From: "Reinke, Carsten" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 2/17/98 4:56am
Subject: Global administration for a global net
as someone who has contributed to the internet by creating internet
infrastructure (servers) and content in Berlin, Germany, for 3 years,
I'd like to comment on the US government's paper regarding registering
and administering generic top level domains (GTLDs).
I regard the internet as a global piece of infrastructure. People in
most of the world's countries are using it to communicate for private or
Every country has it's own ISO-Code domains (such as .de, .uk, .us) and
I consider it right that national administrations decide on how country
code domains should be made accessible for the public.
A whole different thing are GTLDs (such as .com, .net, .org and the new
ones). They are created to be accessible for the public throughout the
world and should therefore not be administered by a single country or
organizations which decide on behalf of one certain country. The
internet should be as democratic and economically usable as possible.
The (old and new) GTLDs as global names should therefore be government
by representatives from around the world.
I think the US government's goal to end the existing monopoly on GTLDs
is absolutely right. But I disapprove the means which the US government
proposes to reach this goal.
I think the CORE plan to create and organize GTLDs as stated in the
GTLD-MoU is by far more appropriate. CORE now comprises 88 organizations
from around the world and is - as you should know - backed by ITU, ETSI
and several other relevant people and organizations from cyberspace and
"real life". It's members garantee the broadest representation of
country possible without neglecting the need for stability in the DNS.
Where the US plan talks only about 5 new GTLDs, the CORE has proposed
what they should be.
Where the US plan has no distinct time frame, CORE is ready to operate
the new GTLDs.
I strongly support the goals of CORE and as someone who works in
cyberspace I don't want an US based organization to decide on how my
business (and private life) in cyberspace should run. I want to have the
same representation as any US citizens when decisions about the internet
The internet needs new GTLDs now. It also needs to be governed
The current US plan leaves the internet and it's members around the
world in uncertainty.
I therefore strongy encourage the US government to revise it's draft and
adopt the GTLD-MoU of CORE, which offers the most proximate, reliable
and democratic solution.
From: Julie <email@example.com>
Date: 2/17/98 6:53am
Subject: Printing of Proposal re: Domain names
I didn't realize this proposal was on the web until I ran across a
reference to it in D-Lib Magazine (www.dlib.org). Bravo!
One problem: I've tried printing it about six times and I keep getting
a transfer interrupt. I can't seem to get a full copy. I've had no
problems printing from other web sites, so suspect the glitch is at your
end. Could you possibly email me a copy of the proposal?
From: David Highbarger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 2/17/98 5:47pm
Subject: domain decision email list
Is there a mailing list that will send out a notice when the new
top-level domains are decided on?
From: Mike Hitchcock <email@example.com>
Date: 2/17/98 7:01pm
Subject: Discussion Draft on Technical Management of Internet Domain Names
The internet is now a global medium of commerce,
information, services (public and private) and
entertainment. This may be obvious, but many
of us still think geopolitically, or locationally,
and don't quite grasp that the web site we create
will be accessed and perceived by an amazing
diversity of cultures.
Due to the global nature of the net, and the
vital importance of the net's freedom to evolve
to better service _everyone_, I firmly believe that
the issues surrounding DNS, IP addressing,
technical and procedural changes to the net, etc.
need to be administered at a world-wide level.
Currently, that would probably be the United Nations
Organization. I believe you could move most of the
"new corporation" plan over to a new branch of the UN.
This new branch would administer the gTLDs, each nation
would administer it's own ISO-Code domain (.us, .de, etc).
Again, due to the global nature of the net, the .gov and
.mil domains, as currently used by the USA, should be SLDs
to the .us ccTLD (.mil.us, .gov.us).
My personal belief is that the number of gTLDs should be
kept very small. If the proposed new gTLDs (.web, .info, etc)
get added, one of the first things my company will do
is cross-register our many .com SLDs (foo.com -> foo.web,
foo.info, foo.store, foo.foo...). This will happen on a
large scale, and completely defeat the purpose of adding
namespace, while increasing the chaos (do I try to access
ibm.com, ibm.web, ibm.info...)
As an enduser of the new regime, if I find a registrar I like,
I would want to use that registrar as an interface to all the
registries. That is, I would like to use that registrar to
register .com, .web, and .info domains, rather than going
to separate registrars for separate gTLD registries. Additionally, I
would like that registrar to have "real-time" access to the
registry in question, so that when I request a domain, in a matter
of seconds I know whether it is still available, and if so,
in a matter of minutes it is registered. Better yet would be a direct
interface to the registries themselves, for those who care to
deal at that level of technical skill.
I think the proposed plan is a step in the right direction, but
it is still too conservative to truly meet the needs of an
international population of netizens.
Mike Hitchcock, Network Manager and Internet Programmer