.net (for networks like Internet service providers and registries)
The .com gTLD should further be expanded by industry:
.tec - technology
.man - manufacturing
.fin - finance
.con - consumer related
.med - health care
.ind - industrial
.bus - business services
.tel - telecommunications
The result would be (domain name).(industry).com
Countries should use mandatory geographic codes or .int
(international - reserved for
organization. like multinational corporations and international
organizations).
.int will be more expensive because it will block out all similar
domain names with only
country code (e.g., McDonalds.com.int would block out
McDonalds.com.us)
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
give domain name owners one year to switch to new system.
during that year, the old name and the new expanded domain name
will work
after that year, the old name will no longer exist
C. Creation of New gTLDs
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
See #5.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
code domains?
Mandatory country codes will expand the availability of domain name
worldwide.
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?
All registrars should have Joint control over gTLDs. If a domain
name is available, any
registry should be able to register it.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars,
and what
responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine
these and how?
Domain name registrars would be required to maintain a database that
all can access to
determine domain name availability and maintain interconnectivity.
The requirements will
be determined by NGO through global meetings open to everyone
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?
The number will be limited by what the market can bear.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name
space raised by
increasing the number of domain name registrars?
Limitations - mil. gov. will be reserved
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?
Common law and registered trademarks and trade names should be
protected on the Net.
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?
Trademark owners should be responsible for seeking redress;
registrars should not make a
determination. Registrars would publish new domain names for a
30-day period before
granting a domain name thereby giving others notice; then they can
decide whether to take
action. Also, any registry must agree to accept jurisdiction of all
national courts (e.g.,
should accept injunctions issued).
Registries are not full of trademark lawyers and experts. They
should leave
determinations up to the current legal system.
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 should resolve trademark disputes on the Net like
they resolve trademark
disputes in real space. We could add provisions to (or create) an
international treaty.
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented? What
information resources could
help reduce potential conflicts? If there should be a database, who
should create the
database? How should such a database be used?
There should be a database paid for by all registries and maintained
by an NGO. All
registrars would have to open their registers to the NGO's database
to allow for
preclearance searches and backup their registers on the large
database.
This would involve little or no government interference.
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?
Applicants should not have to prove that they have a basis for
registering name; impedes
freedom and growth of Internet.
26 How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars
affect the number
and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
Increasing the number of gTLDs would increase cost of trademark
disputes and the
number of suits; however the Net will be able to expand.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single
domain name, are there
any technological solutions?
Valid but conflicting trademark rights will be resolved by using
geographic or country
codes. Longer domain names and letting market place handle
conflicting rights will
resolve the problems. Expanded domain name levels should decrease
the problems.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
The main point to remember is to have as little government
involvement as possible and
little opportuniry for a large company or a small company to hold up
development of Web
sites through frivolous actions.
Mitchell P. Goldstein
Staff Attorney
CC: "Goldstein, Mitchell P." <mpgoldst@mwbb.com>
###
Number: 275
From: "mare@hrc.wmin.ac.uk" <Mare.Tralla@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/14/97 12:38pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Mare Tralla do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Thursday, August 14, 1997 12:36:25 EDT
Mare Tralla
31 Jackman House
Watts Street
Wapping
London E1 9PU
###
Number: 276
From: "incontinence@hotmail.com" <Leann.Wieand@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/14/97 3:44pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Leann Wieand do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Thursday, August 14, 1997 15:42:42 EDT
Leann Wieand
###
Number: 277
From: "mylikoski@hotmail.com" <Maria.Ylikoski@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/14/97 9:22am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Maria Ylikoski do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Thursday, August 14, 1997 09:13:37 EDT
Maria Ylikoski
###
Number: 278
From: bob@ct1.nai.net <Matt Anderson@zero.tolerance.org>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/14/97 12:07am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Matt Anderson do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Thursday, August 14, 1997 00:05:46 EDT
Matt Anderson
###
Number: 279
From: steve <usdh@mail.ccnet.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 7:50pm
Subject: BRIEF: DNS, Language, and the Constitution, by Dr. S.J. Page
Before the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
In Re: Constitutional, Economic, and Social Relevance of a )
Scalable, Open Free Market Approach to Implementing )
Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) )
for Maximum Value to Present and Future Internet Users )
Brief of Stephen J. Page
1. This brief is submitted for information purposes to accompany actionable
matters before the U.S. Department of Commerce' National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA), which is evaluating the impact of
changing the Domain Name System (DNS) of the Internet from a controlled
monopoly to other forms of governance. The purpose is to further the
momentum behind the movement to let the market decide what is useful,
therefore valued when pertaining to Domain Name System (DNS) Top Level
Domains (TLDs).
2. This brief indirectly relates to and any or all of the following
agencies: U.S. Department of State, Federal Communications Commission,
Register of Copyrights, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where the
agencies individually or collectively are being requested to bar the IAHC's
gTLD-MOU instrument from becoming a self-enacting international
intergovernmental agreement by virtue of its submission to and circulation
by the International Telecommunication Union.
3. Qualifications of the Petitioner. He possesses Bachelor of Science
degrees in Combined Sciences (physical, biological, and social sciences),
and Physiological Optics (the study of how human beings' brains process
light energy), Doctorate in Optometry, and a Masters degree in Business
Administration. He was a Distinguished Military Graduate and George C.
Marshall (citizen/soldier) Award Winner prior to serving as a Commissioned
Officer in the Regular Army of the United States. He served as Assistant
Chief, Optometry Section, Landstuhl Army Medical Center, Landstuhl,
Germany. In 1992 he submitted a Proposal for an Intelligent Health
Delivery System to the National Institutes of Standards and Technology
Advanced Technology Program. In 1993 he submitted a Proposal for Network
Architecture to the Department of Defense' Advanced Research Projects
Agency, (DARPA), which was funded at the time of funding project for
initial commercialization of the Internet, CommerceNet. (referenced below).
His specific focus has been on network architecture and design of
telecommunications data networks, with an emphasis on the role of human
(biological) network architectures and their resulting impacts on the
future of telecommunications and economics, the subject of electronic
commerce. Below, he includes elements of a Scientific Proof in Support of
the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights to support the
concepts of an open, free market for Domain Name Services (DNS) which will,
in turn, flexibly support various economic models for the emerging
electronic commercial Internet activity.
I. The Constitution of the United States is the fundamental document which
places protecting the inalienable rights of individuals as the highest
value which its governing bodies can achieve.
4. Historically, benevolent governmental institutions have been
developed which place at the center of their existence, a recognition of
certain inalienable rights of individuals. Fundamentally, the right to
pursue happiness is one such right, that is recognized to be "above all
meddling" by any governmental structure created by mankind. Another such
right is the right to congregate freely. Another such right is the right
to inform others, or freedom of the press. The most important right, upon
which happiness is based, is the fundamental right to speak freely. It is
these principles of rights and freedoms which form the core of the
Constitution of the United States, through the formal Bill of Rights, as
well as the core of most other benevolent, democratic governments in the
world.
5. The essence of these governments is the focus on the protection of
individual rights. Without understanding the cognitive science or
knowledge of biological networks, the Framers of the Constitution
understood the essence of human beings is their desire to be free and to
puruse happiness. As creatures with an physical energy-core, freedom means
being free to exchange energy with others. This energy exchange can take
many forms, emotional energy (anger, fear...), sexual energy (kissing,
intercourse...), physical energy (heat, movement...), intellectual energy,
(ideas, thoughts, and language...). The framers recognized that there was
no place for government meddling in the personal affairs and exchange of
energy between individuals, especially when it related to language, a
freedom formally protected under the First Amendment.
5. With respect to the Internet, the absence of an easy method for
locating others, built upon the structured use of language as a program for
organizing information, has been the primary impediment to the development
of an electronic transaction-based economy. Presently, Internet
information is popularly exchanged via the World Wide Web using a
visually-oriented browser, typically organized in a uni-directional manner
where the user 'pulls' the information toward them by 'clicking' on icons
which represent information organized at a particular 'site' called a 'web
page'.
II. DNS is Structured Like a Tree Root (with unlimited ability to extend
from the central root into smaller and smaller branches, over time.)
6. Today's DNS problem is fundamentally due to the absence of a
scalable, common vocabulary (or lexicon of meaningful words) which can be
useful to persons who choose to exchange energy electronically with others
across the free and open commercial Internet medium. Since the DNS was a
contolled and monopolized service for many years, this was not a problem
then. However, as the Internet has gained commercial value, its control or
governance is an issue.
7. Without a rich and meaningful grouping of words with which people
can organize their internal energy, and interact with others who may want
to organize themselves in a manner where seekers can find them, topically,
categorically, or by activity, significant commerce will not happen. So,
without the programming 'tools' to make 'electronic' commerce happen, which
allow individuals to organize themselves, the promise of electronic
commerce remains unfulfilled.
8. Contrast the situation of an individual who owns a rich vocabulary
which organizes how he/she thinks, acts, and interacts (exchanges energy)
with a situation where a new broadly applicable medium (Internet) is
created with a very narrow purpose (defense-contractor-government
communications) for exchanging energy electronically. This Internet
(called DARPANET) is organized structurally around an unlimited,
multi-level naming system (analogous to the structure of language), but
limited in vocabulary (lexicon) to seven abbreviated words (COM, ORG, NET,
GOV, MIL, INT, ARPA). Such a limited implementation of a vocabulary
applied to this limitless language program, has been a bottleneck to the
mass adoption of this new medium by people worldwide, and therefore a
bottleneck to Internet Commerce.
9. Commerce functions because meaning is exchanged when individuals
speak using the same language program, and have the same general vocabulary
(word lexicon). Without language, there is a bottleneck to commercial
communications, especially when viewed from the medium of the Internet,
where facial expressions and body language are not viewable. If commercial
communications cannot occur, commercial transactions cannot occur.
10. The shift in the Internet's defense-focus to commercial focus
occurred in 1993/94, and paradoxically where the present struggle to define
and control useful language in the Internet-medium began. Although the
technology for enabling commerce has been rapidly evolving, an
understanding of the importance of a subsequent shift from a limited
vocabulary to an "open vocabulary" has not been achieved by the
historically technically-focused leadership of the "Internet community".
III. Language is, like DNS, Structured Like a Tree Root, with the Alphabet
at the Root.
11. The Root elements of language are sounds and symbols (letters).
Both elements are the building blocks of language. As visual
representations of language, letters form the root elements or common
denominator of any text-based electronic communications which are
transmitted across Internet. As the building blocks, they are simpler in
form and structure than any other language element, and more flexible than
any other language element.
12. Principles of Language Ownership
1) Language is owned by the individual speaker(s), and is protected in law
2) The right to create language exists with the individual, and is
protected in law
3) The right to decide how to use language resides with the individual, and
is protected in law
4) Language is not a public resource, it is a private energy channel, whose
expressed output (words and ideas), chosen or created by the
creator/sender/speaker, can be used in either a generic (free) form, or in
an ownable form. The right to create either form should be protected and
safeguarded by law, as it is in Nature.
13. This issue of Domain Names is a "use-of-language" issue, and
therefore an individual rights issue, and as such, related Constitutionally
to the U.S. Government which stimulated the development of this medium of
communications, for the benefit of individual users assigned to the Defense
Department, commissioned to Protect and Defend the Constitution.
14. Therefore, the present move, to stimulate the creation of an
intergovernmental organization to control the allocation of vocabulary,
ensuring only a limited use of by individuals, suddenly required to be
subservient to this body, is Unconstitutional, and furthermore, it will
unnecessarily impede the development of user acceptance of commercial
activity on the 'net, and therefore damage the opportunity for return on
investment by those individuals who have invested in preparation for the
acceptance of electronic commerce by individual users.
15. The key question in the Domain Name issue is, "Who owns language?"
The answer is fundamental and simple, "The two individuals who agree to
exchange energy via speaking, own it." The U.S. Constitution has been
created to protect individual rights, not only to be free, but to ownership
of the products of their use of language. Free individuals are not
required to ask permission from an intergovernmental body to speak, nor
should they be required. History is full of examples of unelected,
unrepresentative, authoritarian (top-down control) regimes which have
attempted to impose controls upon people, and those controls have included
attempts to control the use of language by indigenous people. However,
all have basically failed in their attempt to control language because the
ownership lies at the speaker level.
16. The historical study of language bears the truth of individual
ownership of language, and this explains why languages evolve over time.
New individuals, with new experiences, will add elements to existing words
which become roots for other words over time. If we go back in time, the
evolution of human language resembles the roots of a tree. So, it is no
accident that the Domain Name system is designed in a manner which
resembles the roots of a tree, either. In fact, the computer backbone of
the Domain Name System is a set of computers called "Root Servers" whose
purpose is to enable the energy to flow from one user to another user in a
manner which supports the user control of language. The useful language
at the Root Servers are the Top Level Domains (TLDs), which can be viewed
historically, as the modern equivalent of the ancient Root Words of the
future language family of a globally reaching, electronically-enabled
socio-economic system.
17. Language is as alive as the people who use it, regardless of the
medium in which they choose. When the people who speak a language die,
new people are born who add new elements, keeping it dynamic and alive,
ever-changing. This has occurred since the beginning of mankind's
recognition of the value of sounds and symbols. One very recent example
can vividly provide a case study to support these truths.
18. One year ago, the word 'ebonics' did not exist. Focusing on the
process of creation, it was created by one person, unknown to me, who
recognized the need to describe a simple term for the style of speech which
inner city African Americans have used at times when speaking. That person
combined the root word 'ebony', (meaning 'shade of brown') with the suffix
of the word 'phonics' (meaning 'sounds'), mathematically into: eb- +
-onics = ebonics.
19. In this example, the owner of the unique idea chose to express the
term generically, enabling free and open use by anyone who wants to use the
word, thereby giving up the right to ownership of the word. However, the
owner could have chosen to express the ownership of the term by applying
copyright or by using the term exclusively for private benefit in commerce,
by applying for registration. The key issue here is that the ownership
rights to use, and decide, reside with the speaker or creator of the
language. To summarize, there appear to be some clear truths recognized in
Law (although I am not a lawyer),
20. Language represents a 'handshake' forming a bi-directional energy
channel which can exists between any two human beings. As the basis for
communication of energy across this channel, language serves as the product
of an implicit agreement between communicators. When applied to a
bi-directional electronic energy channel like the Internet, the principles
which apply to language above, can be applied to a limited subset of
language applicable to this commercially useful medium.
21. The IAHC, structured as a "top-down" organization, with its
gTLD-MoU instrument, is attempting to gain control of globally applicable
Internet "vocabulary", under the false pretense of international consensus
among intergovernmental bodies. The IANA, historically and legitimately
controlling names and number allocation during the early evolution, is no
longer able to maintain its monopoly, if the Internet is to achieve full
commercial relevance and value. As I have attempted to demonstrate, each
individual owns creative rights to language. Therefore, language can be
viewed as an energy channel owned by each speaker in a cooperative
structure. As owners, we might choose to lawfully exercise our right to
own what we create by protecting the creations using Copyright or Service
Mark/Trademark law.
22. Under the IAHC scheme, the rights of individuals to use language
freely for their own purposes are not recognized, nor are they respected.
Similarly, under IANA, there is no mechanism for expanding DNS top level
domain name usage. By IAHC seeking to control the allocation of
vocabulary, and IANA and InterNIC (Network Solutions) controlling the
allocation of TLDs into the "root servers" both organizations attempt to
monopolize all future language-related activity for this medium. The IAHC,
and to a lesser degree, the IANA/InterNIC has positioned themselves and
their supporters as mandatory editors of human activity, in a style which
is reminiscent of authoritarian regimes from the past.
23. The proposed IAHC solution (the gTLD-MOU) is clearly not aligned
with any laws which exist in nature, or support self-organizing,
democratically created, self-governing bodies, despite the rhetoric from
its supporters. The existing InterNIC exclusion of alternative TLDs from
its root servers is contrary to the stated position of U.S. leadership
which supports free market economic activity.
24. The present monopolization and control of language by Network
Solutions in its management of the InterNIC function, does not serve the
individual user, who values choices and competition in commerce.
IV. Scientific Knowledge Supports What the Framers Instinctively Knew: That
Individual Freedoms and Rights to Use and Own God's Gifts, Further the
Pursuit of Happiness.
25. All people interact with physical electromagnetic frequency energy
by absorbing it (photons, heat, etc.), by storing it (calories, heat,
photons, etc.), and by producing it for our personal benefit and ultimate
survival (heat, photochemical processes, electrochemical processes,
biochemical processes...)
26. As energy life-forms, we obey the laws of physics, internally and
externally because we exist in a universe governed by these laws.
Therefore, all of our internal and external individual actions,
interactions, and experiences, as well as our collective actions,
interactions, and experiences, are influenced by these laws. As both
individual and collective actors in this energy environment, we, therefore,
can be studied and analyzed scientifically, using the laws of physics and
the tools of mathematics to aid in our understanding.
27. We exist within a framework called a Universal Set of energy which
is expanding in space and time. The Universal Set of energy can flow in
various ways: radiading, broadcasting, channeling, or randomly. There
are a myriad of subsets of the overall energy superset, which we can call
the Universe. The subset of visible energy we can call the outerNET(c),
because it is outer relative to ourselves. The subset of all invisible,
but internalized understandable energy we can call the innerNET(c). In
this same manner, the term Internet (interNET) can achieve its true
potential as a communications 'channel' between individual human beings,
used to help them in their creation and absorption of energy. The ultimate
goal of these activities for each individual is the pursuit of happiness.
V. The process by which subject instruments (gTLD MOU and InterNIC root
server monopoly) was prepared is intended to be executed, and the
associated transfer of existing Federal authority and responsibility are
unlawful.
28. Any proposed structure for determining which names will be used by
millions of Internet users worldwide in the future undermines the
inalienable rights of individuals to choose how they will use their
language...for speaking, for organizing their thoughts, for organizing
their economic activities.
29. As a researcher who recognized the need for a broader perspective
on the Committee, I submitted a proposal on January 17, 1997,
Draft-IAHC-SJPAGE-001, under the Call for Proposals calling for 1)
broadening of IAHC representation to include experts in Cognitive
Perception (language and vision experts), since both language and sensory
capabilities represent THE two most critical skills required by users for
successful interaction and navigation of Internet-accessible equipment.
30. Until that point, I had been an active participant in what had been
said to be an 'inclusive' process of obtaining feedback from the
'community' (bottom up preferences). However, I quickly learned that the
IAHC was not interested in responding to the comments of highly educated,
committed researchers in the field of user-focused network architectures,
which had been the focus of our ARPA grant. All comments were ignored by
IAHC. It was apparent to one with intimate knowledge of user perceptual
processes and visual processes that this Committee was unqualified to
provide the solutions to the two distinct 'problems' which it had set
itself up to solve, 1) oversight of the process of populating the
Internet's Root Name Servers with a language vocabulary which would be
valuable in commerce, and 2) governing the business of registering domain
names. Going hand-in-hand, the IANA/InterNIC supported the process, which
is clearly not Constitutional.
31. Since ignorance of the basic human and scientific issues which
relate to the DNS has been apparent, I've offered to share the efforts of
twenty-one years of education and training, focused squarely on
understanding exactly what both IAHC and IANA have been trying to do, while
doing it with a Constitutional-supporter's perspective. I became an active
participant in the process to replace their solution with a user-focused
solution.
VI. Several Federal agencies have explicit delegated Constitutional
responsibilities to act in this matter.
32. In the Bill of Rights, the right to freedom of speech is evidence
that the Founding Fathers recognized that the owners of language are
individual speakers, and that no governing body has the right to control
it. The result of the MoU of the IAHC would be a situation where an
international reaching, self-appointed, intergovernmental body would
assume the uninvited role as 'managing censor' of language used at the Root
level of commercial activity on the Internet. The thought is repugnant to
anyone who cherishes the inalienable rights of human beings, as protected
in the Constitution of the U.S.
33. As the owners of a system of government created by thoughtful
people, the American people are the custodians of individual rights as they
pertain to the sovereign territory called the United States. As direct
descendants of the Framers of the Constitution who recognized that specific
protections of individual freedoms would be forever necessary if people
were ever to have the opportunity to pursue happiness, the responsibility
for maintaining the torch of liberty rests with us, individually and
collectively.
34. Americans who have had the opportunity to travel the world in
leisure or in defense of the Constitution, expose themselves to forms of
government which do not recognize the rights and freedoms of individuals.
We understand that the U.S., especially the Statue of Liberty, are
worldwide symbols of hope for people whose circumstances leave little for
which to be hopeful. Protecting our freedoms requires constant vigilence.
Powerful forces, directly opposed to individual rights, are constantly
manifesting themselves in different geographic spheres around the world, as
well as within our own borders, because they exist within each individual.
35. When groups of individuals possessing such opposing ambitions hide
them from trusting individuals who might be naive to the danger,
opportunities for either entrenching themselves within organizational
structures or creating new structures should be fought with all resources.
The seeds of destruction of liberties are planted very quietly and sprout
very quickly when backed by powerful forces.
36. As a cancer which begins with one cell, the idea for controlling
language usage in the medium of Internet begins. This idea, masked under
rhetoric of 'inclusiveness' and 'community' and 'competition', when
uncloaked is really about one thing...control of the Root program of
personal thinking and interaction of the individual, language, and its use,
through the control of the Root Server network of vocabulary tables
maintained presumably for the benefit of individual users. If one is able
to control language, one is able to control user activity. If one is able
to control individuals, then it is impossible for the individual to ever
hope to pursue happiness, because true happiness is predicated upon freedom
and liberty.
37. Anything which serves to impede the ability of people to be free to
use language, and pursue happiness, is inconsistent with the intent of the
Constitution of the United States, and should not be permitted to move
forward. Furthermore, the signing of the IAHC's MoU by representatives of
the United States Government or its contractors is an abomination and a
direct insult to the People of the United States, and the people of the
world.
38. Conclusions Pertaining to Domain Name System
1) Domain Name System is a subset of language, and as such be protect under
the laws which protect the rights of individuals to own, create, and use
language freely.
2) Domain Name System should not represent only the 'generic' form of
protected speech, especially if used in an open and inclusive commercial
purposes.
3) No governmental or intergovernmental has the right to supercede the laws
of physics and biology which govern the individual's right to own and
control language.
VII. Pursuing a Balanced Course Which Supports the Principle of
Self-Determination, Openness, and Self-Organization, Makes Sense at this
Point in Time
39. Such a service would seem to be an appropriate consideration for a
free market alternative to the IAHC process, which would serve as an
example of a self-organizing system might be created from the bottom-up
level, by market participation of those interested in doing business as
registries.
40. If it were deemed important to stability of this emerging industry,
this system could be partially funded by a contract with the National
Science Foundation to assist in the building of Intellectual
Infrastructure, as envisioned by the existing arrangement which exists
between NSF and InterNIC. Since the NSF contract with InterNIC is
apparently expiring in 1998, such a transition strategy for building a free
market might be an appropriate, Constitutionally supported alternative to
the IAHC process.
41. The Department of Defense, as the Constitutional arm of our
benevolent government tasked with defending the Constitution, created the
'chain of events' which led to what we presently know as the Internet.
Presumably, in this process of events, there was an unbreakable chain of
Constitutional intent which has flowed with the events. At each link in
the chain, from the initial DARPANET to the NSFNET, and now the Internet
whose Root Name Servers are managed under contract by either Defense
Information Systems Agency (DISA) or National Science Foundation (NSF) by
the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), it is presumed by the
People of the United States that there is no dilution of the protections of
individual rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
42. If IANA is indeed a signatory to the IAHC MoU, with a presumption
of Constitutional intent and authority, answering to the People of the
United States, how is the Constitutional responsibility to protect the
rights of the People of the United States specifically ensured by the IAHC
process? Where are individual rights prevented from being diluted? Where
is the accountability the People of the United States? How is the
democratic process of ensured?
43. The NTIA, or another governing body should be responsible to the
people to oversee (not control) the process of transition of the Internet
from a limited-use, defense-focused medium, with limited usage of
vocabulary (COM, GOV, ORG, NET, INT, ARPA, MIL) to a truly free market
economic medium. This responsibility should not be handed off to any
unelected governing body. Such a process would constitute an illegal
transfer. The Laws of Science, especially physics, have been specifically
applied above in order to better understand the inherent truths in the
Constitution, and the continued need for vigilance in the defense of
individual rights and freedoms.
VIII. A Suggested Course of Action: a Non-Profit Service for Maintaining
TLDs from a Variety of Open, Free Market-supporting Root Server Consortia
44. The NSF has been contracted to place thirty percent (30%) of all
Domain Name address revenue into a fund for building Intellectual
Infrastructure. The present amount of the fund is presumably $15 million.
Using a portion of that amount to build intellectual awareness through
education of the interNET, innerNET(c), and outerNET(c), and could be very
useful to assisting all individuals in the attempts to grasp the essence of
the importance of words, vocabulary, and language, in human life.
Language, as an agreement between people, is a fundamental compromise
between sovereign beings. All activity flows from that point forward.
45. If the U.S. government and its people support the creation of a
truly free market for (interNET) domain names, as it did when it supported
the creation of CommerceNet in 1994 (funded by DARPA), one way to support
such a system is to use a portion of the 30% to fund a self-sustaining,
non-profit, self-organizing association of free market name registries
which all agree to participate in the open-market populating of generic AND
non-generic words in a manner in which vocabulary will be open and useful
for individuals worldwide. This process has already begun, and would
require little except for 1) formal support for the concept, and 2) limited
financial support, 3) participation by IANA/Network Solutions as InterNIC.
46. By way of example, such an association could be folded into an
"intellectual infrastructure fund" which is educational. In 1996, the word
"dot" was chosen as the Word of the Year (by an organization which does
this each year), because of the fact that the world "dot" is the common
element of each and every internet domain name and address. In
approximately 18 months ending December 31, 1996, about 1 million domain
names were registered and being used in Commerce, through advertising and
marketing programs. The meteoric awareness of the word transmitted in
auditory fashion generically, as well as generically as a punctuation
separator, ".", had created an immense opportunity to leverage this
awareness into understanding. To further the cause, dot Registry, Inc.,
was incorporated in California earlier this year, for this specific
purpose, and is looking to participate in the education process, which
could be sponsored by either NSF or NTIA, with initial memberships from
Network Solutions, Alternic, Name.space, eDNS, uDNS, and the growing number
of other root server operators.
August 15, 1997
(Signed)
Stephen J. Page, President,
Internet .A*-.Z* Name Registry, Member, dot Registry Inc, Root Server
Operator Association
1113 Hopkins Way
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Tel: +1 510.484.4557
Fax:+1 510.484.0448
(c) Copyright, 1997. Stephen J. Page. All Rights Reserved. This
copyright serves only to establish the creative source of the material.
Users are free to duplicate in order to further their own knowledge. This
Brief was designed to support the position of the Brief(s) of Anthony
Rutkowski before the U.S. Department of State, Federal Communications
Commission, National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
Register of Copyrights, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well
as to support the creation of a governance structure which allows for an
unlimited number of Top Level Domains, for sale to the consumers of
emerging Internet Registry Industry products and services. Let the market
decide what is useful, therefore valued.
This Brief is excerpted from a forthcoming book entitled, The innerNET(tm).
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("casrokcomm@aol.com","hongd@slip.n...
###
Number: 280
From: "joseph j. kim" <jokim@ipcom.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 8:45pm
Subject: dns tld proposal based on trademark
Internet Draft Joseph J. Kim
Expiration Date: Feb 1998 Ipcom
August 1997
DNS Top Level Domain Name Classification and Structure
draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also
distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or made obsolete by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as
``work in progress.''
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check
the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-
Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa),
nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim),
ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
Abstract
This document specifies a structural organization of Internet top
level domain names based on the International Schedule of Classes
of Goods and Services. This structure intends to provide a
framework for classification such that web content providers can
differentiate their goods and services and minimize the probability
of name confusion and collision. Under each class, as specified by
the International Schedule of Classes of Goods and Services, single
or multiple top level domain names should be specified each
appropriately partitioning the class of goods or service into an
appropriate sub-categorization. A method will further be described
to incorporate additions/modifications as becomes necessary by as
of yet unforseen future developments.
This document does not address the delegation or the administration
of top level domain names which the author feels should be
considered separately. However, the author does acknowledge that
some form of centralized authority should be in place to properly
control the structure to be described.
Joseph Kim [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt August 1996
1. Introduction
Many new TLDs will soon be created, however, a framework for
classification which appropriately limits the scope of TLD names is
not yet formally specified. Instances of name space collision in ".com"
illustrate the potential of future conflict by TLD names which are
not appropriately limited in their scope of application. In other
words, TLDs with names which are too general in nature will be a
cause of conflict since multiple entities may have an interest in
registering similar names under a particular TLD.
A TLD naming system based on the trademark system is in no way
novel. In fact, many have independently realized and suggested
variations of this approach before. However, a flexible system
which 1. maintains a fairly flat structure allowing for short and
easily remembered names (the whole purpose behind DNS in the first
place), 2. allows for flexibility in the definition of
sub-categories and names under goods and service classes as needed,
and 3. considers future revisions and modifications, has not been
specified to date. The definition of sub-categories is especially
important in light of the fact that most Internet related
businesses would likely fall under one of the 8 service classes
especially class 42: "...services that cannot be placed in other
classes [Int-sched]".
2. The Current System
In the current system, the majority of domain names fall under the
TLDs administered by Network Solutions, Inc. of:
.com
.net
.org
These TLDs have been in use for some time. However, conflict from
name collision and trademark issues continue as companies desire
the same names under a particular TLD. Current TLDs simply do not
provide enough granularity in terms of partitioning specific names
with categories of goods and services.
Joseph Kim [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt August 1996
A recent proposal by the "IAHC" [Final-report 97] suggests
implementation of 7 new top level domain names including:
.arts
.rec
.per
.store
.info
.firm
.web
However, the generic nature of some of these domain names and the
lack of guidelines for names to appropriately limit scope
[suffers
from the same problems encountered by the generality of ".com".
Future conflict is thus inevitable and a more robust and scalable
solution preferred.
3. Proposed Structure
The International Schedule of Classes of Goods and Services is the
international standard for trademark. The proposal in this document
assumes the right of the trademark holder as a priority in
determining the rights to a particular domain name under a
particular TLD name space.
Top level domain names should be specified and categorized based on
the International Schedule. Each class as defined by the
International Schedule should have associated with it a single or
multiple top level domain names. Thus multiple TLDs may exist under
a single class, unlike in the trademark system. This allows for
finer levels of granularity where needed and easily remembered TLD
names associated with particular products or services.
Again, each top level domain name would specify a particular subset
of goods or service for it's associated class. Thus, for example,
class 25 according to the International Schedule covers "Clothing,
footwear, headgear". Possible top level domain names under this
class could include:
.cloth - for clothing in general
.shoe - for footwear
.caps - for athletic caps
Actually, a more elaborate and formal description of the scope of
each top level domain name should be given. However, for the
purposes of illustration, the above should be sufficient.
Joseph Kim [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt August 1996
In a like manner all 34 classes of goods and 8 classes of services
should be appropriately partitioned and given appropriately
associated TLDs. Further each TLD should have a specific and
clearly defined scope of coverage. In other words, ambiguity and
overlapping of what goods and services are covered by a TLD should
be minimized as much as possible.
In the above example, if it is not clear whether socks fit into
".cloth" or ".shoe" then this should be made concrete by the
governing body controlling the definition of these TLDs (more on
this governing body in the next section).
A single and complete description of all TLD names under their
appropriate class of goods or service should be provided. The
author currently keeps a proposed description at
"http://www.idns.net" (will be updated regularly). The initial
suggestion of TLDs in each class is also included in Appendix A.
Again what is provided is a suggestion and even after a formal
categorization is constructed future modifications as needed should
always be possible.
4. Coordination and Management of TLD Names and Name Scope
The question now arises how to determine names for each class and
how to incorporate new names as the need arises in the future?
Ideally some international, governing body consisting of various
members of Internet and trademark bodies could be created and this
body could reach a consensus on the categorization and scope of
each TLD. This governing body could also deal with disputes.
However, the reality in creating such an organization may be
difficult. Also, the current power struggle between various
factions vying for control of the TLD name space makes this an
issue which will ultimately be decided by the victors of this power
struggle.
5. Future Modifications in TLD Name Space
When modifications need to be made in the classification of a TLD
or it's scope, it may become necessary for some domain name holders
to move from one particular TLD to another.
Joseph Kim [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt August 1996
TLD name changes will probably take the following form:
1. the addition of an entirely new TLD which does not conflict with
pre-existing TLD names and does not conflict with the scope of
coverage of other TLD names within the same class, 2. the change of
a particular TLD name to that of another, 3. the creation of a new
TLD with some scope "stolen" from other TLDs, 4. the aggregation of
2 or more old TLD names into 1 TLD name, and 5. the splitting of a
single TLD name into 2 or more TLDs.
Case 1 should not not produce any difficulties.
Case 2 and 3 would require that old TLD name holders will need to
change to use the new TLD name. For this case, some kind of a
standard grace period should be provided (preferably for at least a
year) in which the old TLD remains active. No new registrations
would be allowed in the old TLD but eventually after the grace
period expires old users would be forced out of the old TLD name
space and into the new TLD name space.
Case 3 presents an interesting issue in that if a new TLD name
space is created, whether domain name holders under the old TLD be
given priority for "generic" names under the new TLD name space. In
other words, if someone has a generic name (which implies no
trademark protection) such as "cat" or "house" or "sex" does that
person have rights to that same name in the new TLD name space?
The author's tentative suggestion is to allow old domain name
holders rights in the new name space as well.
In Case 4, which seems fairly pathological, there is a contentious
point of issue for domain name holders with "generic" domain names.
Assuming, this event were to occur (which most likely would never
happen) some form of prioritization needs to be established (i.e.
whoever registered first, etc.).
Finally case 5, should be similar to case 2 and have the same kind
of associated action.
6. Incorporating the IAHC Proposal and NSI TLDs
There are obvious problems with the current IAHC assigned TLD names
as well as the current NSI governed TLD names. For example
".store" and ".firm" are too similar and their scope becomes
ambiguous in relation to each other and ".web" and ".info" are too
general. This is not to mention NSI's ".com" which conveniently
covers the entire realm of commercial enterprise. However, if the
"IAHC Proposal" is successful with their 7 new TLD names then it
would be useful to consider how to incorporate that possible
outcome with the suggestions outlined in this document.
Joseph Kim [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt August 1996
The first step would be to place the 7 new tlds in a particular
class as specified by the International Schedule and the second
step would be to appropriately limit the scope of the current
names. Priority should be given to those who have priority for a
certain name given the associated scope of a given TLD as
specified.
A tentative suggestion is as follows and is by no means definitive:
class 41. "Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting
and cultural activities [Int-sched]."
.arts - libraries; museums; clubs centering around an artistic
focus;
.rec - recreational centers; health clubs; sporting centers;
sporting events; other recreational events;
.nom - "for those wishing individual or personal nomenclature
[Final-report 97]"
class 42. "Providing of food and drink; temporary accomodation;
medical, hygienic and beauty care; veterinary and agricultural
services; legal services; scientific and industrial research;
computer programming; services that cannot be placed in other
classes [Int-sched]."
.info - directory services; Internet searching; white and yellow
pages; whois;
.web - web related advertising firms;
.store- see below
.firm- see below
Eventually, .store and .firm should be obsoleted and registrants
should be moved (as specified by this document) into appropriate
TLDs to be created in the future.
Joseph Kim [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt August 1996
Similar to incorporating IAHC TLDs, the TLDs currently administered
by NSI of .com, .org, and .net could also be handled.
class 42
.org- non-profit organizations;
.net- network consultants; isps; web design firms;
.com- should be obsoleted as .store and .firm
As future TLDs are created some of the above listed TLD names can
be changed or moved or deleted as per the specification of this
document.
7. Acknowledgements
Many people have expressed various ideas about incorporating
trademark into the DNS, however, the first real codification of
those ideas, and similar to those ideas expressed in this document,
came from a now expired IETF draft document by Simon Higgs of Higgs
America.
The problems associated with the "IAHC proposal" (as well as a
stimulus for writing this document) and their 7 new top level
domain names was best described by Donna Hoffman in her article
"IAHC'S Seven New Top Level Domains Will Confuse Customers"
[Hoffman 97].
Joseph Kim [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt August 1996
8. References
[Int-sched] International Schedule of Classes of Goods and
Services
[Final-report 97] Final Report of the International Ad Hoc
Committee: Recommendations for Administration and Management of
gTLDs
[Hoffman 97] Hoffman, D., "IAHC's Seven New Top Level Domain Names
Will Confuse Customers", The COOK Report on Internet, Vol. 6, No.
4/5, 1997.
9. Author Information
Joseph Kim
ipcom
811 Haverhill Dr.
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Phone: (408) 527-2579
email: jokim@ipcom.com
Appendix A. Initial Recommendation of TLD Names and Scope
All TLDs should be 3-7 characters in length.
Goods:
=====
Sub-categorizations for classes is listed with examples listed to
the right. Manufacturers of the associated goods described should
apply for domain names under the appropriately designated TLD.
Class 1-
.CHEM chemicals used in industry, science, and photography, as
well as in agriculture, horticulture and forestry;
.PLAS unprocessed plastics
.MANURE manures
.PRSRV chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs
.ADHSV adhesives used in industry
Joseph Kim [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt August 1996
Class 2-
.PAINT paints, varnishes, lacquers; colorants;
Class 3-
.LNDRY bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry
use.
.SOAP soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair
lotions.
.CLEAN cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations
Class 4-
.OILS industrial oils and greases; lubricants; dust absorbing,
wetting and binding compositions; candles, wicks.
.FUEL fuels.
Class 5-
.PHARM pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations.
Class 6-
.METAL common metals and their alloys, pipes and tubes of
metal; ironmongery, small items of metal hardware; safes;
goods of common metal not included in other classes.
.ORE ores.
.WIRE non-electric wires of common metal.
.CABLE non-electric cables of common metal.
Class 7-
.MCHN machines and machine tools; motors and engines
Class 8-
.RAZOR razors
.CUTLRY cutlery; knives
.TOOLS hand tools and implements (hand operated)
Joseph Kim [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt August 1996
Class 9-
.INSTR scientific, nautical, surveying, electric, photographic,
cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring,
signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and
teaching apparatus and instruments;
.RECORD apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction
of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording
discs.
.VEND automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin
operated apparatus;
.CASHREG cash registers.
.CALC calculating machines.
.COMP data processing equipment and computers.
.FIREX fire-extinguishing apparatus.
.NTWK routers, switches and hubs; modems and other network
related machinery.
Class 10-
.SURGI surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments
artificial limbs, eyes and teeth; orthopedic articles; suture
materials
Class 11-
.LTNG apparatus for lighting.
.HEATER apparatus for heating.
.STEAMG apparatus for steam generating.
.KITCHEN apparatus for cooking, refrigerating, water supply and
sanitary purposes.
.WTRSPLY apparatus for water supply.
.VENT apparatus for ventilating.
.DRYER apparatus for drying.
Class 12-
.VEHI apparatus for locomotion by land, air, or water
Class 13-
.ARMS firearms; ammunition and projectiles; explosives; fireworks
Joseph Kim [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt August 1996
Class 14-
.JEWEL jewellry, precious stones;
.WATCH horological and chronometric instruments (wrist based)
.CLOCK horological and chronometric instruments (non wrist based)
Class 15-
.MUSICI musical instruments
Class 16-
.PRINT printed matter; bookbinding materials; printers' type;
printing blocks.
.BRUSH painters brushes.
.PAPER paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials.
.CARD greeting cards; playing cards.
.STNRY stationery.
.TAPE adhesives for stationery or household purposes.
.PHOTO photographs.
Class 17-
.RUBBER rubber, gutta-percha, gum asbestos, mica and goods made
from these materials.
.PIPE flexible pipes, not of metal.
.PACK packing, stopping and insulating materials.
.PLSTC plastics in extruded form for use in manufacture.
Class 18-
.LTHR leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these
materials and not included in other classes; animal skins ...
.HIDE animal skins, hides.
.SADDLE harness and saddlery
.UMBRLA umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks.
.WHIPS whips.
Class 19-
.BUILD building materials (non-metallic); rigid pipes for
building; asphalt, pitch and bitumen; non-metallic
transportable buildings; monumetns, not of metal.
Joseph Kim [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt August 1996
Class 20-
.FURN furniture, mirrors, picture frames; goods (not included
in other classes) of wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker,
horn, bone, ivory, whalebone, shell, amber,
mother-of-pearl, meeschaum and substitutes for all these
materials, or of plastics.
Class 21-
.HSHLD household or kitchen utensils and containers (not of
precious metal or coated therewith); combs and sponges;
brushes (except paint brushes); brush-making materials;
articles for cleaning purposes; steelwool; unworked or
semiworked glass (except glass used in building);
glassware, porcelain and earthenware not included in
other classes.
Class 22-
.ROPE Ropes, string, nets, tents, awnings, tarpaulins, sails,
sacks and bags (not included in other classes); padding
and stuffing materials (except of rubber or plastics);
raw fibrous textile materials.
Class 23-
.YARN yarns and threads, for textile use.
Class 24-
.TEXTILE textiles and textile goods, not included in other
classes; bed and table covers.
Class 25-
.CLOTH clothing in general; socks; caps.
.SHOE shoes; boots; thongs; other types of footwear.
Joseph Kim [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt August 1996
Class 26-
.LACE Lace and embroidery, ribbons and braid;
Class 27-
.CARPET Carpets, rugs, mats and matting, linoleum and other
materials for covering existing floors;
.POSTER wall hangings (non-textile)
Class 28-
.GAMES Games and playthings; gymnastic and sporting articles
not included in other classes.
.XTREE decorations for Christmas trees.
Class 29-
.MEAT Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; edible oils
and fats.
.????? preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables.
.JELLY jellies, jams, and fruit sauces.
.DAIRY milk and milk products.
Class 30-
.COFFEE Coffee and artificial coffee.
.TEA Tea.
.SUGAR sugar.
.SALT salt.
.RICE rice.
.FLOUR flour.
.BREAD bread.
.PASTRY pastries.
.HONEY honey.
.SPICE spices.
.CONDMNT condiments, sauces, mustard, and ketchup.
.ICE ice
Joseph Kim [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt August 1996
Class 31-
.AGRI agricultural products not included in other classes
.HORTI horticultural products not included in other classes;
plants and flowers.
.FRSTRY forestry products not included in other classes
.ANIMAL live animals
.FRUIT fresh fruits
.VEGE vegetables.
.FEED foodstuffs for animals
.MALT malt
Class 32
.BEER beers
.BEV mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic
drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other
preparations for making beverages.
Class 33
.ALCO Alcoholic beverages (except beers).
Class 34
.TBCO Tobacco; smokers articles; matches.
Services:
========
Class 35
.ADS Advertising;
.BUSI Business management; business administration; office
functions.
Class 36
.INSU Insurance.
.FINA Financial affairs; monetary affairs.
.REAL Real estate affairs.
Class 37
.CONST Building construction.
.REPAIR Repair services
.INSTALL installation services.
Joseph Kim [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt August 1996
Class 38
.TELCO Telecommunications.
Class 39
.TRANS Transport
.SHIP Shipping of goods.
.TRAVEL travel arrangements
.STRAGE Packaging and storage of goods.
Class 40
.MTRLS Treatment of materials.
Class 41
.EDU Education.
.TRAIN providing of training.
.SPORTS Sporting activities.
.CLTRE Cultural activities.
Class 42
.ADLT web sites containing adult/mature material.
.BAR bars.
.MOVIE movie information.
.RESTNT restaurants
.HOTEL hotels.
.MOTEL motels.
.MED medical care.
.COSM hygienic and beauty care.
.VET veterinary services.
.AGRIS agricultural services.
.LEGAL legal services.
.RSRCH scientific and industrial research.
.PROG comoputer programming.
.NET network consultants; isps; web design firms.
.ORG non-profit organizations
.NEWS newspapers; news related web sites
.INFO directory services; Internet searching; white and yellow
pages; whois/rwhois.
Joseph Kim [Page 15]
###
Number: 281
From: "Gregory B. Bulkley, M.D." <gbulkley@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 3:26pm
Subject: Government interference in the Internet
As has been clearly exemplified in the past several years, especially
by the present administration, attempts by the government to increase
its power to further interfere in our lives are always justified by
intellectually dishonest arguments which exaggerate a real or imagined
problem, (a problem often created by prior, misguided attempts at
government regulation,) and the (usually short-term) benefits purported
to be obtained, while ignoring or minimizing the long term loss of our
freedom created by yet another ceding of the control of our lives to the
statist-collectivist sociopaths who fight indefatiguably and ruthlessly
for the power provided by that very control. In the past decade, two
phenomena have emerged that threaten this widespread, pathologuic world
view to a greater degree than anything since lassaiz-faire capitalsim:
The first is a global economy that has proven virtually impossible to
regulate, and has therefore been freed to produce an immeasurable
increase in the standards of living of rich and poor alike, all over the
world, except in a few closed societies (North Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba,
Iraq and perhaps Iran) that are strangulating themselves by their
isolation therefrom. The second is the Internet, the enormous growth
and utility of which is due almost entirely to the fact that its content
is virtually unregulated. As access to and control of information
itself continues to increase exponentially in value relative to other
commodities, especially traditional goods and services, it poses an even
greater threat to the statist-collectivist world view. This has been
clearly illustrated by the current administration's pathologic fervor in
pursuing control of the encryption of electronic communication, which
has beeen rationalized on the basis of better control of drug
trafficking, an arguemnt so patently riciculous that it should be
laughable. This is indeed ironic, as it draws attention to the
collossal failure of the "War on Drugs," an outcome which has been
purchased at enormous cost to our financial resources and personal
freedom, and therefore a perfect example of the logical, indeed
inevitable outcome of this same line of reasoning. Make no mistake
about it: the attempts to control the content of the Internet represent
a blatant attempt to control communication itself, and by clear
implication, our thought processes. Moreover, this fact is clearly
understood by those who seek such control. Their arguments for this
interference are so patently ridiculous that they can only be advocated
by the truly stupid or the intellectually dishonest, and these actual
and aspiring bureauocrats are not that stupid, at least in the usual
sense of the word. Fortunately, I think that the Internet, even more
that the international trafficking in narcotics, will probably prove to
be unregulatable anyway. Nevertheless, as is clearly illustrated by the
"War on Drugs," attempts at such regulation by the government may well
generate untold human misery, loss of personal fredom for persecuted
individuals, and enormous economic cost.
(Hopefully, this document will be posted before it is read by the
mindless bureauocrats who undoubtedly administer this forum.)
Gregory B. Bulkley, M.D.
Ravitch Professor of Surgery
The Johns Hopkins University
gbulkley@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu
(These opinions are my own, and are almost certainly not representative
of the University.)
###
Number: 282
From: Michael Loftis <mjl@tcbbs.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 1:30pm
Subject: InterNet Domain Regulation
I feel that Internet Domain regulation should not be that of the courts,
nor the Department of Commerce to decide. The "first come first serve"
law has allways held up until a few stupid lawers changed that. Now I
have to worry about some person sueing me for my domain name!
This is ridiculous. I also feel that the creation of TLDs (Top Level
Domains, such as .com .net and .org and others) should be regulated in
the same way it is now, by an International committee.
By and large the court system has *no idea* what the heck a DNS server
is much less what it does. If they do know the knowledge is only
rudimentary. If we let everyone create a TLD either through committee
review or not there would be too many lawsuits and it wouldn't be long
before the root DNS servers simply died, or became too overloaded to
handle all the requests.
We have this problem starting to appear with the .COM domain because of
peoples reluctance to move to a nation-centric approach. I would have
used a .US domain had there been any way for me to get in contact with
the registration authorities for it.
MAny people suggested adhering to the set-forth hierarchy (.NET for
ISPs, .COM for COMPANIES (no more of you movie idiots there) etc etc)
this is by and large an excellent idea. It is just stupid the way
everyone wants to use .COM domains. These are for COMPANIEs or
COMMERCIAL sites. InterNIC has *NOT* handled its contract properly and
I hope that a committee will remove it from its contract and find
another agency that will do its job and not allow movies in the .COM
domain and instead push for a .MOVIE domain for movies only.
OK, I feel better now. LEts just hope something is done about it. The
US DoC has no business in meddling with anything Internet related until
they can show that the majority of them have working technical knowledge
of DNS, NIS, and WHOIS also. Without some knowledge of these protocols
it is impossible to judge accurately as to the fate of the current DNS
system. They must also understand the impact that a major change in the
naming system would incur.
<soapbox mode off>
###
Number: 283
From: "Timothy K. Timlin" <timothy_usa@mindspring.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 6:47pm
Subject: Domain names and governmental involvement
Let the computer / communications [internet] industry resolve this
matter themselves. If not, then create a quasi-governmental responsible
to Congress/Senate to resolve the matter.
_______________________
Timothy K. Timlin
timothy_usa@mindspring.com
###
Number: 284
From: Johanna Byrne <infopros@mhtc.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 7:41pm
Subject: Domains
I believe that the InterNIC has done a good job sofar in its handling of
web site name registration and that there is no reason to take this
"authority" to a different organizaiton. Since it makes no difference
where InterNIC is located in respect to the registering company, it
should be no issue at all that InterNIC happens to be physcially located
in the U.S. Starting up an international governmental agency sounds
too Orwellian to me...
I can see the need for further domain segmentation, but surely hope that
the companies that already have a .com designation do not have to pay
again to get a new designation in a .com subcategory!! And maybe even
would have to battle someone else for a name they have been using with
.com for a couple of years.
Johanna Byrne
Website under construction
www.tranquiltime.com
###
Number: 285
From: Dallas Jones <djones1@san.rr.com>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/15/97 8:53pm
Subject: DNS
Simply put. Keep it as un-obtrusive as possible. I will gladly take the hit.
Keep the Gov't out as much as possible.
###
Number: 286
From: "David H. Klein" <davidhk@cint.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 3:55am
Subject: RFC on Internet Domain Name Administration
Dear DOC,
Attached to this e-mail is a Word 7.0 file that have my full comments. The
same file is being sent in print form, on disk, and will also be available
later this week at: http://www.cint.com/dns.htm
Sincerely,
David H Klein
###
Number: 287
From: "David R. Johnson" <david.johnson@Counsel.COM>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 12:12pm
Subject: DNS NOI
David R. Johnson hereby submits comments in electronic form, in
Microsoft Word format, in response to the Department of Commerce's
Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet
Domain Names.
Acknowledgement of receipt (to david.johnson@counsel.com) would be
appreciated.
/s/
David R. Johnson
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of David R. Johnson
___/s/________________
David R. Johnson
3650 Appleton Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
August 15, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary
A. Appropriate Principles
Principles a-f
Other principles
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Questions 1-9
C. Creation of New gTLDs
Questions 10-14
D. Policies for Registries
Questions 15-20
E. Trademark Issues
Questions 21-28
SUMMARY
1. The basic principles articulated by the government are sound. The
U.S. Government should foster those and related principles by using its
role as an early operator and subsidizer of key net resources to
facilitate the growth of a sound private sector-driven system of
self-governance for the Internet.
2. Any system for Internet self-governance must be based on a web of
contracts entered into between users, ISPs, registrants for
net-identifiers, registrars, and various parties (such as the operators of
root servers) who implement those contracts. In general, the marketplace
can and should decide what contracts will be entered into.
3. The government should encourage and allow the development of
contracts that provide coordination among all registrars regarding the
terms and conditions under which net identifiers will be issued, used and
revoked. Such contracts ought not to be found to violate antitrust laws or
other public policies. Those engaged in constructing such self-regulatory
regimes should be provided with appropriate immunity from liability,
provided that they act to improve the Internet rather than for private
financial gain or special competitive advantage.
4. Disputes regarding registration and uses of domain names should be
resolved by a global arbitration process, resort to which is made a
condition of registration of any domain name. Such a process will produce
efficient and expert decisions that are easier to enforce globally than
are judgments by local courts.
5. The domain name system involves many policy issues and potential
disputes that have no relationship to traditional trademark law. Trademark
concerns should be fully taken into account but should not drive the
engineering decisions nor determine the overall shape of the system likely
to be used, more generally, for Internet governance.
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of David R. Johnson
1. I, David R. Johnson, respectfully submit comments in this proceeding.
I am Chairman of Counsel Connect, an online system for lawyers, and
Co-Director of the Cyberspace Law Institute. I have written various
articles on domain name system administration and on related Internet
governance issues (See, generally, www.cli.org). These comments are
submitted in my individual capacity.
A. Appropriate Principles
a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name registration system
should be
encouraged. Conflicting domains, systems, and registries should not be
permitted to
jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet, however. The addressing
scheme
should not prevent any user from connecting to any other site.
1. Competition should be analyzed at various different levels. For
any given domain, there may be a natural monopoly with respect to the
single database used to make sure that second level domain name
registrations are unique. In contrast, the provision of registration
services may benefit from competition. Certainly, the provision of lower
level identifiers (e.g., email accounts and web addresses within a
particular domain) ought to be provided on a competitive basis.
2. Insofar as certain types of domain names may provide a useful
"signaling" function by being associated with particular terms and
conditions (e.g., a requirement that users of ".edu" be educational
institutions), competition among registrars to provide registration
services might create confusion if the registrars were free to attach any
given terms and conditions, or to use differing levels of zeal in
enforcing standard terms. For example, certain domains might come to be
understood to include only registrations from certain types of persons
(corporations) or from persons who can be identified and found at
particular geographic addresses. If competition among registrars were to
reduce the certainty that particular terms and conditions are being
applied consistently within a particular domain, then a loss in signaling
efficiency (and an increase in information costs and transaction costs
incurred by users) would result. The remedy for this would be for all
registrars for a particular domain to enter into and clearly disclose
concrete agreements regarding any minimum set of terms and conditions that
will be applied by all registrars to applicants for registration in that
domain.
3. The U.S. Government (and other governments) should make clear that
collaboration and agreements designed to produce a responsive and
responsible domain name governance system are not violations of antitrust
laws. Governments should also take all available steps to protect those
engaged in creation and administration of domain name governance systems
from risks of litigation and liability that would otherwise chill this
important activity that serves the public interest.
4. While there is merit in any proposal that preserves universal
addressability, some addressing schemes may reasonably require certain
actions and/or agreements on the part of the user before they provide
access to the addressed sites. For example, web sites may require
registration and agreement to particular terms as a condition of access.
Certain subdomains, such as those used by software agents, might operate
in a similar fashion. Rather than seeking to eliminate such barriers, the
government should support the general principle that fully disclosed terms
and conditions for access to online spaces should be enforced, as a matter
of contract law, unless they violate commonly accepted trade practice
applicable to electronic commerce. New technologies and experimental
addressing schemes should also be encouraged so long as they do not cause
undue confusion or interfere with the functionality of established and
widely relied-upon systems.
5. Any domain name governance system should be designed to work
generally with all functional domain names, including those associated
with country codes. Insofar as the government of a particular country
asserts a desire and obtains the means to set policy with regard to its
country code domain, the degree of competition allowed or required for
provision of registration services with respect to such country code
domain should be determined by the public policy of that country, subject
only to a requirement that all registrars, including those operating with
respect to country code domains, should comply with generally applicable
trade practices as established by contracts among such registrars. Insofar
as a particular registrar sets policies that conflict with those agreed to
by most other registrars, the majority group should have the right to
cease cooperation and interconnection with those implementing conflicting
policies. Delegation of responsibility for registration for top- level
domains, including country code domains, should take account of the
desirability of preserving a consistent and widely agreed upon policy
regime for all domains.
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.
1. Private sector self-governance for the domain name system,
including policies applicable to the issuance, registration, revocation
and use of domain names at all levels, must take the form of a
multi-tiered contract regime. The accountability of such a system comes
from the fact that each actor at each level -- end user, domain name
registrant, registrar, and collaborating registrar groups and their agents
-- must voluntarily agree to specific contract terms and conditions that
define the rights of various parties with respect to the domain name in
question. Governments may, of course, become parties to such contracts in
their capacities as users of certain portions of the domain name system.
The resulting contracts will provide a flexible regime informed by those
who know most about and care most about the growth of global electronic
commerce. Such contracts should be enforced under local law unless they
violate commonly accepted trade practice or are found, by appropriate
dispute resolution mechanisms, to violate rules the parties are
contractually bound to obey.
2. While consensus is a laudable objective, there will always be
disagreements among some parties regarding what rules ought to apply to
the domain name system. It is not feasible to resolve such disputes by
means of electing representative legislative fora or writing mandatory
rules that could be imposed "from the top down," whether by local law or
international treaty. To the contrary, the best means of developing
commonly accepted and workable rules for administration of the domain name
system is to enter into multiple contracts that, collectively, "from the
bottom up," define the rights and responsibilities of the parties.
Registrants can and will decide what terms and conditions to accept in
connection with their use of particular second-level domains. Registrars
will need to attract registrants by offering acceptable terms -- and to
avoid serious risks of liability by avoiding practices that unreasonably
and unjustifiably impose harm on third parties. It is critical for the
development of this private contract-based system that governments make
clear that they will not intervene to impose rules on the participants and
that they will seek to provide a shield against antitrust and tort
liability for those engaged in good faith in the development of such an
open, responsible, and responsive self-regulatory regime.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently
global nature
of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over time.
1. No one country can assuredly establish jurisdiction over, or set
rules for, all participants in any given Internet domain. Even country
code domains are used in many instances by parties that are not physically
within the jurisdiction of the particular country in question, nor bound
by its laws. Moreover, the pervasive availability of materials sent over,
or located on, the net means that non-territorially based addressing can
be very useful and most appropriate in many circumstances. Insofar as the
terms and conditions applicable to use of such addresses is based on
contracts, such rules may be easier to enforce on a global basis than
would be the rules or decisions of any particular country.
2. The Net is still evolving rapidly and it is reasonable to expect
that the demands placed on Internet identifiers will change quickly.
Necessary flexibility is most likely to come from decisions made by
private sector participants.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open,
robust,
efficient, and fair.
1. Openness to competition should be assessed not just with respect
to the potential role of competing registrars but also with respect to the
question whether those seeking to register and use a Net identifier have a
maximum degree of freedom of choice with respect to the nature of such
identifiers and the terms and conditions under which they are obtained and
used.
2. Reliability of domain name resolution, including assured
uniqueness of such resolutions and the continuous availability of needed
root servers and databases, can best be assured by means of inclusion in
contracts among registrars and between registrars and root servers of
appropriate terms limiting participation in the mainstream system by those
who do not avoid duplicative addresses or do not meet applicable technical
reliability standards.
3. Any particular role, including provision of root servers,
registration of domain names, and operation of centralized registry
databases, should be open to those who meet reasonable qualifications.
Where there is a limitation on the number of parties who can play a role
at any given time (such as the need to operate one centralized database
for any particular domain), the selection of the party to play that role
-- and the terms and conditions under which the selected party performs
such services -- should be set by means of a contract entered into between
that party and the beneficiaries of such services. Thus, the registrars
for any particular domain should contract with the provider of the central
database services and should reserve in that contract the right to replace
such central database administrator for cause or on other specified
conditions. Similarly, the registrars for all interconnecting domains
should contract with those who provide the root servers that make it
possible for end users to find applicable domain databases, and may agree
among themselves on the terms on which new qualified registrars will be
admitted to the group.
4. In order to be "fair," the contractual agreements entered into
among participants in a particular domain name administration system need
not have been subject to individualized negotiation. The fairness of such
systems of contracts will stem from the facts that (1) to be bound by the
rules, the participants must have voluntarily entered into the agreements
that implement such systems, and (2) those who are not willing to accept
the terms and conditions available from any particular set of participants
remain free to deal with other groups or to set up their own system of
interrelated contracts. The robustness and efficiency of the system will
come from competition among private parties to build reliable and
cost-effective systems that attract end users. Such competition and
overall "fairness" can only be preserved if the system remains "open" in
the sense that anyone who thinks they can develop a better system, without
breaking or otherwise interfering with the operation of the existing
system, remains free to do so. Preserving this openness requires that no
centralized body be given the power to prohibit the creation of sets of
contracts and operational procedures that might otherwise create
responsible competing regimes.
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.
1. Conflicts are sure to arise regarding the use of Net
identifiers. These conflicts will involve application and interpretation
of particular contract terms, claims regarding rights to continue to use
(or to revoke or transfer) particular identifiers, and some concerns
regarding confusion, dilution or infringement of trademarks and trade
names registered under various local legal regimes. Resolution of such
conflicts will be most efficient and prompt if alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) methods are used. If resort to, and compliance with, such
ADR procedures were required under contracts among the participants, the
resulting decisions could be enforced efficiently on a global basis.
2. There will always be some risk that a conflict will involve a
party who has not contractually agreed to use efficient ADR methods or to
abide by the results of a fair process widely accepted by participants in
electronic commerce. Such a risk of "end runs" should be minimized by
requiring all participants in electronic commerce expressly to agree that
all disputes primarily relating to such participation should be resolved
by means of ADR. Governments should expressly support such ADR procedures
and should take the view that it is fair and permissible to require all
participants in global electronic process to be required to resolve their
disputes in this manner. Reservation of the rights of all parties to seek
separate remedies in local courts will merely prolong and complicate
disputes, often to the detriment of all involved. Any parties who have not
entered into such agreements to use ADR may reasonably be identified as
such, so as to allow those who do not wish to deal with such "holdouts"
to avoid doing so.
3. The mechanism provided for ADR should maximize the ability of the
parties to a particular dispute to choose among a wide range of neutral
and expert mediators, arbitrators, or other decisionmakers. In light of
the global character of the Net, and the presence online of most likely
parties to disputes, such ADR mechanisms should make maximum use of online
means of presenting the parties' arguments and reaching and publishing the
needed decisions.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration
of these
issues permits.
1. Insofar as a robust and open framework will evolve from the
bottom up, as a result of contracts entered into among participants in
global electronic commerce, there is no need or occasion for any rush
towards promulgation by any "authoritative" body of any "top down" set of
rules. But it would be helpful for all governments promptly to make clear
that they will enforce the contracts entered into by the parties and that
they will shield those engaged in creation of a responsible and responsive
governance mechanism from risks of antitrust and tort liability.
2. Insofar as the U.S. Government subsidizes or provides particular
elements of the domain name system, it should promptly make clear the
specific terms and conditions on which it will continue to do so. Insofar
as the U.S. Government uses the domain name infrastructure, it should
enter into agreements consistent with those acceptable to most private
participants.
Other principles
1. No government should reserve the right to pass laws or make
policies applicable to persons or resources not within its physical
territory. In particular, the mere fact that practices engaged in by
those administering the Internet identifier systems might have an impact
in any particular country, based on the accessibility of the Net from
within that country, is not sufficient to support a claimed right of any
such country to regulate the terms and conditions under which Net
identifiers are issued or used.
2. No single group of private (or even "public interest") actors may
legitimately claim the right to set rules or establish mandatory practices
applicable to the issuance and use of Net identifiers, regardless of the
relationship of such group to historical means by which such rules and
practices have evolved. Instead, the claim to legitimacy of any set of
rules must stem from the entry by appropriate participants into binding
contracts that embody those rules.
B. General/Organizational
Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration
systems?
1. The mnemonic character of domain names is very valuable, not so
much for its "guessability" but rather for the aid it provides for
preserving relevant addresses in short term human memory.
2. The variety of terms and conditions under which Net identifiers of
all types can be issued to end users is very valuable.
3. The current relative speed and relatively low costs associated
with issuance of domain name registrations should be preserved.
4. There is now an unfortunate level of uncertainty regarding the
extent of rights to prolonged use and enjoyment of registered domain names
and concerning the specific terms and conditions under which such use
occurs (including questions regarding the procedures by which such terms
and conditions may be established and changed).
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
1. Domain names could provide substantially more meaningful
information regarding the character of the party using a particular
address, or the nature of the material or service found at a particular
address, or the terms and conditions under which a particular identifier
is used, could be improved substantially, insofar as applicable sets of
terms and conditions were more clearly established and reliably enforced.
2. Uncertainties regarding the extent to which continued use of
domain names is assured to registrants (and regarding who sets the terms
and conditions under which registration under particular domains is
offered) should be reduced.
3. Costs associated with resolution of disputes between domain name
holders and owners of trademarks should be reduced.
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?
1. The party accepting an application to register a domain name
should have a clear and assured right to provide the registrant with
accurate information regarding the availability of the name, with reliable
entry of the registration, and with stable and secure enjoyment of the
rights to use such name in accordance with applicable contract terms.
2. The party operating a central database of registrations for any
particular domain should be able to provide reliable service to the
registrars and, indirectly, to registrants.
3. A party providing root server services should be contractually
obligated to participating registrars to provide reliable and responsive
service.
4. There need not be, and should not be, any single central entity
whose agreement or permission is required as a condition to establishment
of what would otherwise be a domain name system that does not break or
interfere with established systems, cause undue confusion, or infringe
third parties' proprietary rights.
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?
1. The core decisionmaking process that ought to underlie any
domain name system is the entry by participants into binding contractual
agreements.
2. The proper role of governments is to enforce such agreements,
unless they violate antitrust laws or other public policies. As long as
the agreements provide for open processes, they should be found not to
violate antitrust policies. In assessing the limitations provided by
"public policy," governments should look to the "trade practices"
established by participants in global electronic commerce. Governments
should also provide immunity from tort liability for those engaged in
creation of responsible and responsive self-governance mechanisms for the
Internet.
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. Many private parties have made major investments based on
assumptions regarding the continued availability of the .com registry and
other top level domains. Little is to be gained, and much would be lost,
by elimination of such domains.
2. Because the Net is accessible on a global basis, use of
nonterritorial domains is appropriate and useful in many contexts. Any
required use of country code identifiers would be most unlikely to
eliminate or substantially reduce uncertainties or conflicts regarding
application of local laws. In particular, there is no necessarily valid
inference that those operating within a country code domain are bound by,
or found within, the jurisdiction of that country's laws. Efforts to
require contractual agreements that condition operation within a country
code domain upon submission to that legal jurisdiction would create
increased confusion and conflicts of laws: the enforcement of such
contracts would still be contested in other jurisdictions, persons from
different domains would still need to interact, and the cost of locating
and applying local laws to particular cross-boundary transactions and
disputes would still be substantial.
3. While it may be possible in theory to separate gTLD management
issues from questions about country code domains, there are many reasons
to adopt a single policy paradigm for all top level domains. Sound
operation of a core root server function probably requires that the root
server operators have the same contractual relationships with all the
cooperating registrars they serve. Confusion and operating costs will be
reduced, if as many top level domain registrars as feasible enter into a
cooperative agreement. The potential for confusion, abuse and infringement
exist in all top-level domains -- so any applicable policies and
dispute-resolution procedures designed to deal with trademark issues will
operate most effectively if applicable to all top-level domains. This is
not to say that all top level domains must have the same sets of policies,
procedures, rules, and terms and conditions for registration. To the
contrary, any standardization should be adopted only to the extent this is
voluntarily agreed to among participants, based on what appears necessary
to achieve the most reliable and flexible and valuable system.
Nevertheless, the policy paradigm should allow for the possibility that
all types of top-level domain registrars may want to agree upon some core
(i.e., standardized) rules or practices.
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?
1. There does not appear to be any technological means of
eliminating the possibility that a domain name or other Net identifier may
be used in a fashion that creates confusion regarding the source of
information or services. Some set of rules and dispute-resolution
procedures is needed to deal with this problem on a global basis.
2. There are many other issues relating to domain name registrations
as to which there is no purely technological solution. Questions regarding
how to set applicable fees, whether and when registrations must be renewed
or may be revoked, and issues regarding any terms and conditions imposed
as a prerequisite to issuance and use of a Net identifier all raise
"policy" questions. Such questions must be dealt with by means of (1)
unilateral choices made by participants on the net, (2) agreements reached
among such participants (and their agents and service providers), and, as
a last resort, (3) laws imposed by local sovereigns (via application to
particular actors within their jurisdictions or, in concert with other
nations, by treaty).
3. Insofar as operators of root servers provide a service that is
needed to allow decentralized name server software to locate the databases
containing definitive information regarding particular top-level domains,
both domain name holders and registrars have a vital stake in the reliable
operation of such root servers (under policies that serve the interests of
ISPs and end users). Accordingly, it may be advisable to transition to
operation of root servers by actors who serve as contractually obligated
agents of groups of registrars.
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?
1. Root servers can continue to interoperate and coordinate, either
by means of reaching agreements among themselves or by means of agreeing
to operate on behalf of, and under directions from, a set of registrars
that have agreed to coordinate their own actions. It may not be feasible
or necessary to attempt to require that the operator of any computer that
resolves inquiries regarding the location of domain name databases must
operate under one uniform set of operational terms. As long as separate
operation of supplemental root servers does not "break" the generally
acceptable system, the worst impact of such "supplemental" root servers
may be simply that the Net will have failed to that extent to achieve
consensus around a single, universal standard. Some experimentation
around the edges of any given system seems highly desirable. If
experimental systems "break the Net" or interfere with the reliable
operation of existing domain name systems, then the operators of the
mainstream domain name (and IP address) allocation systems could take
effective action to disable the "interfering" source (or those knowingly
hosting it). 8. How should the transition to any new systems be
accomplished?
1. Assuming general agreement among participants upon a standardized
set of interlocked contracts, the U.S. government could greatly facilitate
an orderly transition by: (1) directing the root servers under its control
to point to domains that are operated in conformance with such mainstream
standard agreements; (2) directing any agencies or contractors that it
controls or subsidizes (IANA, InterNIC) to transfer any assets or
prerogatives under their control to those operating the new system (in
conformance with the generally agreed upon contractual terms); and (3)
entering into such standard contracts, in its capacities as a regular user
of the net, as a holder of various second-level and top-level domain
names, as an operator of a registry/registrar (e.g., .mil), and as an
operator of root servers.
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
1. Most people want a system in which each node on the network can
locate and address every other public node, by means of mnemonic domain
name lookup. Local domain name server software must have a way to locate
the databases associated with every commonly recognized domain name. This
implies pointing to a "root" server, and a set of multiple root servers
that are kept "in sync" by common agreement. Only those domains that are
recognized by the central, synchronized, mainstream root servers will
appear to most users of the net. Accordingly, the key question may be for
whose benefit the mainstream root servers agree to operate.
2. No one government has complete control over the establishment and
regulation of root servers. While the U.S. Government subsidizes many root
servers, others could be cheaply established. Ultimately, ISPs who run
domain name servers have control over which root servers their server
software targets. Therefore, large ISPs, who could subsidize the creation
of root servers, and the updating of name server software, will select the
root server operators and control the agreements among root servers
regarding what domain names to recognize.
3. Large ISPs must compete for customers. Insofar as large numbers of
customers, particularly those who seek to register second-level domains,
insist on some specific practices by ISPs with regard to relationships
with the domain name registration and lookup system, such practices will
likely prevail.
4. Anyone seeking to establish a new top-level domain must obtain the
agreement of the dominant root servers to point to the database that
represents the domain. Anyone seeking to establish a second-level domain
name must find some way to register it in a database that allocates unique
second-level domains to particular parties.
5. There are thus four distinct and important types of contracts that
must be entered into (explicitly or implicitly) to make the domain name
system work: (1) an agreement among root servers to point to particular
sets of domains and to update data consistently, (2) an agreement among
registrars/registries not to take actions that cause conflicts and to take
actions to protect the integrity of the domain name system, (3) an
agreement between the party registering a second level domain to abide by
the terms and conditions made applicable to such registration by the
registrar/registry, and (4) an agreement between an end user and an ISP
with regard to the terms and conditions for use of a net identifier (such
as an email address or subsidiary web page address), which carries with it
some terms regarding access to domain name lookup software and stability
of the higher level domain registrations.
6. There is no necessary relationship between the system used to
allocate domain names and the system used to allocate IP numbers. But many
of the same questions regarding fairness, open systems for formulating
policy, protection of reliance interests, and relationships to national
laws are similar for both systems.
7. Any given registrar (or group of registrars, or, derivatively,
group of root servers or ISPs with an interest in the subject matter) may
have reasons to want to preclude or revoke registrations of particular
domain names (on the ground that they infringe third party rights, offend
others, have been used to facilitate violation of some core net "public
policy" or local law, etc.). Registrants of particular second level domain
names may have reasons (such as substantial investments in reliance upon
such registrations) to want to be sure that their registrations cannot be
revoked without just cause and due process.
8. Local courts and local laws must be relied upon to force the
parties to contracts relating to the use, registration and revocation of
domain names, and the operation of the domain name system, to abide by
such contracts. But local laws need not be the source of any special rules
applicable to the domain name system. Insofar as submission to
international specialized online arbitration is made a mandatory condition
of participation in the domain name system, that arbitration process can
become the sole source of decisions regarding interpretation of the
contracts.
9. Insofar as third parties (who have not entered into the relevant
contracts) advance claims in local courts regarding alleged harms from the
operation of the domain name system, and insofar as some parties who have
entered into such contracts seek to avoid their obligations by claiming
that such contracts are unconscionable or violate "public policy," local
courts and local laws can and should defer to "trade practice" among those
participating in electronic commerce to determine what is reasonable.
Accordingly, the domain name system can and should be supplemented with a
mechanism for determining what contract terms participants on the Net
consider to be unenforceable. Local laws should override such Net-based
"public policy" determinations only when local authorities have clear
jurisdiction over all the parties and when the interests of the local
jurisdiction in the resolution of the matter clearly exceed the interests
of participants in global electronic commerce.
10. The mechanism for development of "Net public policy" can take the
form of (1) decisions in the course of the arbitration process, if these
are published; and (2) deliberations online among parties with appropriate
levels of interest and expertise. There is no need for codification of
such deliberations into a "statutory" code -- and any effort to reduce
such policies to authoritative texts would risk rapid obsolescence. To the
contrary, the substance of online discussions of such questions should be
made available to decisionmakers (both the arbitrators with jurisdiction
over Net participants and the local courts hearing claims from those who
do not participate on the net and who are therefore not bound to engage in
arbitration of their claims) who are faced with concrete questions
regarding how to interpret and whether to enforce particular contract
terms.
11. Various domains and subdomains should be free to adopt differing
terms and conditions for registration, use and revocation of net
identifiers, subject to the public policy override and the terms of
particular contracts into which they have entered voluntarily.
12. Local governments should decide that the system of contracts
governing the domain name system is not a violation of any antitrust laws,
provided that the contracts (1) do not exclude participation by would-be
entrants other than on substantively reasonable grounds (involving a valid
business purpose) and (2) do not leverage any claim to intellectual
property rights (or any monopoly over any resource required for
participation in the domain name system) into a special competitive
advantage for one party (or closed group) with respect to any aspect of
the domain name system that would otherwise be open to competition.
13. It will be useful for all participants in the domain name system
to have ample notice of the likely terms and conditions under which
additional top-level domains may be added and administered. The root
servers, and the existing registries, and key ISPs, should, therefore
promptly enter into an agreement setting forth the mechanisms to be used
to create new domains and the key terms and conditions all agree should be
applicable to all registrars/registries.
14. It is unclear whether particular local laws will be found to
apply to the registration and use of country code domains. Each registrar
for each country code domain should promptly make clear its policies with
regard to the application of local laws, the required submission of claims
to particular local or international arbitral dispute resolution, and any
other terms and conditions applicable to registration and use of country
code domains. Insofar as any such terms and conditions are inconsistent
with general "Net public policy," and not justified by vital local
interests that outweigh the general interest of all participants in global
electronic commerce in establishing the contrary rule, then the contracts
among registrars and root servers may provide for cancellation of the
delegations of responsibility for registration under such country code
domains.
15. The contracts among root servers and registrars may provide for
rules of various types designed to prevent or punish (1) failure to pay
reasonable fees supporting operation of the domain name system and
particular registrars/registries; (2) creation of confusion regarding the
identity or nature of particular parties or online addresses; (3) failure
to provide appropriate operational security and reliability; (4) actions,
such as fraud, theft or vandalism, that inflict unjustifiable harm on
third parties; or (5) failure to abide by the terms of applicable
contracts, including obligations imposed as a fully disclosed condition of
entry into a particular online space (unless such contracts violate Net
public policy).
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?
1. Insofar as gTLDs serve as mnemonic devices, which help people
remember locations on the net (and, to a much lesser extent, to "guess"
locations corresponding to existing commercial and noncommercial
institutions), expansion of the number of gTLDs could somewhat impair that
function. On the other hand, a finite number of new gTLDs with easy to
recognize and meaningfully distinct names might enhance that function.
2. The root server system probably cannot deal with an arbitrarily
large number of gTLDs, because it represents a centralized resource that
must address and update multiple copies of a single database.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
1. There is no clearly right or wrong answer to this question. The
best way to evaluate it is to allow the creation of new gTLDs by
responsible actors, in the context of an overall governance system that
responds to the needs of those participating in global electronic
commerce, and then see whether potential registrants sign up. If users
demand the new gTLD registrations and other registrars can coordinate
successfully with the new entrants, the answer is "Yes." If no one signs
up, or the new gTLDs cannot be successfully integrated operationally (and
by contract) with the existing system, the answer is "No."
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
guaranteeing the
scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of
gTLDs?
1. It is increasingly difficult for particular registrants who want
a non-country-code domain name to find satisfying second-level domain
names in the most popular ".com" top level domain. Creation of some
alternative gTLDs could help to alleviate these problems and, helpfully,
enhance the growth of global domain names that can operate under diverse
rules responsive to various constituencies.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO
country code
domains?
1. Insofar as gTLDs use distinct registrars and establish separate
policies, their administration is separable. But the same root servers are
used for looking up both gTLDs and ISO country code domain databases -- so
any set of agreements or systematic means for administration of the most
widely used root servers must deal with both types of domains. Moreover,
insofar as trademark protection or other policy questions potentially
relate to all domain names, it is impossible to resolve such policy
questions by means of management structures or agreements that relate only
to one portion of the domain space.
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
1. One key issue in this area is whether only one person or entitye
will have the power to decide as to whether or not to create new gTLDs.
If so, then numerous subsidiary questions arise concerning how to make
that person or entity accountable to the full range of participants in
online commerce, all of whom are impacted by such decisions. If not (i.e.,
if it is possible that the decision to create new gTLDs might be made by
multiple parties, in a decentralized fashion), then the question is
instead how the decisions of such parties might be coordinated or
constrained to avoid unnecessary and counterproductive conflicts (or other
vices). It appears that decisions to create new gTLDs might be made by
many people, in a decentralized fashion, and yet still result in a
responsible and responsive system, insofar as the widespread use of a
particular new gTLD would require willingness on the part of mainstream
root servers, acting as agents of mainstream registrars, to point to the
new gTLD. A community of responsible actors, coordinating their activities
by contract, can serve as a mechanism that tests and accepts new proposed
operating procedures that originate from decentralized sources. This is
the standard mechanism of open standards processes. Its feasibility
suggests that there is no need to centralize power in any one "political"
body in order to preserve the reliability of the mainstream Net.
2. Insofar as an important determinant of the value of a new gTLD is
its presence in the database used by the predominant root servers, and
insofar as the U.S. Government administers or supports many if not all of
the root servers at present, another issue is what constituencies the U.S.
Government should seek to serve in the course of deciding whether and how
to open up such root servers to point to new gTLDs or to transfer its
prerogatives in that regard to private parties. A related, perhaps
subsidiary, question is who will make and implement those decisions on
behalf of the government. Having helped to launch the Internet, the U.S.
Government should now serve the long-term health and growth of Net
self-regulation by acting through a single policy arm to empower (and
contract with) the parties who appear to be engaged in constructing the
most responsible and responsive web of contracts dealing with these
issues.
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?
1. While shared gTLDs have not been widely demonstrated in
practice, with some limited exceptions (such as the delegation of
registration role by Nominet to third parties), there does not appear to
be any theoretical limit on the use of a single domain name registration
database by multiple parties, each of whom offers to enter into a
registration agreement.
2. On the other hand, there is no reason why some gTLDs might not be
served by a single registrar on an exclusive basis while other gTLDs were
administered on a shared basis. An exclusive registrar may make it more
difficult to transfer a registration to another registrar, within the same
domain, for purposes, for example, of seeking the lowest registration fee.
But an exclusive registrar might also be able more effectively to promote
the value of a particular gTLD and might, therefore, be able create more
value for consumers. The market ought to be able to choose effectively
between the two models.
3. One problem with shared registries could arise if the registries
are allowed or encouraged to established widely varying terms and
conditions. Insofar as domain names serve as concise means of signaling
that a particular registrant has entered into a specific contract
applicable to that domain (and required as a condition of registration by
the registry), the sharing of registry duties among unrelated third
parties could operate to make it less clear whether the holder of any
given domain name has agreed to any particular set of obligations
(including, e.g., the obligation to provide accurate name and address
information, or to comply with requirements that only certain types of
entities use particular domains, etc.)
4. If domain names cannot really be made portable, in the sense that
the full terms and conditions initially agreed to by a registrant cannot
be transferred by that registrant at will to assure continued operation of
the domain name under such terms and conditions, regardless who performs
the registration function, then there will be more pressure to assure that
registries are substantial, responsible parties and that such registries
are not subject to arbitrary revocation or alteration of their rights by
means of actions of other groups (such as a council of other registrars).
This will lead thoughtful and careful registrants to insist on the
creation of a web of contracts that establishes, in effect, enforceable
property rights with regard to domain name registrations.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars,
and what
responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these
and how?
1. The marketplace should determine this, insofar as registrants
can decide unilaterally whether to deal with a particular registry and
insofar as other registrars can decide whether and on what terms to agree
to work together to create a shared domain registration database, or to
coordinate their activities as a council of registries. The mainstream
group of registrars need not reserve the right to prohibit formation of a
new registrar -- because they can simply decide not to allow an
irresponsible registrar (or one not otherwise willing to adopt generally
agreed upon standards for operations or policy) to join the core group
(and they can direct root servers operating as their agents not to point
to an irresponsible domain).
2. A more serious question is posed by the likely decision of any
would-be registrar to challenge in court or before some local authority
the decision of a mainstream group (which by its actions is defining and
enforcing generally accepted standards) to exclude it. A decision by a
local authority that the mainstream group must admit a member that the
group does not deem qualified would be tantamount to a finding that the
mainstream group may not develop and apply such a standard. If the
private group applies criteria that have a valid purpose connected with
the improvement of the Net, rather than being designed solely to place the
interests of a small identifiable group of participants ahead of those of
their competitors, then the decisions of the private group should receive
deference. If the private group conducts its affairs in the open, and
regularly welcomes input from third parties, and appears genuinely willing
to enter into applicable contractual agreements with anyone meeting its
publicly articulated criteria, and applies its criteria to concrete cases
by means of processes that afford notice and a reasonable opportunity to
be heard by a neutral decision-maker, then its decisions also deserve
deference on that account. Governments should support these principles in
applying their antitrust laws and in ruling on (and precluding) tort
claims made by those who challenge self-regulatory systems.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain
name
registrars?
1. Insofar as a registrar can serve merely as an agent for purposes
of finding registrants and entering into agreements with such registrants
on terms and conditions specified in advance, and subject to confirmation
by a central database that the domain name for which registration is
sought is available, there do not appear to be any such limits.
2. Insofar as each registrar might have exclusive duties with regard
to a particular domain, then the limitations on the number of registrars
would stem from limitations on the ability of root servers to store and
update information about multiple domains.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name
space raised by
increasing the number of domain name registrars?
1. There are already approximately 200 distinct top-level domains
and even more registrars. As their numbers increased substantially, there
might be some added expense or difficulty in coordinating their
activities. But, in general, there are substantial reasons to want to
have a large number of registrars, with various diverse policies regarding
registration and with a presence in and responsiveness to a very large
number of differing communities of potential registrants.
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?
1. The marketplace can provide an answer to this question. Insofar
as operation of registries for multiple domains makes a registrar more
efficient and effective, then domains under the control of such a
multi-domain registrar should prosper. Insofar as such operations detract
from the registrar's ability to serve each separate community of
registrants, potential registrants will seek out alternatives.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
1. One major question that has not been fully enough explored is
the extent to which registrars are or should be constrained in terms of
their right to revoke registrations on particular grounds. Any widely
accepted system will need to provide, by means of enforceable contracts or
other means, adequate protection against "hold up" fees and security
sufficient to allow registrants to invest in reliance on the continued
availability of the domain names they have registered.
2. Another key question that has not yet been fully discussed is the
extent, if any, to which a domain name registrar may claim intellectual
property rights in the database(s) resulting from registrations, or,
indeed, may make any use of such information other than as required to
further the goals of the registration system. Such rights might
appropriately be established and defined by means of contracts between
registries and registrants -- and constrained overall by the standards to
which registries must agree as a condition for entry into a mainstream
coalition that prevents conflicts and oversees the operation of root
servers. But it appears that most registrants and registries have not yet
paid adequate attention to these issues.
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?
1. Uses of domain names on the Internet to indicate a source of
goods or services can be infringing or diluting of traditional marks. But
trademark law now relies heavily on the geographic separation of
marketplaces (most marks are valid only within particular geographic
territories) and on the applicability of marks to particular lines of
business (often facilitated by the attachment of marks to physical goods).
Insofar as domain names are global and do not necessarily and clearly
relate to any particular line of business, they present a new set of
problems. Moreover, insofar as they may include generic terms (e.g.,
"sneakers.com") and are widely used for noncommercial purposes, domain
names present certain distinct questions relating to confusion, dilution,
and fraud that are not solved by any existing trademark laws.
2. If we were addressing these questions ab initio, we would want to
create a system that (1) provides unique, reliable resolution of domain
names to particular IP numbers, (2) prohibits the use of confusingly
similar or identical domain names under circumstances in which such uses
will lead to confusion on the part of users (or fraud, passing off, or
other well-recognized forms of unfair competition), (3) provides clear and
prompt notice to all concerned regarding which domain names are already
"taken" and which proposed new names will create unjustified harms to
users of existing names, (4) allows full use of the domain name space for
noncommercial as well as commercial purposes, (5) avoids unnecessarily
destroying any values associated with substantial investments in brand
names, (6) avoids rewarding those who reserve names for the purpose of
"hold ups" or otherwise take opportunistic actions without substantial
economic or social justifications, and (7) applies and is enforceable,
with prompt and efficient dispute resolution, on a global basis.
3. The best way to serve these goals is to recognize that, while
domain names can infringe trademarks, they represent a distinct form of
identifier that differs in material respects from traditional marks. We
should develop, by contract, a global regime that is based on and respects
the unique characteristics of these identifiers. That regime can and
should respect the interests of parties with established, globally famous
marks -- as it respects the interests of established, globally accessible
domain names that may or may not be used for commercial purposes. Insofar
as most of the owners of globally famous marks will want to participate in
the Internet, and will therefore want to become signatories of the
registration contracts that form a key component of the domain name
system, it should be possible to resolve the conflicts between domain name
holders and trademark owners, pursuant to such contracts, whether these
conflicts relate to substantive rules regarding rights or to procedures
used to resolve particular cases. Any trademark owner who did not agree to
reasonable and commonly accepted terms applicable to protection of both
domain names and trademarks could be denied a registration. Any domain
name at risk of infringement liability claims from such a rare hold-out
could be reserved or perhaps issued only at the risk of the registrant. In
most cases, both trademark owners and domain name registrants will
recognize the novel character of these new identifiers and will agree to
be bound by rules and dispute resolution procedures that give all
concerned adequate notice of both their rights and any limitations on
those rights.
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?
1. Because many trademark rights are established by use, rather
than registration, it will be very difficult to be sure in advance (or
even shortly after registration) that any particular domain name does not
conflict with any and all marks in use on tangible products.
2. Preliminary review processes run the risk of imposing substantial
and costly delays on many parties, while providing meaningful guidance or
conflict prevention for very few.
3. The private sector will likely provide databases and lookup
services that do help potential registrants evaluate the likelihood of
conflicts.
4. As discussed below, a mandatory alternative dispute resolution
process, reference to which is required as a condition for registration of
a domain name, would be most likely to produce efficient, informed
decisions and to yield results that are enforceable on a global basis.
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?
1. While many owners of strong marks may prefer to turn to national
and local courts to protect their marks, that preference is
inappropriately based on their ability to expend far greater resources on
litigation than can their typical adversaries. A better informed view of
their own self-interest would suggest that it will be easier for owners of
strong, globally famous marks to protect their legitimate interests if
their disputes are resolved by means of an arbitration process. Accepted
as part of the registration contract, arbitration would produce fair and
expert results and the resulting decisions would be easier to enforce on a
global basis than the judgments of local courts. Insofar as such awards
deal only with the issuance or revocation of domain names (as distinct
from injunctions against persons or the award of damages), such "in rem"
decisions should not be seen to raise serious questions regarding the
jurisdiction of local courts or governments. In contrast, remitting
decisions regarding domain names to local courts could well lead to many
conflicting decisions and, while unfairly favoring the interests of
parties with superior resources, would also impose substantial costs on
all participants in global electronic commerce.
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?
1. The domain name system is itself a distributed database that
contains extensive information regarding the use of such identifiers.
2. The private sector already does supply products and services
designed to assist those who want to spot and avoid conflicts and
disputes. It can be expected to develop new offerings. Any attempt to
develop a definitive central database would artificially constrain the
growth and flexibility of the domain name system itself -- and probably
fail in attempting to prevent disputes.
25. Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate that they
have a
basis for requesting a particular domain name? If so, what information
should be
supplied? Who should evaluate the information? On the basis of what
criteria?
1. The requirements imposed as a condition of registering a domain
name should be established as a matter of contract between the registrant
and the registrar. Insofar as a number of registrars agree among
themselves to require a particular item of information, or a particular
contractual undertaking on the part of the registrant, that requirement
should stem from an agreement among registrars who must at least
potentially compete with other registrars who might not agree to impose
such terms and conditions.
2. It seems reasonable to require a registrant to warrant that it
does not know that its use of a domain name will infringe the rights of
third parties. It seems much less reasonable to demand a demonstration
that there cannot be any such disputes -- much less that the registrant
establish some affirmative right or "basis" on which to claim the use of a
particular second level domain name. If the name is not in use, and is not
known to be likely to infringe a third party's rights, then it should be
available to be issued. The number and diversity of theoretically possible
infringement claims is such that no one could reasonably certify that
their use will not create any difficulties. Moreover, the many
noncommercial and personal uses of domain names makes it highly
inappropriate and unjustified to require that all registrations be
conditioned on demonstrated possession of any specified forms of
intellectual property rights. Indeed, because of the many legitimate uses
of anonymity and pseudonymity, and the rapidity of change in the uses to
which domain names are put, it might well be unreasonable to ask for
specific real world identifying information as a condition to
registration, where this is not needed to assure payment of registration
fees, and it may also be unreasonable to require statement of any fixed or
specific purpose for use of a particular domain name. As noted, the
market, in the form of registrants deciding where to register, and
registrars deciding what terms to impose (on registrants and on
cooperating registrars), will best decide these types of questions.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of
registrars affect
the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
1. Some large companies apparently fear that proliferation of
numerous gTLDs will make it harder and more costly for them to protect
their marks. This concern seems overstated, in light of the fact that the
Internet provides many opportunities to automate the process of searching
for infringements. Insofar as the concern represents a view that it will
be hard to protect non-globally-famous marks in many gTLDs, because
holders of conflicting marks that are now used in other territories or
lines of business will be able to establish prior registrations of
particular domain names, the objections prove too much. Non-famous marks
should not be made easier to protect, as against other non-famous marks,
just because the owner of such marks is a large company that wants to
establish its brand globally. To the contrary, one reason to expand the
number of gTLDs is to create more space in which non-globally-famous marks
can co-exist.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a
single domain
name, are there any technological solutions?
1. By agreement, the owners of conflicting marks could establish an
intermediate page, at the domain name in question, pointing in multiple
directions. Such agreements are unlikely, however, unless the trademark
owners have roughly equally valuable (and otherwise "compatible") brands
and neither one of them establishes a prior right to the domain name.
2. In the vast majority of cases, this is simply not a problem that
is so serious that it ought to drive the design of the domain name system.
There are many alternative satisfactory domain names that might be
associated with any given trademark. Seriously and intentionally confusing
or infringing uses can be prevented or punished. Expansion of the gTLD
name space can also relieve this problem, insofar as it stems from
scarcity.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
1. The challenge to the trademark system posed by the net does not
relate only to top-level domains. Confusing or infringing uses of marks
may be made in the context of any Net identifier, including third and
fourth level domains and even email addresses (and, indeed, direct use of
marks on web pages). Thus, any effort to deal with trademark protection
must take into account the fact that all Net identifiers, generally, can
be used to cause confusion and can be accessed globally. It may be that
the best way to deal with this problem is to encourage the adoption by
mainstream registrars and system administrators of contracts that include
among their provisions agreements to prohibit the use of Net identifiers
to cause unjustified harm to important property interests of third parties
and to revoke the registration or issuance of such identifiers by those
found by fair processes to have committed such wrongs.
2. Net identifiers may be used in various ways that create confusion
or mislead users but that have no connection to trademarks. We should
encourage the development of clear rules against such wrongful actions --
and foster private institutions that can apply such rules in a fair and
efficient manner.
###
Number: 288
From: "bobb@es.co.nz" <Bob.Berryman@panix.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 6:49am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Bob Berryman do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 15, 1997 06:48:06 EDT
Bob Berryman
------------------------
http://zero.tolerance.org
at@zero.tolerance.org
###
Number: 289
From: "editec@agate.net" <Guy.Chocensky@panix.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 2:21pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Guy Chocensky do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 15, 1997 14:19:51 EDT
Guy Chocensky
------------------------
http://zero.tolerance.org
at@zero.tolerance.org
###
Number: 290
From: "cvision@leroy.cc.uregina.ca" <Ahasiw.Maskegon-Iskwew@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 4:25pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Ahasiw Maskegon-Iskwew do hereby support the design of the expanded
toplevel Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 15, 1997 16:24:02 EDT
Ahasiw Maskegon-Iskwew
###
Number: 291
From: "janis@kkh.se" <Jaanis.Garancs@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 6:21pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Jaanis Garancs do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 15, 1997 18:20:05 EDT
Jaanis Garancs
###
Number: 292
From: "registration@g3.org" <George.Morris@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/8/97 12:50am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I George Morris do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 00:47:46 EDT
George Morris
###
Number: 293
From: "pit@icf.de" <Pit.Schultz@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 9:14pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Pit Schultz do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 15, 1997 21:13:27 EDT
Pit Schultz
Berlin, Germany
###
Number: 294
From: "DRPRODS@AOL.COM" <Louise.Diamond@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/15/97 10:03pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Louise Diamond do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Friday, August 15, 1997 22:02:23 EDT
Louise Diamond
###
Number: 295
From: David Diano <dave@diano.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 12:39am
Subject: Comments:Trademark and TLD
To the weary people reading all of these suggestions:
I believe that part of the Trademark issue can be handled by a Top
Level Domain dedicated to that purpose.
I propose a .TM (or .TMK ) top level domain. This domain would be
restricted to only those companies with registered trademarks. The
"first-use" rule would still apply to .com, but the new .TM would be
controlled by legal registration of trademarks. (At least it would be no
worst than the problems that already exist in trademark law.)
In general, the top level domains should be broadened and should
reflect the current model used by the USENET newsgroups. The .COM name
is so overloaded that it no longer carries any useful information as a
category.
I basically agree with the following recommended tld's:
.web for entities emphasizing activities related to the World Wide
Web
.arts for entities emphasizing cultural and entertainment
activities
(although, should be .ART)
.rec for entities emphasizing recreation/entertainment activities
.info for entities providing information services
I suggest adding the following:
.law for legal services
.med for medical (hospitals, doctors, drug companies, etc)
.mag for current print magazines
.xxx or .sex for sexually oriented material
.kid or .k12 for child oriented material
.per for personal domains
.cty for local City governments
.env for environmental and conservational efforts (a global
problem)
.tm or .tmk for registered trademarks
I hope my comments have been helpful and will contribute to a general
consensus.
Sincerely,
David Diano
###
Number: 296
From: "Dan S. Tong" <drdancm@concentric.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 2:01am
Subject: Comments
It's quite clear to me, but apparently not clear to some of the authors
of the publicly listed comments, that the domain naming/administration
task is very complicated and requires a lot of background knowledge.
Since I am by no means even adequately knowledgable on this subject I
will confine my comments to general suggestions.
1. Whatever solutions are proposed and seriously considered they must
allow for the nearly unlimited expansion of domain names (3-5x the
population of our planet projected for the next 50-100 years, may be
adequate).
2. It would also be extremely useful at the same time to create a
universal unique ID/E-MAIL address system so that mailing addresses
would become portable for life and not be hostage to one's current ISP.
3. Domain names should be affordable (less costly than they are now)
and should be inexpensive to maintain (a small fraction of the initial
registration fee).
4. The administration should be efficient and cost effective-either
private (non-profit) or government run -but TOTALLY APOLITICAL. I am not
sure which would work best. I think the current administration has
worked reasonably well (except for recent big errors) and the overly
hight cost of registration and maintenance.
Sincerely,
Dan S. Tong, Ph.D.
Computer Consultant
###
Number: 297
From: "Thomas Thompson" <tomrt@muscanet.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 10:47am
Subject: Domains
Dear Sirs,
I believe that no private company should control the distribution of
domains. If the internet is going to be a true information media, no
private interprise should control the distribution. Right now the price
to obtain a domain is price inhibiting to some individuals.
Thomas Thompson
tomrt@mucscanet.com
###
Number: 298
From: "rev@starnetinc.com" <Ron.Vikara@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/11/97 8:31pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
My idea is to give all adult sites a .xxx so all filters
will work right. I think this must be the only way we the
people can let our kids and teens use the web.
A law should be writen to enforce it so no links can be
to any adult site that is not one itself. A good ext. can
be .ADT or .21 or some form. We can't stop the sex but we
can keep it hidden away. No jail time but to be kicked off
the net is a good way. and to setup a page to report crime
on the net. It a new world and the goverment has got to do
its part in it. Already child porn and drugs are being sold
over the net, whats next?
I have lots of ideas and I wish I had some say in what
would be the new police dept. (World-U.S. Net Police)
I would police the net.
Thanks for reading,
Ron Vikara
-------------------------------
Monday, August 11, 1997 20:29:51 EDT
Ron Vikara
Lets just say:
DuPage Co.
Illinois.
###
Number: 299
From: "J Johnson" <jjohnson@inneroffice.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 8:32am
Subject: domain names
After spending the better part of a month trying to come up with a new name
for my web site design business, only to find, each time, that the desired
domain name was already taken, it becomes obvious to me that assigning
addresses in the customary fashion simply won't work. I think that
addresses in the cyberworld should be handled the same way they are in the
tactile world - alpha-numeric designations given out systematically.
Search engines and "yellow pages" would then assist the traveler in
reaching their designation. We don't need any more reasons to feed
lawyers. This should not be an issue left to litigation.
The concepts of trademark infringement and plagiarism need to be examined
more closely. As the population of the world increases, ideas, especially
original ones, become harder and harder to generate. We still have only 26
letters in our alphabet. The combination makes a finite number of
acceptable words. As populations soar every one of those words gets used
more and more often. The only real hope for originality is to make up new
words that then become indicative of a product or service. Kleenex is the
best example I can think of - and that, boys and girls, ain't easy. Our
standards of originality must go up and we must begin to rely on the old
adage, "it's not what you have but how you use it" that becomes the
deciding factor. I occasionally supply answers for an advice column in
this area's primary newspaper. My answers are carefully researched and
even more carefully worded. On more than one occasion, I've later found
that entire phrases match, almost word for word, comments made on the topic
by others. This was not plagiarism on either my part or theirs. It simply
demonstrates that there are a finite number of combinations of words to
describe a particular idea. If many people describe the same concept
changes are very good that the answers will be similar. People don't read
anyway - "gotta have pictures" - and they are a whole lot easier to
regulate since Mr. Kodak has provided us with an endless supply.
Joy M. Johnson
jjohnson@inneroffice.com
jjohnosn@gamma4.com
###
Number: 300
From: "Henry Teutsch" <hbteutsch@msn.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 11:52pm
Subject: Proposed Domain Names
Hello I would like to add my comments to the public record regarding the
proposed domain names.
First I feel that these other organizations, other than the one which is
currently in charge of registering domain names, are criticizing the current
system because they are locked out of any profit involved with controlling and
registering domains. Also I believe these seven new domain names are an
attempt to by pass the current parties involved who seemingly have control
over domains and there registration. There would almost certainly be an
attempt to reregister such high profile names of the most popular name brands
by parties hoping to draw attention to their site or sell these names to the
perspective companies or it would force some companies to register there
current domains seven times over incurring seven times the current cost. This
could make a nominal fee available only to those with deeper pockets. If there
is any regulation where current domains such as coke or Pepsi could not be
registered by other parties under the proposed domain system then there is no
point in adding more domain name suffixes. If I own a domain under .com, that
may or may not be trademarked, could someone else register it under .web? If
not then the new proposal would not free up names like the backers claim just
add to the confusion. Domain names should be similar to a broadcast license.
Once used its unavailable to anyone else. There are millions of names still
available. The proposal is designed to make other people and companies money
and to give them part control over a system which is now generally free of
restraints and not controlled by any company. If the registration process were
run by American Online, Microsoft, or IBM it would be extremely difficult for
small companies to acquire names or buy into the Internet for commerce. While
these companies to my knowledge have been quite concerning these issues. The
smaller groups and organizations pushing these changes are hoping that they
will be catapulted into the realms of these big three corporations.
Finally the registration process in my opinion is not flawed. The nominal fee
is easily justified. But if critics prevail why not let the FCC register names
or create a semi-private company similar to the US postoffice which just
registers names and manages the main DNS database. I think there is
approximately 2 million domains registered. At $100 dollars per year per
domain name it is clear why people wish to add more possible names. The
registration business could be a billion dollar industry where it shouldn't
cost more than a postage stamp.
###
Number: 301
From: Daniel Dawes <ddawes@gj.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 8:20pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Name Registration-OCMUG
Attached are the responses of the Orange County Multimedia
Users Group, a group of 3000 multimedia professionals in
Orange County, So.Calif.
OCMUG Response to Domain Name Questions
Comments of Orange County Multimedia Users Group
August 12, 1997
A. Appropriate Principles
Responses to Questions a-f
a. appropriate - yes
complete - no. This principle provides no guidance to
conflict resolution or avoidance. Conflicts over domain
names should be removed from the system and placed into
mandatory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) by statute.
De novo trial in a court of competent jurisdiction may be
made available after ADR or preferably an opposition
procedure similar to that used before the Trademark Trial
and Appeals Board, TTAB, but using private judges instead.
During resolution both parties should operate under
appropriate suspense names. For example, if there were a
conflict on the name ibm.com, the two contending parties
during pendency of ADR would be assigned temp1ibm.com to
the senior party and the temp2ibm.com for the junior
party.
b. appropriate - yes
complete - no. While the private sector is more
likely to more efficiently administer name registration,
responsibility and accountability of registrants can only
be guided by statute and private agency regulation
empowered by law. Only the force of law has the power to
regulate name usage between registrant users of names on
the internet and nonregistrant users of names.
c. appropriate - yes
complete - no. The principle provides for no
direction for global evolution over time. National
organizations should join in an international congress to
deal with world level issues only, leaving national issues
to the national organization and providing for
proportional representation based on a periodic census of
the number of domain registrants.
d. appropriate - yes
complete - no. The principle provides for no clue to
what would be *fair* or how fairness can be determined in
any given instance.
e. appropriate - yes
complete - no. The principle provides for no clue to
what would be *fair* or how fairness can be determined in
any given instance.
f. appropriate - yes
complete - yes.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Questions 1 - 4 and 6 - 8 are answered.
1. advantages: low price, quickness, public searchability
disadvantages: inability to meaningfully deal with
name conflicts or to provide a name structure where name
conflicts can be avoided.
2. The current domain name system can be improved by:
a. Removing name conflict from the net when it occurs by
issuing temporary suspense names and putting the disputing
parties into mandatory alternative dispute resolution.
b. The name structure can be improved by providing hidden
levels in the secondary name rather than splintering
primary domain names. For example, an address
columbia.com would return to the browser a selection tree
of Columbia(broadcasting).com; columbia(river
rafting).com; columbia(records).com; columbia(coffee).com;
etc. This would allow the many legitimate columbias which
operate without conflict in the market, but which come
into conflict on the net to distinguish themselves on the
net by the same means that they use in the market and
still all be accessible as columbia.com. Conflicts in
hidden names, presented only in a selection tree on
addressing, could be arbitrated in a written arbitration
similar to written trademark prosecution in the Trademark
Office, but before the registering body or ADR authority.
3. Private corporations operating under renewable
government contract works very well.
4. Domain name registration could follow the model of
film/television title registration as administered by the
Motion Picture Association of America for net registrants
having no prior commercial use of the name. This
contemplates reserve positions and use obligations. As to
name conflict resolution between registrants basing a
claim on prior use, the procedures of the Trademark Trial
and Appeals Board, U.S. Trademark Office, in opposition
proceedings offer an attractive alternative to court
litigation.
5. Top level generic domain names have no particular
utility unless part of the internationally agreed natural
language scaleable naming system.
6. No comment
7. Natural language hierarchy systems should be used
which are proven as inherently scaleable naming systems.
For example, when a new company incorporates it can be
found by conventional addressed mail using its company
name, at a street, city, country location. A simple four
level tree structure can quickly lead to an addressed
location e.g. United States, to Washington DC, to 14th and
Constitution, to NTIA. Entry at any level of the tree
known to the user can display the next level down or up to
allow user selection based on other known or guessed level
names.
8. Transitions should occur in the same manner as
transitions in area telephone codes are handled.
9. No comment.
C. Creation of New gTLDs
Questions 10 - 13 are answered.
10. No.
11. Yes, if part of a natural language scaleable naming
system.
12. No.
13. Yes, depending on the natural language scaleable
naming system employed.
14. No comment.
D. Policies for Registries
Questions 15 - 19 are answered.
15. These issues are irrelevant in a natural language
scaleable naming system. No one level of the name has any
unique role in the scaleable naming system as compared to
other levels.
16. Registrars should have the same requirements as postal
address naming authorities.
17. Not necessarily as long as there is adherence to a
single natural language scaleable naming system.
18. Not necessarily as long as there is adherence to a
single natural language scaleable naming system.
19. These issues are irrelevant in a natural language
scaleable naming system.
20. No comment.
E. Trademark Issues
Questions 21 - 27 are answered.
21. Domain names can function as service marks, trade
names and trademarks as well as simply a domain name
without other commercial significance. The manner and
what it is used for on the net determines this function.
Customers ask for services, products and companies by
name, whether on a label or in a domain address. When
used as a protectable mark, then the rights of the mark as
provided by law must be enforceable.
22. Screening of domain names by an authority will
unacceptably slow the process and create unnecessary
beaurocracy and costs similar to current trademark
registration, where costs are several hundreds of dollars
and delays of 12 months typical. Free registration of
nonidentical names with quick and low cost opposition
resolution in cases of conflict is preferred as a
self-screening system.
23. Internet trademark conflicts should be submitted to
mandatory mediation or arbitration with recourse to an
trademark opposition style trial on written records before
private judges, whose judgments are entered as judgments
of courts of competent jurisdiction over the parties as
determined by current federal practice (Title 28).
24. Domain name and trademark databases currently exist,
are affordable, are easily accessed and are available to
those who seek to avoid conflict. Trademark attorneys
capable of assisting users in making private judgments of
availability are available everywhere.
25. No. The registrar should not be burdened or tasked
with making entitlement judgments of any kind.
26. No effect as long as a single natural language
scaleable naming system is used. Trademarks, service
marks, and trade names can be used as the lowest level of
the scaleable naming system. Higher level names can
distinguish similar lowest level names on the internet in
the same way that other market factors currently
distinguish the lowest level names in the market. For
example, the likelihood of confusion between tradenames,
trademarks and service marks are currently adjudicated
based on the standard of the law as set forth in In re E.
I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO., 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973)
where the factors are listed as:(1) The similarity or
dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to
appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
(2) The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the
goods or services as described in an application or
registration or in connection with which a prior mark is
in use. (3) The similarity or dissimilarity of
established, likely-to-continue trade channels. (4) The
conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made,
i.e. "impulse" vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing. (5)
The fame of the prior mark (sales, advertising, length of
use). (6) The number and nature of similar marks in use on
similar goods. (7) The nature and extent of any actual
confusion. (8) The length of time during and conditions
under which there has been concurrent use without evidence
of actual confusion. (9) The variety of goods on which a
mark is or is not used (house mark, "family" mark, product
mark). (10) The market interface between applicant and the
owner of a prior mark: (a) a mere "consent" to register or
use. (b) agreement provisions designed to preclude
confusion, i.e. limitations on continued use of the marks
by each party. (c) assignment of mark, application,
registration and good will of the related business. (d)
laches and estoppel attributable to owner of prior mark
and indicative of lack of confusion. (11) The extent to
which applicant has a right to exclude others from use of
its mark on its goods. (12) The extent of potential
confusion, i.e., whether de minimis or substantial. (13)
Any other established fact probative of the effect of use.
Therefore, a natural language scaleable naming system
would have level names such as (1) The name which gives
the commercial impression, i.e. Cola;(2) The nature of
the business, goods or services associated with the name,
i.e. manufacture and distribution of beverages; (3) The
established, likely-to-continue trade channels, i.e.
wholesale and retail consumer trade; (4) The variety of
goods on which a mark is or is not used (house mark,
"family" mark, product mark), i.e. a listing of Cola
branded products and services. The browser would simply
ask for *Cola* (dot nothing). The browser would get back
a listing of all names including *Cola* at level 1 and a
tree or table showing levels 2 - 4. Existing search
engines such as used by Thomson & Thomson and others can
make immediate spelling and natural form variations from
the root search word.
The correct Cola would be the one that met the correct
criteria. Other Colas would be distinguished by the
relevant market factors as they are in the market place.
Yahoo currently returns 243 sites for *cola* with much
less specificity. The current domain naming structure
does not provide an unique dictionary selection according
to meaning, but promotes a nonunique random word
association. Those desiring to directly address a site
could simply use the address, Coca
cola.beverage.consumer.house mark, or King
Cola.beverage.consumer.trademark. If there were only one
Coca Cola site, then only the unique portion of the name
would be needed in the address. (Yahoo returns 86 sites
for Coca Cola). The specific names used would be chosen
by the domain owners and only compared by the registrars
to a single database for identical conflict at all levels.
Domain owners wishing to be found will chose optimal
names for themselves. The computer works equally as well
with fixed ISO standards as with user selected codes. If
desired two or more levels for geographic location could
be added, e.g. Coca cola.beverage.consumer.house mark.
AltlantaGeorgia.U.S.
Coca Cola could establish a level 1 monopoly for *Coca
Cola* if it could establish its fame regardless of: (1)
the nature of the business, goods or services associated
with the name; (2) the established, likely-to-continue
trade channels; and (3) the variety of goods on which the
name is or is not used. This is more than famous mark
owners can now achieve with the present naming structure,
since many others return a hit on *Coca Cola* than the
Real Thing, Coke. Browsers thus could search on domain
name only using the natural language naming system and/or
search headers for subject relation as they presently do.
There is currently no usable domain name directory or
dictionary. Anyone can list themselves under any name
regardless of any unique identity, whether it be fictional
or actual. This would not be a tolerable practice in a
telephone directory (everyone lists themselves as
BillClinton1.com through BillClinton250,000,000.com as
opposed to BillClinton.president.UScitizen.human) and it
is not a tolerable practice in domain name listings.
27. Yes. The same or similar trademarks may not create a
likelihood of confusion and hence an infringement based on
other commercial factors as provided by law. The same
factors can be used to establish a single natural language
scaleable naming system, which realistically reflects how
consumers distinguish the marks in the market.
28. No comment.
###
Number: 302
From: "mikel@codamc.com" <Mike.Lile@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 1:30am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
In addition to my comment made through the pgMedia site, I would add
the following:
As an Internet Administrator for the last two years, I have
always been skeptical of the centralized, government controlled
nature of DNS on the Internet. I would very much like to see
this system moved in to the private sector (perhaps with
minimal subsidies) and decentralized.
Thank you for your time and attention.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 16, 1997 01:29:18 EDT
Mike Lile
4956 Gem Dr
High Ridge, MO 63049
###
Number: 303
From: Roger Jones <activeink@home.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 3:41am
Subject: junk email
Sirs:
There is little problem with socalled junk email or spam, since I can
delete it at a stroke.
What you ought to stop is sending of junk mail to US residents' physical
mail boxes by the US postal system. It has more than once caused me to
lose important mail amongst pages of useless offensive advertisements,
it destroys trees, and it annoys the heck out of me.
If you allow the US government connive in filling people's mailboxes
with this offensive junk 6 days a week you must by the same token allow
sending of unsolicited email.
Personally, I block, with ease, all unsolicted email except maybe once
or two every two weeks, when I allow myself receive a few merely to
learn what's new and hot and what's not.
Anyone who complains about receiving junk mail is an idiot. It isn't
difficult to prevent receipt. The fact is that many people are putting
enormous misdirected energy into attacking this perfectly normal
American business practice. The anti-brigade display unhealthy
fanaticism. Not to mention ignorance and lack of logic.
Yours truly
Roger Jones
author
###
Number: 304
From: NatCom <natcom@dnet.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 8:56pm
Subject: US Dept. of Commerce: Domain Names
Dear Sirs/Madams:
There is no need to add additonal Domain Names to the internet. This will
just add to the confusion and make things even harder to find.
What is being overlooked is the already available use of the "." (the
DOT). By using dots (.s), you can have a number of DNs just as it is now
set up. For example, if I wanted a DN that somehow reflected Western North
Carolina, most names with WNC,westernnorthcarolina, etc are taken! BUT-
when you start using dots (.s), this is a different story. You can now have
www.homes.wnc.com or www.realestate.wnc.net etc. An almost unlimited number
of DNs can be created using this system.
This eliminates the need for all the other ludicrus DN extensions that add
to the problem, rather than make it better.
Also, there should not be a single entity that gives out DNs for profit.
If there is, is should be an agency of the US Federal Government, and any
excess monies should be use for the NSF.
The current fees are excessive, in my opinion. $100 up front is high.
Also, all the large corporations that obtained DNs for FREE, should have to
pay the $50 yearly renewal fee, just as I do for my six DNs- and I have a
very small company, which may never actually make a profit after expenses.
I hope this input will be considered.
Respectfully,
Merlin Gagle
Gagle Communications
Gagle Communications
"Let us be your billboard on the Information Superhighway"
The All Cities Network: http://www.allcities.net
The US Cities Network: http://uscities.net http://www.uscities.com
Azine For WebNovices: http://www.webnovice.com http://webnovice.net
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("Paul.Chavez@MSNBC.COM")
###
Number: 305
From: Lloyd Manley <defaultuser@domain.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 8:19pm
Subject: comments on dns
Dear sir/mam,
I am furious about what I am reading in the popular press about the
designs being placed on the dns situation by corporate interests and
copyright fanatics. First of all, IT IS NOT the governments place, or
any other bodies place, to interfere with the development of new
technologies to protect some special interest such as the copyright
supporters and others who have a lot to profit from the internet.
If the internet spells the end of copyright as we know it (which I
believe it will, no matter what anyone does), then it is the
responsibility and headache of those who would profit from copyrights to
find another means by which to generate profit. If this, AT SOME FUTURE
TIME, results in an objectively measurable inhibition of those producing
quality, academic or artistic material for public consumption, THEN, and
only then, should minimal interventions be considered.
With that in mind, I believe that all matters regarding domain
registration and the handling thereof should be mediated by parties who
have NO INTEREST in copyright concerns.
Though you may find this to sound somewhat revolutionary in tone, I
write it because I want to convey what is at stake here if we don't stop
copyright fanaticism. The very power of the internet, the very things we
appreciate about this medium, will be entirely lost if we give in to
copyright concerns and we will be thrown back to '50's in terms of
communications technologies. The possible benefits of the internet are
so enormous (especially to the average and poor individuals that make up
the 'masses' of our societies-the power of information will truly
liberate them) that it would literally be a crime against humanity for
anyone to stand in support of copyright demands.
The honor of a reply would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Lloyd Manley, dept. of physics and astronomy, University of Georgia
###
Number: 306
From: "mikel@codamc.com" <Mike.Lile@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 1:25am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Mike Lile do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel Internet
namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s name.space(tm)
service, located on the internet at http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or
http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 16, 1997 01:23:42 EDT
Mike Lile
4956 Gem Dr
High Ridge, MO 63049
###
Number: 307
From: "marxx@ljudmila.org" <Marko.Peljhan@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 3:48am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Marko Peljhan do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 16, 1997 03:46:45 EDT
Marko Peljhan
Ane Ziherlove 2
1000 LJUBLJANA
SLOVENIA
###
Number: 308
From: "106401.1503@compuserve.com" <Schels,Michael@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 6:16am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Schels, Michael do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 16, 1997 06:15:07 EDT
Schels, Michael
Dr.-Carlo-Schmid-Str. 48
90491 N rnberg
Germany
###
Number: 309
From: "tristan@www.victor.com.au" <Tristan.Gulyas@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 6:21am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Tristan Gulyas do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 16, 1997 06:20:24 EDT
Tristan Gulyas
###
Number: 310
From: "henkka@l16.fi" <Henrik.Huhtinen@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 1:25pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Henrik Huhtinen do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 16, 1997 13:24:09 EDT
Henrik Huhtinen
###
Number: 311
From: "vgranger@imaginet.fr" <valery.grancher@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 3:41pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I valery grancher do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 16, 1997 15:39:31 EDT
valery grancher
53 rue de seine 75006 paris
france
###
Number: 312
From: "hartnett@btigadoon.com" <Daniel.Hartnett@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 4:33pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Daniel Hartnett do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 16, 1997 16:31:52 EDT
Daniel Hartnett
D.E. 303 East 8th Street
NYC, NY 10009
###
Number: 313
From: "sakurako@sprynet.com" <Noriko.Fukuyama@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/16/97 7:46pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Noriko Fukuyama do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Saturday, August 16, 1997 19:44:33 EDT
Noriko Fukuyama
###
Number: 314
From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 5:44pm
Subject: DNS
I write as a former member of the CERN Web development team. I am currently
active both in the IETF and the World Wide Web Consortium.
Comments:
A. Appropriate Principles
1. While accepting the general desirability of avoiding unnecessary
government involvement it should be noted that there is in fact a set of
national domains. Should the US government wish to take an interest in
domain name issues beyond the orderly withdrawal from its current
involvement it should confine its interest to the .us domain and the .gov
and .mil domains.
2. For historical reasons the US government currently has a privileged role
in DNS administration. During the period in which the NSF subsidized much
of the Internet infrastructure it funded the registration of domain names.
2a) The manner in which this funding was withdrawn was extremely
unsatisfactory. Insufficient notice of the change meant that there was no
opportunity to consider any solution other than administration by a single
registrar. The only party in a position to undertake the contract on that
basis was the existing contractor. In effect the contractor was awarded an
undeserved license to print money.
2b) The actions of the NSF in relation to this contract were and are
unacceptable to the Internet community. At a meeting of the IETF
immediately after the contract was announced there was not a single speaker
that defended the NSF actions. The NSF actions in this regard were in
effect Force Majeure, there being no opportunity to propose an alternative
approach.
2c) Further involvement by the US government in the administration of the
.com and .org domains is not acceptable to the Internet developer
community. The IAHC was charged with the task of proposing an alternative
means of administering DNS registration and has reported to the appropriate
Internet authorities. The IAHC proposal contains no role for the US
government.
3) The logical interpretation of the existence of .com and .org domains in
addition to the national domains is that these are international in scope.
B1:
4) The logistics of domain name registration are demanding requiring
considerable technical expertise, clerical and legal resources. The current
charge of $50 made by Network Solutions Inc. is unrealistically high
however for what is a mature market in which a majority of registrations
may be performed entirely automatically. The anticipated cost of litigation
in connection with disputed domain names have not in fact arisen. Indeed
the majority of Network Solutions costs in this area appear to be directed
at finding ways to cause the gravy train to continue.
B3
5) The appropriate entity to administer the Internet are the IAB, the IETF
and IANA. IANA is the entity specifically charged with the allocation of
reserved names and numbers and is recognized by the Internet community as
the root DNS registrar. The decision to delegate this registration is
entirely for IANA to decide.
B5
6) Asking whether the .com and other gtlds be retired says much about the
questioner. It is absolutely impossible to retire these domains. US firms
have invested over a billion dollars in 1996 promoting websites using .com
domains. The US government is not recognized as the owner of the 'dot',
root domain under which the .com domain falls.
7) Any attempt to retire the domains would result in an endless series of
litigation. The US government is not recognized as the owner of the .com
domain.
B7
8) The question of achieving scalability in future DNS implementations is
not a question the US government is qualified to decide. The technical
specification of the Internet is set by the IAB and IETF and not the US
government.
9) The current DNS protocol is adequate for anticipated needs for at least
the next five years. A transition to a new, authenticated version of the
protocol is currently in progress. The total volume of data is not large by
the standards of the Internet, A hundred thousand DNS entries can be
recorded on a standard floppy disk. The total number of domain
registrations remains of the order of a million. The task of exchanging ten
disks worth of information is not insurmountable.
B8
10)The IAHC has already discussed these issues in depth at the request of
the Internet Society and the IETF. The scheme proposed is not perfect but
no US government agency is in a position to propose a more satisfactory
one. The time constraints alone mean that any US proposal could not be
finalized until long after the current NSI contract had expired.
C10
12) The current DNS architecture assumes a limited number of gtlds. The
protocols could be adapted to permit an unlimited number of domains if this
was desirable.
13) The proliferation of top level domains is undesirable however. If
registration of top level domains was unrestricted the administration of
the top level domain would immediately become as problematic as that of the
.com domain. Any non-punitive charge would be considered reasonable by
large numbers of corporations. Disney would not think long before paying
$10,000 to become disney in place of disney.com.
C11
14) Additional top level domains are required for a number of purposes.
First there are many uses of the Web which do not fit within the
traditional groups. In addition to the seven new domains proposed by the
IAHC current usage suggests a demand for .film and .book categories since
goldeneye.com is not appropriate. It may be appropriate to establish
additional criteria for registration in certain domains. Registration in
.film might reasonably require that a film be in production for example.
15) The pornography industry would welcome the creation of an xxx toplevel
domain. But a separate namespace for pornographic material should not be
seen as a solution to the pornography issue. The administrations previous
attempts to regulate pornography having been found unconstitutional the
administration now has very little influence in this area in the Internet
community. Very few part of the world share the US view of sexual morality.
Indeed it is doubtful such a view could be defined since there is great
variation within the US as to what constitutes "unsuitable" material for
minors. Should the Christian Coalitions message of hatred of gays be
similarly identified? Many find their material offensive and regard it as
damaging to children. It was considerations such as these that gave rise to
the PICS scheme.
C13
16) The use of ISO country codes are reserved for use by the countries
concerned. In addition the UK uses the .uk domain instead of the ISO
designated .gb.
D15
17) No, registrars should not have complete control over any domain. For
registrants to have confidence in their ownership of their brand they must
know that it is not subject to arbitrary revocation by the registrar. A
party that invests $10million promoting a brand must know that they will
not be subject to extortionate renewal fees in the future.
D16
18) Registrars must have sufficient financial and technical resources to
ensure that they do not prove to be a menace to the Internet
infrastructure. These should be determined by the existing Internet
Architecture Board in consultation with the directors of the IETF.
Phillip M Hallam-Baker
Visiting Scientist
MIT AI Lab
###
Number: 315
From: "Stephen T. Kean Jr." <skean@halcyon.com>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/17/97 4:22pm
Subject: Management of Domain Name Server Names
To whom it may concern,
Here are some concerns and possible solutions to the numbering system and
other ancillary problems.
1. At one point in the Unix business, the design was for trading
information. As the networking infrastructure became more popular and
grew, the advent of visual enhancements passed the size of our ability to
pipe it to the user efficiently. Unfortunately, the visual enhancement is
not data. We have conned ourselves into believing that pictures are more
relevant than the data we are seeking. Unfortunately, and like most
people, I like a pleasing background and driving visual effects. Thus it
is here to stay. To combat this problem, We should standardize graphics as
much as possible and place as much of the graphic (gif or whatever) at the
user machine.
2. One of the most popular features from a business perspective is the
ability to knock down the traditional demographic/proximity barriers to
marketing. A small businessman can now market a flower box in just about
any country. If I do a search for flower boxes, I may very well end up
with 10,000 relevant returns. This means I will spend more time looking
through the returns to find exactly what I want. If I look through 200
items before I find what I want, the ratio of RETURNS:SITES VIEWED:TO
ACTUAL FIND is 10,000:200:1. This curve represents a very bad investment
of time spent; either mine or the equipment used to get what I want. My
suggestions below may allow for a more discriminate search.
3. The issue of how to name all of these sites is actually very small by
itself. For a long time, we have allowed a computer to assign names. The
fundamental concept of developing a program for Unix was to create small
programs which had but a single purpose. Because we wanted to keep up with
growth, our programs became larger and encompassed a bigger pool of
requirements. To mow a lawn, a traditional Unix programmer would cut each
blade of grass, whereby a business man would use a lawn mower. Sorry for
the gibberish. My point is to ensure you get the programmers in on this
name problem. Not to slow you down with their "we can't do that's, but to
ensure we don't kill the present system or outdate what we already have.
4. One way to set up a system of naming is to build a system similar to a
Balanced Heap. At the Top of the heap is the center mass of a categories
of use. In present terms, the category of use is .gov, .edu, .com,...
Instead of the traditional .com, catagorize the type of business. For
instance, the business which makes the flower pot would be under the
category of GARDENING. As we convert, to this system, the first number
could represent a category, the second number a server which contains the
data, The third number an actual business number, and the last number
could be anything you want it to be.
5. One of the biggest problems we have in numbering is the static nature of
its system. An example is 255.255.255.1. It is pretty apparent we will run
out of numbers. We cannot use this in what I propose. With each present
set of numbers, we can only discus 256 possibilities. That is a bound we
have to break right now. Consider my numbering system above. It would
look something like this: 43.61743.987.4.
6. My Heap is dynamic in nature. The length of the number in each segment
of the whole number is immaterial. As technology grows or changes, new
categories may be entered without regard to the limiting factors of our
present numbering system. Because the numbers are entered into the heap
based on categories and a parent child relationship (Don't confuse this
with my machine is bigger than yours. It's only a number) , searches can be
made across boundaries, without going to through the top of the heap to get
to the other side.
I realize the Heap is not something we all know about. A truly schooled
programmer should be consulted prior to jumping into this. A mathematician
should be consulted so we do not place static restrictions on the possible
number of names which could be used (so we don't get stuck on 256 again.
Last of all, an open mind is what is required here. Heaping-up,
Heaping-down, Binary Search Trees and the like are not that difficult.
Setting up a system whereby the changes can be affected are, however, very
difficult
Stephen T. Kean Jr.
skean@halcyon.com
###
Number: 316
From: Herb Weiner <herbw@wiskit.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 11:19am
Subject: Comments on Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names
Response to Question D 20 (Policies for Registries: Are there any other issues
that should be addressed in this area?)
PROPOSED REQUIREMENT:
The Registrar MUST provide a mechanism for handling written (postal mail,
electronic mail, or FAX) disputes and inquiries regarding domain name
registration and billing, and MUST respond in writing to such disputes and
inquiries in a timely fashion. The Registrar must NOT cancel any Domain
Name Registration while such disputes and/or inquiries are pending.
(This is similar to the protection provided by the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
I FAXed my credit card payment for my wiskit.com domain name registration
(dated 19-February-1997) on February 22, 1997, and have PROOF of payment
in the form of my MasterCard statement showing that $50.00 was charged to
my account on February 26, 1997.
On April 7, 1997, I received an email message indicating that payment had
not yet been received. On April 8, I phoned Network Solutions, and after
waiting on hold for over 15 minutes, I finally spoke to Darryl, who promised
to relay the information to the billing department. He promised that the
billing department would investigate, and call me back with with the status
of my account.
Since I still had received no response by April 10, I sent a followup email
message reporting the error, and requesting a response. We received no
response to this email message.
On April 18, the president of the company received an invoice postmarked
April 11, warning him that our domain name service would be terminated
if payment was not received by April 19 (15 days after the April 4 invoice
date, and one day following the receipt of the invoice). We FAXed our
response that same day, and followed up by postal mail the following day.
In each case, we requested a written response confirming that the error
had been corrected.
To date, although we have made four requests (one each by phone, email,
FAX, and postal mail) we have received no response indicating that the
error has been corrected. Although our domain name service has fortunately
not been cancelled, we have been unable to determine whether this is
because the error has been corrected, or whether Network Solutions still
has us on a list of domain names to be removed.
Such poor customer service is simply unacceptable. In any non-monopoly
situation, we would take our business elsewhere.
Herb Weiner
Kitchen Wisdom Publishing
10032 SE Linwood Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97222
(503) 771-1402
FAX: 771-1401
email:herbw@wiskit.com
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("chrisc@netsol.com")
###
Number: 317
From: Lou Poppler <lwp@mail.msen.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 7:23pm
Subject: Internet Domain Names
There is no role for the US government in the administration of internet
domain names. The current monopoly created by the USG in the
administration of certain TLDs is harmful. The pending revisions to this
system, developed by the network community, represent the correct approach
for future enhancement -- both in the specific measures already nearing
adoption and in the philosophical model of administration of the
borderless internet by our own knowledgable and trustworthy constituents.
I will respond briefly to the following individual points in your outline:
A.b, A.c, B.6.
A.b & A.c: I strongly agree with these statements. Experience has shown
that the best response to virtually any network issue arises through the
consensus of the thousands of individual network administrators. This
mechanism is nimble, knowledgable, and fair.
B.6: I would expect the root servers to become somewhat more numerous,
and for their relationships with both TLD registries and with client
resolvers to become predicated on issues of reliability and reputation.
This should more closely resemble a free-market selection system as
opposed to the current top-down approach.
CC: Lou Poppler <lwp@mail.msen.com>
###
Number: 318
From: Bob Crispen <crispen@hiwaay.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 11:32am
Subject: Re: Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration
of Internet Domain Names
The current movement toward domain name expansion has been
polluted by a number of leaders whose basic motivation seems
to be to force some authority to take money away from NSI
and give it to them.
What evidence do we have that they will manage this
resource responsibly should they get their desires? Their
track record is so short that it contains but one item:
the recent hacking of DNS, which is the strongest possible
evidence that they will *not* exercise responsible
management.
I don't know whether the mechanism set up by NSI is the
best for the long term. I suspect a technological solution
will emerge which will satisfy all the critics of NSI who
are not merely seeking to line their own pockets. But that
solution has not been demonstrated yet. I do know that
doing business with the IAHC is akin to surrendering our
wallets to muggers.
###
Number: 319
From: <lemmon@NOSPAMpanix.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 9:40pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
I believe the issues of domain names for the Internet is an important one.
Far too important to allow one entity - Network Solutions - to monopolize.
I believe what is needed is a system whereby those registered domains in
.com, .net & .org domains will get transferred to whatever entity the NSF
decides upon. I also believe that new top-level domain names should be
introduced, such as those proposed by IAHC, including additional categories
such as .rel for religious organizations, etc.
Thanks for soliciting comments.
Marcia H. Lemmon
marcia@cybersynergy.com
###
Number: 320
From: Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 8:59pm
Subject: REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF INTERNET DOMAIN
NAMES
Filing Instructions
Mail comments in paper form to Patrice Washington, Office of Public
Affairs, National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), Room 4898, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,
DC 20230,
or
Mail comments in electronic form is dns@ntia.doc.gov. Comments
submitted in electronic form should be in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word,
or ASCII format. Detailed information about electronic filing is
available on the NTIA website, http://www.ntia.doc.gov.
Paper submissions should include three paper copies and a version on
diskette in the formats specified above. To assist reviewers, comments
should be numbered and organized in response to questions in
accordance with the five sections of this notice (Appropriate Principles,
General/Organizational Framework Issues, Creation of New gTLDs,
Policies for Registries, and Trademark Issues). Commenters should
address each section on a separate page and should indicate at the
beginning of their submission to which questions they are responding.
Horzontal lines below represent page breaks.
NB. The filing deadline is 1700 hrs EDT (UTC-4), 18 Aug 1997.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Simon Higgs
Simon Higgs
Simon Higgs
P.O. Box 3083
Van Nuys
CA 91407-3083
Self
18 Aug 1997
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary
A. Appropriate Principles
Principles a-f
Other principles
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Questions 1-9
C. Creation of New gTLDs
Questions 10-14
D. Policies for Registries
Questions 15-20
E. Trademark Issues
Questions 21-28
F. Other Issues
Existing TLD Applications
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
SUMMARY
This document provides some information on the structure of the
names in the Domain Name System (DNS), specifically the top-level
domain names; and on the administration of those domains.
The day-to-day responsibility for the assignment of IP Addresses,
Autonomous System Numbers, and most top and second level Domain
Names are handled by Internet Registries (IR).
The Internet is partly being driven by commercial market forces
using domain names to identify corporate business units which are
known to the public as "brand names"). This document covers some of
the framework necessary to define the purpose, function, delegation,
and use of new top level domains.
Several factors need to be addressed such as why the TLD exists in
the first place, who accepts registrations for the TLD, and what
special purpose (if any) the TLD serves.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Comments of Simon Higgs
1. Simon Higgs respectfully submits comments in this proceeding. Simon
Higgs is actively involved in top level domain name issues. Simon
Higgs is the first applicant to request a new international top level
domain from IANA, and has extensively written various internet drafts on
the subject, as well as being a featured speaker at the Internet
Engineering Task Force.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
A. APPROPRIATE PRINCIPLES
a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name
registration system should be encouraged. Conflicting
domains, systems, and registries should not be permitted to
jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet, however. The
addressing scheme should not prevent any user from
connecting to any other site.
A.a.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
b. The private sector, with input from governments, should
develop stable, consensus-based self-governing mechanisms for
domain name registration and management that adequately
defines responsibilities and maintains accountability.
A.b.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the
inherently global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve
as necessary over time.
A.c.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition
should be open, robust, efficient, and fair.
A.d.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
e. The overall policy framework as well as name allocation and
management mechanisms should promote prompt, fair, and
efficient resolution of conflicts, including conflicts over
proprietary rights.
A.e.1. This is a generally accepted principle.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent
consideration of these issues permits.
A.f.1. No. Consensus is more appropriate than speed.
Other principles
A.Other.1. None of the above principles address the fundamental key
issues as to how the namespace should be administered. They are symptoms
of the consequences of failing to address the most important issues.
A.Other.2. There are two principles that must be regarded higher than
any others:
A.Other.2.a. Use of the the top level domain
Use is generally defined as the purpose or function that
the top level domain serves to the internet community. In the past this
has been to distinguish the coutry of origin of the domain name (using
the ISO3166 classifications), or whether the domain is educational
(.EDU), commercial (.COM), governmental (.GOV) or another
classification. Each new TLD must be created with an identifiable
purpose. A written charter will identify and explain the function and
purpose of each TLD. In the case of the Specialized and Private TLD
classes (described below), the corporation or organization acting as the
registry will be responsible for creating the TLD's charter. This will
be part of the TLD application process. Guidelines for charter creation
will be made publically available by IANA. The following items must be
identified in the charter:
A.Other.2.a.1 Registration procedure, documenting all steps
A.Other.2.a.2 Service guarantees required in the operation of that TLD
A.Other.2.a.3 Error resolution policy (including any refund policy)
A.Other.2.a.4 Dispute policy (including any refund policy)
A.Other.2.a.5 Procedure for dealing with domain name and trademark
conflicts.
A.Other.2.b. Delegation
Once the use and purpose of the TLD is discovered, the appropriateness
of the type of delegation will become apparent. Top level domains can be
divided into three groups. There are those which are Shared
(non-exclusive), and which can be served by multiple competing
registries. There are those that may need to be served by a single
registry that has the necessary expertise to address specific industry
issues, and there are a very small number of private TLDs which are
required to serve single large organizations:
A.Other.2.b.1. Shared TLD Class
The Shared TLD Class contains TLD's in which all second level domain
name registrations are performed by multiple competing registries.
Unless specifically documented otherwise in the TLD's charter, it is
expected that all newly delegated TLDs will be in this class. Existing
TLDs may be delegated by IANA into this class as well.
A.Other.2.b.2. Specialized TLD Class
The Specialized TLD Class describes TLDs that are industry-specific, or
where a high-level of domain name control is needed. These TLD's are
operated by a single registry. Registration is only open to
organizations within the specific areas defined in the TLDs charter.
These TLDs could represent specific industries, other closely defined
market niches, or top level country domains. A registry must beable to
constructively address industry specific issues in the context of
running a TLD registry. An example of an existing TLD in this class is
.INT which is closely controlled and is only open to International
Treaty Organizations. Registry duties are handled by the ITU in
accordance with a policy authorized by IANA.
A.Other.2.b.3. Private TLD
In certain rare instances, it may be possible for a qualifying
internationally known organization to be identified on the Internet by
its own exclusive TLD. All second and third level domain name
registrations are performed within the organization. The organization is
the sole trustee of the TLD, and all disputes arising from domain name
delegation are the organizations responsibility. An example of an
existing TLD in this class is .MIL., which is exclusively operated by,
and for, the United States military.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
B. GENERAL/ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK ISSUES
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current
domain name registration systems?
B.1.1. In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a
hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of
what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are identified
either by ISO-3166 two letter country codes, or generic TLDs, whose
naming indicates the category of organization that is found there.
B.1.2. Under each TLD may be created a hierarchy of names. Generally,
under the generic TLDs the structure is very flat. That is, many
organizations are registered directly under the TLD, and any further
structure is up to the individual organizations.
B.1.3. The domain name space is a tree structure:
. (un-named root)
|
---------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | |
.COM .EDU .NET .ORG .GOV .US .UK [other TLDs]
|
USPTO
|
WWW
B.1.4. The above example describes the internet host <www>.<uspto>.<gov>
where GOV is the US government top level domain, USPTO is the domain
used by the US Patent and Trademark office, and the WWW identifies that
organization's host (computer) that functions as their web server.
B.1.5. In the country TLDs, there is a wide variation in the structure,
in some countries the structure is very flat, in others there is
substantial structural organization. In some country domains the second
levels are generic categories (such as, AC, CO, GO, and RE), in others
they are based on political geography, and in still others, organization
names are listed directly under the country code. The organization for
the US country domain is described in RFC 1480.
B.1.6. As an example of a country domain, the US domain provides for the
registration of all kinds of entities in the United States on the basis
of political geography, that is, a hierarchy of
<entity-name>.<locality>.<state-code>.US. For example,
"IBM.Armonk.NY.US". In addition, branches of the US domain are provided
within each state for schools (K12), community colleges (CC), technical
schools (TEC), state government agencies (STATE), councils of
governments (COG), libraries (LIB), museums (MUS), and several other
generic types of entities (see RFC 1480 for details).
B.1.7. The country code domains (for example, FR, NL, KR, US) are each
organized by an administrator for that country. These administrators may
further delegate the management of portions of the naming tree. These
administrators are performing a public service on behalf of the Internet
community.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
B.2.1. By the introduction of TLDs identified by appropriate business
and social categories.
3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should current
domain name systems be administered? What should the
makeup of such an entity be?
B.3.1. An organization with sufficient network infrastructure, email and
telephone support to fullfill the needs of the delegated TLD.
4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as
models for deciding on domain name registration systems (e.g.,
network numbering plan, standard-setting processes, spectrum
allocation)? Are there private/public sector administered
models or regimes that can be used for domain name
registration (e.g., network numbering plan, standard setting
processes, or spectrum allocation processes)? What is the
proper role of national or international governmental/non-
governmental organizations, if any, in national and
international domain name registration systems?
B.4.1. No.
5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be
retired from circulation? Should geographic or country codes
(e.g., .US) be required? If so, what should happen to the .com
registry? Are gTLD management issues separable from
questions about International Standards Organization (ISO)
country code domains?
B.5.1. It may be appropriate to move (not retire) the .COM under the .US
domain. In any case, the .COM or .COM.US domain must be expanded by some
catorgorization scheme (i.e. the introduction of International Schedule
Of Goods And Services-type domains) to relieve the pressure.
6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain
name registration issues? Are there any issues concerning the
relationship of registrars and gTLDs with root servers?
B.6.1. No.
7. How can we ensure the scalability of the domain name
system name and address spaces as well as ensure that root
servers continue to interoperate and coordinate?
B.7.1. The two are independant. Scalability follows Moore's Law.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be
accomplished?
B.8.1. Very carefully.
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
B.9.1. No.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
C. CREATION OF NEW gTLDs
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations
that constrain the total number of different gTLDs that can be
created?
C.10.1. No.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
C.11.1. No. "Generic" TLDs with overlapping meanings must not be
created. iTLDs with specific non-overlapping meanings can be created.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated with
increasing the number of gTLDs?
C.12.1. No.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions
about ISO country code domains?
C.13.1. No. The management issues are integral all across the namespace.
There are localized areas of speciality which will varies in how TLDs
are administered but the basic principles are consistant throughout the
name space.
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
C.14.1. No.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
D. POLICIES FOR REGISTRIES
15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a
particular gTLD? Are there any technical limitations on using
shared registries for some or all gTLDs? Can exclusive and
non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?
D.15.1. gTLD registrars may not have exclusive control of a particular
gTLD. iTLDs are similar in that they address an international name
space, but may be exclusively administered.
D.15.2. There are no technical limitations for shared registries.
D.15.3. It is highly recommended that both exclusive iTLDs and
non-exclusive gTLDs coexist together.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name
registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars
have? Who will determine these and how?
D.16.1. Yes. The function of the registry is to support and maintain the
TLD(s) that it is responsible for, by meeting the TLD's charter. It is
important to understand that the registries serve the TLD's, and not the
other way around. Therefore registries must be selected to meet the
needs of each TLD.
D.16.2. The minimum requirements are determined by the acceptable
response time to delegation requests and other issues. Obviously this is
entirely scalable and is directly determined by the number of domains
within the TLDs delegated to the registry.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of
domain name registrars?
D.17.1. No. There may be more registries/registrars than TLDs if TLDs
are shared. Obviously, there may be many registries/registrars
administering a particular TLD, or a particular registry administering
many TLDs.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the
name space raised by increasing the number of domain name
registrars?
D.18.1. Yes. These are mostly business issues. The Central Database will
need one or two million per year to run. Using the InterNIC figures we
can see that 3 TLDs = approximately 1,000,000 domains. If there are 7
TLDs introduced, this is 7/3 x 1,000,000 = 2,333,333 domains. At $10 per
domain per year income is $23,333,333. Assuming a one dollar "royalty"
for each domain name that is registered ($2,333,333) goes to the Central
Database, the net income is $21,000,000. With only 100 registrars the
resulting income will be $21,000,000/100 = $210,000 per registry per
year. No registry could profit from selling domain names with this type
of income, and it's not possible to preset prices between registries
(price fixing is very much illegal). The market must decide what the end
price point is for a domain name - even if it's given away for free.
Look how easy it is for an existing business to absorb that dollar and
give away the domain name as part of a promotion or VAR bundle.
19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a
given registrar can administer? Does this depend on whether
the registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the
gTLD?
D.19.1. Yes. Limitations must be in-line with natural market forces. If
a TLD is exclusive, then only one registry can administer it. This a
natural limitation. Registries within certain geographic regions may not
wish to administer certain TLDs (such as Muslim registries not wishing
to administer TLDs specializing in pornography). This is another example
of a natural limitation.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
D.20.1. No.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
E. TRADEMARK ISSUES
21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks,
common law trademarks, geographic indications, etc.), if any,
should be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names?
E.21.1. The use of the domain name space has changed since it was first
introduced. This change was not brought about by conscious choice or any
one person, but the change in the demographics of the internet
population as a whole.
E.21.2. As the internet population increases, and the demographic changes
from an academic to a consumer population, more importance is placed on
the identity of the source of goods or services on the internet. There
is no trademark status attached to a domain name when it is issued, but,
through its use, a domain name can aquire secondary meaning in the eyes
of the internet consumer. As such, the legal status of a domain name,
taken on a domain by domain basis, may include the form of a trademark.
E.21.3. Many of the problems regarding domain names as trademarks arise
because they incorporate terms that have already aquired secondary
meaning outside the internet. Certain words or phrases already have
associations with products or services in the minds of consumers. One of
the questions this poses is whether an existing trademark gives any
entitlement to a domain name. The answer is not clear, and probably will
never be entirely clear. New businesses started on the net with a
similar domain name but that do not compete with an existing trademark
holder have already faced litigation. Others in the same position have
not.
E.21.4. The namespace (as a whole - the "root" or ".") exists to serve
the consumer, not to serve the interests of the domain name owner. The
primary operating principle of it is that the consumer is not supposed
to be confused by a plethora of hosts with vastly different content all
bearing what appear to be similar domain names.
E.21.5. The simplest way to understand what a domain name is, is to
regard it as a dba (Doing Business As). The dba is simply a name that
someone is using to do business under with no immediate trademark
implcations. The domain name simply says "Bill Smith is doing business
under bill.com on the internet", and if this is recognized sufficiently
to distinguish Bill Smith's goods and services on the internet from
someone elses it *MAY* become a trademark in the same way Bill Smith's
name *MAY* become a trademark by it's use in trade.
E.21.6. Two points must be kept in mind when understanding trademark
issues on the internet: (a) domain names are and must be unique, and (b)
trademarked names are not necessarily unique (and there are many
examples of non-unique trademarks).
E.21.7. There are no international trademarks. There is no official
international registry of world wide trademarks. Trademarks may be
registered per country or per State/Province/Territory (for example, the
United States offers trademark regisstrations on a per state basis).
The World Intellectual Property Organization offers an international
arbitration service on such matters.
22. Should some process of preliminary review of an
application for registration of a domain name be required,
before allocation, to determine if it conflicts with a trademark,
a trade name, a geographic indication, etc.? If so, what
standards should be used? Who should conduct the
preliminary review? If a conflict is found, what should be
done, e.g., domain name applicant and/or trademark owner
notified of the conflict? Automatic referral to dispute
settlement?
E.22.1. Since a domain name carries the identical weight as a "doing
business as" thereb is no requirement for any review of the application.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should
trademark rights be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain
names? What entity(ies), if any, should resolve disputes? Are
national courts the only appropriate forum for such disputes?
Specifically, is there a role for national/international
governmental/nongovernmental organizations?
E.23.1. Disputes must be resolved in a manner agreeable to both parties
as in any other area of intellectual property. It seems inevitable that
a trademark holder will want a domain name that reflects the name of the
trademark held.
E.23.2. There are "strong" trademarks that are registered in many
countries and are vigorously defended. These may come close to being
unique.
E.23.3. There are many "not so strong" trademarks that may be regional
or business sector specific (for example, United Air Lines and United
Van Lines, or the Acme Brick Company and the Acme Electric Corporation).
E.23.4. There are two conflicting goals of different trademark holders
with respect to domain names: (a) to protect their trademarks against
infringement, and (2) to have access to the domain name system to use
their trademarks in a domain name.
E.23.5. Trademark infringement is the use of a trademarked name in a way
that may confuse the consumer about the source or quality of a product
or service. For strong trademarks there may also be infringement if the
use of a trademarked name dilutes the value of the trademark.
E.23.6. Holders of not so strong trademarks want the ability to use
their trademarked name in a domain name while some other holder of the
same mark for a different purpose also can use their trademarked name in
a domain name. These people would say it is essential to create
additional top-level domains to permit fair access to domain names by
holders of not so strong trademarks.
E.23.7. The number of not so strong trademarks far exceeds the number of
strong trademarks and that the domain name system should provide for the
needs of the many rather than protecting the privileges of the few. It
is because of this need that the top level domain space must be expanded
beyond the currently used TLDs.
E.23.8. It may be prudent, in the case of the Specialized TLD Class,
that they implement a very restrictive TLD charter. For example, it may
be a requirement that the domain applicant is in possesion of an
internationally recognized mark in a particular area (such as
International Treaty Organizations registered under .INT).
E.23.9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to be sure he is not
violating anyone else's trademark. Each IR must include a statement to
this effect in any registration template.
E.23.10. In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the
rights to a particular domain name, the registration authority shall
have no role or responsibility other than to provide the contact
information to both parties. In any dispute where the IR is named in any
lawsuit, the IR should file an "Interpleader"** before the appropriate
court, agreeing to abide by the ruling of that court. If the dispute is
between parties in different countries, the World Intellectual Property
Organization international arbitration service should be used to settle
such matters. Until such a time, the IR is obligated to provide
uninterrupted service of the domain in the root database.
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented?
What information resources (e.g. databases of registered
domain names, registered trademarks, trade names) could help
reduce potential conflicts? If there should be a database(s),
who should create the database(s)? How should such a
database(s) be used?
E.24.1. The primary solution to preventing conflicts is to ensure that
the name space is divided in a way that distinguishes business and
social categories adequately. Schemes similar to the International
Schedule Of Goods And Services make steps in this direction, though it
may be necessary to create a new set of categories to serve this
purpose.
E.24.2. The top level namespace is already divided up by category. These
categories contain either the geographical location (by country), or a
brief description of the type of entity registering a domain name.
E.24.3. In order to expand the top level, and lighten the load on the
existing TLDs (most notably .COM), a category naming scheme is needed to
avoid, or at the very least, limit the number of potential disputes in
the domain name space. By allowing organizations to obtain and use
domain names within their specific area of business, two companies with
the same business name can operate domain names on the internet without
causing confusion to the consumer in exactly the same way they would
outside the internet. By placing each company under a top level domain
that describes its business category, it will be easier to determine
that <smith>.<meat>, the hamburger company, is not <smith>.<oil>, the
gas station chain. The mapping scheme is primarily designed to protect
the consumer from fraud by describing the area of business and to
establish an identity of the source of goods and services provided over
the internet. It does not provide any trademark recognition or status.
E.25.4. Failure to adequately divide the namespace will guarantee
extensive and complicated beauraucracies, as well as increase conflicts
that will impede the progress and growth of the internet.
25. Should domain name applicants be required to
demonstrate that they have a basis for requesting a particular
domain name? If so, what information should be supplied?
Who should evaluate the information? On the basis of what
criteria?
E.25.1. The purpose of the TLD determines the necessary qualifications
of the applicant, and also provides a guide as to whether the TLD can be
delegated to the applicant.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number
of registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark
disputes?
E.26.1. Increasing the number of parties involved in a dispute increases
the cost of resolution.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for
a single domain name, are there any technological solutions?
E.27.1. No.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
area?
E.28.1. No.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
F. OTHER ISSUES
Existing New Top Level Domain Applications
The application process is documented in [RFC 1591], which describes
the delegation and use of the existing top level domains COM. EDU, NET,
ORG, INT, GOV, MIL, and the ISO-3166 two letter country code domains.
It also describes the role of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA), which is responsible for the overall coordination and
management of the Domain Name System (DNS), and especially the
delegation of portions of the name space called top-level domains.
[RFC 1591] states "all requests for new top-level domains must be sent
to the Internic (at hostmaster@internic.net)". If approved, these top
level domains are added to the root.zone file which is carried by the
root DNS servers. The latest root.zone can be found at:
[ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/root.zone.gz]
What has caused confusion is the scope in which [RFC 1591] accepts new
top level domain name applications. Some have argued that historically
only new ISO-3166 TLDs have been granted and that is the entire scope
of this RFC. The actual paragraph that is in question is quoted here:
2. The Top Level Structure of the Domain Names
In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a
hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set
of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the
generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two
letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that
any other TLDs will be created.
Expectation and reality aren't always the same thing, just like
financial projections and earnings aren't the same. Does this paragraph
mean that:
a) No new TLDs of any sort will be delegated in the future?
b) Only new ISO-3166 domains will be delegated in the future?
c) There is no perceived need for additonal TLDs at this time?
It is quite apparent that any two letter country codes identified by
ISO-3166 could be added at the request of that country's government at
any time. It does not say other TLDs will not be created, just that it
is unlikely that they will. It was, presumably, left open like this in
case there was a future need for other types of TLDs. It certainly
does not say that new TLD applications outside of ISO-3166 (such as
the majority of new TLD applications currently submitted to IANA), are
not valid applications. [RFC 1591] is quite clear on the issue of
processing applications for new TLDs:
3) The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the
domain that request domain names.
This means that the same rules are applied to all requests, all
requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion, and
academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal
basis. No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come
from customers of some other business related to the manager --
e.g., no preferential service for customers of a particular data
network provider. There can be no requirement that a particular
mail system (or other application), protocol, or product be used.
There are no requirements on subdomains of top-level domains
beyond the requirements on higher-level domains themselves. That
is, the requirements in this memo are applied recursively. In
particular, all subdomains shall be allowed to operate their own
domain name servers, providing in them whatever information the
subdomain manager sees fit (as long as it is true and correct).
It quite clearly states that the same rules are applied to all TLD
requests. This means that the assumption by some that only ISO-3166
TLDs should be processed is incorrect.
It also says that all requests must be processed in a
non-discriminatory fashion, and academic and commercial (and other)
users are treated on an equal basis. It is quite clear that every
application received by IANA must be processed, and that this (because
the requirements are applied recursively), includes all the existing
TLD applications received by IANA.
No word has come from IANA as to why these new TLD applications
have not been processed. It has however, in conjunction with the
Internet Society (ISOC), International Telecommunication Union (ITU),
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), International
Trademark Association (INTA), and the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB), created the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) which was
supposed to address the legal, administrative, technical and operational
concerns, with particular attention to the questions of fairness and
functional stability of the domain name space. Unfortunately, the IAHC
have not succeeded in this matter.
------------------------------ break ------------------------------
Best Regards,
Simon
###
Number: 321
From: Scott Persons <golden@uslink.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 2:12pm
Subject: Domain Names
My comments:
There's no question we need more domain names to handle internet
growth. As for who should manage them, I recommend one group be
in charge, but allow many others to offer them in order to foster
competition. We shouldn't have to pay $50/year to a monopoly.
Also, why hasn't anyone thought of adding the domain name ".biz"?
It sounds a lot better than ".firm" or ".store"
Thanks!
Scott Persons
golden@uslink.net
A Golden Opportunity! Scott & Bozena Persons
http://www.uslink.net/~golden golden@uslink.net
---------------------------------------------------------------~
"You can design your own future!"
We'll help you make your dreams come true!
---------------------------------------------------------------~
###
Number: 322
From: "Alex Gigante" <algigan@ix.netcom.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 2:49pm
Subject: DNS
I respectfully submit my comments regarding the domain-name system, annexed
as a document in Word Perfect format. These comments briefly address
issues that I discuss more fully in the following articles:
Blackhole in Cyberspace: the Legal Void in the Internet, 15 John Marshall
Journal of Computer and Information Law 413 (Spring 1997)
Ice Patch on the Information Superhighway: Foreign Liability For
Domestically Created Content, 14 Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal
523 (1996)
"Domain-ia": The Growing Tension Between the DNS and Trademark Law,
reprinted in Coordinating the Internet (MIT Press 1997)
Alex Gigante
Business Hours:
agigante@putnam.com, and
agigante@penguin.com
All Other Times:
algigan@ix.netcom.com
Comments of Alexander Gigante
The issues surrounding the domain-name system are interrelated with
the organization and structure of the Internet. The so-called Internet
Community is comprised of dozens of organizations and ad hoc groups that
came into existence when the Internet was the province of DARPA and NSF.
So long as these governmental agencies assumed responsibility for the
Internet, no one questioned the authority of the Community acting under
federal auspices
to make decisions regarding the name space. However, the withdrawal
of the governmental agencies from day-to-day Internet activities leaves
the Community without legal basis for its actions.
No statute gives IANA the power it wields. IAHC's authority is
self-proclaimed. And so is the case with every group that currently
participates in Internet governance. Thus, not surprisingly, the
Community's credibility now seems to be slipping away, as exemplified by
the domestic and international opposition to IAHC's proposal to create new
gTLDs accompanied by a Council of IAHC-selected registrars.
The current situation reflects the notion that the Internet should be
allow to evolve in an unregulated environment. This idealistic view is a
mistake. The lack of top-down structure will not mean an unregulated
environment. To the contrary, it will result in an over- regulated and
worse inconsistently regulated Internet. Absent some comprehensive
international agreement regarding the applicable rules, each jurisdiction
will go its separate way to enforce its own laws consistent with its
national policies. A few years ago, a German court enforced German
trademark law against an American Web site. A few months ago, a UK court
assumed jurisdiction over a German company on an unfair-competition
complaint filed by a US corporation. About six months ago, Mattel sued
Hasbro in California federal court, claiming that Hasbro's Scrabble Web
site violated Mattel's rights in the name under a variety of international
and foreign trade laws. (Hasbro, which owns the SCRABBLE name only in the
US and Canada could not, of course, deny access to surfers in Mattel's
exclusive SCRABBLE territory, which encompasses everywhere else in the
world.)
Moreover, even assuming that the Community were permitted to govern
the Internet free of conflict with real-world jurisdictions, its clubby,
elitist approach reflective of the days when the Internet was the
plaything of a select group of engineers has not generated wise
decision-making. IAHC is forging ahead with its gTLD plan, despite
credible evidence that it will not resolve any of the issues plaguing the
current TLD system. Representatives of major intellectual property
interests have already gone on record to state that the conflict between
the domain-name system and real-world trademark law will continue under
the new gTLDs. IAHC's presumptuous division of the world market for
Internet registries does not even pay lip service to possible antitrust
problems under US and foreign law. And what power will IAHC have to wrest
the .com database from NSI if the latter, which asserts a proprietary
right in the database, refuses to make it freely available on expiration
of its cooperative agreement with NSF?
The Internet generally, and the domain-name system in particular,
need the following:
1.
Regulation by a federal agency to establish basic, consistent rules
for the
allocation and registration of domain names;
2.
Amendment of federal trademark law to eliminate conflicts between
trademarks
and domain names (specifically, by providing that one party's use of
a domain
name will not dilute or otherwise affect the goodwill attaching to
another's
trademark in the same name, thereby eliminating the primary reason
for most
domain-name litigation);
3.
Clarify by legislation the legal status (including ownership) of the
name space
(the Internet Community's pious designation of the name space as a
"public trust"
resolves nothing: what are the self-appointed trustees' obligations?
what laws
define the trustees' duties and responsibilities?);
4.
An international agreement addressing points 1, 2 and 3 on an
international scale,
including specifically establishing an international regulatory
organization with
defined, legally based powers, and removing authority from
self-appointed
Internet governors;
5.
In addition, an international agreement to avoid inconsistent,
conflicting
regulation that will result from the application of dozens of laws to
each Internet
transmission (specifically, by applying exclusively the law of the
country of
origin: see my article at 14 Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law
Journal 523
[1996] for an example of such an approach)
###
Number: 323
From: Michael Schneider <sastre@Anwalt.DE>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 3:33pm
Subject: FYI: Electronic Filing of Comments on Internet Domain Names
Dear Sirs and Madams,
with reference to the above-stated request for public comment, we transmit
the following statement of position by
eco - Electronic Commerce Forum e.V., Germany.
With respect,
- on behalf of eco e.V. -
Michael Schneider
(Chairman)
Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names
Department of Commerce - request for public comment
[Docket No. 970613137-7137-01]
Dear Sirs and Madams, With reference to the above-stated request for
public comment, we transmit the following statement of position by
eco - Electronic Commerce Forum e.V.
As a result of the limited time available to us, we have not been able to
answer all of the questions, or have only been able to provide cursory
answer to some.
With respect,
signed Michael Schneider
- Chairman -
I. Background of
eco The German non-profit association Electronic Commerce Forum e.V. (eco)
was established by Internet service providers and enterprises which use
the Internet and services based on the Internet for commercial purposes at
the beginning of 1995. More than 60 members have now joined Eco - most of
them enterprises.
The association concentrates on two areas:
(1) Services and interest representation for Internet service providers
The association represents the political and economic interests of the
leading German
Internet service providers (ISPs). Eco views itself to be a "lobby"
working on behalf of the
ISPs and in this capacity it communicates with legislators and business
associations; in
addition, Eco is also involved in representing the interests of
providers in numerous national
and international projects. In this context, Eco is - together with
others - preparing, for
example, to found a pan-European ISP-Trade-Association (EuroISPA). Eco
continues to be
member in a worldwide platform of Internet-Trade-Associations which have
recently formed
in order to enable a global exchange of opinion regarding the interests
and needs of the
Internet industry.
On behalf of the German ISPs Eco also performs technical, legal and
content-related
services. These in particular include the German ISP's exchange point
"DE-CIX" and
projects with regard to voluntary self-regulation.
1. Electronic Commerce
The second point of concentration for Eco is the promotion and
propagation of
electronic commerce. Eco views itself in this context to be a platform
for interested business
groups jointly developing markets and solutions for electronic commerce.
In the
international arena Eco promotes the interests of its members within the
framework of the
Electronic-Commerce-Europe-Association (ECE), of which Eco is a founding
member.
II. STATEMENT OF POSITION
A. Appropriate Principles
Eco expressly supports the principles set out in Section A. We are of the
opinion, however, that the following statements should in addition be
considered:
1. The global nature of the Internet" should not only be taken into
account in the
technical respect. Rather, the Internet has in the meantime become a
communications
platform which from an economic point of view has become indispensable
for many
enterprises. For example, the German telecommunications market in
general as well as the
Internet market in particular, is - both with respect to revenues which
are generated here
and with respect to the number of subscribers - one of the biggest in
the world. Internet has
been playing an increasingly more important role here for years.
2. Accordingly, the interests of the German Internet industry must
also be taken into
account in all decisions which are of importance to the continued
development of the
network. This has not been successfully done within the framework of the
IAHC process.
3. The composition of self-regulating bodies in the Internet must
take regional factors
into account. Only then it can be assured that regulations, which are to
have worldwide
effect, meet the requirements of national economies outside the USA: If
this is not provided
for, the development of Internet into a platform for global electronic
commerce will be put
in question. In this respect as well, neither the IAHC or the iPOC have
yet been able to gain
the confidence of business sectors lying outside the USA. Members of the
iPOC moreover
have been making the sustained impression - most recently at a meeting
of various Internet
trade associations (including CIX, CAIP, UK-ISPA, LINX and Eco) - that
no satisfactory
membership for this body can or shall be obtained for the time being.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems? One of the most significant disadvantages of the
current domain name registration systems is above all to be found in its
history:
All registries which administer the TLDs traditionally derive
their right to do so from the
IANA. This is not based on written law, but rather on historically
evolved agreements which
continue to be accepted throughout the entire Internet. Such traditions
have increasingly
been criticized, however. The IANA is not a legal person, but rather a
construct which is for
the most part embodied in one single person.
The administration of TLDs is predominantly organized along
monopolistic lines,
thus allowing individual organizations to dictate the conditions and
prices at which they
assign domains - a situation which in part still exists today. The
administrators of the TLDs
are not subject to any effective supervision.
No adequate policies have been developed to extend the domain
name space by
structuring it beyond the top level. Moreover, action against the
improper use of the name
space was taken too late. Both has led to a shortage in the name space
which was avoidable.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
The solution to the current problem is not to be found in the further
development of the DNS, but rather in the implementation of a directory
system. As soon as technologies are available which lead Internet
subscribers to find resources in another manner than by using canonical
domain names, the rush for domains - in particular for Com-domains will
decline significantly. As attractive domains are - within the additional
name space which the IAHC as well as Alternic and others want to create -
only available to a limited extent, a further impovement of the DNS by
establishing additional gTLDS would only be helpful as a transitional
solution.
3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should current domain
name systems be administered? What should the makeup of such an entity be?
The DNS should be administered by a non-profit organization which is
subject to the supervision of a self-regulating body, whose membership is
balanced in terms of competencies and regions. In particular, the most
important Internet "stakeholders" - above all the Internet service
providers - should have a seat and vote in the self-regulating body.
Government agencies should not have any role, or only an observational
role, in the self-regulating body.
4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as models for
deciding on domain name registration systems (e.g., network numbering
plan, standard-setting processes, spectrum allocation)? Are there
private/public sector administered models or regimes that can be used for
domain name registration (e.g., network numbering plan, standard setting
processes, or spectrum allocation processes)? What is the proper role of
national or international governmental/non-governmental organizations, if
any, in national and international domain name registration systems?
./.
5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be retired from
circulation? Should geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) be required?
If so, what should happen to the .com registry? Are gTLD management issues
separable from questions about International Standards Organization (ISO)
country code domains?
From our perspective, there is no reason to retire the gTLDs, which are
presently in use, from circulation.
6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain name
registration issues? Are there any issues concerning the relationship of
registrars and gTLDs with root servers?
./.
7. How can we ensure the scalability of the domain name system name and
address spaces as well as ensure that root servers continue to
interoperate and coordinate?
In this context we refer to the proposal made above, according to which a
directory system should be implemented and it should be ensured that the
existing name space can be efficiently used.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?
The transition should not be made until worldwide consensus prevails with
respect to the new system. It continues to be absolutely necessary for the
new system to be developed and tested in accordance with recognized
principles of project management. Here those organizations should be
involved which are especially familiar with the technical development of
the Internet (IETF, IAB, ISPs).
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
./.
C. Creation of New gTLDs
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations that
constrain the total number of different gTLDs that can be created?
From a technical perspective, the number of conceivable gTLDs and country
TLDs is theoretically infinite. The technical expense which must be borne
in order to create a larger number of new TLDs could be significant,
however. Beyond this, the establishment of numerous new TLDs may confuse
enterprises and subscribers which use the Internet as a platform for their
business activities.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
The simplest and at the first glance most efficient strategy in order to
prevent a shortage in name domains is to introduce new generic top-level
domains (gTLDs). The technical and administrative efforts involved in
doing this are relatively low and an almost infinite number of additional
name space can be easily created by means of alternative DNS extensions.
It is not surprising, then, that all approaches to revise the DNS which
were discussed in the past few years have also always included the
implementation of new gTLDs. Nevertheless, we are of the view that this
measure is not suitable for avoiding conflicts over name rights. They will
instead cause many enterprises and organizations to see themselves forced
to register their names under several gTLDs - which means in all
categories of relevance to them. Should this prediction turn out to be
true, the extension in the name space at the TLD level will have proven to
be counter-productive.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing
the scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of
gTLDs?
./.
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
code domains?
From a technical point of view there is no reason to make a distinction
between gTLDs and country TLDs. However, the sovereignty over country TLDs
should be assigned to the self- regulating bodies in the respective
countries.
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
./.
D. Policies for Registries
15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a particular gTLD?
Are there any technical limitations on using shared registries for some or
all gTLDs? Can exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?
A registrar should only have exclusive control over a particular gTLD if
it is subject to the direct and unrestricted supervision of one of the
above-described self-regulating bodies. The technical implications of
sharing a registry have thus far not been sufficiently examined. Some
experts doubt whether the model developed by the IAHC is technically
feasible. Given this background, we urgently recommend that a technical
analysis and suitable beta test be conducted before the model is
implemented.
Exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs may easily coexist.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and
what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine
these and how?
Threshold requirements for domain name registrars are desirable from our
perspective in order to guarantee a high quality of service, adherence to
minimum standards in the areas of data protection as well as data security
and the economic stability of the registrar. It is scarcely possible,
however, to define requirements for registrars which prevent abuse and
still meet anti- trust requirements.
17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name registrars?
./.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name
space raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?
We assume that with a large number of competing registrars competition
will be significant and perhaps even more than is being aimed. This could
lead to rapid economic destabilization of those registrars which receive
their main revenues from the domain business. Such a destabilization could
limit the viability of the future DNS strategy as well as confidence in
the stability of the Internet.
19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a given
registrar can administer? Does this depend on whether the registrar has
exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the gTLD?
In our opinion this question can currently not be answered. It should be
raised again after the first experience has been gained with a limited
number of new gTLDs - to which all registrars should receive equal access.
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
./.
E. Trademark Issues
21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks, common law
trademarks, geographic indications, etc.), if any, should be protected on
the Internet vis-a-vis domain names?
We are of the opinion that an efficient protection of trademarks and of
trademark owners is not possible vis-a-vis domain names.
In practice, the use of identical trademarks happens again and again, for
example as they are registered for different classes. Furthermore the
registration can - following the principle of territoriality - be applied
for in different countries. Although there were various attempts to
overcome territoriality by supranational treaties in the past - such as
the Madrid Treaty - this has still not been entirely achieved.
In addition, in some legal systems conflicts over names can also arise at
a national level. In many cases, there is provision that although the
holder of a prior right enjoys priority, he must consent to the use of
this mark by a third party. This can, for instance, occur if the
registration of an identical mark is not opposed in good time or if the
earlier mark has not been used over a longer period of time. A legal
solution in such cases of conflict does not exist; the disputed marks must
exist alongside one another and their owners are compelled to compromise.
On the Internet domain names have to be assigned in an unambiguous manner
and therefore it is not conceivable to apply the legal rules dealing with
trademark conflicts to the assignment of domains. In addition, trademark
rights can not completely be protected in the Domain name area.
22. Should some process of preliminary review of an application for
registration of a domain name be required, before allocation, to determine
if it conflicts with a trademark, a trade name, a geographic indication,
etc.? If so, what standards should be used? Who should conduct the
preliminary review? If a conflict is found, what should be done, e.g.,
domain name applicant and/or trademark owner notified of the conflict?
Automatic referral to dispute settlement?
The following model should be taken into consideration (details in
http://www.anwalt.de/publicat/inet_idx.htm). It is based on the joint use
of a domain in case several applicants raise a claim to the related name:
1. Domains are assigned to the user on a first come, first served
basis (following the
principle of priority).
2. Should a further applicant raise a claim to a domain, this will be
placed under joint
administration ( sequestration").
3. If after examination, the claim of the new user is unjustified,
the domain will be
assigned to the original user. If the original user's claim is invalid,
then the name will be
assigned to the new claimant. If both have a justified right to the use
of a name, then the
domain will be placed under permanent joint administration. In the case
of the name being
assigned to exactly one user, the defeated party will bear the costs of
the examination and
alteration.
4. Should further applicants wish to lay claim in the case of a
permanent joint
administration then the procedure as mentioned in (1) and (2) will be
repeated analogously.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark rights
be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names? What entity(ies), if
any, should resolve disputes? Are national courts the only appropriate
forum for such disputes? Specifically, is there a role for
national/international governmental/nongovernmental organizations?
Disputes can only be decided in litigations presided over by national
courts at present as a result of the varying regulations applying to
trademark rights throughout the world. In this context, we have
recommended the following to the German Ministry of Economics and the
Ministry of Justice:
TLD administration by a self-regulating bodies
The administration of TLDs and the assignment of name space at
the SLD level
should continue to be performed by self-regulating bodies. It must be
ensured by means of a
suitable legal framework (by act of law or a public-law agreement
between the government
and the self-regulating body) that this task is performed lawfully, at a
reasonable price and
according to the principle of equal rights.
Integration of the jurisdiction into the federal patent office
The activity of the organization which is administering the name
space should be
closely tied to the tasks of the federal patent office (which in Germany
is also responsible for
the registration of trademarks). However, this should not apply to the
assignment and
technical administration of the name space as such, but rather for the
issue of jurisdiction.
To solve name conflicts, it appears to suggest itself - especially when
taking into account the
proximity of the issue with trademark rights - to set up judicial bodies
at the federal patent
office which have the final word in conflicts relating to domains.
As far as the IAHC intends to solve domain disputes by setting up
so-called "Administrative Challenge Panels" (ACPs) and by mediation and
arbitration, their approach may basically be welcomed, but it does not
ultimately lead to a satisfactory result for the following reasons:
Mediation can only be successful if the parties involved in a
dispute voluntarily adhere to the
ruling of the mediator. Especially in an area of such economic
importance as that
represented by name rights, however, it is to be expected that the
losing party will still act to
initiate litigation even after the conclusion of the mediation.
The establishment of a special jurisdiction and/or arbitration
only makes sense if
these are effectively agreed upon before any cause for legal dispute
arises. This is extremely
difficult, however, in the area of domain name administration. On the
one hand, very
different requirements are placed on arbitration agreements world-wide,
which means that
the effectiveness of this approach can be easily undermined simply by
virtue of formal
mistakes. On the other hand, an arbitration agreement can only lead to
reasonable results if
it must be mandatorily accepted by all parties involved - this is,
however, delicate in an area
in which an authority holds a dominant position in the market and may
accordingly be
subject to anti-trust regulations.
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented? What
information resources (e.g. databases of registered domain names,
registered trademarks, trade names) could help reduce potential conflicts?
If there should be a database(s), who should create the database(s)? How
should such a database(s) be used?
Conflicts over trademarks can be prevented or reduced by either
1. replacing the directory function of the DNS by introducing an
adequate directory
system, or
2. introducing the above-described model of sequestration" to solve
disputes.
25. Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate that they
have a basis for requesting a particular domain name? If so, what
information should be supplied? Who should evaluate the information? On
the basis of what criteria?
Name rights should basically not be reviewed by registrars, as these may
not have the necessary legal knowledge and, beyond this, may be subject to
liability for significant compensation as a result of their rulings.
A pre-review by government agencies - for instance the trademark offices -
does not make sense either, as the review procedure would constrain the
efficient assignment of domains, which is indispensable for electronic
trade in Internet.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars
affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?
./.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single
domain name, are there any technological solutions?
An alternative solution which should be taken into consideration is based
on the joint use of a domain in case several applicants raise a claim to a
related name.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
./.
###
Number: 324
From: "j.poeppelmann@plateaux.com" <Jens@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 5:27pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Jens do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel Internet
namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s name.space(tm)
service, located on the internet at http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or
http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Sunday, August 17, 1997 17:25:56 EDT
Jens
###
Number: 325
From: "rushkoff@interport.net" <Douglas.Rushkoff@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 5:34pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I Douglas Rushkoff do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Sunday, August 17, 1997 17:33:22 EDT
Douglas Rushkoff
288 West 12th St.
NY NY 10014
###
Number: 326
From: "may@hiregun.com" <May.S.Young@violet.xs2.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/17/97 10:58pm
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES
(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)
I May S. Young do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).
The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS"). The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.
pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries. The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.
The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.
Description of the name.space(tm) service:
On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace). All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries. The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.
Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge. (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD). IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".
Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server. During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name". The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed. All other account information, of course, remains
confidential. The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications. Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol. The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.
Issues and Answers
Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars. Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.
These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand. Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.
All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system. As NSI admits:
"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced. The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."
(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)
Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded. The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.
The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm. Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names. The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature. The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.
With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties. However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.
Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market. Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).
In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.
The name.space(tm) system is a reality today. The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .
I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.
-------------------------------
Sunday, August 17, 1997 22:57:18 EDT
May S. Young
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 1:24am
Subject: Domain Name Service
should seriously consider a regional approach to name resolve. If the
address's took on a regional identifier it might help ease some of the log
jamming the internet experiences. I would look at at least a state level
code for the US.
J. Griswold
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 12:47pm
Subject: Filing of Comments on Internet Domain Names
a subset of a much broader issue with far reaching consequences, ie.,
the future structure(s) and mechanisms for global Internet governance.
We need to fully appreciate that whatever path we pursue we are not only
addressing management of Internet domain names, but are in fact establishing
a precedent for a private self governance system for the Internet.
to discuss the establishment of a multi-national panel with a compensated,
full time staff with the necessary resources to focus on and
address the issue of global Internet governance. Recommendations should be
provided to the Internet community within 6 to 9 months.
conference (http://www.ispo.cec.be/standards/conf97/welcome.html)
"Building the Global Information Society for the 21st Century"
sponsored by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), International
Organization for Standards (ISO), and International Electotechnical
Commission (IEC), as a possible venue to initiate discussions
on the topic global Internet governance.
A partial list of other issues which may effect the openness and
universal connectivity of the Internet, and may need to be addressed in
an appropriate forum in the very near future include:
the Internet,
- settlement fees between Internet Service Providers,
- the establishment of rules for peering and exchanging traffic between
Internet Service Providers,
- regulation of gambling over the Internet,
- regulation of pornography over the Internet,
- regulation of taxation,
- the use of "cookies" and ones rights to privacy,
- the establishment of legal jurisdictions and boundaries
regarding the Internet
- management and assignment of IP address space,
- governance and structure of the RIPE, APNIC and ARIN registries,
- ownership of IP address space,
- regulation of email spam,
- intellectual property rights surrounding the use of third party cache
and replication servers,
- governance of Internet telephony, and
- a concern that non-US Internet users pay an inordinate cost for
international connections between the US and other continents.
connectivity of the Internet just as easily as the domain names issue.
regarding Internet domain names, are we establishing a mechanism and
precedent for Internet governance under which new Internet governance
issues will likely be addressed ?"
Our answer to this question is yes, as new Internet governance issues
surface, common sense would dictate to try to address these issues in
an already established framework.
participants in the IAHC / gTLD-MoU sufficient enough to address new
and emerging issues which effect the connectivity of the Internet
and global Internet governance ?".
Our answer to this question is no, the IAHC / gTLD-MoU processes
were not designed to support and are not sufficient to support
global Internet governance.
no mention or mechanism is made of how to
address new emerging issues of Internet governance.
discuss the establishment of a multi-national panel with a compensated,
full time staff with the necessary resources to address the issue of
Internet governance, with recommendations provided to the
community within 6 months.
The US government should also consider the upcoming 1 - 3 October 1997
conference (http://www.ispo.cec.be/standards/conf97/welcome.html)
"Building the Global Information Society for the 21st Century"
sponsored by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), International
Organization for Standards (ISO), and International Electotechnical
Commission (IEC), as a possible venue to initiate discussions
on global Internet governance.
does not appear, upon examining the Securities and Exchange Commission
Form S-1, filed July 3, 1997 for Network Solutions Inc.,
any exorbitant profits. In fact, it appears after reading the S-1 that
NSI is investing a majority of its fees in hardware, software, and
third party vendors in support of back office operations to deliver
its services.
should be commended for actively managing the NSF/NSI cooperative agreement
for the betterment of the entire Internet community.
The real winner of this cooperative agreement is the Internet community.
The initiative of NSF in establishing an Intellectual Infrastructure Fund
with millions of dollars on account will eventually benefit the entire
Internet community.
price. Where else can one request a service (the issuance of a domain name)
and have it "delivered" without first paying for the service, and without
any prior credit history ? In fact, the net fee of $35, besides supporting
the assignment of an Internet domain name, also supported, without cost to
the end user, the management and assignment of IP address space.
For example, will the processes defined by the IAHC / gTLD-MoU provide a
comparable level of stability ? What fee(s) will end users have to
pay under the IAHC / gTLD-MoU plan for domain names ? Are 7 iTLDs enough ?
Where is the full time staff to provide a transition to the
processes defined in the gTLD-MoU ?
too quickly and fails to address several issues, such as those
outlined in Digital Equipment Corporation's Attachment to the gTLD-MoU
(http://www.itu.int/net-itu/gtld-mou/decadd.htm), ie.,
a concern for consensus building, stability of existing top level domains,
stability of name registration, and preserving intellectual property rights.
Furthermore, we are particularly concerned with the failure to address
the recommendations raised by the IAHC regarding the .US top level domain.
community. It is administered by the US Domain Registry at the
Information Sciences Institute of the University of Southern California
(ISI), under the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
(above per http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/usdnr/usdom-overview.html)
for Administration and Management of gTLDSs" (available at
http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html) states that:
"Current difficulties with gTLDs are highly exacerbated by inadequate
use of the .us TLD and the IAHC requests that scaleable and functional
Second-Level Domains (SLDs) for .us be defined and used, in the spirit
of those that already exist for many other ISO 3166-based TLDs."
further delegations along the lines of the functional SLD structure,
suitably modified to account for large-scale delegation and management,
and suggests this type of functional structure to other ISO 3166
national name space administrators as a widely understood structure."
US Domain Registry and IANA (both at the Information Sciences Institute
of the University of Southern California) and/or gTLD-MoU Policy
Oversight Committee ?
Would dealing with the .US top level domain provide the community
with additional time to deal with the issues of domain name
management under the broader umbrella of global Internet governance ?
discussing previous recommendations.
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 8:24am
Subject: Comments of Gordon Irlam
http://www.base.com/gordoni/thoughts/ntia-dns-comments.html
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230
2310 Rock St. #10
Mountain View, CA 94043
is employed as a software developer. He is a domain name registrant and
operator of a DNS server. He has been using the Internet for 12 years,
participates in the IETF, is a member of the W3C Advisory Council, the
Association for Computing Machinery, and the American Economic Association.
evaluate proposals for the registration and administration of
Internet domain names. [...]
Domain name registrars should merely be able reap the value of the
registration services they perform.
investment resulting in the creation of wealth associated with a particular
domain name. It is important that domain name registrants be able to reap
the value of this wealth. Any policy that enables domain name registrars to
reap the wealth associated with investments made by domain name registrants
would create economic inefficiencies. These economic inefficiencies would
manifest themselves as under-investment in the creation of domain name
content, and an over-investment in domain name registration services.
should essentially be viewed as the property of the domain name
registrant.
* Domain name owners should not be held captive to particular registrars.
Registrants should be able to switch registrars at will. This is
necessary to ensure the registrant and not the registrar can captures
the wealth created by the registrant.
name registration systems?
advantage of being part of a single system, with a single common set of
procedures for the registration of domains, payment of bills, and querying
the status of registrations.
effectively unusable. Different sub-domains are administered by different
authorities. These different authorities have different policies and
procedures. There is no central database that can be searched to access
information on registrations within the US domain. For many subdomains it is
not even possible to determine which domain names are already allocated. It
is even difficult to determine the appropriate procedures and authority to
contact to register within a particular domain.
besides .US also have various problems. However each of these registration
systems is ultimately under the control of the respective national
governments, and it considered important that national governments are
offered the opportunity to play a role in the provision of domain
registration services.
competition in the provision of registration services for the underlying
domain names. This lack of competition results in registration services
being provided inefficiently. A second problem resulting from the lack of
competition is prices need not being set based on the cost of the underlying
services provided. Today this is not as serious problem. Most of the domain
registration systems are under some form of regulations that limit the
prices that can be set. However, were such regulations to be removed,
without provisions for competitive registration within these domains,
serious problems would result. Domain name registrars for particular TLDs
would be able to set almost arbitrary prices for the continuance of
registration within particular TLDs. The structure of the World Wide Web
makes it impossible for a registrant to switch to a different domain name
without loss of almost the entire value built up around a preexisting
domain. Consequently, registrants would have little alternative but to pay
what would essentially be arbitrary monopoly fees set by domain name
registrars. This situation can only be prevented through either the
continued regulation of prices, or the introduction of competition in the
provision of registration services within TLDs.
competitive registries for the provision of registration services within
existing domains. This would increase the efficiency of the registration
process. More importantly, it would ensure registrants, rather than
registrars, are able to capture the value of the wealth created by the
registrants investment in a particular domain. This is especially important
if the existing regulatory limits on the fees charged for domain name
registration were to be removed.
competitive biding process to determine the operators of the root name
servers. An example scenario follows. Registrars could be required to pay an
annual fee based on the number of domains for which they are currently the
registration agent. This fee would be passed on to domain name registrants,
and should be of the order of $1-2 per domain per year. The fees collected
would be used to pay the costs associated with the operation of the root
name servers. Contracts to operate a subset of the root name servers for a
three year period could be competitively bid on a yearly basis. This way,
only a third of the root name servers would undergo operational transitions
each year, ensuring high operational stability of the DNS infrastructure.
For operational reasons, IP addresses associated with the root name servers
need to pass from one contractor to the next, and must not be considered the
property of the incumbent contractor.
domain name systems be administered? What should the makeup of
such an entity be?
given the overwhelming importance of operational stability, and the urgency
of the present matter, we feel the framework provided by the gTLD MOU that
was created by the IAHC represent by far the best of the available options.
commercial services acting under a framework of public trust, effective self
governance by bodies including IANA with a proven track record in operating
the Internet infrastructure, and ultimately this governance overseen by
appropriate international bodies.
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?
service serves as a reasonable model of the necessary role for governmental
or non-governmental organizations in creating the framework for the
provision of DNS services. Desirable features of the regulation of long
distance phone service include:
competitive framework established by the government and administered by
the FCC. Similarly, DNS registration should be provided competively,
but under a framework established and regulated by appropriate
governmental or non-governmental organizations.
* Phone subscribers have the ability to change long distance providers at
will. Analogously, domain name registrants should have the ability to
change registrars at will.
* Long distance companies do not have monopoly ownership of the right to
provide long distance service to particular blocks of phone numbers.
Similarly, registrars should not have a monopoly on the provision of
registration services to those domains within a particular TLD.
* It is possible to keep the same phone number when changing long
distance providers. Analogously, domain name registrants should be able
to keep the same domain name when changing registrars. A phone numbers
are treated as belonging to the subscriber, not to the long distance
company.
* The competitive provision of long distance phone service is not all
encompassing. It interoperates with the regulated local phone services,
and the phone services regulated by foreign governments. Similarly, the
competitive provision of services for the .COM, .ORG, and .NET domains,
should be able to coexist with regulated provision of the .EDU, and
.GOV domains, and the various different ISO country code domains.
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?
administrative issues at hand have nothing to do with whether domain names
exist within a gTLD or an ISO country code domain. The present issues are
most significant for the gTLD domains simply because the gTLD domains are by
far the largest and most heavily commercialized of the TLDs. Therefore, it
is in the gTLD domains that the pressures for transition to competitive
market based registration services, as well as the risks of monopoly
control, are the greatest.
likely benefit from a competitive management structure. Consequently, it
would be best to develop a general purpose system for the competitive
registration of domain names. Initially this system would only contain the
.COM, .ORG, and .NET domains. However, in the future we should imagine the
possibility of national governments wishing to delegate registrations for
their ISO country codes through this same system. The system should be
designed to allow for this. Doing so does not pose any technical problems.
registration issues? Are there any issues concerning the
relationship of registrars and gTLDs with root servers?
activities. The provision of registration services is an administrative
function. The operation of the root name services is an operational
function. There is a serious danger of monopoly control of the Internet when
a single party is free to perform both administrative and operational
activities.
servers, and vice-versa.
the Internet name space. To ensure that they don't abuse this power it is
necessary to ensure that the operators of the root name servers treat the
data provided by each registrar equally. If the root name servers only used
data provided by a particular registrar, that registrar would be able to set
monopoly prices for domain name registration services.
name and address spaces as well as ensure that root servers
continue to interoperate and coordinate?
the BIND DNS software should occur. Additional root name servers should also
be deployed. These investments could might be funded from the NSF
Infrastructure Fund established under the cooperative agreement.
name servers could be performed under competitive contract, with contractual
requirement to ensure root name servers continue to interoperate and
coordinate.
the existing domain name databases are publicly available on the expiration
of the cooperative agreement. Article 10(E) of the cooperative agreement
provides the NSF can request the necessary information from Network
Solutions as part of the final report to be submitted by Network Solutions
to the NSF. It is important that the NSF request this information because it
will be required by any successor organization.
evenly and randomly between the initial set of qualified competitive
registries.
period of no more than 5-10 days. Consequently it is vital that operational
planning for the transition be occurring between all relevant parties today.
permitted to collect a fee of $50 per year payable in advance for each
registered domain, with an initial two year payment being required when a
domain is first registered. This fee is intended to cover the cost of
providing registration services for the following year, or two years.
Network Solutions is presently collecting the full amount of this fee
despite the cooperative agreement being scheduled to expire in 6 months
time. The unearned portion of these fees should either be returned to the
domain name registrars, or passed on to the successor registration body.
With over 1 million domains registered, the amount of money at issue is
substantial.
that constrain the total number of different gTLDs that can be
created?
prudence should be exercised. Once created, it is very difficult to change
or remove a gTLD. Consequently, gTLDs should only be created if there is a
pressing need.
created. This is not however a strongly held opinion.
gTLDs, and their transition to a competitive registration system. The
creation of new gTLDs is likely to only serve as a distraction to this
effort.
guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated with
increasing the number of gTLDs?
registration system there are no problems of scalability associated with the
creation of new gTLDs.
then the number of different regimes should be kept to a minimum. End users
of the registration system can't be expected to know about and understand
all the different regimes, policies, and procedures. Creating multiple
regimes would likely result in problems similar to the present confusion
that exists regarding registration in the .US domain.
country code domains?
country code domains. Similar problems to those facing the gTLDs exist for
the ISO country code domains, but they are presently far less severe, and do
not require solving simultaneously. At a future date, the same mechanisms as
used to solve the problems associated with the registration of gTLD domains,
might be applicable to the ISO country code domains.
particular gTLD? Are there any technical limitations on using
shared registries for some or all gTLDs? Can exclusive and
non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?
registrar. Unless subject to government regulation of the fees charged for
registration services, the registrar would be in a position to abuse this
situation by imposing monopoly fees on domain name registrants. Such fees
would result in economic inefficiencies.
There are minor organizational, managerial, and deployment issues that still
need to be solved, but these issues are readily solvable.
exclusive domains would be bad public policy. If for some reason exclusive
domains should continue to exist in the future, transition plans for their
eventually maturing and becoming shared should be drawn up, and regulations
should also be imposed to limit fees in the interim.
registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars have?
Who will determine these and how?
requirements should be focussed on ensuring the stability of the domain name
registration system. Registrants should be contractually required to be able
to guarantee a set of operational requirements, and have appropriate funding
to underwrite this guarantee.
POC, and CORE, to determine such requirements.
given registrar can administer? Does this depend on whether the
registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the gTLD?
should be able to administer all domains within all of the gTLD domains.
Allowing all registrars to act as registrars for all gTLDs will maximize
competition in the provision of registration services within each gTLD.
area?
registration information be shareable between registrars. Registrars need to
disclaim all rights to the underlying registration information they have
collected, including all selection and compilation based copyrights, and any
future rights under the recently proposed database treaty. Registrars must
agree to provide the complete registration information for a particular
domain to a competitor in response to an authentic request from the domain
name owner to switch registrars.
To: "'Temp'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/18/97 7:12am
Subject: Domain Name Changes
kept to a minium. Otherwise, we'll end up with many very similar names and
this will make them difficult to remember and reduce the identity value of
"trademark" names.
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 9:43am
Subject: Keep with Network Solutions
simplicity's sake...
services for DNS, such as .games, .home, .biz, .rec, etc... it would get way
out of hand... It should stay with .com, .net, .org, etc... it's easy, it's
established, and it works. Let's face it, other companies are just getting
greedy they can't enjoy profits from this system.. The Internet wasn't
designed for profits in its root structure anyway.
mean new businesses can't think of something creative for a domain name.
BNL Enterprises Inc.
31 Washington St.
Matawan, NJ , 07747
webmaster@pcwares.com
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 12:25pm
Subject: internet issues
633 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Facsimile: (212) 953-1037
dns@ntia.doc.gov.
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA)
Room 4898
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20230
Law Section of the American Bar Association.
in response to the request for comments published on July 2,
1997. However, the Section strongly believes that the issues
raised are of the utmost importance for intellectual property
owners and members of the intellectual property bar. Accord-
ingly, and in view of the summer season during which many
interested persons are away for periods of time, the Section
respectfully requests that public hearings be conducted to
insure full public review and analysis of these issues.
Chair - ABA IPL Section
Committee 203
PTO Affairs - Trademarks
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 12:25am
Subject: TLD FILTERING SOLVES YOUR DILEMNA
first.lady@whitehouse.gov
OF US TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN ANDPROTECT OUR RIGHTS.A NEW IDEA
FOR
AMERICA
AND
THE INTERNET COMMUNITY
society.
children during their formative years.
access
to ideas and content of their choice, as guaranteed by the First
and Fourth
Amendments of the Constitution?
Decency
Act was unconstitutional and unenforceable in any event, there have
emerged a number of proposals to deal with this conflict.
possible Federal involvement with some other aspects under their
jurisdiction.
concerns with a desire to "police themselves" without Uncle Sam getting
involved
in censorship. Other countries are also not satisfied with recent United
States
gestures toward control of TLD (top level domain) and naming conventions,
that
they feel are questions that should be put to the world community instead of
being pre-empted by us.
ISP's can develop methods of offering their customers a menu of TLD's that
they
want to see or that theydo not want to see. Business corporations might want
to
filter out any TLD involved with sexual content. Adults wanting access to
sexual
materials could select FULL TLD * i.e., any and all TLD's that the ISP
might have. The advantages are obvious. Everyone wins. Parents can control
what
their kids see, adults can say and do what they wish.
adult content by requiring proof of age. Many *. But not all .. ISP's do
this now.
Certainly one of the leaders in this area is MCS (Macro Computer
Solutions,http://www.mcs.net), lead by Karl Denninger who is
one of the proponents of an extended EDNS (Enhanced Doman Name System) .
Currrently not all ISP's carry the alternate domains, i.e., those presently
carried by the InterNIC. (Those very recognizable TLD's are .COM, .ORG,.EDU,
and
.NET. The other "official" TLD's are MIL and GOV, under Federal
control). But there are other registration authorities and other countries'
telecommunications agencies who oppose the InterNIC and its recently
proposed
expansion plans. The Internet community has largely rejected these
recommendations, and the issue is really up in the air. Two websites that
discuss this are http://www.edns.net andhttp://www.alternic.net and there
are others
as well. There are also a number of well-intentioned public service-oriented
organizations who are trying to address the problem with ratings and even
chip-controlled access. But these are not standardized, and one of the jobs
that
any kid has had has been finding a way to get around parental controls.
a TLD not on the list provided by his ISP. With this method, an adult could
also
filter out some groups, let in others, based on his ownsense of what is
right
and wrong being on the web.
Proteus@tpa.net
312/902-2776
exist
on the AltaVista Search Engine in either the Web or Usenet. This document, I
believe, is the first discussion of it, and I am sending it to various
correspondents
to catalog it as a message with a timestamp.
what
may be a simple idea with vast consequence to many people.
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 7:08am
Subject: comments on Internet Domain Names
D, question 15, and section E, questions 22, 24, and 28.
Geoffrey Atkin
has been able to come up with. I agree with its philosophy that generic
top-level domains should be administered by multiple registrars on the
public's behalf. I might quibble with their choices for new top-level
domains, but I understand that there was considerable debate on this
point. I agree that both Internet and international standards bodies
should be involved in the administration of generic top-level domains.
of their contract in March 1998 may be the only opportunity to do so.
Replacement registrars must be in place well in advance to ensure a
smooth transfer of power.
dissatisfied with the service provided, fees charged, and/or policies
set by NSI, and there is little recourse since NSI has a monopoly on the
most popular top-level domains; and (2) the explosive commercial growth
of the Internet has led to contention for "good names" in .com. The
latter is because domain names are absolutely unique world-wide, while
company names are not, even when trademarked. Also, NSI assigns names
without regard to trademark status; when disputes arise, a common
outcome is for the name to become unavailable to anyone.
the second. The rest of my comments are on the subject of trademarks.
no lawyer, but I believe this view is totally without merit.
computers owned or administered by a specific entity or organization.
Thus, the main practical use of domain names is to help Internet users
identify to whom they are sending information and from whom they are
receiving it. This is also one of the purposes of trademarks (as
applied to company names) and this is why domain names come into
conflict with trademarks.
name space which is strictly for names of corporate entities, available
only to holders of national trademarks for those names, subdivided by
business and by country. For example,
in different countries can have the same name, and can hold trademarks
to the name in their respective countries. The existing two-letter
national domains are an obvious starting point. We then need to
subdivide the .us domain by industry or business, because two companies
in the U.S. can hold national trademarks to the same name so long as
they are in different lines of business.
Industrial Classifications (SIC) headings:
.cs.us Mining and construction (SIC 1xxx)
.mf.us Manufacturing (SIC 2xxx and 3xxx)
.tr.us Transportation (SIC 4xxx)
.pu.us Public utilities (SIC 4xxx)
.wh.us Wholesale trade (SIC 50xx and 51xx)
.rt.us Retail trade (SIC 52xx to 59xx)
.fn.us Finance, insurance and real estate (SIC 6xxx)
.sv.us Services (SIC 7xxx and 8xxx)
companies that do not hold a national trademark on their names. For
example, if Chiquita was not a national trademark, but merely a local
banana grower in North Carolina, it might be chiquita.ag.nc.us.
Ideally, the same registrars should be able to assign names in either
ag.nc.us or ag.us.
short enough to be understandable and long enough that most companies
with the same name wind up in different domains. (And of course, it has
to avoid conflicting with two-letter state abbreviations.)
registries. As a point of interest, most have second-level domains such
as .co.uk and .co.jp, which serve as national versions of .com.
use of the two-letter national domains, and it might be reasonable to
close .com to new registrations. But there is no reason to eliminate it
altogether, and it would be highly disruptive to do so.
example, it could provide domain registrars with the data necessary to
check for national trademark conflicts before assigning a domain name.
This would help prevent trademark disputes, which would benefit everyone
except possibly the trademark lawyers.
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/18/97 11:12am
Subject: Comments on Domain Names
webmaster@jasc.com
http://www.jasc.com
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 1:34pm
Subject: AT&T's Response to NOI on Domain Names
Request for Comments on the )
Registration and Administration ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
of Internet Domain Names )
Ava B. Kleinman
Room 3252J1
Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920
(908) 221-8312
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 9:17am
Subject: CPSR Comments on Internet Domain Names
attached in Microsoft Word 6.0 format is CPSR's electronic submission in
response to NTIA's request for public comment on registration and
administration of Internet domain names. A hard copy of the same is
being delivered today to Patrice Washington of NTIA's Public Affairs
office.
if you have any questions in this regard
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Glenn B. Manishin glenn@technologylaw.com
Tel/Vms 202.955.6300 gbm@clark.net
Fax 202.955.6460 gmanishin@earthlink.net
------------- Washington, DC, USA -------------
Firm: http://www.technologylaw.com/
Personal: http://www.clark.net/pub/gbm/
F1: http://www.clark.net/pub/gbm/F1/f1intro.html
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
In the Matter of )
)
Request for Comment on Registration ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
and Administration of Internet )
Domain Names )
Harry Hochheiser Michael D. Specht
Andy Oram Christine A. Mailloux
Computer Professionals for Social Blumenfeld & Cohen - Technology Law Group
Responsibility <http://www.technologylaw.com>
<http://www.cpsr.org/home.html> 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 700
P.O. Box 717 Washington, D.C. 20036
Palo Alto, CA 94302 202.955.6300
415.322.3778
Counsel for CPSR
Aki Namioka, President Glenn B. Manishin
Harry Hochheiser Michael D. Specht
Andy Oram Christine A. Mailloux
Computer Professionals for Social Blumenfeld & Cohen - Technology Law Group
Responsibility <http://www.technologylaw.com>
<http://www.cpsr.org/home.html> 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 700
P.O. Box 717 Washington, D.C. 20036
Palo Alto, CA 94302 202.955.6300
415.322.3778
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 12:40pm
Subject: Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
Internet Domain Names
MBA LLB BSc
Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0 e-mail:dstein@travel-net.com
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 4:01am
Subject: Comment on the Registration of Internet Domain Names
Office of Public Affairs
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
Room 4898
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Internet Domain Names
Associate Professor of Management and
Co-Director, Project 2000
Owen Graduate School of Management
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37203
Submitted August 18, 1997
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 12:50pm
Subject: RFC on the Registration and Administration of Internet
Domain Names.
Registration and
Administration of Internet Domain Names.
Director, Internet Computer Bureau Plc.
Bridge House, 181, Queen Victoria Street, London, EC4V 4DD UK
Advantages: Disadvantages:
Efficient
Uncomplicated Controlled monopoly
Regionally Accountable
Frequently cost recovery basis
Distributed Processing
Advantages: Disadvantages:
Efficient high profit /cost ratio
Uncomplicated Monopolistic
Not regionally accountable
Processing failure/delay affects
global network
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 10:49pm
Subject: APIA comments
Internet related service providers from the region. It was born from the efforts of the Asia
Pacific Networking Group, Commercial Working Group over the last two years.
making bodies, such as that of your own. Although still a fledging organisation, APIA hopes
to
be this channel. Having the key "movers and shakers" in the region as the Board of Directors,
Advisory Board members, Founding Members and Members, we hope that this submission
will
carry
some weight as industry input from this region.
us the opportunity to have our opinions heared.
Secretary General
APIA Ltd
Secretary General, APIA
http://www.apia.org
E-mail: laina@getit.org
Date: 8/18/97
Time: 10:49:45 PM
-------------------------------------
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
Dr Jin Ho Hur, Inet, Inc, Korea
Toru Takahashi, Tokyo Internet, Japan c/o Laina Raveendran Greene
Pindar Wong, VERIFI, Hong Kong Secretary General
Barry Greene, Cisco Systems, Singapore 7th Storey RELC
Building
Dr Tommi Chen, Asiapac.net, Malaysia 30, Orange Grove Road
Prof Li Xing, CERNET, China Singapore 258352
Roger Hicks, Clear Communications, New Zealand laina@getit.org
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
B. General/Organizational
Framework Issues
C. Creation of New
gTLDs
D. Policies for
Registries
E. Trademark
Issues
Cisco Systems
NTT, Japan
Telekom Malaysia
Concert Communications Services Ltd
Asiapac.net
AUNet
VERIFI, Hong Kong
Singapore Exhibition Services
Internet Association of Japan
Bernard Randall
Bill Woodcock
Sascha Zumbusch
Hiroki Inoue
Philip Klapakis
Vab Goel
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 12:50pm
Subject: Comments on Internet Domain Names
From: gTLD-MoU interim Policy Oversight Committee
interim Policy Oversight Committee in the U.S. Department of Commerce
proceeding "Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of
Internet Domain Names", Docket No. 970613137-7137-01.
gTLD-MoU interim Policy Oversight Committee
David W. Maher, Chair
<dwmaher@ibm.net>
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
David W. Maher, Chair
c/o Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
8000 Sears Tower
Chicago IL 60606
In the Matter of )
)
REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES )
B. General/Organizational
Framework Issues
C. Creation of New gTLDs
D. Policies for Registries
E. Trademark Issues
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
B. General/Organizational
Framework Issues
C. Creation of New
gTLDs
D. Policies for
Registries
E. Trademark
Issues
F. Other
Issues
Microsoft Word document and a text copy of RFC 1958 as
reference material.
I wish I had had more time to polish and extend my comments but hope that
they are still of some use in their current rough condition.
Yours, Donald
==================================================================
===
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1 508-287-4877(tel) dee@cybercash.com
318 Acton Street +1 508-371-7148(fax) dee@world.std.com
Carlisle, MA 01741 USA +1 703-620-4200(main office, Reston, VA)
http://www.cybercash.com http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html
WARNING, on 4 Sep 1997, +1-508 will change to +1-978.
(NTIA), Room 4898,
14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20230 USA
318 Acton Street
Carlisle, MA 01741 USA
A, E, I, O, U, Y
= 0
B, F, P, V
= 1
C, G, J, K, Q, S, X, Z
= 2
D, T
= 3
L
= 4
M, N
= 5
R
= 6
fax: 415.858.1936
suppprovided by the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) on
behalf of its Membership. Founded in 1996, the CAIP has grown from an original 12
members to include over 80 commercial Internet service providers and affiliates in
this National organization. CAIP represents the interests of the commercial Internet
service providers in Canada. CAIP members carry most of the Internet traffic in
Canada, and over two-thirds of all Internet customer accounts in this country.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
B. General/Organizational
Framework Issues
C. Creation of New
gTLDs
D. Policies for
Registries
E. Trademark
Issues
F. Other
Issues