From: "Jaroslaw Rafa" <RAJ@inf.wsp.krakow.pl>
Date: 2/10/98 3:02am
Subject: Comments on "Green Paper" about the Internet
I would like to comment on your "Green Paper" of 30 Jan regarding the
proposal of new DNS system for the Internet.
I think that virtually anyone agrees with the main principles and
goals the document is based on. However, large parts of this document
seem to promote an obviously false assumption, that U.S. government
is controlling the Internet in some way right now. ("The U.S.
government should end its role in the Internet number and name
address systems", "domain name system during the transition from the
existing U.S. government authority", "The U.S. government recognizes
that its unique role in the Internet domain name system should end as
soon as is practical.", etc.). Actually, this is not true. The U.S.
government is currently not involved in Internet management in any
other way than funding the current operations of IANA and NSI. The
only way U.S. government can "end its role" in the Internet
addressing system is simply to stop this funding - which the
government *will* do anyway. There is nothing more for the government
to do. Internet will surely survive and the IANA, IAB and IETF will do
the steps necessary to keep its stability. They *are* able to manage
The language of the document sounds as if U.S. government had any
authority to "transfer existing IANA functions" to the newly-formed
company or could authorize anyone to control the Internet. In fact,
the U.S. government does not have any such authority and has no
rights to control the Internet, which is an international resource,
and not a property of the U.S.A., nor to hand out such control to
Actually, the U.S. government, while verbally declarating its
withdrawal from Internet management, wants really to *step in* and to
set the rules, who and how will control the Internet. It is a very
strange kind of withdrawal - by stepping in and setting the rules.
The U.S. government has not controlled the Internet in any way since
the dissolution of NSFNET, until now (and even when the NSFNET
existed, it was a very little amount of control once the commercial
networks appeared). What it wants really now in this document is to
grab the control, and not to withdraw!
The paper suggests creation of a new non-profit company, which would
take over current IANA responsibilities. There is only one body in
the entire Internet that can decide how this company should be formed
- this is the IANA itself. Only the IANA has real authority over
Internet addressing, and this authority does not come out from any
DARPA contract, under which Jon Postel is working, but from the
historical tradition and common acceptance of IANA as a governing
body among the Internet community. I think the U.S. government goes
far too far trying to outline any rules on how this new company
should be formed.
I doubt if there is at all need for any new company - perhaps the
best solution would be, IANA itself to be restructurized and
transformed into this non-profit company you are talking about. I
also suggest that the name of IANA should be kept with this new
company. Its board of directors could be appointed in a pretty
similar manner as the CORE's POC has been - this procedure has really
proven itself. But let the IANA, with the input sought from the
entire Internet community, decide on this.
Also, I don't see any need to limit the number of new TLDs that will
be created, and even if such a need existed, surely not the U.S.
government is appropriate to set this limit. Again, let the (new)
IANA decide how many new domains will be created. The same applies to
setting any requirements for potential registries or registrars
(which, by the way, seem to me a bit too restrictive, especially the
ones regarding physical security of the server's site).
On the other hand, I fully appreciate your plan to convince NSI to
give away the root domain, as well as all the software and databases
used to administer it. I also appreciate the idea to allow other
registrars to compete in .com, .org and .net domains. Actually,
without cooperation of the NSI, the transition to any new domain name
system isn't going to succeed - or at least we'll have a fight
between IANA and NSI, which would make Internet unstable.
I don't see this feasible, but I would appreciate removing the .edu,
.gov and .mil domains from the top-level domain name space and moving
them to .edu.us, .gov.us and .mil.us, in order to reflect the fact
that Internet is international and not internal to the U.S.A. .com,
.net and .org domains are already international: not only American
entities are registered within them. Oppositely, .edu, .gov and .mil
are explicitly country-specific, so they should be clearly marked as
American domains. But probably we cannot afford it: there would be
too many addresses to change...
By the way: the .us domain is probably the only fragment of the
Internet namespace where the U.S. government would be really entitled
to set any rules on how it would be administered...
Summarizing: the "Green Paper" is not a bad thing. It is surely an
important opinion in the ongoing discussion on the future of Internet
domains. It's a piece of good work. But the U.S. government should
stop on that. Keep it being a proposal only and do not take any
actions outlined in it (except of stopping the government funding, of
course). Let the Internet community decide. If this is going to be a
self-governance, it can't be done on the rules set by the U.S.
Jaroslaw Rafa - an Internet user from Poland
From: "Bill GirarD" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 2/10/98 11:53am
Let private industry do it. Keep the Govt out of Domain Name Registration.
From: "Philbrook SM (Scott) at MSXSCC" <SP078740@shellus.com>
To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 2/10/98 1:34pm
I think it would be a good idea to require all sexually explicit sites to
use the .sex instead of .com
This would make it very easy for providers, businesses and parents to screen
out these sites. While you can still have renegade sites using .com, this
is the best solution I've heard of.
Just my 2cents.
FSO Solvents, Technical, Admin. Schd. "B"
Shell Chemical, Deer Park Refinery
S. Admin Bldg. Room 240