From: RAE LATHAM/MCCAINE <raes@swbell.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/28/98 9:33pm
Subject: DOMAIN Reg/Gov Regulation

As a novice I have enjoyed and profited via the Internet. All with out
any type of government regulations.
We have TOO MUCH gover. regulations now. The government should leave
the Interent to the commercial and privatee sectors.
Out of all the publications I read regarding this issue, I only hear
complaints about government intervention...(or as our government refers
to it), regulation and fair plaly. If the government becomes involved,
believe me there will be no more "fair play". It will COST everyone
much more in the long run, besides the time lost while our government
spends tax payers money trying to regulate the Internet.
How long will we have to wait for the government to say, okay, you can
do this now? If it functions like the FDA then time will be sent back
400 years or worse. Let progress move forward.
I have enjoyed the Clinton administration, and respect all that they are
trying to accomplish....but they need to stay out of this one.

Sincerely;

Rae Latham/McCaine
11926 W. 77th St. #204 Lenexa, KS 66216

###

From: "Lisa Mitchell" <lmitch@atlantic.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/1/98 1:26pm
Subject: For Profit Domain Registration Could Hurt Small Business

I am an Internet user and own a small, local computer business. Part of my
business deals with registering domain names for my customers & creating
web sites for them.

From my perspective, I am both glad & concerned about the proposed changes
to the Domain Registration Process.

I do believe additional gTLDs are needed. However, I also believe that
the domain name registration process should be left in the hands of a
SINGLE NOT FOR PROFIT GOVERNING AGENCY. If you allow multiple for profit
entities to register domain names under their own unique gTLD, you allow a
MONOPOLY.

When a business registers a domain name, they invest time & money to
advertise their web site & develop their business under that unique name.
WITHOUT SET GUIDELINES, A SMALL BUSINESS HAS NO SAFEGUARDS to prevent the
entity holding their domain name from pricing them out of the marketplace
once the business has created a successful site at that address.

A limited number, 5 -10, additional gTLDs are needed. The shorter & more
concise domain names are the most effective from a commercial standpoint.
As the number of businesses establishing their presence on the internet
grows, short & concise domain names become fewer & fewer.

The various search engines, such as Infoseek & Yahoo, would prevent the
additional gTLDs from causing confusion (assuming the Internet addressing
procedures behind the new gTLDs works).

Lisa Mitchell

###

From: "BOB ROSE" <ROBERTJROSE@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/1/98 6:13pm
Subject: new world disorder

though past events may be rewritten by government agencies charged with the
authority of record keeping, the future and present will, and should, be
determined by those endowed with the insight and vision to dream.

any attempt to bridle the ideas of the insightful will be met with justified
oposition and unsurmountable obstacles. actions seen as obstacles to
progress have and will be circumvented in a way that makes those responsible
for placing the obstructions appear as evildoers and anti-advancement
minorities.

please do not put the US government in the position of the overburdening
16th century english government that ended up overrun by forward thinking,
loose minded individuals succesfully working around the governing bodies and
the suppressing laws the government attempted to enforce.

the internet and global electronic mail (GEM) is not something to be taken
lightly. it is the new media for worldwide peace and understanding. as in
all communication, there will be misunderstanding and misuse. the weak and
ignorant will be "killed and eaten". this is the rule of life on earth and
no amount of regulation will or ever has been effective in lessoning the
cause and effect. think on the basic laws of the earth before deciding on
legeslation to "protect" the future.

R J ROSE
AVC
robertjrose@worldnet.att.net
620.679.1409

###

From: "christine beed" <chrissiewissie@hotmail.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/2/98 3:33am
Subject: gTLD

I urge you guys to approve and get the gTLDs out so that I can finally
register my preferred domain of sean.web. I've been eagerly awiting
this domain for several months. Thank you for listening:).

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

###

From: Nikolaj Nyholm <nnyh@speewak.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/2/98 9:46am
Subject: name proposal

Dear Sirs,

I am certain that the comments I now present you with have already been
formulated by many an internet organisation as well as companies
currently involved in the CORE process. I, however, feel that also the
user - in this case a foreign user - of the internet must be heard.

I also represent the many clients of my employer that have approached us
curious to what will happen with the domain name system. They are users
- as I am - in the sense that they run businesses, personal relations,
etc. on the internet. They have current assets at stake, but also future
assets. They wish to have a fair chance to register domain names in the
future - the future in which every toaster or television set will have a
domain name. They do not wish to deal with a multitude of organisations,
running different names. A central non-profit registry with registrars
from which they can get complete answers and services is in their and my
best interest.

The plan set forth by the IAHC and recent revisions by CORE of their
policy, creates this fair playing field in which no single registry or
registrar has a monopoly. Creating five registrars will not solve the
problem of chaos
This is no foreign conspiracy, but simply an attempt by a wide and solid
range of parties working together (not apart) to make the best of it for
the users of the internet.

Sincerely,

Nikolaj Nyholm
Copenhagen, Denmark

###

From: "Chris Rikli" <imbatman@acc.jbu.edu>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/2/98 9:33am
Subject: attention: ira magaziner

The internet works because the no government, including that of the
United States, has jurisdiction over it. The internet should not
fall under the judisdiction of the FCC or any other government
agency. Government tampering with private ventures has historically
propogated ineffeciency and opened the door for political figures to
exploit issues for their own short-term needs. The IANA does a
superb and competent job of promoting effeciency on the web. Please
do not let the internet become another cumbersome, ineffecient system
straddled by the behemoth of bureaucratic excess. Let the IANA run
the web and keep the US government out of it.

Chris Rikli

###

From: Constanze Schmidt <CSchmidt@EUROTEL.DE>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 3/2/98 11:57am
Subject: Comments on the Technical Management of Internet Domain Names

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

as an attachment, you will receive Comments on the Technical Management
of Internet Domain Names stated by Eurotel GmbH Internom, Germany.

Thank you very much for considering these comments.

If you should experience difficulties with reading the attached
document, please do not hesitate to contact me

Yours sincerely

Eurotel GmbH Internom
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Constanze Schmidt
Projektleitung Internom
Johannes-Kepler-Straße 4-6
D - 71083 Herrenberg

Fon: 07032 - 932 310
Fax: 07032 - 932 397
E-Mail: cschmidt@eurotel.de
http://www.Eurotel.net
http://www.Internom.com

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Let´s work together !

This is the comment on the Green Paper by Eurotel GmbH Internom, Germany, stating the official position of the company towards the technical management of Internet Domain Names.

Eurotel GmbH Internom has been dealing with on- and offline-services for the last ten years, watching the Internet growing at tremendous speed and gaining weight both in our business and worldwide. Having so much to do with the Internet, we are highly sensible to its strength and weaknesses while acknowledging at the same time its power and significant importance for global economy. The need for opening the Internet to self-governance and sound international competition is as big a need as the restructuring of the DNS, allowing for more name space and providing better clarity and convenience.
Being involved with CORE from the very beginning, we are convinced that the model developed is highly sophisticated, well defined and globally driven, and that it represents the best solution at the time being.

While reading the Green Paper with great interest, we recognized that there is consensus on the overall strategy, but at the same time we wonder why the US Government comes up with an new solution that is in many ways more vague and less professional, announcing problems that are already well taken care off in the CORE model, and being somewhat inconsistent.

We like to point out some key issues that in our opinion manifest clearly the quality and advantages of the CORE model.

We strongly feel that the US Government should revise its draft and adopt the CORE solution as it stands in order to ensure best development potentialities and a healthy competitive environment to the Internet now.

One TLD per registry.
That actually implies that the registry holds a monopoly, forcing the customer to accept all conditions and prices the registry wishes to impose. The customer cannot leave unless he gives up his name and all investments. What e.g. happens if this registry ceases to exist ? This is incongruous to the postulation of free competition.

Multiple Shared Registry:
There are several reasons against this proposal - at least as it is now lined out in the discussion draft:
First of all, there is no motion for a non-profit status of the registries thus providing the registries with the power of enforcing its very interests without control.
Second: Several registries will have different protocols, data requirement, policies , etc, which will render registration more complicated and eventually more expensive.
Third: The GP argument for favoring multiple registries is competition. At the same time, only one single TLD is allocated to each registry, making them monopolies and so foreclosing all possible competition.
To avoid these severe problems establishing of an institution forcing all registries to operate on an exactly equal base concerning policy, pricing and data requirement would be necessary. But in that case there could be no competition - so what would be the real advantage of having multiple registries ?

If multiple registries is an unalterable demand, however, then they must be non-profit and in all events each registry should be allowed to administer all new TLDs.

Delay
Why is there such a long time frame when CORE is ready and could go live at once with a tested, working system ? (There is a tremendous demand for new TLDs, manifested in pre reservations amounting to a 6 digit figure.) Besides, the US Government could use the CORE model as the desired test for the results the introduction of the new TLDs will have on the Internet.

Global Internet
There is a strong emphasis on the new non-profit organisation replacing IANA, headquartered and being incorporated in the US. No requirements are made towards the international character of registries or registrars. CORE was developed on an international scope; it unites companies from all over the world, bringing in all the special knowledge and customs to grant the goals of CORE being globally orientated.

Equality
NSI will be granted the right to administer 3 TLDs whereas all other registries have to put up with one. Up to now we did not see a reason that could justify this decision. One wonders how this complies with the concerns regarding antitrust that have been expressed in the discussion draft.

All these above mentioned points and ongoing reasoning, however, are spoilage unless the US Government gives a legal prove of its actual right to exercise regulatory authority over the Internet as a whole and the introduction of international new TLDs.
Although we fully acknowledge the important role the US played in the early development, what is known as the Internet nowadays is the result of contributions and investments from countries all over the world.

Sincerely

Eurotel GmbH Internom
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Constanze Schmidt
Projektleitung Internom
Johannes-Kepler-Straße 4-6
D - 71083 Herrenberg

Fon: +49-7032-932 310
Fax: +49-7032-932 397
E-Mail: cschmidt@eurotel.de
http://www.Internom.com
http://www.Eurotel.net
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Letīs work together !

###

From: "Charles Goldman" <charles_goldman@hotmail.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/2/98 2:16pm
Subject: get lost, Magaziner!

Your "green paper" is bringing chaos to the net and shame to the U.S.A.!
What's your share from network solutions for extending their monopoly??
These bastards are making more than <strong>$8 million each
month</strong> you're delaying competition!!!

get lost, Magaziner!

Charles Goldman,
U.S. Citizen and longtime Internet User

P.S. For an excellent backgrounder, <a
href="http://www.NewHavenAdvocate.com/articles/raiders.html">check this
out!</a>

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

###

From: Desmoins Jan <desmoins@caramail.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/2/98 3:55pm
Subject: Desole, Monsieur Magaziner (Disappointment of Green Paper)

Because I am speaking from a different toungue than your
own (francais), I have asked a friend who is an interpreter
to translate my comment to you.

I have read the European Commission's response to the US
Green Paper. I have chosen to wait until this document was
released before I responded to the Green Paper.

The US has published, on 18 February 1998, the draft
proposal for the future of the Internet. The European
response can be found at
http://www.ispo.cec.be/eif/dns/ip98184.html

I agree with the European response, because I believe it
essential for the "European Union to participate fully in
the decisions which will determine the future international
governance of the Internet."

Their principles are important aspects ignored in the
Green Paper, namely that there should, as a baisc minimum
for Internet governance, be:

1.) Balanced and equitable intenational private sector
participation in Internet governance.
2.) Procedures for consumer and user representation.
3.) Participation and representation of International
organizations in the regulation of information and
communication industries world-wide.
4.) Competition in domain name allocation.
5.) Internationally agreed to intellectual property and
dispute resolution procedures.
6.) European representation in an internationally
recognised body overseeing the domain name system.
7.) A transparent and stable DNS.
8.) Fair and transparent financing of Internet
organisations. Specifically the existing Internet
Infrastructure Development Fund.

As these issues are extremely important to me, I hope you
are getting the message. Please do not ignore them. The
US could throw the Internet into disarray if these issues
are ignored.

Sincerely,

Jan Desmoins

______________________________________________________
Boite aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com

###

From: "Scott" <scottfleury@turnhere.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/2/98 3:24pm
Subject: Domain Name System

Attention: Ira Magaziner

As a concerned Netizen I must voice my disapproval with your discussion draft. I have read many of the comments posted on-line and I see that response is overwhelmingly negative towards your proposal. At least in recognizing that the DNS needs change, you have initiated the first step of a positive transition.

I do not understand, however, how you can ignore the C.O.R.E. proposal. To ignore it is a slap in the face to those who want a democratic, inclusive, and competitive domain name system.

>From what I have read about C.O.R.E., it came out of consultation with the Internet community. All the stakeholders are involved, which is what should happen if we want competition in domain names.

The proposed changes would ultimately make business difficult for those attempting to establish relationships with customers on the other side of the Atlantic. And what about Asia? My consultancy is reliant on these international connections. Please do not create a rift in the Internet.

Scott Fleury
Foreign Trade Consultant

The comments above are my own. They are not necessarily the opinion of my employer.

###

From: "Laurence" <eisner@end-war.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/2/98 5:56pm
Subject: domain names

My name is Laurence Eisner and I am a citizen of the United States. I am ashamed that the U.S. Government sees it fit to turn up a domain name system solution that involves little more than bureaucratic time-wasting.

Delaying the new names only means added headaches for everyone. There is nothing in the draft which mentions the timely manner this whole project should be completed in. Preferably months rather than years. Let's not put the GTLD-MOU on the back burner for another few years while the U.S. Government decides the future in its sloth-like fashion.

Laurence W. Eisner

###

From: Randy R Butera <Randy_R_Butera@ccm.sc.intel.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/2/98 7:53pm
Subject: Internet DNS Comments

My comment on the proposed legislation is:

- That it is imperative that this controversy be solved IMMEDIATELY.
Significant resources are being squandered on this controversy.

- With the usurping of power by the Federal government, no one is really
in charge. The system seems to have been working just fine, and now its
stalled.
Hundreds of vendors are accepting registrations, some with no money back
policies. There are going to be many disappointed people no matter
which way the decision goes. But since more resources are wasted every
day, DO IT NOW.

Randy Butera

These opinions are mine alone, and do not reflect those of my employer.

###

From: Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/2/98 9:45pm
Subject: Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses

My name is Carl Oppedahl and I offer these comments in response to the
February 20, 1998 notice in the Federal Register relating to Docket No.
980212036-8036-01, and in particular in response to the Discussion Draft
contained in that Notice.

I have no financial interest in the outcome of this proceeding. I have no
affiliation with any of the companies that stand to make money as a result
of this proceeding. My interest in commenting here is in promoting the
interests of the Internet community generally.

Briefly, I have the following concerns:

The Draft has substantially derailed the gTLD-MOU domain name plans that
had already been well developed, with substantial public comment and
involvement, many months previously. In doing so, the Draft runs the risk
of playing into the hands of the incumbent monopoly adminstrator, Network
Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") by perpetuating its monopoly position. While the
Draft does contain language that is intended to address NSI's monopoly
position, the Draft is not as clear and unequivocal as it should be on this
subject. The draft fails to take fully into account the flaws in NSI's
present domain name trademark policy. Finally, the draft wrongly
characterizes the status of trademark holders with respect to the Internet.

I. NSI's monopoly should be broken.

The Draft says:

"1. NSI will effectively separate and maintain a
clear division between its current registry business and
its current registrar business. NSI will continue to
operate .com, .net and .org but on a fully shared-registry
basis; it will shift operation of .edu to a not-
for-profit entity. The registry will treat all registrars
on a nondiscriminatory basis and will price registry
services according to an agreed upon formula for a period
of time."

This requirement, as presently worded, does not go far enough to protect
the Internet community. There is too much danger that after the "period of
time" has passed (or indeed even *during* the "period of time"), NSI may
price-gouge. The actual annual cost to operate the root servers, divided
by the number of domain names listed therein, is in the magnitude of
pennies per year. Dispite this, NSI presently charges an annual fee ($50)
which far exceeds that annual cost. Even if the IIF tax is dropped, as
contemplated in the Draft, a $35 annual fee would far exceed the true
annual cost.

NSI, a publicly traded share company answerable to its stockholders, has
every incentive to shift costs to the registry business and away from its
registrar business, for example by pricing its registry services too high
and thus disadvantaging the competitors to its registrar business.

It is crucial that the registry maintaining the .COM database be closely
regulated to avoid price gouging.

The Draft says:

"2. As part of the transition to a fully shared-registry
system, NSI will develop (or license) and implement
the technical capability to share the registration of
its top-level domains with any registrar so that any
registrar can register domain names there in as soon as
possible, by a date certain to be agreed upon."

What the Draft fails to say is that domain names need to be freely
transferable, that is, away from NSI's registrar business.

The Draft says:

"3. NSI will give the U.S. government a copy and documentation
of all the data, software, and appropriate licenses to other
intellectual property generated under the cooperative
agreement, for use by the new corporation for the benefit of
the Internet."

"4. NSI will turn over control of the "A" root server and the
management of the root server system when instructed to do
so by the U.S. government."

These two provisions are crucially important, as they serve to reduce the
bottleneck power of NSI.

II. NSI's flawed domain name policy should be recognized as a failure and
be abandoned.

Whenever NSI cuts off or threatens to cut off a domain name under its
flawed policy, the harms extend far beyond the unfortunate domain name
owner, to the entire Internet community. For example, some months ago NSI
determined under its policy to cut off the "juno.com" domain name (despite
the fact that no one had made even the slightest showing that the owner of
"juno.com" had violated anybody's trademark rights). Had NSI carried out
its plans, this would not only have harmed Juno Online, the owner of
"juno.com". It would also have harmed the half a million customers of Juno
Online whose email addresses contained "juno.com". But more to the point,
it would have harmed the millions of persons who wanted to send email to
those half million customers.

Juno Online had enough money to sue NSI to seek a court order blocking NSI
from cutting off the domain name. Regrettably, being sued did not cause
NSI to drop its plans to cut off the domain name. Even the scheduling of a
court hearing on the subject did not cause NSI to relent. It was only
during the hearing itself that NSI backed down and agreed not to cut off
the domain name.

In the Juno case, NSI's harm would have extended to those who send email to
customers of Juno Online. But other cutoffs of domain names that have been
proposed by NSI and/or carried out by NSI cause harm in ways other than
email. For example, when NSI wrongly cuts off a domain name used in a web
site address, the domain name owner is of course greatly harmed (and in
many cases put out of business by NSI). But the harm also befalls those
who had previously made bookmarks to that web site that now don't work.
NSI's harm also reaches those who had created web sites that link to the
now-dead web site. The Internet community generally is harmed by such
actions of NSI.

Just last month (February 1998), NSI announced the fourth revision of its
flawed domain name policy. This Fifth Policy continues to place domain
name owners at risk of loss of their domain names even when they haven't
done anything wrong. Indeed this Fifth Policy contains language that
purports to give NSI the power not only to cut off a domain name but to
*transfer it* to anyone NSI may choose, in NSI's "sole discretion".

Unfortunately, the Draft fails to take full account of the harms of NSI's
flawed policy. Likewise it fails to address the fact that even if NSI is
split up into a registry and a registrar, each of these businesses will
continue to harm the Internet community through NSI's flawed policy, as
will now be discussed.

A. NSI's flawed policy causing harm through the registry

Even if NSI is split up into a registry and a registrar, as contemplated in
the Draft, the NSI policy will continue to cause harm to all .COM domain
name owners (and to the entire Internet community) through the registry.
The Draft says very little about this, saying no more than that the NSI
registry must provide:

"a. Alternate (i.e., non-litigation) dispute resolution
providing a timely and inexpensive forum for trademark-
related complaints. (These procedures should be
consistent with applicable national laws and compatible
with any available judicial or administrative remedies.)"

The Draft apparently has backtracked from two months ago, dropping a
previous Green Paper proposal that the registry domain name trademark
policy be "independently reviewed". This is regrettable, since one of the
chief sources of the flaws in NSI's policy is that NSI has developed its
policy and revisions only in secret with no involvement by the Internet
community.

It is important to realize that even if the NSI .COM registrar monopoly is
broken (i.e. if registrars other than NSI come to exist, and if .COM
domains become freely transferable among the registrars), NSI will still be
wrongfully cutting off domain names through its registry business unless
denied the power to do so.

It is likewise important to realize that NSI does not even pretend that its
domain name trademark policy is for the benefit of the Internet community.
As one United States federal judge said:

"NSI's standard domain name registration agreement
contains a domain name dispute policy, but the policy
has not proven effective in resolving domain name
conflicts."

"It is clear beyond question that the Policy's sole
purpose is to protect NSI. Indeed, as Panavision itself
stated in its opposition to defendant NSI's motion to
dismiss: '... NSI has repeatedly represented that it
is out to protect no interests but its own.'"

It is crucial that, at a minimum, the NSI registry be required to submit
its policy to independent review. It would be far better if the NSI
registry were simply denied the power to summarily cut off domain names.
The present NSI policy that purports to allow NSI to cut off or even
transfer any domain name for no reason whatsoever (other than NSI's "sole
discretion") must be scrapped.

For a detailed discussion of the appropriate policy to be adopted by a
registry or registrar, see "Analysis and Suggestions Regarding NSI Domain
Name Trademark Dispute Policy", appearing in "Coordinating the Internet"
published by MIT Press <
http://www-mitpress.mit.edu/book-home.tcl%3Fisbn=0262611368 >, ISBN
0262611368. The article also appears in Fordham Intellectual Property,
Media & Entertainment Law Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, Autumn 1996, p. 73. A
draft of the article may be seen at < http://www.patents.com/nsi/iip.sht >.

For reasons set forth below, there is actually no compelling public policy
reason why a "timely and inexpensive forum" needs to be provided for the
special case of second-level-domain-name trademark disputes. There are
dozens of other ways that trademarks can be infringed on the Internet (e.g.
web site content, meta-tags, third-level domain names) and no "timely and
inexpensive forums" have been created to address them.

As the Draft correctly points out, "above all else,", it is critical to
"ensur[e] the stability of the Internet." The stability of the Internet is
weakened by NSI's flawed policy which has led and will lead to cutting-off
and transferring of domain names for no valid reason, and will cause URLs
and email addresses to break, thus harming webmasters and the Internet
community generally.

B. NSI's flawed policy causing harm through the registrar

If domain names were freely transferable among registrars the way toll-free
telephone numbers are freely transferable among long-distance carriers,
then the flawed NSI *registrar* domain name policy could be avoided by the
simple step of transferring one's domain name to a registrar that had a
sensible policy. Unfortunately, the Draft fails to make clear and
unequivocal plans for some date by which domain name owners may transfer
their domain names away from NSI and thus avoid its flawed policy.

It is very important that a date certain be set by which .COM domains will
be freely transferable.

III. The Draft contains a few incorrect or misleading statements about the
plight of trademark holders:

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

"[W]here a trademark is unlawfully used as a domain name,
consumers may be misled about the source of the product
or service offered on the Internet, and trademark
owners may not be able to protect their rights without very
expensive litigation."

These statements are untrue or at best, misleading.

Before the Internet came along, trademark holders had to enforce their
rights with respect to the conduct of others. Such enforcement was
directed to company names, product names, product packaging, advertisements
in print, radio, and television, and to toll-free numbers that spelled
words. Trademark holders had then, and have now, a variety of mechanisms
for enforcement, including litigation.

Now that the Internet is here, trademark holders have to enforce their
rights with respect to the Internet. Such rights are enforced with respect
to the content of web sites, the titles of web sites, the content of email
messages, meta-tags, and domain names. Many parts of a domain name may
cause offense to a trademark holder, including third- and fourth-level
domains and directory names and file names. For example, the Exxon company
might take offense at exxon.oil.com, or at oil.com/exxon.html, or perhaps
exxon.com (if that domain name were owned by someone other than Exxon).
For all of these types of Internet-related conduct save the last, the
mechanisms available to Exxon are no more nor less than the mechanisms
Exxon would use with respect to an offending package label or print
advertisement. Chiefly, Exxon could go to court.

It is puzzling to wonder exactly why it is that a trademark holder needs
special relief in the special case of a second-level domain name (e.g.
exxon.com), that is, why regular court action doesn't work just as well in
the case of an offending second-level domain name as it does in the case of
a web site with offending content, or an offending meta-tag. For example,
most web sites are not hosted by their owners, but are located on computer
server space that is rented from a company that offers web site hosting
services. If a web site happens to have offending content, the trademark
holder does not look for some special trademark policy of the company that
hosts the web site to obtain relief -- the trademark holder simply goes to
court. Similarly, if a trademark holder feels that a domain name somehow
gives rise to trademark infringement, there seems to be no special reason
why a special relief mechanism is needed from the administrator of the
top-level domain -- again the trademark owner ought simply to go to court.

It would be fairer to say that the mechanisms for resolving conflict
between trademark holders and domain name holders are no more expensive and
cumbersome than the mechanisms for resolving conflict between trademark
holders and members of the general public. There is no particular reason
why, of all the ways that a member of the Internet community might infringe
the rights of a trademark holder, any particular one (in this case, the
selection of a second-level domain) should be singled out for special
relief. There is no reason why the Internet community should be compelled
to provide and fund a sort of low-cost legal services clinic for the
benefit of trademark holders.

###

From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@vrx.net>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("dns@ntia.doc.gov.")
Date: 2/18/98 5:33pm
Subject: spam from staff@registrars.net

Maybe you could create a seprate comments area for the
spam direclty or indirecly from staff@registrars.net.

It would be a bit easier to read legitimate comments that way.

Cheers, and keep up the good work.

###

From: handey <handey@mauimail.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/2/98 12:59pm
Subject: Re:deep domain thoughts

To the esteemed department of commerce,

Maybe to understand the intricacies of the U.S. green paper, we have to look
at the words themselves. Basically, it is made up of three separate words-
"green," "pa" and "per." What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and
that's why so is the U.S. green paper.

Yours,

jack handey

###