From: <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/13/98 12:49am
Subject: Background for the Green Paper

Respectfully submitted for the record:

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

11/11/97

My name is Jay Fenello, and I'm the President of Iperdome,
a new company formed for the purpose of offering Personal
Domain Name services under the .per(sm) name and Top Level
Domain. The concept is to provide Netizens with a permanent
address on the Internet, one that does not change when
Netizens change jobs, schools, Internet Service
Providers (ISPs), or email addresses.

I have been active in the DNS debate since Iperdome formed
earlier this year. I was . . .
- one of the founders of the eDNS movement.
http://www.iperdome.com/press/315791.htm
- one of the first to ask for the U.S.
Government to review the activities of the IAHC.
http://www.iperdome.com/press/429prn.htm
- the only small company representative to attend
the White House's IATF meeting on June 9th.
- one of the invited speakers at the Domain Name
Conference sponsored by the ITAA, CDT, and ISA.
http://www.itaa.org/dnsconf.htm
- one of the first to frame this debate as
one of control, not domain names.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/080197domain.html

What I find truly ironic is the chaos the entire IAHC process
has created in the Internet community. Their arrogance about
their dominion over root, and their claim to rightful ownership
to valuable properties like .com and .web have created the
conflicts we are now experiencing.

A fundamental question is why the IANA, a U.S. Government
funded contractor, should be allowed to "give" seven new gTLDs
to its self-selected representatives (especially when it was
negotiated behind closed doors, sets up a Swiss-based cartel,
ignores prior Internet precedents, and is generally regarded
as an inappropriate power grab). Why should the IANA be
allowed to *exclude* already operational TLDs and registries.

Consider for a moment if Reed Hundt, as head of the FCC, had
decided to allocate a portion of the radio spectrum to a group
that he formed, supported, appointed members to, and had an
ongoing and permanent role in. Imagine if this group met behind
closed doors, came up with an impressive sounding plan, and got
all of his friends and associates to sign. Imagine if this new
plan took radio spectrum away from already operational entities,
and excluded all other applications for radio spectrum. Imagine
if this new organization was set up as a Swiss-based cartel,
beyond recourse to U.S. interests.

Well, this is similar to Jon Postel's arrangement with the IAHC.
It was wrong when it was announced, and it is still wrong now.

So where does that leave Iperdome (.per) and the other alternate
TLDs? Hopefully we will be admitted directly under root. As
we've argued all along, we have as much right for our TLDs to
be added as the so called IAHC does, if not more.

Remember, there are companies like Iperdome that have already
been active in this business. There are companies like Iperdome
that have already established significant Intellectual Property
rights. We have working registries, working code, working name
servers, and yes, working root servers. The IAHC does not.

For these reasons, I believe the IAHC should not gain *automatic*
entry into root, nor should the existing, free-market TLDs be
*automatically* excluded.

Self interest aside, there is more at stake here than the future
of Iperdome -- the future of the Internet is at stake.

If the IAHC plan succeeds, much of what has made the Internet
great will be lost. No longer will free-market competition
drive new products and services. Instead, a great engine of
change in our lifetimes will be relegated to the dark ages,
where a small group of people who are accountable to no-one
control major aspects of the Global Internet Infrastructure.

Having been educated at the Berger Entreprenuership Program
(whose director is known for teaching free market economics to
professors in Bulgaria, Hungary and the Czech Republic) it would
be ironic to me if the U.S. Government was responsible for
turning the administration of the Internet over to a such
a bureaucratic model.

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

After a quick review of the Green Paper, I
am very pleased with the initial direction.

I will be submitting my formal comments
shortly.

Regards,

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

###

From: "Sawyer Curtis" <SawyerCurt@bah.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/13/98 10:27am
Subject: Selection of Consultancy Firms Question

I have a question regarding Mr. Magaziner's "green paper" on DNS. In
the section "Registries and new gTLDs" he mentions that "The IANA will
engage neutral accounting and technical consultancy firms to evaluate a
proposal registry under these criteria and certify an applicant as
qualified." How will IANA select those accounting and technical
consultancy firms? Will an RFP go out? Has this process even been
decided yet? My firm is a technical consultancy firm (we helped
transition .GOV from NSI to GSA) so I am very interested in how these
firms will be selected.
Thanks for your time.
---Curt
--
Curt Sawyer | sawyercurt@bah.com
Booz Allen & Hamilton
http://www.bah.com

###

From: "Samson So" <samsonso@hotmail.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/13/98 8:40pm
Subject: US Government Green Paper

Since when did the US Government govern the Internet?

Hasn't the Clinton Administration learned anything yet?

First your interns, now the Internet Bill? Keep your hands off things
you have no right to touch.

Let the stakeholders in the Internet community decide what happens,
they're the ones that made the Internet, they're the ones that have
spurred it's growth.

Don't make the Internet a battle ground for the nations of the world, I
beseech you.

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

Samson K. So

"That which we refuse to learn will be thrust upon us."
Author Unknown

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

###