From: DAVIES Kevin J <DaviesKJ@corporate.pwh.qld.gov.au>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov.'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 3/5/98 3:24am
Subject: DISCUSSION DRAFT 1/30/98 - personal comment only

Whilst the main thrust of the paper is supported, the future remains
unknown and it may be prudent for some reserve official authority to be
considered should it be needed. Pursuit of terrorism and other cross
national offences against humanity come to mind.

Consideration might also be given to ensuring a country identifier
attaches to and is visible for all Internet Addresses. This would
facilitate the enabling of official sanction against misuse of the media
given that the jurisdiction of national governments is limited by
geography.

While it is understood that commercial interests might find this
stifling, a balance needs to be struck with public interest.

###

From: Puff Magique <puff_le_dragon@yahoo.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/5/98 5:46am
Subject: Part two

Ira, you and all the happy "Boomers" want to sing along; this version
will be widely sung for months on the charts ...

Puff the Magic Dragon

Puff, the Magaziner, lived by DC
And frolicked in the Winter mist with a boy owned by SAIC.

Little Gabe Battista loved that rascal Puff
And brought him stats and sealing wax and other FANCY STUFF, oh

Puff, the Magaziner, lived by DC
And frolicked in the Winter mist with a man owned by SAIC.

Puff, the Magaziner, lived by DC
And frolicked in the Winter mist with a man owned by SAIC.

Together they would travail to usurp the Internet
Gabe did keep his monop'ly perched on Puff's gigantic tail

Noble kings and princes were ignored from where'er they came
AlterNIC monopolists raised voices high when Puff roared out their
name, oh

CHORUS

A dragon lives forever, but not so InterNICS
Monopolies and giantsÆ rings make way for other picks.

One September night it happened, Gabe Battista came no more
And Puff that Magaziner, he ceased his fearless roar.

His head erroneously sorrowed, green scales fell like rain
Puff no longer went to play with Internets again.

Without his DoD-CIA friends, Puff could not be brave
So, Puff that Magaziner sadly slipped into his cave, oh

CHORUS
Puff, the Magaziner, lived by deceit
And frolicked in the Winter mist with a man owned by SAIC.

Puff, the Magaziner, lived by deceit
And frolicked in the Winter mist with a man owned by SAIC.

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

###

From: <saunders@earthdome.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/5/98 7:35am
Subject: competition (real and otherwise)

The Internet is better without your meddling, Mr. Magaziner. Let
Jon Postel have the authority he deserves as part of a non-profit
organization, and open the domain name registration market for real
competition.

NSI has proven its ineptitude and should not be allowed to embarrass
the U.S. business community any longer. Yes, they have gotten
better as time has worn on, but they are a monopoly, and monopolies
are not competition. Even opening it up to a few other registries
is not competition when one is weighted so heavily as NSI is. What
name will they get, Mr. Magaziner? Will it be .web or .firm? Isn't
that nice. Still a monopoly.

If the U.S. government wants to get out of the business of domain
name registration, STEP ASIDE and let competent and respected people
continue to build the Internet.

HENRY SAUNDERS
ANGRY U.S. CITIZEN WHO WANTS REAL COMPETITION AND LESS GOVERNMENT
MEDDLING

_________________________________________
Get your free vanity email address at
http://www.MyOwnEmail.com

###

From: <simonbaker@earthalliance.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/5/98 7:57am

Dear Ira Magazoner,

I hear Saddam wants to draft his own proposal on the new domains.
He says if the U.S. can do it, so will Iraq. He wants .anthrax and
.biowarfare as some of the new domains. He doesn't want any
registries or registrars at all, either.

Give us a break. Don't drop the bomb on a thriving Internet.


_________________________________________
Get your free vanity email address at
http://www.MyOwnEmail.com

###

From: <bradjacobsen@postmaster.co.uk>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/5/98 2:25pm
Subject: Do not ignore Core

IRA MAGAZINER
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
U.S. GOVERNMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Thank you for opening this issue up for comments. I was hoping that you
would
end up implementing the Core proposal. It is definitely the best solution
to
the Internet domain dilemma. Adding the 7 new top level domains that
everyone's been talking about makes perfect sense.

I am surprised, however, that there is no mention of the Core proposal in
your
report. Could it be that you made a mistake by not including it? It's
hard to
miss Core. In fact, by omitting it, the report insults the intelligence of
the
Internet community. Core discussed the domain name system with everyone
and
was an open process, while your report was created behind closed doors, cut
off
from the Internet community. The World Intellectual Property Organization
agrees with Core. IANA, who have been running the domain name system since
the
early eighties, agrees with Core. They also have lots of support through
many
organizations, companies as well as Internet consumers.

You cannot ignore Core. In the next draft, I would suggest you include
Core.
It makes sense.

Sincerely yours,

Bradley Jacobsen
President
Reaction Technologies

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

###

From: Stuart Berman <stuartb@demon.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/5/98 2:37pm
Subject: Response to Green Paper From Demon Internet

This is a response from Demon Internet, one of Europe's leading Internet
Service Providers, to the USA "Green Paper" on the "Improvement of
Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses". Demon registered
over seven thousand Domain names last year and hosts 21,000 domains. We
have several comments to make about the proposals the paper contains.

Multiple Registries

We see no justification for competing registries. The need for
competition is met at the registrar level and we believe that multiple
registries will not improve the service.
Here in the UK we have a successful scheme to manage the "*.uk"
namespace. This uses a single registry, owned by the registrars who use
it, which is not intended to make long term profits. This model avoids
restrictive practices and keeps costs somewhere near an economic
minimum.
In schemes with a single registry the problems with "lock-in" cannot
occur. We think the "green paper" seriously underplays this issue. In
particular, little thought has been given to what would happen if a
registry failed, or decided that it did not wish to continue in
business. This problem arises today at the two letter country code
level, but in practice no national government is going to let its
registry collapse completely. However, different considerations apply to
a commercial enterprise running an unpopular gTLD. Is it to be a
requirement on the other registries to "bail it out" ? If not, what
happens to the users.
If registries are owned by the registrars then it is in everyone's
interest for them to be efficient. If they are not owned by the
registrars then they will become a profit centre in their own right.
However, to make profits, registries do not need to be efficient, just
to keep their existing customers (since portability between registries
is not proposed, the customers will find it more economic to stay than to
move and change email address).
Besides objecting in principle to multiple registries, we think that
there are serious practical problems as well.
Many registrars, such as ourselves, have already invested heavily in
CORE and it is unlikely that a second registry would be greeted with the
same willingness to invest. Consequently, unless some other form of
funding is proposed, a second registry is likely to provide inferior
services to those of CORE. This will mean that the TLDs it represents
are likely to fall into disrepute.
The existence of multiple registries will restrict the number of TLDs
given to CORE. The smaller registrars who are supporting CORE will find
it difficult and expensive to work with many different registries and so
will handle only a proportion of their expected business. They will fall
by the wayside, threatening the existence of the only well conceived new
registry project in existence.

Favourable Treatment of the existing gTLDs

We feel IANA/NSI have been treated very favourably in the "green paper".
In particular we note that NSI will be continuing with three TLDs
whereas all other registries will have to make do with one. Since there
are economies of scale in the registry business, we feel that this will

not be the "level playing field" proposed.

Technical Purity

The membership of the proposed board of directors for the new not-for-
profit corporation is light on technical representatives - only the IAB
and the ARIN/RIPE/APNIC directors can be guaranteed to be technical.
This is entirely inappropriate if the organisation is charged with roles
in address block allocation and co-ordination of protocol parameters.
US Centricity
We feel the paper is very US-centric and it is questionable as to
whether the US government has the authority to act independently in this
matter.
Although the USA is the largest user of the Internet, more recognition
of the wider global forum would have been appropriate. The location of
the new body in the USA and the use of US courts for disputes are both
inappropriate in a global system.

Poor Timing

Finally, we believe that the US government is taking action in this
process at completely the wrong time.
The importance of the DNS as a directory service, and hence the interest
in domain names, is transitory. We have seen this before with fax. In
1985 you could purchase a single special telephone book, of the usual
size, listing UK fax numbers. This was a valuable aid to locating
companies, and was used for that - far more than its official purpose.
Such a book, if it existed today, would be fifty times thicker and
completely useless. The DNS is going the same way and we predict the
imminent arrival of practical easy-to-use directory services which will
make the actual domain name almost irrelevant.
Regulating to control the DNS now is a mistake. Let it evolve by
consensus in the community, such as we see with CORE, rather than by
interference by a single national government.

Regards

Richard Clayton and Stuart Berman
Demon Internet

--
Stuart Berman

###

From: <rhodes@altern.org>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/5/98 3:47pm
Subject: Impact of the U.S. government proposal for new domain names

To Whom It May Concern:

From what I understand as the U.S. government proposal for new domain names, making a distinction between \'registrar\' and \'registry\' is silly. Separating these functions merely adds another difficult obstacle for businesses in purchasing domain names. Competition at the registrar level is a good idea, but with Network Solutions around, I don\'t think this can seriously occur.

Five for-profit registrars is too little. Such an oligopoly cannot offer competition beyond what Network Solutions has provided for so long.

I noticed that Mindspring has left Core. Might this be because they will be one of the five registrars selected? Is there insiders in the U.S government handing over the Internet as a gift to their ex-CIA comrades?

Picking the five TLD\'s won\'t be so hard, either. Network Solutions can have the most commercially viable domain. Here you go, NSI, there\'s .web for you.

I\'ve been reading much about the council of registrars and did those 88 and now 87 registrars waste their money by joining? All those other people who paid non-refundable fees for their domains have also wasted their money? Lawsuits are set to follow I\'m sure.

Losers:
-the Internet community
-those who put much time, money and energy into projects like Core
-those who paid any money in advance
-the international community

Winners:
-Network Solutions, which is still a monopoly. They also will become even stronger with registrar and registry subsidiaries.


I am not American. I do not feel my opinions have been accurately reflected in this proposal.

Andrea Rhodes

###

From: <smits@positive-thinking.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/5/98 12:25pm
Subject: give freedom a chance

Dear Ira Magaziner:

I favour deregulation, free enterprise, and self-governance of the
Internet. These are the main principles of the CORE proposal.
In an editorial in the Washinton Times, Greg Hurst writes that "if
the administration is serious about deregulating the Internet, there
are alternatives. The Internet Council of Registrars (CORE) -a
nonprofit organization of private companies from around the world -
has proposed a 'shared registry system'...No single company would
have a monopoly...give freedom a chance.".

I could not agree more with this statement. If you can, Ira
Magaziner, give freedom a chance.

Donald Smits
Hospital Administrator


_________________________________________
Get your free vanity email address at
http://www.MyOwnEmail.com

###

From: "Mark Johnstone" <mark_johnstone@hotmail.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/5/98 6:40pm
Subject: Comments on Green Paper

Dear NTIA,

I am a long time Internet user and I also own a small cabbage farm. Last
year I registered a .com domain name with the InterNIC for my eldest son
to use for his music group. In the coming year I plan to register
another domain name, this time for my farm.

I have read and agree with the "Green Paper" proposal. I believe I speak
for a silent majority of informed Internet users who think this is the
best next step to take.

Desicions like this can never satify all parties. One side want
international regulation and many new top level domains. International
organizations like the United Nations take a long time to do little. Too
many new top level domains will create confusion among users and futher
allow speculators to grab up all the useful names until we are in the
same situation again.

The other side wants as little change as possible. While this may
actually work for a lot longer than many would have us believe, it is
better to plan now for improving the current system where necessary.
While my experience with the InterNIC was good, I can see potential
problems with them not having any competition. Establishing a few new
domains under a new more neutral central authority sounds like a
reasonable appoach.

Please don't decide too quickly. The Internet is currently running just
fine! I have read all the comments received before mine and it seems
many of those who want the most radical change are doing so for their
own financial gain and not the good of the community.

Sincerely,

Mark K. Johnstone

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

###

From: "Dave McFerren" <davem@solve.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/5/98 10:15pm
Subject: Keep gTLD-MOU

Gentlemen,

I have watched the internet grow from an intellectual toy known by a select few, to a powerful media and household word. This was accomplished without the direction of the government. I continue to believe that the Internet does not need government's direction in the present or in the future.

In my personal experience, I have seen the way government bureaucrats move ideas and organizations from dynamic, useful tools to dead weight that everyone would be better without, and costing everyone ten times what it is worth.

Let the gTLD-MOU do what it KNOWS how to do, and try to keep the government's involvement to an absolute minimum.

Dave McFerren
davem@solve.net

###

From: "Brian" <bjcon@earthlink.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/5/98 10:38pm
Subject: Green Paper

The present InterNic fee is excessive and both a)generates improper tax revenue, and b)excessive profits for NSI.

When the contract with NSI expires on 4/1/98 reimbursement should be made on a Cost Plus Fixed Fee basis. Otherwise, I agree in principle with the Green Paper.

Brian Considine

###