From: Ketan Kakkad <kskakkad@dvlp.mnscu.edu>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/24/98 9:32am
Subject: Transferring the domain name system to civilian control

Dear Sir,

I am a software professional for 9 years. I am writing this to you based on
whatever I have seen and experienced in these 9 years.

Please make sure that this civilian control does not become a corporate
control (for companies like Microsoft) otherwise, internet would become a
'monopoliazed thing'.

Thanks for your time.

/Ketan
---------------------------------------------------------~
Ketan Kakkad
Intranet Architect@Minnesota State Colleges & Universities
Work:612-917-4726 Home:612-974-4388 / Fax: 974-1441
Email: kskakkad@dvlp.mnscu.edu ketan@ibscorp.net
(please note my new e-mail addresses)
---------------------------------------------------------

###

From: "Simon White" <sly@msn.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/24/98 11:09am
Subject: Comments on the Green Paper.

We keep hearing that this new plan is "written in pencil" (Larry Irving,
NTIA). Do you guys have any idea of the PACE of the Internet? You have taken
way too long on something that was already overdue before you got involved.
Let CORE (who know better) get started on this, so that Internet users
worldwide can choose domain names that reflect their content and remind
users of their purpose. That's the reason the DNS system was set up in the
first place.

Simon White
New York, NY

###

From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
To: Ira Magaziner
Date: 2/24/98 11:39am
Subject: IAB comments on Green Paper
Cc: iab @ iab.org

To: Ira C Magaziner
From: Internet Architecture Board
Ira,
1. The IAB generally welcomes the proposal to replace US
Government funding of the central technical administration
of the Internet by a new non-governmental body with widely
based, international participation. The IAB, as a technical
group, will not take a position on details of the public policy
aspects of the proposal.
2. There appears to be considerable confusion in the community
about the definition of 'registry' as presented in this paper.
It is our understanding that this is meant to identify a shared
database for registrations in a TLD. There are no technical
limitations to management of such a database by multiple parties,
even if the database is physically unique for technical reasons.
The discussion concerning 'lock-in' reinforces the viewpoint that
a single entity would control a database and therefore a gTLD. We
do not believe this is required by database technology. As
this issue is one of the most contentious, clarification of the
text is required.
Assuming we have correctly interpreted the word 'registry',
the IAB wishes to point out that there is no technical reason
for the proposed limit of one gTLD per such registry.
On the other hand, a very large increase in the total number of gTLDs
(say to thousands) would lead us into technically unknown territory.
We note that the green paper attempts to define specifics and
details concerning the number of gTLDs, the number of registries,
and the number of gTLDs per registry. In keeping with the
principles that have allowed the Internet to flourish, that is,
bottom-up consensus-building and self-determination, we
encourage the US government to avoid specific detail and, instead,
allow self governance the opportunity to determine the details.
We also note that considerable progress has been made over the
last 12 months in developing gTLD criteria and dispute resolution
procedures, and this progress is not adequately recognized in
the green paper.
3. The IAB is a committee of the IETF, the open international
voluntary standards organization for basic Internet protocols.
We are therefore concerned that the proposed responsibility
of the new corporation to
>> coordinate the development of other
>> technical protocol parameters as needed to maintain universal
>> connectivity on the Internet.
might be misread in such a way as to undermine the autonomy of the
IETF. We propose that the word "development" should be replaced by
the word "assignment". This would be consistent with the existing
relationship between the IANA and the IETF, which has proved
beneficial to all parties.
4. We support the authority of the current IANA, including that over
the DNS root, throughout the transition period and we will be very
happy to assist in any measures to reinforce that authority.
Kind regards,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter (IAB Chair) brian@hursley.ibm.com
IBM United Kingdom Laboratories http://www.hursley.ibm.com/~bc/
MP 185 phone: +44 1962 816833
Hursley Park fax: +44 1962 818101
Winchester
Hampshire SO21 2JN, UK


###

From: Tremblay <tremblay@mailtag.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/24/98 12:45pm
Subject: Green Paper

I have a few points to make about the discussion draft of 1/30/98 entitled
"A Proposal To
Improve Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses"

1. When is all this going to happen? Two months? A year? After the year
2000? The
draft does not address this. I have read the Council of Registrars (CORE)
proposal at
http://www.gtld-mou.org and it seems ready to begin immediately.

2. The five registrars/registries have no ethical standards. They may do
as they see fit.
They may charge as much as they would like. There will be no competition
if they each
have one domain, as they will drive up the cost to astronomical
proportions.

3. The draft is not international in its scope. There are members from
CORE all over the
world, which is a more accurate reflection of the Internet community.

4. If the U.S. government wants to get out, it should. It says in the
draft:

"The U.S. government should end its role in the Internet and name address
systems in a
responsible manner ... ensuring the stability of the Internet."

And then it proceeds to outline the 5 registries and 5 registrars who will
each possess one
name. Since the Internet is international, then competition should be.
The U.S. cannot
therefore set grand, sweeping policy for the DNS.

5. The draft does not introduce the end the Internic monopoly. The draft
does not introduce serious competition to Internic.

I trust a decision will be made that rectifies these serious concerns with
the draft.

Rick Tremblay
Networking Consultant

###

From: <billtanner@iname.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/24/98 1:16pm
Subject: The Future of the Domain Name System

All I would like to add to this list of comments is my concern for the future of the domain name system.

Please don't obstruct the progress of the Internet.

It has been obstructed long enough through Network Solutions. Just because they can afford to petition senators in Washington does not mean they can effectively deal with the future of the domain name system. Introduce REAL competition, and let the Internet progress into the future.

Thank you for your time,

Bill Tanner
billtanner@iname.com

Hungry Eye Productions
The best video production in Seattle

'I'm more afraid of living
than I am scared to die
I'm more afraid of falling
than I am of flying high..."
Ben Harper
--------------------------------------------------------
Get free personalized email at http://www.lycosemail.com

###

From: <trail.leanne@usa.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/24/98 12:18pm
Subject: .web, .firm, .rec, .store, .nom, .arts, .info

To The Department Of Commerce:

Why isn't the U.S. government going with the domain
names of .arts, .rec, .nom, .store, .web, .firm, and
.info? Why would anyone want to turn their back on such
really good names?

As an established educator, I find your treatment of
this tremendous educational resource disgraceful. What
was before an Internet dominated by educational institutions
is now one dominated by commercial interests. I would
recommend that .arts and .info especially be available,
though these would probably be the least commercially
successful next to .nom. Non-profit organizations and
community groups must also have a voice in this discussion
which has been squelched by .com. .org is no better.

I am disgusted by the content of the Internet sometimes,
and am sure that your domain name solution would address
the issue of problem content. I do not want my children
watching pornography on the Internet. These sites are already
everywhere and the children in my class do watch it, even
with the measures in place to stop them.

Names are worth a lot of money. They are property, and
those who own the property should be responsible and
accountable to the community for its content. New domain
names would hopefully not aggravate the problems, just
add new solutions and options for everyone.

The one advantage of the Internet is the equal exchange
of ideas. This is where the Internet was born, through
the universities and schools of the world. To continue
this exchange, we must have vital links to libraries, schools,
differing views of the world and media literacy. I would
guess that .info would provide an outlet for these types
of institutions. Without this free exchange, we are lost.

As I mentioned before, the increasing commercialization
of the Internet because of domain names has pushed these
institutions to the edges of the abyss. Let's add more
domains so that others who have missed the first round may
contribute to this growing and important community.

Let's see a domain name system without the shackles of
commercialism, one that offers much more to citizens of
the Internet community.

I would like a reply to my comments to be sure you have addressed them personally and take the comments on the domain names seriously.

Sincerely,

Leanne Frances Trail

my email is trail.leanne@usa.net

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

###

From: "Celine Beauxarts" <beauxarts@mailexcite.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/24/98 1:51pm
Subject: the discussion draft

I am certainly happy this is only a discussion draft and not a real thing. If it
was a real thing, not much would be defined specifically. There is nothing clear
in this paper at all. This is what people in the U.S. come to expect from our government.
Vague generalizations without much for substance. The concerns are listed at the
beginning of this paper, and then they proceed to not address them adequately.

I used to live in France. If France ever drafted such a policy, the international
community would laugh at them. The Internet community too, I think, is laughing
at the U.S. government's draft for this reason. The Internet is international and
you have not let any governments participate in this process.

Proud to contribute to U.S. discussion,

Celine

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

###

From: <gallant@altern.org>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/24/98 4:13pm
Subject: Discussion Draft

To the U.S. Department of Commerce:
Attention Ira Magaziner:

In response to the U.S. Government\'s Green Paper on the Internet Domain Name System, we, Gallant Graphics, a graphics design company, feel that many issues need to be reconsidered.

We fully support and applaud your stance in the necessity of privatization and warding off government intervention. However, the details of your proposal contradict this very stance in more ways than one, and we feel that it is necessary that these issues be brought to your attention.

The most prominent concern is the number of TLDs that will be released. The Green Paper states that 1, up to 5, new TLDs will be added to the root. It is also to our understanding that one of these will be given to Network Solutions Inc. This will only prolong InterNIC\'s abuse over the domain name market, and they will continue to collect monopoly rents. We have dealt with InterNIC is the past, and have found their service to be terrible. In fact, the term "service" has proven to be non-existent in their business strategy. While you must have already heard the numerous complaints regarding InterNIC\'s level of service, the Internet community shares a common belief: that Network Solutions\' current monopoly must cease, immediately.

The Green Paper, though seemingly supportive of competition and privatization, inadvertently introduces 5 new monopolies to the market. The Paper limits each Registry to only 1 of the new TLDs. These Registries will be able to charge exorbitant prices to the Registrars, who in turn, will be forced to transfer an even higher price on to the consumers. This is NOT competition.

Another contradiction in the Green Paper is its neglect over the issue of time. With the Internet growing at the rate that it is, and with the increasing scarcity of available domain names, the Internet can not realistically wait another 2 years before the introduction of new TLDs. Adding only a few new TLDs will prolong the current situation and will only suppress the potential of the Internet, and businesses worldwide.

The final issue, and probably the most harmful, concerns trademark policies. According to the Green Paper, each separate registry will form their own trademark policies. This will prove to be a nightmare for all companies trying to protect their brand name and who will be forced to deal with different policies for each TLD.

At first glance, the U.S. Government\'s Green Paper seems viable and promising. A second glance reveals the hidden truth: that the Green Paper is detrimental and does not only discourage competition, but also supports Network Solutions\' monopoly.

Sincerely,
Kristine Gallant
Gallant Graphics

###

From: Sander van Dijk <a.vandijk@lr.tudelft.nl>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/24/98 5:21pm
Subject: No subject was specified.

I would like to support the idea of creating a new domain name directly
connecting everything which is published on the internet about the Moon.
This would be possible if a new top-level domain name is created like
.moon or .luna.

Alexander van Dijk
Student Aerospace engineering
Technical University of Delft
The Netherlands

###

From: <mike@digiserve.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/24/98 9:21pm
Subject: comments on US Gov't DNS paper

I believe the actions proposed in this document undermine the attempt by
the Internet authorities to set up and run an international organisation to
manage domain name registration, and illustrate the incapability of the USA
to look beyond its' borders and see that the Internet is now a worldwide,
global network, and that the US Government should stop trying to claim it
is anything else. If these actions are carried out it will only worsen the
image of the US as isolationist, out of touch with the rest of the world.

The gTLD-MoU proposals had as much technical merit as these proposals, and
were in the international spirit of today's Internet, unlike this paper.

Mike Blanche
Managing Director, Digiserve Corp.

###

From: Richard Hartig <richardh@writeme.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/24/98 11:10pm
Subject: Comments on Draft

Dear Sirs,

Though your draft is well written for the most part, I would like to point
out two glaring concerns that I have.

<b>A</b> The assumption that "market mechanisms" will make a individual
"for-profit" registry owners competitive.
<b>B</b> The seeming lack of international input into this paper.

<B>A</B>. I have merely a college degree in economics, yet even I find it
astounding that the writers of this proposal state that: "On the other
hand, we believe that market mechanisms may well discourage this type of
behavior."

The type of behaviour that is in question are lock-ins, the risk of poor
service, etc, etc. When I took Economics 100, I was told about monopolies,
and how they extract monopoly rents from the consumer. This paper seems to
state that different registries will compete with each other based on the
"value-added" services that they add. This is ludicrous. When my company
registers a name, we're going to register a .firm name. We're not going to
register a .arts name or a .rec name. How can the .arts and .rec
registries compete for my business? They simply can't.

The registry of the .firm tld will be able to charge whatever price it
wants to my company. They can easily charge 100, 150, or even 200 USD a
year. We'll have to pay it, because they're the only ones we can go to.

Of course, if the price is high enough, we might look at getting something
like a .info name, or possibly a .web name. (If these registries also
don't have jacked up prices).

Of course, then we're locked in to that registry. Let's say we do
1,000,000 USD a year of business on that web site, using a .firm name.
(acme.firm for example). If the registry jacks up the price to 1000 USD a
year am I going to change my domain?

I simply cannot. Even a 1% loss of business greatly overshadows the
increased cost of the domain. Not to mention all the broken links that
would result all over the web.

In a free market, if I, as a registry had this power over my customers,
what will market mechanisms lead me to do?

Keep my margins and my profits low when they don't have to be? Who wrote
this section of the Green Paper? Karl Marx?

Market Mechanisms are factors that will push a company towards the greatest
amount of profitibility. In this case, with five parallel monopolies,
market mechanisms push the company towards excess profits.

<b>B</b>. I was born in America, and I'm proud to be a citizen of the
greatest nation on the face of this Earth. However, I bemoan the apparent
lack of knowledge the author's of this report have shown about the nature
of the Internet.

Just because the US government funded the early development of the Internet
doesn't mean it still has the right to regulate it. Indeed, the amusing
thing about this paper is it implies that the US government has in large
part been responsible for the Internet's succes.

This is factually incorrect. The Internet is global now, and it's the
marvelous beast we see today because of the efforts of some very dedicated
technical people: The people in Canada that developed archie, and the
people in Europe that developed the protocols behind what we now call the
World Wide Web to name a few.

These are the people that have been running the Internet.

By stepping in to govern the Internet now, the US government seems to be
ignoring the fact that other governments have more than a little bit of
self-interest in the outcome of these happenings. I shudder to think of
what will happen if the Internet becomes a tool for bureaucrats from around
the world to bargain over.

The US Government doesn't have the moral authority to do this. It may have
the power to attempt to do so, but only at the risk of seriously slowing
down one of the greatest technological advances of modern times.

I am speaking to you as a US Citizen and a voter now, please reconsider
your steps.

###

From: Tim Storr <stim@technologist.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/24/98 11:20pm
Subject: Domain Name Discussion Draft

I have read your Discussion Draft on Domain
Names with great disappointment. I have been
registering domain names with Internic for
myself and my colleagues for the past two
years. I have endured a long list of
mistakes on their part, including lost
payments, double-invoices, unanswered
phones, 'frozen' domain names, etc, etc.
The list goes on.

For the past several months, I have
waited with eager anticipation for the
introduction of new domain names and for
other companies to offer the .com domain
name. Unfortunately, it appears that the
Discussion Draft merely caters to the
interests of Internic and a few money-hungry
registries. The Discussion Draft appears
to have been created more for the protection
of Internic than for the benefit of the
Internet community at large.

Please do something immediately to prevent
this situation from going from bad to worse.
I do not want to endure another two years
of headache and frustration.

Sincerely,

Tim Storr

###