From: "R.F.Kearns" <R.F.Kearns@open.ac.uk>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 2/23/98 12:13pm
Subject: Comment on US DoC's proposal re technical management of domain names.

Short comment : The management of domains other than .US are outside the
jurisdiction of the US government and it has no authority to regulate
them. It is appropriate that USG withdraw its disproportionate support
for the management and operation of the international domain space. The
only logical body to take over this function is the UN, probably through
the International Telecommunications Union.

Long comment :
The US DoC consultative paper is timely and welcome. Some of what
follows could be read as anti-US. That is not my intent. The
importance of USG support to get the Internet established cannot be
understated (though it can be overstated!). Indeed it is this very
success, which has made the Internet a truly global facility in a way
that telephony never really was, that has escaped the authors. The
Internet IS global, and any discussion which fails to recognise that
from the beginning, must fail. To some extent, the IAHC/CORE proposal
has teetered on the edge of the same trap.

The US DoC paper is well argued, but is fundamentally flawed because its
logic begins from invalid premises. The paper assumes that the US
government has regulatory authority over the Internet as a whole. This
is false. Its jurisdiction is limited to the national domain, ".US".
It is certainly appropriate that the International Top Level Domains be
regulated, and the only logical body to do this is the UN, probably
through the International Telecommunications Union.

There are a number of assertions in the paper which are seen from a US
perspective which should be challenged. For example :
"Today's Internet is an outgrowth of U.S. government investments in
packet-switching technology and communications networks carried out
under agreements with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency" -
this is only partially true. Packet switching technology was first
described in work by United Kingdom scientists and subsequently adopted
by ARPAnet. It is an accident of history that the UK went on to develop
what subsequently became the OSI reference model and network standards
(adopted, I might add, by the US DoC!), but the 'real world' decided
that tcp/ip was good enough. Were the situation to be reversed, I
cannot see the US accepting the authority of UK government to regulate
US networks.

Why does "2) Management of the system of registering names for Internet
users." neglect to quote ".US" as a 'for example'?

"In total, the U.S. government plays a direct role in the operation of
half of the world's root servers." - this is true only at the margins.

"From its origins as a U.S.-based research vehicle". Sorry guys. The
US was by far the major contributor, but not the sole contributor.

After "An increasing percentage of Internet users reside outside of the
U.S.," add "and at present rates will soon become the majority"

I could go on, but I assume my point is clear.

Respectfully
R. F. Kearns (Mr)

###

From: Val Sarabashyan <val@netwiz.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/23/98 6:42pm
Subject: comment on discussion draft

Dear Sir,

I have carefully read the comments of many "Internet Citizens" to your
proposal and as US.Citizen, would like to
make my own observation. The reputation of our country is at stake,
which is much more important than the outcome
of who will dominate worlds DNS.

You may ask if DNS is not broken to the ground, why to change it?
It's true that it's not broken, but it's crippled and hijacked by
Network Solutions "International"
and being used as a bargaining chip in their quest for market dominance.

What is this market and how big is it? When you look at the NSI's
projections
for the whole world - you will realize that it's not big at all, around
$100,000.000 USD.

It is very clear from the U.S. Government point of view that the policy
must be based on political
rather than economical reasons. It means supporting the strife of other
countries (including
our allies in Europe , Middle East and Asia) to participate in this
system. For those countries,
participation in DNS Management has not only an economical, but a
political advantage.
Millions of their citizens constitute a powerful social force and in
political sense - very important
constituency for local governments. European Union is a perfect example
in this case.
As you know, Council of Registrars (CORE) is a Geneva-based organization
which was created by
the Internet Community for one and only one purpose: to give Internet
users around the world
more choices and better service. (The new domain names .web .shop and
others are extremely
popular and all CORE's members are reporting registration requests in
many thousands!)

What would be the International reaction if U.S.Government moves ahead
with the "Green Paper" in the current
form, without accommodating CORE's request for the entry in this market
with the seven new domain names?
You probably know the answer yourself: a public outcry, mainly in Europe
and Japan, and as a
result - an anti-American statements of politicians in those countries
with long term consequences to U.S. interests.

Should the United States be the worlds "Internet Police Department" ?
Why risk almost certain negative reaction around the world?
Is the monopoly of NSI strategically more important than the reputation
of the United States?!
These are very important questions to ask.

Well, that's why we're already seeing internet messages about SAIC
(major NSI shareholder and much more...) being involved in this
process.
Let's hope not to see it in the press as a major story..

It is not too late for U.S. government to distance itself from Network
Solutions lobbyists
and self-appointed "experts" worried about Internet stability. If it
does that, the US. will gain
an international respect and trust, and if it does not - it will do just
the opposite.

Sincerely
Val Sarabashyan
President/CEO
Net Wizards, Inc.

###

From: Oliver Seidel <os10000@cus.cam.ac.uk>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/23/98 7:15pm
Subject: Suggestion

Hello,

first of all, I am serious about this. It may sound crazy, but please
do consider the long-term implications.

Has it been considered to remove the generic domains (.com in
particular, since that seems to be the one that everybody fights over)
and to move all currently active domain names within that domain into
the .us space.

I am aware that this would

- require reworking of the policy for .us
- break an incredibly large number of links
- put some strain on users who have developed certain habits

You can still move the names from com to us in alphabetical order,
maybe doing 1000 a day or so. However, I personally would favour "the
big sweep".

However, it would allow for enforcement of regional intellectual
property rights within each country's top-level name.

You could then start to set up top-level domains like "international"
if that's really what people want. And you would have some time to
develop a sensible policy for it.

so long,

Oliver Seidel

###

From: "Brian J. Kennedy" <brian.kennedy@CyberSafe.COM>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/23/98 7:23pm
Subject: Proposed DNS Schema

Whomever,

For the most part, it is unclear (to me) why the United States
Government is involved. While I do think that the original
DARPA funding was critical to the birth and nurturing of the
early protocols, since the "hand washing" and turnover to
private enterprise I view any government involvement (and
anticipated regulation) as destructive, regressive and misguided.

The success and growth of the Internet, Internet protocols and
data communications is attributable to the _lack_ of government
involvement, not because of it.

Please find something more constructive to do with my tax
appropriations than to interfere with something that works as
well as the Internet, and is already being addressed and
taken care of by various Internet committees.

Thank you,

Brian Kennedy

----------------------------------------------------------------
I do not speak for my management or my employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------

###

From: "Santos A. Perez, Cornell Law Student" <sap8@cornell.edu>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/23/98 9:24pm
Subject: DNS Comment, Government Should Not favor commercial Interests

I am a third year law student at Cornell. I also hold a BS in Computer
Science and spend an average of eight hours a day on the Internet. I am
particularly concerned with the following proposed provision:

"The new corporation should hire a chief executive officer with a
background in
the corporate sector to bring a more rigorous management to the
organization than was possible or necessary when the Internet was primarily
a research medium."

Such emphasis on "rigorous management" seems to me to be a restatement of
"Corporate Policies Control Period." It assumes that Corporate management
would be in the interests of the Internet Community as a Whole. However,
the Internet is for the common people designed by the common people. We do
not need to perpetuate corporate stereotypes and arrogance into a forum
that should allow everyone to practice the ultimate form of freedom - the
freedom to express their views and to have an EQUAL voice.

"Seven members designated by a membership association (to be
created) representing Internet users. At least one of those board seats
could be designated for an individual or entity engaged in non-
commercial, not-for-profit use of the Internet, and one for individual
end users. The remaining seats could be filled by commercial users,
including trademark holders."

This SHOULD read "At least one board seat for a commercial Interest.. The
rest for INDIVIDUAL END USERS."

In the end, I adhere to and agree with the following other comment posted
in response to this RFC:

From: <twinter1@ix.netcom.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/22/98 11:39pm
Subject: The end of the internet

Having just read the Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names
and Addresses I was surprised at the lack of consideration given to
Internet users. It is perfectly understandable if the government would like
to abandon the Internet DNS management, but then shouldn't they also give
up any claim to regulate it?

The reasons given for the change were so unclear as they beg for further
discussion.

Stated: "There is widespread dissatisfaction about the absence of
competition in domain name registration."

Question: Who is dissatisfied with the absence of competition in domain
name registration? The Internet was and should be for people not companies.

Stated: "Mechanisms for resolving conflict between trademark holders and
domain name holders are expensive and cumbersome."

Question: Any time we hire a lawyer isn't it expensive and cumbersome?

Stated: "Without changes, a proliferation of lawsuits could lead to chaos
as tribunals around the world apply the antitrust law and intellectual
property law of their jurisdictions to the Internet."

Question: And this is going to change that? How can privatizing the DNS
forestall lawsuitÆs. How can it dictate to non-US governments how they
apply antitrust and intellectual property law in their jurisdictions?

Stated: "Many commercial interests, staking their future on the successful
growth of the Internet, are calling for a more formal and robust management
structure."

Question: Is it "We the People" or "We the commercial interests"? What
happens if a splinter organization starts issuing its own domain names?

Stated: "An increasing percentage of Internet users reside outside of the
US, and those stakeholders want a larger voice in Internet coordination."

Question: Bravo, first mention of people (stakeholders). Isn't that what
the UN is all about? If we truly want to make it worldwide, why not the UN?

Stated: "As Internet names increasingly have commercial value, the decision
to add new top-level domains cannot continue to be made on an ad hoc basis
by entities or individuals that are not formally accountable to the
Internet community."

Question: Who ever paid for a domain name other than .COM? This should be
an open system, if someone wants to create a new top-level domain that no
one uses, who cares?

Stated: "As the Internet becomes commercial, it becomes inappropriate for
US research agencies (NSF and DARPA) to participate in and fund these
functions."

Question: If research is not for the general good or commercial application
what is it good for?

For every reason to change the DNS, there are ten reasons not to. The
Internet should be allowed to evolve naturally. When the .COM names run out
it will only be natural that a different top-level domain will become
widely used. For the user, who cares if its .COM or .UK when they search
for different topics.

At best this new corporation will be so inept as to pose no serious damage
to the Internet. Otherwise without much effort they could control
everything on the Internet. That is a sacaaary thought. For the record I
would like to nominate myself for the position of CEO of this new
corporation.

----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
Santos A. Perez, BS, JD,
Cornell Law School

* sap8@cornell.edu
* http://sap8.resnet.cornell.edu
* http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1829/
* peresana@law.mail.cornell.edu
* saplaw@hotmail.com
* saplaw@lycosmail.com
* (607)253-6435

###

From: "Amy Vance" <caesar49@hotmail.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/23/98 10:04pm
Subject: Comments on Government Paper

I am deeply concerned about the Commerce department's
decision to perpetuate NSI's monopoly on the
registration of .com, .org, and .net domains.
This organizations's monopoly on these domains
must cease immediately!

--------------------------------------------------
Amy Vance
Frenchies Authentic Salads
Home of the 49 Ounce Party Caesar!!

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

###

From: <seannadir@usa.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/23/98 8:41pm
Subject: Once Upon A Time...

Dear Ira Magaziner,

As a proud American citizen, I would like to enlighten
you with a little story:

"A long time ago, there once was a small country called
Wala-Wala-Bongdo. This little country was very simple. Everyone
ate bananas and oranges for many years. Then one day,
a very smart man invented a new food and called it
Jelly Beans. The citizens were delighted.

When the leader of Wala-Wala-Bongdo (his name was Bill) found out about Jelly Beans, he immediately commissioned a local merchant to produce Jelly Beans but only allowed the merchant to produce black Jelly Beans.

For many years, the citizens bought black Jelly Beans
from the merchant who sold them for a penny each and made
very little profit. One year, the merchant decided that
he would try raising the price of black Jelly Beans to
$100 each. Much to his surprise, the citizens of Wala-Wala Bongdo
continued to buy from him. The merchant soon realized
that even when he when he had overslept or when he
didn't greet his customers cheerfully, his customer
would always eventually come back for more Jelly Beans.

There was great unrest among the citizens of Wala-Wala Bongdo
and after a few years, the leader (Bill) decided that
he would offer a solution to the Jelly Bean problem.
The leader decided that he would allow other four
merchants to produce Jelly Beans. The citizens were
delighted for a short time. However, for some
unknown reason, Bill decided that each merchant would
only produce a single Jelly Bean colour. These new
merchants were very wise and knew that they could charge
great sums of money for their Jelly Beans because there
weren't any other merchants making the same colour. The
five merchants profited handsomely. Much to the citizens'
dismay, the price, quality, and selection of Jelly Beans
did not change for many, many years.

The End

Sound familiar? These are the new monopolistic registries proposed
by the Discussion Draft. It's undemocratic and it's
un-American so let's get rid of it.

____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com

###

From: Monet Rosara <monet@conk.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/23/98 10:48pm
Subject: The US Government

Dear sir/madam,

Please do not allow the new TLD registries to be run like
Internic. The new registries should be non-profit to prevent
further abuse of the domain registration system. In making
the registries for-profit entities, the only people who
will benefit will be the greedy individuals running these
registries, ordinary consumers such as myself will continue
to suffer.

Thank You

---------------------------------------------------
Get your Free, Private Web-based E-mail from CONK!,
Your Online Guide to Nonsense at http://conk.com

###

From: <williamr@postmaster.co.uk>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/23/98 11:04pm
Subject: Your Draft

Although I am sure you already knew this, I believe it is necessary to
remind you of this fact: the Internet is international, and can NOT be
controlled by ANY government. Unless the US Government wants to endure
worldwide political scrutiny, it can not implement the Green Paper.
Other governments are sure to protest. It is in your best interest, and
for
the American people, to back off now. The Internet is not yours to
control.

Cheers

William Robinson
___________________________________
To sign up for a free email account, visit http://www.postmaster.co.uk.

###

From: "amy smith" <skylimited@mailexcite.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/23/98 10:37pm
Subject: Green Paper

Please forgive me kind sirs, for I do not understand what you are doing.

The Internet is a wonderful creation. Why?

Was it because the US Government started this whole thing off by building a network
for it's military a long time ago? In part yes, but we've come a long way since
then.

Innovation on the Internet didn't happen because of the US government's careful guidance
of it. The US government, (until now) has left the Internet alone, in the hands
of a number of very capable technical people.

The only interest these people have in the Internet is in it's development. That
is why innovation has been allowed to flourish.

It is in their groundwork on building the net, and their early innovations which
have allowed the net to advance to where it is today.

With this paper, for the first time in a long time, the US government is changing
it's role, and for no discernable reason. (Other than of course, helping out Network
Solutions - InterNIC). How do you do this? Why, you make it seem like a level playing
field and you create some more monopolies. Why have one monopoly milk the Internet
when you can have five?

The Internet is one of the most wonderful inventions that technology has brought
us. It, more than any other item, truly levels the playing field, and builds fountains
of opportunity everywhere.

Don't Screw it up with your meddling!

Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
http://www.mailexcite.com

###

From: Norman Fall <nfall@yahoo.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/23/98 3:40pm
Subject: domains

To the Commerce Department of the U.S.,

The U.S. Government should not stick its nose into the international
community. How could the U.S. assert its dominance over what is a
worldwide INTERNET?

Obviously the government is overstepping its boundaries and asserting
authority over something that has grown beyond its control.

My opinion is clear:

1.) the CORE proposal works for the future. The Internet can progress
into the year 2000 with CORE. This is real competition in domain names.

2.) Network Solutions should be banished from the domain system
forever. Their exceptionally bad service has frustrated myself and
many friends attempting to register .com names. Their monopoly is
already well established, and allowing other companies to compete is
like continuing their monopoly. Just because they are ex-CIA doesn't
mean they should be handed a million (billion) dollar business.

3.) Wake up and smell the coffee. Suffocating the Internet won't make
it go out. It'll grow in different ways you haven't expected. This
way of regulating it will only benefit Network Solutions to the
detriment of everybody else.

The domain name proposal is a very lame stance and a very late one.
Don't delay any longer than you already have. Let CORE move the
Internet into the future so I can register my domain names.

Sincerely,

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

###

From: Norman Fall <nfall@yahoo.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/23/98 3:42pm
Subject: domains

To the Commerce Department of the U.S.,

The U.S. Government should not stick its nose into the international
community. How could the U.S. assert its dominance over what is a
worldwide INTERNET?

Obviously the government is overstepping its boundaries and asserting
authority over something that has grown beyond its control.

My opinion is clear:

1.) the CORE proposal works for the future. The Internet can progress
into the year 2000 with CORE. This is real competition in domain names.

2.) Network Solutions should be banished from the domain system
forever. Their exceptionally bad service has frustrated myself and
many friends attempting to register .com names. Their monopoly is
already well established, and allowing other companies to compete is
like continuing their monopoly. Just because they are ex-CIA doesn't
mean they should be handed a million (billion) dollar business.

3.) Wake up and smell the coffee. Suffocating the Internet won't make
it go out. It'll grow in different ways you haven't expected. This
way of regulating it will only benefit Network Solutions to the
detriment of everybody else.

The domain name proposal is a very lame stance and a very late one.
Don't delay any longer than you already have. Let CORE move the
Internet into the future so I can register my domain names.

Sincerely,

==
Norman Fall
Executive Accountant
Fall & Associates

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

###

From: "Gumby Gumby" <gumby_gumby@mailcity.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/23/98 1:48pm
Subject: it's not easy being green

Mr. Magaziner:

I have a serious matter that deserves your attention. I feel that I am discriminated
against in your green paper. There is absolutely no mention of my suggested domain
name and this makes me very mad.

Your misleading heading to the "green paper" has lead me to believe it would include
the colour green. But alas, the colour is not mentioned at all in the document.
This leads me to believe you are discriminating against people such as myself by
poking fun at my green colour. I demand an apology, Mr. Magaziner.

Why not have a domain called .gum? I am sure the domain .gum would be very popular
amongst stetchable people with pets named Pokey.

Your bendable friend,

Gumby

Get your FREE, private e-mail
account at http://www.mailcity.com

###

From: Atif Ghaffar <aghaffar@artemedia.ch>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/23/98 4:40am
Subject: CREDIT CARD FRAUD FROM REGISTRY.NET

Dear sir.
I have been a victim of registry.eni.net
and I dont know where to go to complain about this.
I have registered names javascript.web and javascript.info from them
which costed ($50+$10)x2 $120
The billed my credit card 3 times the amount on the same date.
At first I thought that it is a mistake from them and send them emails
and get no reply.

Also for the company I work for I had registered 4 name costing $240
The same thing appears on their credit card reciept.
The have been charged 3 times $240 on the same day.

Where can I go for help. ???
Thanks

###