From: "Timothy M. Denton" <tmdenton@magma.ca>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/6/98 4:39pm
Subject: Deadline for responses,DNS paper

Has a deadline been established for responding yet?

Timothy Denton, BA, BCL
Counsel to the Canadian Association of Internet Providers
37 Heney Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 5V6
phone 613-789-5397 - fax 613-789-5398
<http://www.canniff.com/tdenton>
tmdenton@magma.ca

###

From: steve <usdh@mail.ccnet.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/6/98 9:46pm
Subject: Seeing the Future with One Eye on the Past: a Vision for Illuminating the DNS World

Enlightened netizens and citizens,

Successful leaders, whether it be in war, in sports, or in
economics focus on inspiring others through their confidence, their
fearlessness, and their unwaivering vision of the world.

"...as with all great leaders and leading corporations, the best
participate in creating the future, making it happen sooner. In every
business, the key for the future happening today is for its management to
perceive the power of a different way of looking at the world..."
Stan Davis, Future Perfect

Leadership does not wait until solutions are suggested by others,
leadership knows how to proceed forward because of a keen level of
preparedness, knowledge, skill, and understanding. Leadership knows what is
right to do, and it knows why it is right to do it.

"New concepts for management are more likely to be accepted in new
businesses, run by new
leaders, who are building new organizations than they are to take hold in
established businesses,
with established organizations, and established people running them...those
who grasp the importance
of the shift will have a decided advantage in the future."
Stan Davis, Author, Future Perfect

Presenting the world with the right solution to a problem at the
right time is a skill that is more intuitively felt than learned, which can
result in a light that can be a beacon for which others can see the future
more clearly.

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

Stephen J. Page
Contact: email- usdh@mail.ccnet.com
T:510-454-8624 F: 510-484-0448

End-

###

From: steve <usdh@mail.ccnet.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/6/98 9:47pm
Subject: Proposal Introduction: The Domain Name System Cooperation Act of 1998

Proposal Title: The Domain Name System Cooperation Act of 1998
for building Private/Public Cooperation among Registries and Registrars

by Stephen J. Page, Consultant
Business, Government, and Industry Consulting
George C. Marshall Award Winner,
University of Santa Clara,1979
email: usdh@mail.ccnet.com
T:510-454-8624 F: 510-484-0448

Proposal: To introduce the Domain Name System Cooperation Act of 1998,
(like the Economic Cooperation Act, Title I of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1948), created to addresses the regulatory/free market needs of an
increasingly technologically complex economic system (electronic commerce),
inspired by a successful model which addressed the needs of post WWII
Europe, while emphasizing cooperation, and integrated
centralization/decentralization.

Introduction

Annotated Historical Summary of Marshall Plan (European Recovery Program)
*Through 1900s, Rep/Demos built economic coop partnerships w/ industry.
*Post-war Europe characterized: fatigue, pervasive sense of pessimism.
*Europe on the brink of economic tail-spin. It's clear, action was needed.
*Piecemeal approach did not work, so unification of Europe was next step.
*Solution: transcend individual boundaries and produce collective action.
*Market forces decline, led need for institutional coordination.
*Restoration of a balance of power would be the result which was sought.
*U.S. adjusted her government institutions, reflecting environmental change.
*Decision: long term national implications, a solution had to be supranational.
*Replace old European system with more viable system based on federalism.
*Plan: new partnerships between public and private leadership.
*Goal: all-European political/economic order of supranational coordination.
*Organized capitalism: economies of scale, coordination, and regulation.
*Technical cooperation and economic integration would be operational goals.
*Emphasis on self-regulation, but government had role to establish order.
*Collaborate with leaders, share info, mediate, and foster self-regulation.
*Market emphasis on productivity, efficiency, as engines for self-sufficiency.
*Until Plan could take effect, Marshall "Gap" interim aid program created.
*Europeans wanted individualism, nationalism, self-sufficiency, autonomy.
*Europeans wanted stable abundance, but two directions were incompatible.
*Marshall Plan: corrected the flaw of "multiplicity of economic sovereignties."
*Marshal Plan motive: privatism, but interlocking public/private entities.
*Needed: new, separate agency, cabinet-rank, access to President, advisory.
*Independent agency, with administrator, policy council, bipartisan board.*
*Flexible, it attracted private sector talent, for business-like program.
*Commitment to bring in "best brains" in business, agriculture, labor.
*The result: The Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, strong leadership.
*Incentives : to build cooperation and eliminate divisions of rival blocs.
*Emphasis placed in simplicity and standardization.
*Theory: benefits divided fairly among those responsible for creation of
it (all).

Annotated Relevance of the Marshall Plan to DNS Situation, 1998
*American attitude: widespread fatigue (DNS war) and sense of "need to act".
*Present DNS management structure in tail-spin: on man rule, factionalism,
risks...
*IANA-led consensus has not worked, so unification of DNS industry is needed.
*Solution: transcend individual interests and produce collective action.
*Absence of market forces to serve public, leads to need for coordination.
*Goal: establish balance power between central authority and stakeholders.
*Adjust and/or create institutions to reflect the changing environment.
*Long term economic implications at stake for Internet, so must be
supranational.
*Replace present system with system based on lawful mgt of common technology.
*New partnerships between public and private leadership are the key to Plan.
*Goal: supranational coordinating standardizing institution.
*Foundation: Organized capitalism: econ. of scale, coordin., and regulation.
*Technical cooperation and regional integration, emphasis on self-regulation,
*Emphasis on user productivity, efficiency, as engines to drive the "business".
*DNS needs self-sufficiency/autonomy (supported by a natural flow of resources).
*Executive office wants stable abundance; the directions are incompatible.
*DNS Coopeation: correct structural flaw of "multiplicity of sovereignties."
*FNNS motive: privatism commitment, interlocking public/private figures.
*Independent agency, with administrator, policy council, bipartisan board.
*Needed: new, separate agency, cabinet-rank, access to President, advisory.
*Flexibility, to attract private sector talent, for business-like program.
*Commitment to"best brains" in field of business, DNS, technology.
*The entire procedure will affect the economy of the United States and world.
*The result: The DNS Cooperation Act of 1992.
*Incentives : to build cooperation and eliminate divisions of rival blocs.
*Emphasis placed in simplicity and standardization.
*Theory: benefits divided fairly among those responsible for creation of it.

Annotated Benefits Summary of a Federal Naming and Numbering System (FNNS)
*The Fed model exists, it's been proven to work, it's not just an idea.
*The citizens of the United States and the Internet will have an advocate
for competitive, accessible, efficient, domain name service delivery.
*Decisions of great public interest and long term economic impact will be
politics-free.
*DNS laissez-faire is no longer an option, but freedom, property rights &
choice are desired.
*The Federal Reserve model provides the free market/regulatory mix needed
for the DNS.
*The Fed works well for banking, and today, registry service providers
function similarly to banks which service of their online accounts.
*The Fed's structure is above politics, keeping the long term interests of
the public first.
*The Fed controls reserves, lending, the economy, the fiscal well-being of
the public.
*The public and economy receive competitive registries providing efficient
service for both public and private networks.
*The intertwined public/private networks receive a unique public/private
control.
*FNNS will perform a necessary function of greasing the gears of the
ecommerce engine.
*FNNS will grease the gears of the public and private registry market system.
*The FNNS function will be critical to the nation's online economy and
well-being.
*Board of Governors will be appointed based on merit, knowledge, and expertise.
*Board of expert facilitators/coordinators will function to make rules and
standards.
*The FNNS function would be "orchestration, coordination, distribution, and
leadership."
*FNNS would modify behavior from the old "IANA" way, to the new less risky ways.
*Financial incentives would be used to modify behavior and serve
member/stockholders.
*Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of Treasury should be represented.
*FNNS creates mechanism to attract best/brightest minds to long term
service to the nation.
*The Domain Names System Cooperation Act of 1998 is what is needed at right
time.

(c) Copyright, 1998. Stephen J. Page. All Rights Reserved. Excerpted
from a forthcoming book entitled, "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.

Contact: email- usdh@mail.ccnet.com
T:510-454-8624 F: 510-484-0448

End-

###

From: steve <usdh@mail.ccnet.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/6/98 9:47pm
Subject: A Federal Naming Addressing and Numbering Plan for Implementing Stable Administration for the Domain Name System (DNS)

February 6, 1998

Congress of the United States & Executive Office of the President
c/o 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

Proposal of Stephen J. Page to NTIA, Dept. of Commerce, Congress &
President of U.S.:

TITLE: A Federal Naming Addressing and Numbering Plan for Implementing
Stable Administration
for the Domain Name System (DNS) in Support of the Proposed Domain Name
System Cooperation Act of 1998

Preface

As a pioneering citizen of the United States and "netizen" who is
intensely interested in the direction of his country, his country's
government, and his government's role in structuring economies for the
future, I would like to add a unique perspective to the present debate over
free-market regulation versus nationalization of our nation's health care.

Introduction

It is dangerous to compartmentalize problems like the DNS dilemma
with narrow labels. Using terms such as "technical" or "governance" and
applying them to the Domain Name System dilemma (or opportunity) misleads
people because it falsely leads them to conclude that the DNS is something
that they cannot understand, because they may not be "technical" or may not
be actively involved in "governing". Sure, there is a technical piece to
the issue, and there is a governance aspect to the issue, but they are not
the core issue itself.

When thinking about the DNS, another more accurate term should be
used..., "economic", because the DNS has more to do with communications
between individuals who, with the proper direction to other consumers or
suppliers, might actually become customers or trading partners.

Trading partners are the engines of commerce. So, the DNS dilemma
is all about "commerce", because commerce is all about one individual
representing themselves or another identifying, locating, communicating,
informing and educating, agreeing, and finally performing a business
transaction (the exchange of money), in exchange for goods and/or services.

The money or currency part of the complex set of activities called
"commerce" has already been standardized into recognizable form of "value"
or currency. This was accomplished when the Federal Reserve System was
created. Now, it is time to standardize pieces of a future system into a
system which can enable electronic commerce to happen, in the way that the
U.S. and world economies have been stimulated in the past.

Assumptions

1. Transforming the "controlled" DNS to a purely free market
solution is a leap which will only making the problem worse, because the
pendulum will be swinging too far too fast.

2. Everyone will have DNS name of some sort in the future, which
will be linked to a registry account with a registrar/registry service
provider, so the relationship with a registry and its domain name holder
will be similar to the relationship between a bank and its customer.

3. No single set of changes which can bring about a truly
satisfactory change until one recognizes the need for pioneering registry
service providers to buy into a program which provides them with a common
set of rules or standards for providing registry services, so that they are
free to compete. (They are a smart, head-strong bunch and confrontation
causes more problems.)

4. The interests of the American people, and for that matter all
people using the Internet medium to communicate, need to be protected.

5. Pioneering registries are too vested in the future to lead any
large-scaled transition from the past, themselves.

6. IANA, as root server administrator, is too vested in the past
and is not prepared to lead any sort of systemic improvement for the
future.

7. Micro-improvements to the past system (IANA) to the future
system (FNNS?), can be transitioned systematically through the facilitative
leadership of some other vehicle.

8. Traditional DNS administration is becoming too centralized, and
the alternatives too conflicted, to have any incentives to change and
cooperate, and they will never come up with a solution by themselves.

One Solution to Leadership & Implementation of Improvements

To solve the DNS dilemma will require a multi-faceted solution
implemented by a clustering of innovative and competitive registry
companies to bring decentralized governmental administration to the DNS.

To improve administration, one can simple faciliatate the grass
roots network of pioneers to cooperate with the existing registry service
providers, NSI and IANA. By offering the grass roots pioneers an
opportunity and the incentives to participate in a cooperative service
which links them electronically via dns servers to root server network
providers, the result will be an end-to-end linking of decentralized
electronic commerce customers to a governmentally-sponsored quasi-governing
corporate structure.

By this method, we can build de facto cooperation with the
inclusion of the innovated registry providers to facilitate a more
productive directory system, and a more efficient DNS experience for all
concerned parties.

First, the government needs to recognize that

1) the principles for a new DNS system already exist in the
Constitution of the U.S.

2) apply the principles to make new rules, which means make
difficult choices (individual privacy versus good of all, rationing versus
unlimited services, etc.)

3) influence the providers and the citizens as to the benefits a
new, improved system. (communications, marketing, education).

4) lead and build support and cooperation from the providers,
non-confrontationally 5) tie providers to some recognizable symbol or
logo of this new government system, which can be distributed to the various
levels of the marketplace so that education of stakeholders about the
benefits of this solution can be promoted by those which actively
participate this more improved system.

6) at the telecommunications level, connect the providers to their
payment "partners" via electronic, root services

7) lastly, institutionalize selflessness dedicated to the goal of
improvement for the greatest productivity, efficiency, and economic benefit
to all who use the system, because a more vibrant electronic commerce
economy be the result. How do we proceed?

The First Step

There are lessons to be learned from other periods of our nation's
history. Governmental involvement in the free market system is not a new
concept. Recognizing the critical nature of housing affordability to the
overall economy, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac) and
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) were created to be
corporate instruments of the federal government to affect the availability
of mortgages for the housing market in America.

Fannie Mae, although publicly held, is a Congressionally-chartered,
stock-holder-owned corporation, which earns fees in the mortgage market,
and is subject to Federal regulation. Five of its eighteen directors are
appointed by the President. Similarly, Freddie Mac, earns income from
fees, float, and interest.

Using the same logic, the increasingly critical nature of the DNS
and registry industry's in the growing percentage of GNP which electronic
commerce will comprise in the foreseeable future, makes it a candidate for
some sort of government-led, free-market instrument which can serve the
purpose of unifying registry providers around a more efficient payment and
transaction process helping people and companies in the process of
interactive, self-serving addressing (registration).

As party responsible for managing the largest registry of addresses
Network Solutions as well as the IANA, the U.S. government is in the
position to stimulate the new market. To build on its role, the government
would benefit the industry by leveraging resources which have already been
created specifically for managing the system (IANA) and moving it toward a
decentralized standardization body.

Unification of the industry under a set of rules or standards
should be focused on creating simplicity in the domain name system. To do
so, requires a look back to the principles and foundation of our Federal
Reserve System, which is a government-inspired instrument for influencing
the free market of capitalism worldwide.

The Federal Reserve System, or the "Fed", is the United States'
Central Bank, which regulates the flow of money and credit to promote
stability and growth. It also performs many service functions for
commercial banks, and the public. Its objectives are four:
1) high level of employment
2) stability in prices
3) economic growth
4) balance of international payments.

The analogy of an Central Registry for the emerging competitive
registry industry can perform the same exact function for the electronic
commerce segment of the global economy. A high level of employment of
knowledge workers, stable services and prices, ecommerce economic growth,
and balancing the exchange of international queries can result from a
Fed-like structure.

The Federal Reserve System has 12 Districts, and several important
parts: Member banks, Federal Reserve Banks, Board of Governors, Federal
Open Market Committee (FOMC), and the Federal Advisory Council. Each of
these have an analogous role to play in the administering the DNS for the
future.

Similarly, the DNS has 12 Root Servers, each which can analogously
function as the supporting "root" of a growing number of electronic
commercial districts as well under the FNNS. These root servers will serve
the competitive "Member Registries" (private) and the FNNS Registries
(public). The Board of Directors will serve as the Board of Governors. A
FNNS FOMC can perform similar services when needed, and the FNNS Advisory
Council perform similar services, as well.

Since a Federal Reserve Bank is a Congressionally-chartered bank to
operate in the public interest, the FNNS Registry can be a federally
chartered registry to operate in the interest and benefit of the Internet
users.

At the present level of banking industry maturity, there are 12
regional FRBs with a total of 24 branches. It is very decentralized, and a
model to follow. The FRB corporate structures are similar to commercial
banks. All have stock, directors, elect officers, and obtain earnings from
interest. However, there are three differences. Stock ownership does not
bring full privileges. FR Banks are not profit-motivated. There are
expenses, and dividends are paid, but most revenue is turned over to the
Treasury. Third, if banks are liquidated, the government receives any
assets after the stock is paid off at par. There are three classes of
directors, each with three directors. Class A directors are bankers, Class
B directors are from agriculture, business, or commerce, and Class C may
not be bankers.

Such a structure seems ideally suited for the management and
administration of the generic Top Level Domains which are truly operated in
the public interest. Such TLDs would ideally be .EDU, .MIL, and .GOV.

The Federal Reserve Communications System (FRCS) is the electronic
means of transferring funds among the Federal Reserve Banks and their
members, each of which are equipped with terminals connected through a
switching network. The difference between funds received and funds paid is
called the float.

Similarly, the Federal Names and Numbers Communications System
(FNNCS) can be the means of transferring directory data among the FNNS
Registries.

The Board of Governors is a governmental agency consisting of seven
members appointed for 14 year terms by the president, with the advice and
consent of the Senate. They supervise the operations of the Federal
Reserve System. In general the Board is largely responsible for
representing the System in relations with the federal government; it has
full authority over reserve requirements, limits set by Congress,
establishes rates of interest, determines discount rates, and its approval
is necessary for appointing presidents and first vice-presidents at each
Reserve Bank, after they have been elected by the board of directors of
each bank, and it appoints three of the nine directors of each bank.

Similarly, the FNNS Cooperative Board of Governors can function in
exactly the same manner.

The lessons to be learned from the Federal Reserve Bank are that
the government has a system set up which organizes banks in a structure of
cooperation and joint ownership, while influencing the marketplace to
achieve laudible ends of full employment, stability, growth, and balance.
The structure, set up as a network of stock corporations linked to a
central switching network for electronic transfer of payments, overseen by
a Congressionally approved Board of Governors, is a nice model upon which
the present DNS industry can build upon, and upon which the plan being
presented in this paper is loosely based.

The Proposal

We propose a Federal Names and Numbering System, FNNS, or Federal
Names and Addressing System, FNAS, which recognizes that the existence of
pioneering registries have a place in the emerging registry marketplace
just as the monopoly registries have. They have been actively investing to
function as "registries" and serve customer accounts, just as banks serve
customers today.

The four principles upon which this Proposal should be based are 1)
domain names for all Americans and netizens 2) 100% automation of all
registries resulting in improved efficency and productivity through reduced
paper submission registry information, in the model of the HCFA, National
Standard Format for electronic claims submission (this standard format can
be the format used by NSI in running Internic 3) financial partnership with
all registries 4) stability of prices and growth in expenses.

The Fundamentals

Four specific areas of need are required to accomplish the goal of
simplifying the registry system. 1) the registries need to be provided
with registry standards for automation registration 2) registry software
will add value to the marketplace 3) the mechanism (Internet) exists to
distribute the services nationally 4) the value of the system must be
conveyed to each level of the delivery chain, from registry to registrar to
individual browser navigator.

The Specific Program

The easiest way to build registry acceptance is to be inclusive of
all pioneering registries and lower the barriers of entry. By saying the
equivalent of "the government is going to do this one way or the other, you
can be a victim, or you can participate in creating a program in which you
will be a cooperative partner", the industry will self-organize.

The way to proceed is to build, in the same manner as building the
Reserve Banks, a stock corporation owned, either in part, or in whole, by
the registries. Regional Federal Registry Corporations, decentralized
cooperatives similar to the centralized cooperative, can be set up with the
same sort of rules as the Reserve Banks, and they will all be tied into a
service Congressionally-sponsored cluster of service companies, whose
corporate charter will be satisfy the four specific areas outlined above,
namely to automate all registries, and provide the stable electronic
switching services for all DNS names and IP numbers, and other services,
for a fee, a portion of which will be rebated to the stock-holders, and a
portion of which will be returned to the Treasury. Also, to distribute the
services nationally and communicate the benefits of this simpler system.

The FNNS Registry Service Companies

A cluster of companies which serve the FNNS Registry Corporations
can be known as the FNNS Registry Service Companies. They will be geared
to three specific areas of need: 1) registry software for electronic
transactions 2) on-line database directory services 3) security services
and network development 4) network operations and maintenance. These can
be set up with the NSI's participation and stimulated by the value created
with NSI's system software which has been funded and paid for the the U.S.
taxpayer.

The Capital Paid-In

Registries can pay in and purchase shares in relation to a formula
established, based upon their estimated amount of investment capital.
Investment capital can be both intellectual capital, as well as financial
instruments. The amount of capital necessary for administration can be paid
to a holding company for the FNNS Registry Service Companies should be
approximately 25% of the total gross revenues billed through the FNNS
Registry Corporations, and a 30% cost of goods sold and a 20%
administrative fee. Assuming a 50/50 split between the Treasury and the
registries, each would realize a multi-million dollar yearly revenue. The
value of this industry would quickly become large.

Assuming 2 million DNS addresses in the U.S., a yearly fee of $50
per address with a fee there will be a percentage of revenue paid to the
FNNS Registry Corporation. Twenty-five percent of that fee will be
estimated to be charged by the FNNS Service Companies for developing and
enhancing new software additions. The new corporations will grow using the
future value attributed by the public markets. They can help justify
Network Solutions' continued stable valuation.

Summary

This long range plan for the registry industry will benefit the
registries, the taxpayer of the U.S., the Internet's stability, and the
consumer. It provides a timely answer to the DNS question, a very
important step toward building a future registry industry as a key
component of the electronic commerce economy "ecommerce".

Implementing a test program which includes both public and private
registries, would be a possible first step in an overall solution to the
DNS dilemma, using the Federal Reserve System as a model.

The analysis for this plan has been provided by Stephen J. Page for
enhancing the clarity of vision and the wisdom and understanding of all
stakeholders who have been participating in the shaping of the emerging
registry industry and configuring a solution which is as risk free and
acceptable as possible. It is an administrative plan which can add value
to the 1/30/98 Technical Proposal and is based on, what is believed to be,
a simple and effective solution to the actual needs of registries,
registrars and the public, alike.

(c) Copyright, 1998. Stephen J. Page. All Rights Reserved. Excerpted
from a forthcoming book entitled, "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.

Contacte: email- usdh@mail.ccnet.com
T:510-454-8624 F: 510-484-0448

End-

###

From: steve <usdh@mail.ccnet.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/6/98 9:48pm
Subject: Open Letter to the Congress of the United States & Executive Office of the President

February 6, 1998

Congress of the United States & Executive Office of the President
c/o 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

Stephen J. Page's Proposal to NTIA, Dept. of Commerce, Congress & President
of U.S.:

TITLE: A Proposal for Improving *Administrative* and Technical Management
of Internet Names and Addresses, formalizing into U.S. law a Domain Name
System Cooperation Act of 1998, for building Private/Public Administrative
Cooperation among DNS Registries and Registrars.

An Open Letter to the Honorable Members of Congress and the Executive Office,
Many parallels exist today between America's choices for
structuring a new, functional DNS which can result in a foundation for
building a vibrant and entrepreneurial electronic commerce system, and the
restructuring of post WWII Europe. The DNS Wars have been raging for over
one year, and it is apparent that clear thinking needs to be applied so
that cooperation and stability are enabled, insuring the successful
continuation of the process of building commercial and economic value into
the Internet experience for individuals who choose to make use of this
communications tool.

The plan which provided stability and security to the citizens and
nations of Europe following World War II was the Marshall Plan. The
solution then, as is now has proven difficult to attain, to recognize that
individual persons, companies, and countries will never be able to
structure the DNS meaningfully until a foundation of U.S. Constitutional
law is institutionalized.

Reapplying the essence of the success of the European Recovery
Program of 1946, where economic cooperation was gradually implemented
through the formation of a stable secure structure (the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization), we may recognize that as the Marshall Plan was the
right solution at the right time for Europe, a Domain Name System
Cooperation Act of 1998 might be the right solution at the right time for
the DNS.

The Marshall Plan, and subsequent Economic Cooperation Act of 1948,
first inspired, then structurally implemented, the institutions which have
remained in place in Europe for the past forty-five plus years. In fact,
one can argue that the modern movement toward European economic unification
of standards and currency, taking place in Brussels, is directly a result
of Marshall Plan efforts.

The details surrounding the implementation of the Marshall Plan for
European Recovery, can easily draw parallels between the post WWII period
of great change and opportunity, and 1998 as we struggle to implement a
stable DNS for future generations.

My intent is to draw attention to the parallels between the times,
then and now, and to suggest a detailed plan for moving forward which is
based upon the principles at the core of U.S. law, natural law, and
economic laws.

Once such a cooperative process is formally recognized in law, a
central guiding structure to implement standards and assist the registry
industry into existence will be needed. This is envisioned to the Federal
Names and Numbering System or FNNS.

A rough framework for a more detailed plan for implementing the
FNNS, which is based upon a DARPA commercialization methodology discovered
by the author in 1993, has been applied for aiding in the implementing of
positive changes in the operation and maintenance of DNS and its critical
root server administration, the functional core of the emering registry
industry.

The plan is designed for maximum inclusion of all stakeholders and
balances the need for a central guiding hand with the reality of the
decentralization of power which the Internet creates. It will increase
productivity, build cooperation, and focus the millions (billions?) of
dollars in investment on the creation of future value.

The sooner the plan can be implemented, the sooner we will be able
to use the it to assist the emerging and pioneering new registries of the
world in offering choices and value to millions of customers worldwide.

As the world's leader in the implementation of safe and secure
market environment for doing lawful business, the U.S. should use its
history and legacy to light the way for an electronic form of capitalism to
flourish throughout the new territories of cyber space. The
opportunity to structure a balanced system for the management of DNS is at
hand. We need to look to the past for answers to how we proceed forward,
because the U.S. and the world have faced the same general problems and
decisions before in her history.

From the colonization of U.S. territories and land where the grass
roots process of economic development and governance has occurred, to the
lessons learned by standardizing regional territorial currencies into one
U.S. currency as an interexchange commercial tool for doing business across
all regions of the country, we can creatively apply successful national
solutions to the present DNS dilemma.

Sincerely,
Stephen J. Page
email: usdh@mail.ccnet.com
T:510-454-8624 F: 510-484-0448

(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.

Contacte: email- usdh@mail.ccnet.com
T:510-454-8624 F: 510-484-0448

End-

###

From: Kala Nathwani <nathwani@ida.net>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 2/6/98 8:36pm
Subject: DNS updates

How can I get on the mailing list to get future updates?

Thank you

Jay Nathwani

###