From: Shmuel Seymour J. Metz <Shmuel@ACM.Org>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/5/98 7:52am
Subject: Proposed Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses

The attached ASCII document contains my comments on the draft Technical
Management of Internet Names and Addresses.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
-----------------------------------------------------------

4963 Oriskany Drive
Annandale, Virginia 22003-5141
February 5, 1997

U.S. Department of Commerce
NTIA/OIA
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230

Gentlemen:

I wish to comment on the proposed Technical Management of
Internet Names and Addresses.

First,the administration of the InterNIC by NSI has been totally
unacceptable. They have allowed bogus contact information,
including telephone numbers of 000-0000 and 555-1212, and have
refused to act when fraudulent information was brought to their
attention. You can verify this by searching DejaNews for
InterNIC. They should not be allowed to continue registering
domains under the TLD names they currently administer, beyond the
life of their current contract.

Second, the rules in Appendix 1 should explicitly spell out the
responsibility for authenticating contact information. They
should state that failing to supply complete and correct contact
information is cause for loss of domain registration. They should
also state that failure to authenticate contact information and
to enforce the above is cause for transferring the TLD to a
different company. They should state explicit penalties for fraud.

###

From: Arthur Zwern <arthur@genreality.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/5/98 4:12am
Subject: Domain Name Comment

Dear NTIA,

I have a simple proposal for easy control of sexually-related sites on
the Internet; an issue about which I have heard much complaining but no
solutions.

To solve the problem, create a ".sex" domain, and require all
sexually-oriented material to use that domain. Then ask or require
Netscape and Microsoft to add a password-accessed parental control
function for blocking access to all sites with .sex domain names.For
foreign sites, simply cancel their domain name whenever a site is found
which does not comply.

Seems like an effective solution which is almost trivial to implement,
and I would very much appreciate some response about this idea.

Thank you for your efforts,

Arthur Zwern

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("tomhyphen@onramp.net")

###

From: "Katherine P, Lovingood" <lovingoodlaw@mindspring.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/5/98 12:47pm
Subject: Proposed DNS Rules

Comments:

I am an intellectual property law attorney as well as a licensed mediator.

An emerging area of legal controversy is domain name disputes. I disagree
with your conclusion in the proposed rule, "It is important to keep in mind
that trademark/domain name disputes arise very rarely on the Internet
today." I challenge this statement and would be interested in its
statistical basis. I am aware of several local disputes and many others
that have reached the appellate level. There must be exponentially more
that are as yet unreported.

We need a dispute resolution system in place at once. Let's not reinvent a
process; designate an organization already in place to take on this burden.
The gTLD-MoU had desigated the World Intellectual Property Organization and
I support that choice.

Your failure to acknowledge the gTLD-MoU suggests that you are either
unaware of it or determined it was unimportant. The private sector
mobilized well in advance to answer issues raised by the impending contract
expiration between the federal government and the NSI. They have already
done all the work that you are now proposing to begin. Your "non-profit
organization" is at the proposal stage, yet in less than eight months you
expect it to be able to begin operations.

I hope the gist of the comments you receive direct you to use the gTLD-MoU
plan as a basis for the contract turnover so you can get on with it.

###

From: Shirley Louise Coffie <shirleyl@hway.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/5/98 1:30pm
Subject: Mailing list?

Dear Sirs,

Would you know of a mailing list I could sign up to? I'm quite interested in the proceedings, and would like to be kept to date with the occurrences.

Thank you,

Shirley

============================
<color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>Shirley Louise Coffie
</color>shirleyl@hway.net
Hiway Technologies, Inc.
http://www.hway.net/
Sales and Customer Services
1-800-339-4929
Outside USA 1-561-989-8574
Fax 561-989-8721
===========================

###

From: "B. Wright" <wright@nstar.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/5/98 2:50am
Subject: Comments on Jan 30, 1998 proposal.

In comment to "A PROPOSAL TO IMPROVE TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT OF INTERNET
NAMES AND ADDRESSES DISCUSSION DRAFT 1/30/98" located at URL
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnsdrft.txt, here are my
comments. Please bear with me if this document seems a bit forward
reaching in opinions. However, eventually, it may end up with a similar
configuration listed below.

--The Real Issues

I think the points described by this document, are salient. However, a
fair amount of the draft seem a little too geared to protect those
companies that have had trademark infringment problems in the past. A
problem that is really tangential to the real issues. The real issues
should be as follows:

1) Stripping away the governmental hand in the management of names and
addresses without disruption to the Internet.
2) Finding an objective non-profit company with specified requirements to
house the 'new' organization to handle the Internet names and addresses.
More specifically, Top Level Domains (TLDs).

All of the rest of the issues brought up are tangential to these main two
points. For example, which new root domains can or can't be created, who
can and can't run them, closed/open access to the data, solving trademark
issues, etc. These issues should be resolved by the new proposed
organization within their policies and by their membership. Yes, the new
organization should have a membership policy.

These other issues above are definitely to be considered, but I think it
is beyond the scope of this proposal and only serve to bog down the
process in the creation of this new organization.

--Organizational Issues

The new organization should be set up with the global Internet in mind.
The organization should allow Internet companies, institutions, and
individuals (from all over the world) participation in its policies and
procedures. These members should have voting power to approve
policies/fees/services provided by this organization. The votes over
policy issues should be of public record and available publicly.

See Globnal Origanizational Thinking below for more detail.

--Technical Organization Issues

Technical issues were almost non-existant in this draft. For example,
it's pretty clear that BIND (the current resolver) has many many problems
associated within it. Problems of spoofing, of cache poisoning, and of
simply bugs within itself. To properly move the Internet into the next
level of operation, clearly some technical concerns of the way the name
and IP data is handled, stored, transferred and accepted (i.e., what
software to use) must be addressed/proposed. In other words, is BIND
really the proper software? Clearly, it will have to work for the moment,
but a new design may need to be considered. We have to remember that the
current BIND is only one means to an end. However, it is not the ONLY
means to that end.

Further, this new managerial organization should only manage authority
records pointing to the regional registries holding top level domains
(TLD). It should not directly manage any publicly used TLDs itself. Thus,
by taking this approach, the proposed organization will steer clear of
trademark issues if it is not authoritative for any domain (other than,
perhaps, its own private SLD or TLD). Thus, it will only run a root
server which holds SOA records pointing to authoritative top level
registries/name servers.

By handling only TLD pointer records, this will majorly reduce the
overhead of the data necessary to be kept up-to-date at this organization.
The regional registries will be responsible for maintaining proper data
for their TLD(s) and SLD(s).

Trademark issues could result over TLDs if the number of TLDs goes
unchecked. If they are limited (as is suggested by this document),
there's only a small chance that a trademark infringement will happen over
a TLD (such as .kleenex). Secondary Level Domains (SLDs) trademark
infringement issues will still be dealt with at the regional TLD registry
(which would be seperate from this proposed organization and will not
bear those costs).

Users will then submit SLD requests directly to the regional registries
under the TLD they wish. Only TLD registration requests would be
submitted to this new organization. Further, this would mean that each TLD
registry (rather than this new organization) would be responsible for
maintaining and updating their database of registered domains and
contacts.

The new organization will need to access and copy of all of the current
TLD information for archive purposes (in case of disaster). Again, this
organization should not be responsible for maintaining, storing or be
responsible for authoritiative querying of data under any TLD or SLD other
than any private domains it needs for day to day operation. The new
organization should not permanently maintain any current or future TLDs
which are to be utilized by the public at large. This also means, a
seperate organization or entity will be necessary to house the already
existing TLDs (.com, .edu, .org, .us, etc) currently under the entities
IANA and NSI. Otherwise, NSI and/or IANA could be left operational to
pick up these currently existing TLDs.

Should a TLD registry fail, the new proposed organization will need to be
prepared to temporarily house TLD until a new permanent home can be found.

--Global Organizational Thinking

One other issue that has been almost overlooked, the Internet has very
much become a global entity. Requiring the new organization to be housed
in the US, dealing with it from a US perspective and handling it from a US
perspective makes this document seem very much US-centric. If anything,
this proposed organization should be housed in a neutral territory, such
as a United Nations building. In fact, redundant organizations could be
set up under various UN buildings in various countries to prevent a single
point of failure in this system.

The new proposed organization put together will be of global importance.
Therefore, it should allow global feedback into how this 'new'
organization should be setup and run using membership input. Thus, this
draft should, at minimum, recognize the global significance of the
Internet and allow other countries ways to respond, comment and propose
their ideas on this document and the issues it contains. They also need
to have continued input into this new organization after it has been
established (through an active membership system).

I think we all need to remember, the Internet isn't just in the US.

Thank you for reading.

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("senator@hutchison.senate.gov")

###

From: steve <usdh@mail.ccnet.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/5/98 7:49pm
Subject: Federal Names/Numbering System (FNNS), a quasi-government standards coop for DNS Part I.

February 4, 1998

U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA/OIA, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington,
D.C. 20230, dns@ntia.doc.gov

In re: A PROPOSAL TO IMPROVE TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT OF INTERNET NAMES AND
ADDRESSES DISCUSSION DRAFT 1/30/98

Addendum 1 to the Comments of Stephen J. Page <usdh@mail.ccnet.com> F
510-484-0448

TITLE: A Historical and Practical Analysis to Guide the Implementation of
a Federal Names and Numbering System (FNNS), a quasi-governmental standards
cooperative for DNS.

Preface

The purpose of this analysis is to build a case for
institutionalizing the Constitutional principles of property ownership and
individual rights in the DNS, an important component to the development of
electronic commerce.

Introduction

Attempting to understand the actual implications of DNS Proposal on
commercial activity, the U.S. government will use of its power under the
laws of the U.S. to form a 'cooperative' organization which will serve as
an standards setting association. This body, yet to be created, will
hopefully facilitate the newly forming registry industry participants, NSI,
Core, and others ('pioneers') into a stable structure which will function
as the sole association of network operators and overseers ('cyber/real
space developers'), for the entire Internet.

The Need for Standards

The historical precedent for government intrusion into free markets
exists whenever there is a practical need for standardizing components in
order to positively affect economic inter-exchange relationships, resulting
in a more beneficial economy. The following standards-building processes
have occurred for the benefit of the U.S. and the global economy: 1)
governing principles (Constitutionally protected rights and freedoms), 2)
standard language (required for inter-communications and commerce) 3)
standard currency which was facilitated by the creation of the Federal
Reserve System, 4) standard communications (originally done by mail, then
telephone, now Internet) stimulated by DARPA funding, and 5) standard
commerce-navigating technology (protocols, like IP) so that evolving
technology (like browsers) would continue to be adopted by individuals,
creating a more interactive, less geographically-dependent system.

Of the standardized processes which have developed over time, all
have been evolved from the "bottom-up" by a self-organizing process, except
one.

First, the governing standard, the U.S. Constitutional framework,
created a law-based benevolent environment for individuals seeking freedom
from governmental intrusion, economic oppression and religious persecution.

Second, the language-standard evolved into English naturally from
the bottom-up, as a root of commerce because it was the common denominator
of all of the various branches of the global language tree which assembled
on the U.S. shores.

Next, the communications standard began as word of mouth, then
evolved to horse-transmitted letter, then wagon transmitted letter, then
telephone, and now by computer (Internet), by a process of being adopted by
more and more users over time.

Finally, browsers have become the navigational standard by a
process whereby they were developed at governmental expense for research
purposes, then given away, and quickly adopted, one person at a time.

The one exception to the "bottom up" process of creating a
standard, the currency standard, was facilitated by an action of the U.S.
government when it created the Federal Reserve System. So, the only
relevant model to the modern case of a standardizing body for DNS which we
can use to evaluate the Proposal of 1/30/98 is the Federal Reserve System.

Transitioning to a Commercial Registry Industry for "I"commerce

At this point in time in the process of ecommerce development,
based upon an analysis of relevant standards-creating history, in the
context of the evolution of a commercial system called the Commercial
Internet funded by DARPA in 1994, what is needed more than a system
insuring future operational cooperation of root servers (it is needed
though) is a Constitutionally-based Agreement authorizing IANA to allow
development of new "property" in the territorial frontiers of cyber space.
That Agreement has thus far not been provided in this DNS Proposal. This
is the key element missing from the Proposal. Without such authorization,
a dangerous precedent is being created.

One reason that it may not have been provided is that the present
monopoly enjoyed by NSI, which until recently worked closely with IANA to
build its monopoly and its economic valuation in the public (IPO)
marketplace, would be diluted by opening the territories to 'colonization'
by entrepreneurs and pioneers. However, it is exactly that process of
development of territories which creates real economic value, and pioneers
with a head start, like NSI, are in the best position to assist in the
maturation of the development process.

Transitioning NSI from a monopoly into a cooperating resource for
the development of new territories, will be one of the most valuable roles
that the U.S. government can play in the DNS process. The most important
role will be in creating a Territorial Agreement which allows for the
existence of both "public and private" lands, which represents the reality
of the Internet as a network of public and private networks.

Focusing on Individuals, the Engines of Ecommerce or "I"commerce

It is by the efforts of the pioneers who head off in a direction
called *the future* in search of creating a new life, where they become
planters of seeds, plowing new territory, from undeveloped earth filled
with potential and limited only by the imagination of entrepreneurs and
innovators, which creates the actual basis for all future commerce, real
space or cyber space.

This development process is in full swing each day in places like
Silicon Valley where new products and services are created every day, and
value is created for all workers, which in turn increases real property
value, which generates taxes, which pay for services. So, it is the
intellectual property creation process stimulated by the individual actions
of entrepreneurialism which is leading the creation of actual value and
wealth in the real U.S. economy. This fact is true of the emerging economy
called ecommerce.

The 1/30/98 Proposal should be viewed in light of these realities.
As a consequence, regulating and structuring the territorial development
process of cyber space colonization, up front, and allowing only 5
territories to be developed (TLDs) is not in the best interests of growing
a developing economic system like electronic commerce if one understands
that development involves facilitating incentives to stimulate individuals
to make investments in their individual futures.

Furthermore, mandating that all pioneers share in the development
process is exactly the same thing as mandating a centrally-controlled
economic system called communism (under the banner of "competition").
Mandating "scarcity" (5 TLDs) is a form of *artificial economics* which
destroys all incentives to innovate, create, or improve any territory,
cyber or real. It's philosphical basis is the communist theory of
penalizing individuality for the good of the "system" or in this case using
fear of decreased "stability" as a means of attempting to institutionalize
fairness by mandating "sharing" of TLD sales.

Mandating "sharing" of resources is a form of artificial economics
and its philosophical basis is rooted in socialism, as well. After 40
years of misguided policy, centrally controlled economies have fallen like
dominos, failing around the globe, because economies cannot be "managed
from the center" without hurting the individuals who are responsible for
the economic activity in the periphery of the "network". All economies,
like all communities are interconnected networks, woven one person at a
time. (Suggested reading: It Takes a Village.)

Artificially maintaining a limited supply of resources (scarcity)
in the case of DNS or any other resource, is an artificial situation
induced in most historical examples by those in power who feel the need to
control and regulate individual behavior, in the process subjugating the
self-interests of individuals. It is an ironic means of supposedly trying
to build a future form of economics by controlling the actual 'engines'
(people) which make economic growth happen. Therefore, inducing scarcity
and limiting choices in the provision of cyber space name services should
not be implemented as a form of institutionalized policy, if one wants to
avoid the harsh lessons taught by past experience where the tendency of
humans want to control the supply of resources.

Applying the Fed Model of a Banking-Web to the EMF-Energy-based Economy

The design of the Fed can be understood as being one of the first
economic "webs" to ever affect the U.S. economy. The web was spun out of
necessity, from the center out by a Spider-man-like process which affects
the global economy to this day.

If the Fed structure is truly a model for standardizing , then
institutionalizing an operating structure of the 12 root servers controlled
by IANA can function analogously as the newly repackaged 12 regional
Federal Reserve Bank-equivalents, the 12 FNNS Servers, which will be
operationally controlled by the FNNS "cooperative".

If the Fed's banking-web is a model for similar DNS-web or guiding
hand, then these 12 IANA-controlled root servers will provide authoritative
root service to the emerging industry called the registry industry which
will be comprised of free market registries and registrars. Just as the
Federal Reserve Banks serve their competitive "member banks" (in this case
the first Member Registry would be NSI) by providing the backing of the
U.S. Treasury, so would the FNNS serve its Member Registries.

Just as banks which are tied to the overall guidance principles of
the Federal Reserve System are allowed and encouraged to compete against
each other in the marketplace by varying their pricing of their fees and
their incentives (interest rates) to attract customers, so should
registries be allowed to compete in the marketplace of creating new
products (TLDs) which are ownable by them, which will allow the registry
entrepreneurs the ability to receive a return for their investments.

Attempting to project further forward into the details of the DNS
Proposal, the Board of Directors will serve similarly to the Federal
Reserve Board of Governors, appointed as a quasi-governmental but
independent body to manage the future activity of the online economy or
electronic commerce (ecommerce) as it develops.

A critically important issue, though, will be to temper the
governmental bureaucratic instinct to want to centralize rules which
results in stifled innovation at the network periphery where the engines of
commerce (individuals) function with their own self-interest incentives to
pursue financial freedom, security, in the pursuit of happiness.

Transitioning to a Commercial Registry Industry for "I"commerce

At this point in time in the process of ecommerce development,
based upon an analysis of relevant standards-creating history, in the
context of the evolution of a commercial system called the Commercial
Internet funded by DARPA in 1994, what is needed more than a system
insuring future operational cooperation of root servers (it is needed
though) is a Constitutionally-based Agreement authorizing IANA to allow
development of new "property" in the territorial frontiers of cyber space.
That Agreement has thus far not been provided in this DNS Proposal. This
is the key element missing from the Proposal. Without such authorization,
a dangerous precedent is being created.

One reason that it may not have been provided is that the present
monopoly enjoyed by NSI, which until recently worked closely with IANA to
build its monopoly and its economic valuation in the public (IPO)
marketplace, would be diluted by opening the territories to 'colonization'
by entrepreneurs and pioneers. However, it is exactly that process of
development of territories which creates real economic value, and pioneers
with a head start, like NSI, are in the best position to assist in the
maturation of the development process.

Transitioning NSI from a monopoly into a cooperating resource for
the development of new territories, will be one of the most valuable roles
that the U.S. government can play in the DNS process. The most important
role will be in creating a Territorial Agreement which allows for the
existence of both "public and private" lands, which represents the reality
of the Internet as a network of public and private networks.

End Part I

###

From: steve <usdh@mail.ccnet.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/5/98 7:49pm
Subject: Federal Names/Numbering System (FNNS), a quasi-government standards coop for DNS Part II.

Continued from Part I

Focusing on Individuals, the Engines of Ecommerce or "I"commerce

It is by the efforts of the pioneers who head off in a direction
called *the future* in search of creating a new life, where they become
planters of seeds, plowing new territory, from undeveloped earth filled
with potential and limited only by the imagination of entrepreneurs and
innovators, which creates the actual basis for all future commerce, real
space or cyber space.

This development process is in full swing each day in places like
Silicon Valley where new products and services are created every day, and
value is created for all workers, which in turn increases real property
value, which generates taxes, which pay for services. So, it is the
intellectual property creation process stimulated by the individual actions
of entrepreneurialism which is leading the creation of actual value and
wealth in the real U.S. economy. This fact is true of the emerging economy
called ecommerce.

The 1/30/98 Proposal should be viewed in light of these realities.
As a consequence, regulating and structuring the territorial development
process of cyber space colonization, up front, and allowing only 5
territories to be developed (TLDs) is not in the best interests of growing
a developing economic system like electronic commerce if one understands
that development involves facilitating incentives to stimulate individuals
to make investments in their individual futures.

Furthermore, mandating that all pioneers share in the development
process is exactly the same thing as mandating a centrally-controlled
economic system called communism (under the banner of "competition").
Mandating "scarcity" (5 TLDs) is a form of *artificial economics* which
destroys all incentives to innovate, create, or improve any territory,
cyber or real. It's philosphical basis is the communist theory of
penalizing individuality for the good of the "system" or in this case using
fear of decreased "stability" as a means of attempting to institutionalize
fairness by mandating "sharing" of TLD sales.

Mandating "sharing" of resources is a form of artificial economics
and its philosophical basis is rooted in socialism, as well. After 40
years of misguided policy, centrally controlled economies have fallen like
dominos, failing around the globe, because economies cannot be "managed
from the center" without hurting the individuals who are responsible for
the economic activity in the periphery of the "network". All economies,
like all communities are interconnected networks, woven one person at a
time. (Suggested reading: It Takes a Village.)

Artificially maintaining a limited supply of resources (scarcity)
in the case of DNS or any other resource, is an artificial situation
induced in most historical examples by those in power who feel the need to
control and regulate individual behavior, in the process subjugating the
self-interests of individuals. It is an ironic means of supposedly trying
to build a future form of economics by controlling the actual 'engines'
(people) which make economic growth happen. Therefore, inducing scarcity
and limiting choices in the provision of cyber space name services should
not be implemented as a form of institutionalized policy, if one wants to
avoid the harsh lessons taught by past experience where the tendency of
humans want to control the supply of resources.

Applying the Fed Model of a Banking-Web to the EMF-Energy-based Economy

The design of the Fed can be understood as being one of the first
economic "webs" to ever affect the U.S. economy. The web was spun out of
necessity, from the center out by a Spider-man-like process which affects
the global economy to this day.

If the Fed structure is truly a model for standardizing , then
institutionalizing an operating structure of the 12 root servers controlled
by IANA can function analogously as the newly repackaged 12 regional
Federal Reserve Bank-equivalents, the 12 FNNS Servers, which will be
operationally controlled by the FNNS "cooperative".

If the Fed's banking-web is a model for similar DNS-web or guiding
hand, then these 12 IANA-controlled root servers will provide authoritative
root service to the emerging industry called the registry industry which
will be comprised of free market registries and registrars. Just as the
Federal Reserve Banks serve their competitive "member banks" (in this case
the first Member Registry would be NSI) by providing the backing of the
U.S. Treasury, so would the FNNS serve its Member Registries.

Just as banks which are tied to the overall guidance principles of
the Federal Reserve System are allowed and encouraged to compete against
each other in the marketplace by varying their pricing of their fees and
their incentives (interest rates) to attract customers, so should
registries be allowed to compete in the marketplace of creating new
products (TLDs) which are ownable by them, which will allow the registry
entrepreneurs the ability to receive a return for their investments.

Attempting to project further forward into the details of the DNS
Proposal, the Board of Directors will serve similarly to the Federal
Reserve Board of Governors, appointed as a quasi-governmental but
independent body to manage the future activity of the online economy or
electronic commerce (ecommerce) as it develops.

A critically important issue, though, will be to temper the
governmental bureaucratic instinct to want to centralize rules which
results in stifled innovation at the network periphery where the engines of
commerce (individuals) function with their own self-interest incentives to
pursue financial freedom, security, in the pursuit of happiness.

Consumers Value Choices

Balancing the need for a central guiding hand, with the reality of
the Internet being a decentralized network of public and private networks
is also critical. If the FNNS is to follow the lead principles of U.S.
governance whose framework itself repects the rights of property ownership
and freedoms for individuals, the FNNS should provide for the inclusion of
alternative economic models, besides the shared registry model.

The logic goes back to the Fed's banking activities. Implementing
only the proposed shared registries would be equivalent of the Federal
Reserve mandating that there only be one bankcard network, for instance a
VISA-only bankcard association. This institutionalized monopoly would
leave no room for a corresponding Mastercard (another competing
association), or even a Discover Card (privately owned). The lack of
choice would hurt consumers.

Even with 2 competing bankcard associations, the practices of the
banking associations have been recently scrutinized for antitrust
violation, so institutionalizing economic structures should be avoided.

Competing associations can cooperate to create standards. The
banking associations' efforts have led to standards which are instrumental
in providing decentralized commercial activity for consumers which is
fundamental to economic activity worldwide. ISO standards for width of
magnetic stripes, card size, and numbering have enabled the credit and
debit industries to flourish. The Secure Electronic Transaction-SET
standard has been created to enable the same evolutionary process to occur
for electronic commerce. It is the administrative cooperation of banks,
facilitated by the standards set by the competing associations, which
enable both competing associations to cooperate administratively, while
competing in the marketplace and providing diversity and choices to
consumers.

As the role of banking in the development of commerce has shown,
standards bodies built the foundation upon which all marketplace
competition has flourished. The concept of choice has been critical for the
adoption of credit and debit market offerings by the consumers. Bank
competitors have numbered in thousands and have served markets, big and
small. If the number of banks were limited in number to 5, as the Proposal
has suggested, the development of the banking marketplace, and therefore
commerce would have been slowed to a crawl. We would be living in a much
more primitive world today. One need not be an antitrust expert to
recognize that the centralization of power wielded by a Federal Reserve
System to mandate one form of economic enterprise, as the expense of
choice, would be damaging to consumers.

The FNNS as a Master Community Commerce Development Mapper

Applying the metaphor of real space territory (real estate)
management and cyber space territory management, we can look at the
community of online individuals as being a geographically independent space
with a virtually limitless set of roads and streets (TLDs) which can be
created, called the Internet=Universal Set. There is an unlimited number
of addresses (SLDs), a subset of the Internet=Universal Set which can
useful by inhabitants of this territory to locate themselves, or locate
others.

In that context, some questions should be asked as we evaluate the
Proposal.

Does the U.S. government still respect the rights of people to
locate themselves in this cyber space, as the territory becomes populated?
If yes, an acceptable DNS Proposal will have a certain appearance, one of
vibrant entrepreneurialism and self-organization. If no, then it will have
a very different appearance, one of limited freedom, central control, and
no respect for individual rights to own property or little freedom to
associate with others where others choose.

Based upon the present DNS Proposal, one would conclude that no
individual will have the right to set up a home or business on a road or
street of their choosing where they would invite neighbors to live nearby.
That less-than-free system has little in common with the legacy of
territorial development enabled by the U.S. Constitution as the U.S.
territories were settled. Doesn't this matter? Sure it does.

Vibrant entrepreneurialism and self-organizing commerce, and a
governance system called a representative democracy, are at the core of the
U.S. economy, a model system comprised of the aggregated energy of
individuals attracted from all over the world who seek to become members or
citizens, or merely to participate freely and freely pursue happiness.

At this point, what appearance does the initial DNS Proposal of
1/30/98, despite its use of specific language implying competition,
resemble? It resembles a future system where people are told where they
can reside, locate and address themselves, with no opportunity for pursuing
either a return on investment or self interest (happiness). It resembles
a system where people are told that they must share with others. It
provides for a mechanism where the state (IANA) is going to determine the
winners and the losers under the banner of "stability" otherwise, the
freedom-loving pioneers "will be disappointed". That system may
still exist in the physical world today in certain regions of China, but it
has been banished from the majority of the world as a failed experiment
called communism. This is an understandable oversight probably caused by
the need for expedience driven by the September, 1998 deadline.

As a more exclusive than inclusive 'closed' system, the proposed
cooperative's Board of Directors would be appointed from within a "party"
of insiders at the center of the network, created, guided and managed by
the U.S. government. Since the proposed economic structure has been shown
(above) to be rooted in the communist theory of sharing resources, a
governing structure which supports such a theory would be something in the
mold of a socialist governing structure. This should be avoided because
that is not a model which will have beneficial effects on developing a
growing ecommerce market.

We need only ask, what would the world look like today if the
Federal Reserve System mandated that all banks must share in the sale of a
generic product? No banks would invest in research or development because
no investment in innovations would be rewarded. No real competition would
exist, although the word "competition" may still be used when describing
the lucky few banks chosen to provide the artificially scarce commodities
in the controlled marketplace. Interest rates, set by the Fed, would be
priced so that all banks could make a profit...initially. However, if
banks were to truly compete, they would only be able to compete on price,
which would drop prices to the point where only the large banks would be
able to survive. The smaller bank would wither and die.

This exact same scenario will play out if the Registry Industry is
controlled in a manner described by the Proposal. The FNNS would mandate
the sale of generic products, with no opportunity for private ownership, or
diversity. So called "competitive" registries will sell addresses, at
different prices initally, until one person sets up a web page to aggregate
all of the registry locations on one page. Once that is done, the only
thing that matters is price, and as the large pioneer (like NSI) are able
to drop prices, the small pioneer is forced out of business. Mandating
genericness of any product is the equivalent to institutionalizing
commoditization. In the short term, the consumer will get lower prices,
and the monopolist will maintain the monopoly. In the long term, as more
generic TLDs are introduced in a graduated and controlled manner, the
commoditization process will repeat itself all over again. The monopolist
wins, and the small pioneers lose.

Summary

As anyone familiar with modern retail consumer buying behavior
understands, if one is not careful, both the economic and political aspects
of this proposal would violate the truth which exists in any marketplace
which all self-organizing systems exhibit: that change occurs from the
small to the large, not the other way around.

If it were allowed to be implemented tomorrow, the 1/30/98 Proposal
would institutionalize a discredited form of governance and economics, as a
future foundation for all electronic commerce, the seedling registry
industry. Since all value-creating activity takes place at the periphery
or cellular level of distributed networks, one must, above all respect the
individual's right to enter a market, to innovate, and compete.

It is indeed ironic this initial Proposal comes from within a
department of the benevolent U.S. government, which was specifically built
upon a foundation of respect for property rights and individual freedoms by
a small group of self-organizing pioneers (the Constitutional Framers). It
is interesting that its substance has been crafted without a specific call
for input from all of the pioneers who have been paving streets, building
roads, and setting up small businesses to serve others who want to settle
in the cyber territories.

It will be an excellent lesson for all future generations of
internetworked individuals to learn how destructive a self-serving,
centrally-controlled process can be when its efforts are aimed at affecting
decentralized and self-organizing network. The IANA-led IAHC process has
been recognized to be a failed effort to circumvent the chain of
responsibility which flows from the U.S. Constitution which protects the
individual rights and freedoms of all citizens under U.S. law.

The result of the IAHC process created an artificial
institutionalization of scarcity by limiting the supply of a necessary
expansion of language elements applied to the DNS (TLDs). The DNS and TLDs
will affect all future commercial behavior into the future, so that is not
a step to be taken without oversight, including checks and balances.

As participants in a egalitarian network which requires only a few
basic tools to participate, we need to ask ourselves, "In whose interest is
it to support a system which implements economic scarcity and exclusivity,
in law? Could those who hold the power be seeking to institutionalize and
centralize their controls?" We can only speculate, and may never know, but
we should be vigilant about anything which professes to limit the process
of self-organizing activity.

Since some parts of human nature are selfish, while other parts of
human nature can be selfless, it is time to institutionalize a selfless
guiding hand so that economic behavior (self-interest) can flourish.

It would seem that attention should be paid to the *essence* of
what is being created as an institution of law, for our future. We should
examine the purpose of anything which is Proposed for the "common good".
The common good is really what is good for any single individual, and the
Constitution crafted a framework for understanding that 200 years ago.

Now, it is our job to craft a long term vision for a future which
respects the intellectual property of individuals to actively participate
in the creation of value, while serving other settlers. As the community
called the Internet evolves forward from a "command and control" system at
the "top" to a self-organizing "bottom-up" system, and the protocols evolve
from IPv4 to IPv6 and beyond, it will be necessary to spread out the
governance of the Internet to the periphery of the network as it becomes
more and more valuable.

Without building in an inclusion mechanism for representing
stakeholders, the concentration of decision-making power will be too great
for a small group of self-interested parties to effectively handle. As the
world's people have learned over many centuries, stable operational and
economic designs will only exist for the long term within a framework of
incentives balanced in law. The best example of such a framework is the
Constitutional framework of the U.S. and the Bill of Rights. All DNS
operational details must flow from that source. It is our collective
responsibility to future generations to insure that their rights and
freedoms are protected.

(c) Copyright, 1998. Stephen J.Page. All Rights Reserved. Excerpted from
a forthcoming book, "How the World of DNS Works".

Qualifications of the Commentator:

Founding member, attendee, and signer eDNS Charter Meeting, March
4, 1997, Atlanta, Georgia. Operator of Internet .A*-.Z* Name Registry, a
Pleasanton, California domain-name registry for .a-z* , a global Top Level
Domain (TLD), and single-digit domain-names (.A* thru .Z*),
(www.a-z-registry.com) as well as Dot Registry, Inc., a Root Server
Confederation (RSC) serving competitive TLDs including .A-.Z TLDs, non-stop
since March/April 1997, until Alternic founder's problems with the U.S.
government began.

Prior to that, Principal Investigator of a Network Architecture
project grant funded in 1994 by the Department of Defense' Advanced
Research Projects Agency, (DARPA), faciliated by Smart Valley, a network of
Joint Venture Silicon Valley, San Jose, California, sponsor of CommerceNet,
the DARPA-funded project for stimulating commercialization of the Internet
(referenced below).

Began tracking commercialization of DNS when IANA (Jon Postel's)
draft plans were released October, 1996. Submitted Draft-IAHC-SJPAGE-001
in January 1997 in response to IANA's request for comments. When IANA
created the IAHC process, an apparent international monopoly supported by
the ITU, he recognized in February 1997 that eDNS represented the only true
inclusive system for adding TLDs to the DNS root in existence. So, he
attended its first and only meeting of eDNS in Atlanta, Georgia. At this
meeting, he was instrumental in eliminating the pre-meeting 3-13 character
limitation for eDNS-compliant TLDs, as well as unlocking the potential
value of the single-digit level (previously unused) as a meaningful
sequence of SLD/TLD combinations. He submitted to NTIA's August 18, 1997
request for comments a BRIEF entitled: DNS, Language, and the Constitution.

His specific focus has been on network architecture and design of
useful telecommunications data networks, with an emphasis on the role of
adaptive learning by human (biological) network architectures and the
resulting impacts on the future of telecommunications and economics, the
subject of electronic commerce.

He possesses Bachelor of Science degrees in Combined Sciences
(physical, biological, and social sciences), and Physiological Optics and
Optometry (the study of how human beings' brains process light energy), 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.

End Part II

###

From: "Dermot O'Brien" <dermot@iceltic.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/5/98 8:25pm
Subject: Green Paper Comments

Dear Mr. Magaziner and Ms. Burr

In response to your request for comments on your Domain Name green paper here are my thoughts:

Your proposal favors Network Solutions and in the medium term provides them with new competitive advantages. Network Solutions will now move to consolidate .com as the premium tld brand, so as to control internet consumer's mindspace. They will have a constant flow of repeat registrations for .com and since they will continue to own the registry they will have no incentive to lower the price for .com. However, in the short term it will appear to the consumer that they have dropped their price by roughly a third, since the US Government will no longer attempt to tax .com.

Secondly, they are free to choose how to market .net. - perhaps they will use it as a loss leader to thwart other registries efforts to introduce the competition everyone seeks. Only 100,000 second level domains have been registered in .net, to date. It is estimated that it costs Internic $2 to register a new tld. Hence you have given them every incentive to dramatically drop the price for .net and maintain .com as their premium line.

Network Solutions predicted your new proposal some time ago. The introduction of their new Worldnic Registrar service at the beginning of January cannot be a coincidence. How did Internic know that you would propose to divide the registry/registrar functions?

Your paper also reduces the incentive to introduce tlds for non commercial purposes such as the arts and personal nomenclature. If Core are only allowed to introduce one new tld they will most likely pick a tld that has immediate commercial value such as .firm. Even if you were willing to allow Core to administer 3 tlds they would most likely choose .firm, .shop and .web. Businesses will be willing to pay $25 to $50 per annum for these domains and hence it will make it viable for Core or any new registry to register these tlds. However, it is probable that groups involved in the arts or individuals who would like to have their own internationally recognized personal family name domain/email address will not be so lucky. Potential registries will likely see the introduction of an ".arts" or ".nom" type tld as not being viable because the price elasticity of these target markets will be weaker than it is for the multitude of companies that were unable to register their company name in .com or .net. One of the roles a government should play is to provide a voice for everyone and not just the corporations

.gov .and .mil should be removed from the root servers. They should be replaced by .gov.us and .mil.us. American military personnel and government officials have no right to assume that their domain/email identity should have a higher DNS status than the other governments and armies in the world. Jerry Yang of Yahoo says that one should "never underestimate the Internet. Manipulate it. Respect it. But don*t try to dominate it" The internet is bigger than any government or any army.

Dermot O'Brien
dermot@iceltic.com
iCeltic Inc. 2124 Broadway, Suite 258, New York, NY 10023
Tel: (212) 580-6092 Fax: (212) 580-6094

###

From: steve <usdh@mail.ccnet.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/5/98 10:33pm
Subject: A Secure Method for Transitioning Root Server Management

February 5, 1998

U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA/OIA, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington,
D.C. 20230, dns@ntia.doc.gov

In re: A PROPOSAL TO IMPROVE TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT OF INTERNET NAMES AND
ADDRESSES DISCUSSION DRAFT 1/30/98

Addendum 2 to the Comments of Stephen J. Page

TITLE: A Secure Method for Transitioning Root Server Management from the
IANA/NSI contract management system to the Federal Names & Numbers System
(FNNS)

Introduction:

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the operator of the
DoD-contracted IANA function, Mr. Jon Postel, independently caused the
rerouting of 8 of the 12 network computers to route themselves to an
alternate root server system instead of the "root server A" which is run by
Network Solutions, under another contract with the National Science
Foundation.

Centralized Power Personified: Jon Postel and the Need for Decentralizing
IANA Now

A questionable incedent involving a global communications network
managed by one person, illustrates graphically the potential danger when
one person, by himself, is handed a contract and the power to do as he
wishes, with no accountability under U.S. law.

Whether this was a calculated effort by the man who stands to lose
much of his authority and power as the U.S. government begins to assert a
guiding hand over IANA's function, or whether it was merely a technical
test to demonstrate that "root server A" functions can be taken over by
IANA when NSI's contract expires, does not matter. What does matter is the
example of how risky it is to place too much power in the hands of one
single individual.

I had spoken to Mr. Postel on the phone several times in 1996 at
around the time that he was preparing the principles for expanding the
number of TLDs which would help users route themselves throughout cyber
space. He was very cordial, informative, and precise in his use of
language. What most impressed me was his willingness to pick up a
telephone cold-call from someone he had never met and did not know.

In this light, as I read the WSJ story, what strikes me are two
things. First, this was a man who sounded very sincere and very
trustworthy in his belief that the number of TLDs needed to be expanded.
However, as I've watched the process of supposed-consensus from the
"community" be led away from a focus on the services and usefulness of the
DNS directory system for benefitting individual users, instead focusing on
power, money, and control, I am forced to question the judgement of the
person at the center of the entire controversial past year.

Before questioning the person, it is ironic that the IANA contract
is a Dept. of Defense contract, an branch of government where the security
of the nation and its citizens is paramount. One would think that the DoD
would be applying a bit more of its "command and control" over its
contractee. Apparently not.

It is this apparent lack of controls which gives the person
actually in control the apparent freedom to do as he pleases, all with
presumed good intentions, for the benefit of the community. Should this
relationship be allowed to continue? No, effective immediately.

On behalf of the Citizens of the United States, whose futures are
insured by the checks and balances formally recognized in the Constitution,
I call upon the President's designated representative Mr. Ira Magaziner, to
appoint somebody, either 1 person or a small oversight advisory with an
interest or knowledge of the broad issues at stake in this process, to
provide immediate oversight of IANA.

Is that going to happen? Probably not. Should it happen? It
should have happened long ago, but through the process of dilution of
responsibility which takes place in bureacratic structures, Mr. Postel has
been able to function as the "king of the DNS".

To Whom Does IANA Turn?

Apparently, there is no formal oversight body to whom Mr. Postel
can turn when he wants to gain some feedback about how or when he should
"test" the system for the day when the transition to an NSI-less "root
server system" will begin. That's Problem #1.

No less important is the insistence of Mr. Postel that the problem
is merely a technical one. It is not merely a technical problem. It
raises the issue of "risks". Risk is an important aspect of any new
industry because multi-millions of dollars of investments are being made by
millions of people in the system known as the Internet, which is evolving
as a future economic conduit for electronic commerce.

When a network of public and private distributed networks has
become so large and decentralized as the Internet has, the issue raised by
the mere *hint* of instability can cause the very *potential* loss of
investments, no matter how unlikely or improbable, to be perceived as a
catastrophy waiting to happen. When Mr. Postel erred in his judgement to
unilaterally act and "test" the system, he exposed the risk of one-person
rule over DNS.

If Mr. Postel does not understand risk analysis, where individuals
and companies make decisions based upon assumptions of stability and future
value, and where financial markets create large valuations for many
companies in emerging industries, only to punish them if they do not live
up to the "Street's" expectations, and apparently he does not understand
it, then an oversight body needs to be named immediately, to stabilize the
smooth transition envisioned in the 1/30/98 DNS Proposal.

Where's DARPA, the Funders of a Commercial Internet, in the Mess?

As the commercialization stimulator of a commercial Internet, the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) got the "commercial
Internet" ball rolling in 1994 by funding CommerceNet.

Since DARPA played an active role in commercializing the Internet,
and since DARPA has apparently played a role in contracting with IANA, why
is it that DARPA has stimulated commercial activity in one direction, while
ignoring responsibility in another (IANA)? The answer remains unclear.

Let's Pretend DARPA's Interested in Solving the DNS Problem

If DARPA were involved in trying to transition IANA from a "command
and controlled" activity into a commercial activity, like they did with
CommerceNet back in 1994, what would they do?

Having witnessed the DARPA-funding process up-close and personal
back in 1993, if they were involved today in solving the DNS problem they
would have applied a specific method to the problem using a "bottom-up" or
self-organizing method.

The first step would be a Request for Proposal. (Sorry, we don't
have two years, because that's how long the DARPA-process takes.)

Thousands of proposals would be submitted, then by a review
process, a panel of experts in commercialization processes would choose the
best 10 proposals, and would provide those who demonstrated specific
solutions the money to a) research and develop, b) prototype, c) test, and
d) commercialize. It's a simple, but effective formula.

The submissions chosen for demonstrating potential solutions would
have had to demonstrate the following:

1) thorough understanding of the problem 2) uniqueness of design,
3) innovative thinking and problem solving 4) previous investment in
developing a solution 5) a management core, 6) a strategy and a timetable
for carrying it out, 7) a commercialization strategy.

The Reality: a Need to Leverage Knowledge, Understanding and Experience

With no DARPA present, and not enough time to sift through the
self-organizing process, there's a screaming need to leverage the knowledge
and understanding of people who have been through the process of developing
new and innovative ideas for solving problems relating to the transition
from a governmentally controlled technology network, to a market-controlled
network.

Transitioning to market controls requires a marketing perspective
and the ability to understand the technological issues. It does not
require a degree in computer programming or engineering. The past problems
associated with the IANA-IAHC process are directly related to the
exclusiveness and self-appointing of a heavily technically focused group of
people, with little of no understanding or appreciation of markets,
commercialization, or consumer understanding. It is this insulated
perspective, I am afraid, which leads to Mr. Postel's failure to see that
his "technical problem" is really a "market perception" problem built
around a governance void. Everyone involved is scrambling to fill the
void.

The Vision Void: the Fog of the DNS War

There is presently no unifying vision for DNS as a commercial
activity, although one exists. Only time, knowledge, understanding, and
the wisdom of an objective and emotion-free analysis will allow it to
permeate our collective consciousness.

Until that happens, the fog of the DNS wars have clouded the vision
of those who have entered the fray late, who try to understand the
battlefield. The war is between those who see the past as the way to the
future, and those who are moving from the past away from it. Those
pioneers who fight the battles know what it is about.

To what "vision" are Mr. Postel's interests tied? Clearly, his job
for many years has been as the DNS king. Do king's ever give up their
power? Not often. Is Mr. Postel looking like he is going to give up his
throne? Everything he has done (not said, but done) has been to build an
insular layer of allies around him through a mythological process called
"consensus-building", done in the name of the vague notion called a
"community".

The problem with the centralizing approach is that the community is
now an *economy*, which means that there are many self-interested
constituencies, so a consensus is not longer realistic. It is the
recognition of the transformation of the Internet to an economy that fueled
DARPA (then ARPA) to fund the creation of a decentralized commercial
Internet space.

As Mr. Postel's insular crowd defend the concerns of the market and
dismiss them as paranoia, it further reinforces how little understanding or
respect the "center" of the network has for the periphery of the network
(the individual pioneers in the process of commercialization). That's
unfortunate, because the center only exists to serve the individual
browser-navigating individual looking to find what they need to find in
order to do what they want to do.

(c) Copyright, 1998. Stephen J.Page. All Rights Reserved. Excerpted from
a forthcoming book, "How the World of DNS Works".

Qualifications of the Commentator:

Founding member, attendee, and signer eDNS Charter Meeting, March
4, 1997, Atlanta, Georgia. Operator of Internet .A*-.Z* Name Registry, a
Pleasanton, California domain-name registry for .a-z* , a global Top Level
Domain (TLD), and single-digit domain-names (.A* thru .Z*),
(www.a-z-registry.com) as well as Dot Registry, Inc., a Root Server
Confederation (RSC) serving competitive TLDs including .A-.Z TLDs, non-stop
since March/April 1997, until Alternic founder's problems with the U.S.
government began.

Prior to that, Principal Investigator of a Network Architecture
project grant funded in 1994 by the Department of Defense' Advanced
Research Projects Agency, (DARPA), faciliated by Smart Valley, a network of
Joint Venture Silicon Valley, San Jose, California, sponsor of CommerceNet,
the DARPA-funded project for stimulating commercialization of the Internet
(referenced below).

Began tracking commercialization of DNS when IANA (Jon Postel's)
draft plans were released October, 1996. Submitted Draft-IAHC-SJPAGE-001
in January 1997 in response to IANA's request for comments. When IANA
created the IAHC process, an apparent international monopoly supported by
the ITU, he recognized in February 1997 that eDNS represented the only true
inclusive system for adding TLDs to the DNS root in existence. So, he
attended its first and only meeting of eDNS in Atlanta, Georgia. At this
meeting, he was instrumental in eliminating the pre-meeting 3-13 character
limitation for eDNS-compliant TLDs, as well as unlocking the potential
value of the single-digit level (previously unused) as a meaningful
sequence of SLD/TLD combinations. He submitted to NTIA's August 18, 1997
request for comments a BRIEF entitled: DNS, Language, and the Constitution.

His specific focus has been on network architecture and design of
useful telecommunications data networks, with an emphasis on the role of
adaptive learning by human (biological) network architectures and the
resulting impacts on the future of telecommunications and economics, the
subject of electronic commerce.

He possesses Bachelor of Science degrees in Combined Sciences
(physical, biological, and social sciences), and Physiological Optics and
Optometry (the study of how human beings' brains process light energy), 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.

###