From: Nick Wemyss <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 2/27/98 12:34am
Attention: Ira Magaziner
Re: Discussion Draft
I would like to voice my concerns over the future of the Internet draft
process and the politicization of the Internet. No one government or
nation or organization must presume to have control of the Internet. It
is the global medium of the future and we must be careful not to taint
our future vehicle of worldwide communication with national interests
and restricted growth policies.
From: Sacramento <Sacramento@aol.com>
Date: 2/27/98 10:14am
Subject: Internet Domain Name System
United States Government: Stay away! You are not wanted. Keep your
bureaucratic hands off the web!
From: Andru Eron <email@example.com>
Date: 2/27/98 11:07am
Subject: Attention: Ira Magaziner
I do not believe that the U.S. Government should interfere with the groups
that are (and have been) making the Internet work. Specifically, the
gTLD-MOU process has been 2 years in the making and is supported by such
companies as MCI Communications, France Telecom, Bell Canada, and the U.S.
Based International Trademark Association. The gTLD-MOU process is
supported by IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority), the
group that has run the Internet's DNS since it was created in 1984.
Unfortunately, the proposal set forth by the U.S. Government seems to
neglect the consultative process put together by the Internet community.
Not to mention that nobody in the Internet community thinks that the U.S.
Government has jurisdictional authority over such a global facility.
Perhaps the reason that the Internet has displayed such explosive growth,
is not due to government guidance, but the lack thereof. Groups of
dedicated volunteers have been making decisions in a democratic process,
and I can see no compelling reason to fix what isn't broke.
The U.S. government must not assume authority over the Internet, nor can
it disregard many of the ideas set forth in the gTLD-MOU and by the
From: GameHob <GameHob@aol.com>
Date: 2/27/98 10:37am
Subject: Domain Names
Business and the internet community need you to make the new domain
registrations available as soon as possible.
Date: 2/27/98 10:09am
Subject: Internet effectiveness
As a denizen of the Internet for over a decade, I've watched
and participated in it's development. The green paper
looks fundamentally sound to me, although I'd prefer to
see more than 5 registries initially. From what I see
of the landscape, there are probably about a dozen
serious players, and even if this number is 30
no harm will come by allowing this number at the
The internet measures effectiveness in clues, not
dollars, which should be aptly illustrated by the
massive amount of money IAHC et al. had to play with
but still no working servers or registries the
public can pound on. I've tried some of the other
registries and am impressed. I see no reason
prevent anyone who is serious from
competing right now. Serious to me means
well thought out, stable infrastructure and
continuous operation, and dedication to the
tld's that people want to run.
I take the "monopolist" argument as specious
at best. If there were ONE alternative to .com
I'd see the point, but .corp, .biz, etc. will
all be competing (eventually) and the sooner
they are in operation by people dedicated to
their operation, the better for consumers
and for a harmonious Internet.
Plese give great consideration to a restoration
of "rough consensus and running code", it's what
got the net so good, so far.
To: Recipient list suppressed
Date: 2/27/98 12:14pm
Subject: A Possible Plan
>Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:58:37 -0500
>Subject: A Possible Plan
>As we continue to struggle with the best
>way to implement a self governance, it is
>valuable to review other ideas and concepts.
>In that light, below you will find a plan
>that was originally proposed for eDNS. If
>we change Registration Authorities to "Registries",
>and Registries to "Registrars", this is something
>that might actually be close to working!
>FYI & FWIW:
>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 21:02:49 -0400
>>To: edns-operators@MCS.Net, edns-discuss@MCS.Net
>>Subject: A Possible Plan
>>We have reached a level of success that now
>>requires us to firm up the foundation on which
>>to continue to grow the eDNS family.
>>Specifically, we need to formalize a process
>>for self governance. While there are literally
>>thousands of ways to accomplish this, a process
>>that's accepted by stakeholders outside of the
>>eDNS family will be very successful.
>>Here's a rough draft of something that may work for
>>everyone. Please note that it does not yet incorporate
>>all of the changes that may be required for it to be
>>acceptable to outside players. Comments please?
>>The eDNS Charter shall be modified to include provisions for self
>>governance, and a procedure to change the Charter. The newly
>>defined stakeholders shall include:
>>The Council of RSs 1 Root Server, 1 Vote
>>The Council of RAs 1 Registration Authority, 1 Vote
>>The Council of Registries 1 Registry, 1 Vote
>>A decision to modify the Charter shall be authorized by an affirmative vote
>>of any two of the Councils.
>>A decision to vote on an issue shall be authorized by any single Council.
>>eDNS members who are in more than one category may vote in each respective
>>Each Council shall be responsible for setting up their own by-laws
>>and/or procedures TBD*. They may expand their role to include other
>>non-administrative activities (i.e. marketing), if they collectively
>>decide to do so.
>>Each Council shall be responsible for the rules and regulations for the group
>>immediately below them. Some examples:
>>- The Council of RSs might implement policies regarding
>> the approval and management of new RA applications.
>>- The Council of RAs might implement policies regarding
>> the approval and management of new Registries.
>>- The Council of Registries might implement policies regarding
>> the issuance of SLDs (ie. a code of ethics, etc)
>>The Council of RSs shall be bound only to the eDNS Charter.
>>As such, they shall have the authority to regulate themselves,
>>unless and until the eDNS Charter limits these broad powers.
>>* Each new Council shall be obligated to use an open process in the
>>establishment of their by-laws/policies. This process will be described
>>in more detail in future postings.
>>The Council of RSs
>> Here's a way to provide incentives for people to add new Root Servers
>>to our Consortium. Since this is the smallest Council, each vote will carry
>>more weight. Since it is at the top of the hierchy, each RS also has the
>>most power. As guardians of the root, this is as it should be. This
>>structure also eliminates the "hit by a bus" issue.
>>The Council of RAs
>> This is the second smallest group. They will have moderate power, and be
>>supervised by the Council of RSs
>>The Council of Registries
>> This is the largest group. They are the front line to Internet consumers,
>>and are supervised by the Council of RAs.
>> In theory, members of each Council will share similar goals. Here's a
>>structure whereby they can work together on the issues that concern them the
>>most. A majority vote by any Council is all that's required to force all
>>Councils to vote on an issue.
From: "Jim Montalban" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 2/27/98 12:43pm
Subject: garbage draft
Attention: Ira Magaziner
Would you like to be blamed for destroying what we know as the Internet? Would you
be able to speak in public about the domain name system without being heckled by
the people? Would you like a future Internet where Network solutions rules the domain
system without any hope of competition? Would you push through a system that is
completely and totally U.S.-centric and unable to recognize the international community
or people who speak other languages than U.S. English? Would you propose to do away
with the CORE proposal, thereby turning your back on a solid, well thought out and
apt way to deal with the future of the domain name system?
I hope you ask yourself these questions, Mr. Magaziner, because the Internet community
most certainly is asking them of you.
Thank you for the opportunity to post my comments, and I certainly hope that you
are going to take these comments to heart and not just leave them posted here.
It's one thing to let the public post comments and it's another to ACT on them.
'Not really into trouble but into solutions unlike Network Solutions'
Create your free personalized e-mail address at http://www.n2mail.com
To: Recipient list suppressed
Date: 2/26/98 1:27pm
Subject: Re: IAB comments on Green Paper
>Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 02:58:47 -0500
>To: Peter Deutsch <peterd@Bunyip.Com>
>Subject: Re: IAB comments on Green Paper
>At 06:53 PM 2/24/98 -0500, Peter Deutsch wrote:
>>So, bear with me while I see if I've got it right.
>>1) There is a group of people who believe that the top
>> level domain name system should be privately run by
>> free market forces. Some of these people want to be a
>> part of this "industry" and feel that some others are
>> standing in the way of this industry realizing its
>>2) There is a group of people who believe that the top
>> level domain name system should be run as a
>> not-for-profit effort. Some of these people accept that
>> to date it's the government (and in particular, the U.S.
>> government) that has paid for things, but such people
>> seem to think that continued government funding is
>> no longer a good idea.
>> From this seems to come suggestions that TLDNS by
>> handed over to a consortium of the current IETF
>> technical community (eg. IANA, IANA-lite,
>> IANA-meets-Mothra, etc).
>>Sure, there are complicated trademark questions, questions
>>of who owns the current database given the existing
>>contracts with NSI,, technology questions about how many
>>TLDNS servers we can have, etc but the heart of the matter
>>seems to be that some people want a for-profit TLDNS, and
>>some want a not-for-profit TLDNS.
>>Have I got it?
>Not exactly . . .
>The heart of the matter is that we have reached
>a point in the evolution of the Internet where we
>need to decide who gets to decide the questions
>that can only have a single answer on the Internet.
>Domain Names just happen to be one of those things.
>To retain a single, unified root, there must be a
>single decision making body. The MOUvement and the
>US Government both have very different solutions
>to this question.
>The MOU puts a very small group of stakeholders
>in charge of these decisions. It features closed
>meetings and discussion, no due process, has little
>if any representation, and is set up as a Swiss
>based cartel to avoid anti-trust considerations.
>In addition, the IAHC process broke long standing
>Internet tradions when it discarded draft postel, and
>it ignored existing working code. It also included
>organizations like the ITU that were previously known
>to be hostile to the private networks that make up the
>The Green Paper is an opportunity for the Internet
>community to come up with something better. We already
>know that we don't like the MoU. Now, everyone has an
>opportunity to help put in place something better.
>Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
>FWIW & IMHO.
>President, Iperdome, Inc.
Date: 2/27/98 3:40pm
Subject: The plan to wreck the Internet
Let the new domain names be!
I personally support the CORE (Council of Registrars) proposal. Let me have the name I already pre-registered! You can\'t go back on it now. I don\'t know if I could bear such a disappointment.
The U.S. could show some initiative by actually supporting the CORE plan. By ignoring it, you\'ve only made it stronger. The responses to this paper only confirm this. Let the Internet move into the future. It\'s not only the U.S. on the Internet anymore.
From: Doug Anderson <email@example.com>
Date: 2/27/98 2:36pm
Subject: I support the gTLD-MoU
Dear Mr. Magaziner,
I would like to see the U.S. government fully endorse the domain name
system proposed by the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee. The gTLD-MoU
has been at least 2 years in the making and has the full support of the
international Internet community. The rollout of the 7 new top level
domains has been delayed by the U.S. government's draft proposal. Please
let this fully tested and ready-to-go system move forward as planned.
Small Business Owner & U.S. citizen
From: "Cindy Cooke" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 2/27/98 3:47pm
Subject: something for Ira to think about
"Optimism is a strategy for making a better future.
Because unless you believe that the future can be better, it's unlikely you will step up and take responsibility for making it so.
It you assume that there's no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope.
If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, there are opportunities to change things, there's a chance you may contribute to making a better world.
The choice is yours."
I assume, Ira Magaziner, that the government's commerce department will further this instinct for freedom by not abandoning the obvious need for change. It seems that Core has taken this perspective by attempting to make a better domain name system by offering 7 new domains. Don't be left in the dust.
From: Michael Twist <email@example.com>
Date: 2/27/98 7:55am
Subject: (on behalf of Pat Smerdon, firstname.lastname@example.org) "Letter from Pat"
>Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 15:54:16 -0800
>From: Pat Smerdon <email@example.com>
>Subject: Letter from Pat
>When will the Commerce Department realize that the internet doesn't belong
>to us (The U.S.)? What makes them think that we alone can control
>something as far-reaching and as substantial as the World Wide Web?
>I have traveled extensively recently, and noticed that our country's
>reputation for arrogance and self righteousness is bad enough as it is.
>By allowing more competition into the designation of top level domain
>names, we might begin to demonstrate that we as a country do actually
>recognize the presence and importance of countries other than our own.
>Don't get me wrong, I love my country as much, if not more, than most
>Americans. That is part of the reason I have this opinion. I don't want
>to see the country I love being resented by other nations.
>Please, do the right thing and allow more competition in the registration
>process. I believe that is how it was originally concieved, and that is
>how it should be run.
Michael Twist firstname.lastname@example.org
Internet Domain Registrars
From: Jackovy <Jackovy@aol.com>
Date: 2/27/98 5:22pm
Subject: DOMAIN NAMES
Attention: Ira Magaziner
Re: Discussion Draft
Your January 30th proposal is counterproductive. The internet is not yours to
regulate any more than is global weather.
Governments here in Arizona are trying to regulate fires in fireplaces but
haven't even tried, yet, to do something about brush fires and forest fires.
Notice that, in both cases, we're talking about the burning of wood.
I trust that you see the comparison to Washington trying to regulate Global
Commerce and the Internet.
By now, you've probably heard the same thing from the European Union. Listen
to the Internet Community and gTLD-MOU.
Let's get on with it before there's another Tea Party!
From: Manolin Jimenez <MJ3000@webtv.net>
Date: 2/27/98 7:10pm
Subject: new domain