From: Angelo González <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/16/98 3:54am
Subject: Re: Draft on Technical Management of Internet Domain Names

Attention: Ira Magaziner

For the many that do not know how Internet development has taken
place and why it has become the STUPENDOUS TOOL it is today, your
proposal may have looked timely and well-intentioned. However,
for those that have followed closely the evolution of the Net,
your proposal is untimely and will have a negative impact on those
same areas that (it claims) need to be "responsible controlled
to preserve the stability of the Internet". Finally, I feel
that your proposal (at this time) is simply an unwarranted
government intervention promoted by the lobying efforts of
commercial groups. The facts below, you (or your advisors)
should have known, why were they ignored?:

1) Yes, the US goverment has provided most of the funding
for Internet development. But the main reason for the
Internet success, has been mostly due to the lack of
government intervention --in the way it evolved and self-
regulated through the years.

2) This self-regulation (free as much as possible of external
commercial interests) had been initiated by the earlier
Intenet pioneers (Vint Cerf, Joh Postel and many others).
Later, they promoted the creation of organizacions like ISOC,
IAB, IETF, IANA and... the Net has been doing fine and the
Internet community has been very pleased.

3) This same group, under the leadership of the Internet Siciety
(ISOC), soon realized the need to stablish an entity that
would govern the Internet, and would represent the world-wide
Internet community. It started working on a plan that would
steer a smooth transition into a new Internet to be endowed
with a globally and democratic elected managing organization.

4) One of the more urgent issues was the managing of the
domain name system (the gTLDs). In preparation for the
time when the current administrator (Network Solutions)
relinquished control, the International Ad Hoc Commitee
(IAHC) was formed to specifically deal with this issue.

5) The IAHC started working about two years ago and di a good
job. Its activities were well publicized, and through the
creation of the Council of Registers (CORE) had everything
ready for a smooth transition.

...and then, when less expected and less needed the US government
decides to intervine.

Your proposal is late. It is very similar to what had been proposed
(and partially tested) by IAHC and CORE, but instead of improving on
that, it introduces changes that clearly benefit the interst of
commercial parties, rather than doing any good for the global
Internet comunity.

I would appreciate, that your recommendation back to the US
government, be one of asking to STOP FURTHER INTERVENTION AND

Angelo Gonzalez
Member of ISOC (Galician Chapter)
Vigo, Spain


ANGELO GONZALEZ is a telecommunications software engineer,
He worked for 26 years in the USA (RCA Labs, ITT Defense
Coms., Plantronics and MCI International). Since 1989,
when he first started using the Net, he has been closely
following its development. In 1992 he decided to come
to Spain to set up his own Internet Services Company.
He is member of ISOC.


From: "James O'Donnell" <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/16/98 1:31pm
Subject: (No Subject)

Leave the internet to those who have worked to construct it. Jon Postel deserves
to head the non-profit organization. The other countries of the world should have
a stake in the internet also. Why destroy what has worked in the past?

No government control has made the Internet truly free. Don't forget that it is
the users who have constructed the Internet, not any government. The U.S. may have
funded it in the beginning, however, Canadians, Europeans and many others have been
instrumental in building the Internet. The World Wide Web was a European idea, not
an American one.

The whole reason the internet works now is because of little government control.
The reason new domains should be added is that more people and companies will have
access to the internet. Don't control it.

My 2 cents worth.

Jim O'Donnell

Get your FREE, private e-mail
account at


From: "daniel flemming" <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/16/98 2:47pm
Subject: trademark policies

To Whom It May Concern:

While your draft does recognize the importance of changes to the domain
name system, it unfortunately disregards trademark policies for dispute
resolution. There are no ethical considerations in place if a registry
or registrar unethically charges customers or hoardes domain names.
Since there is no appeal process, and customers must chew what they are
force-fed, there is still a Network Solutions monopoly.


Get Your Private, Free Email at


From: "Stephanie Bowman" <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/16/98 3:26pm
Subject: Politics as usual?

To Whom It May Concern:

I read your paper concerning the proposed changes to the Domain System and am perplexed.
I am perplexed because your paper very obviously allows the InterNIC to continue
its position of power FOR NO GOOD REASON.

Please do me the consideration of answering just a couple of questions. Just reply
to this email.

1) On what basis does the US Dept. of Commerce argue that Network Solutions should
be the ONLY company which will be allowed to be both a Registry (for .com) and a
Registrar? Seems to me like this position just reinforces Network Solutions' claim
to *own* our .com domains!

2) Has anyone connected with the green paper ever registered a gTLD with the InterNIC?
This question is VERY RELEVANT because if nobody from the Dept. of Commerce has
ever registered a domain with the InterNIC then how can you pretend to know what
your talking about? Go home tonight, pick a domain name, and then try to register
it on your own. This will teach you an invaluable lesson of what it is like to deal
with a monopoly. No choice! And you want to lock in all the current users of .com
to a registry maintained by ONLY Network Solutions? Madness I say...

Let me illustrate the problem with having just one company act as the registry for
a gTLD. Let us look at .com for a minute.

If a company or person in any country which does not have an Anglo-Saxon heritage
registers a .com domain in their name, Network Solutions makes it next to impossible
for them to modify key information about their domain. This is because of Network
Solutions' policy which calls for a 'Name Change Agreement' form to be notarized
by a notary public. Anyone who has travelled outside of the Anglo-Saxon world can
tell you that it is next to impossible to get a document notarized in a country such
as Germany, Japan, or Brazil!

Is a person in Germany or Japan supposed to jump on a plane to America, Australia,
or England in order to get the InterNIC's 'Name Change Agreement' form notarized?
I can tell you as a fact I asked them if there is any other way to make a name change
without a notary notarizing the 'Name Change Agreement'. Their answer was "NO" even
after I informed them that 95% of the world DOES NOT USE A NOTARY SYSTEM.

This is causing a lot of pain and frustration for .com name holders which you should
know are increasingly non-American. How can you allow a "True Blue" American company
like Network Solutions to maintain such grossly biased (towards the American system)
policies for the rest of the world that needs and wants to register .com names?
These non-American name holders have made NSI rich and this is how they repay a large
portion of their customers?

If it wasn't a monopoly NSI would be in deep *!#! and wouldn't be going public on
NASDAQ as they recently did.

I implore the Department of Commerce to modify its position in terms of allowing
NSI to be both a registry and a registrar. No company should be allowed to perform
both functions no matter how pseudo-separarted the government makes them. Do some
good for the internet community and give us all the opportunity to have .com names
with no strings attached to Network Confusion.

Stephanie Bowman

Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!


From: charles liu <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/16/98 4:36pm
Subject: Reasons why I support CORE

Dear Sir or Madam:

Thank you for the opportunity to offer my comments regarding the
discussion draft for the governance of the internet domain name system
. It is certainly noble to open your discussion up to the public and
the web community in general as it promotes democracy and the ideal of
free speech.

I am firmly in support of the CORE proposal, however, because it is:

1. an internationally agreed to non-profit group
2. firmly entrenched in a code of ethics
3. 87 registrars competing rather than 5
4. opening up 7 domains rather than 5
5. ready to start now rather than years from now
6. open to appeals in conflicts
7. ready for dispute resolution

Please redraft your discussion draft to include these requirements or
endorse the CORE proposal. Business would like the 7 domains to be
available in the next few months instead of no time frame at all.

Sincerely yours,

Mr. Charles Liu, Tech. Support Specialist

Get your free address at


From: "laura black" <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/16/98 4:48pm
Subject: Say NO to unemployment cues

My name is Laura Black and I live in Columbus, Ohio. I am outraged that
this draft ever made it to the draft stage without having anything about
the Core proposal in it.

Just because it'll make those .com's a little less valuable doesn't mean
the corporate weight of the U.S. should step in and saturate Washington
with campaigners. I am against this mass corporate involvement in the
Internet. Continuing the NSI monopoly just adds fuel to the fire.

With Core at least there is some sense of INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS,
something the draft ignores.

There is also choice for consumers beyond the .com and .net domains.
Endorse Core's proposal and you'll see the Internet flourish even more
than all these corporate bigwigs imagined.

Enact the draft as is, and you'll put the brakes on one of the biggest
sectors of economic growth. You'll have the unemployment cues lining

Thanks for the opportunity to offer MHO.

Get Your Private, Free Email at


From: "wbode" <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns),NTIADC40.SMTP40("kmr@chaos....
Date: 3/16/98 5:50pm
Subject: News Release re Reply to Gordon Cook's "Bode vs. NSF"


March 16, 1998, Washington, D.C. -- In his March 11 Report, Mr. Cook complains that the law suit in which I am lead attorney, Thomas et al. v. NSI and NSF (not "Bode v. NSF") threatens the Internet: "If [DOJ doesn*t win] . . . there is a chance that it could emerge with a ruling that strikes down the entire fee structure. If DOJ bumbling allows that to happen, it would deal a massive blow to Magaziner*s entire effort. For anyone who believes the stability of the Internet is important NSF can*t afford to be allowed to lose. Should NSF lose I predict that we may be plunged into crisis mode and emergency rule making with NTIA given a free hand." Mr. Cook invites his readers to come to Federal Court on March 17 to see the "deus ex machina that blew everything to hell." When the purposes of the suit are appreciated, Mr. Cook*s comments are revealed to be as unfortunate hyperbole (however well-intended).

In the law suit, we are attacking the greatly-excessive "Registration" and "Renewal" fees that NSI exacts from everybody who wants a "domain name" (such as ""). More specifically, we allege that the Cooperative Agreement between NSI and NSF for Internet Domain Name Registrations is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes to the extent the Registration and Renewal Fees it authorizes exceed the cost of providing this service. The Court has already ruled in a Memorandum Opinion issued February 2, 1998, that there is a "substantial likelihood" that the portion of these fees earmarked for the "Intellectual Infrastructure" Fund is an unconstitutional tax. At the hearing on March 17 we ask the Court for this relief: (a) summary judgment on the claim that the 30% "Preservation Assessment" is an unconstitutional tax; (b) an audit of NSI by the General Accounting Office to determine the extent to which the fees collected by NSI exceed its costs; (c) an injunction against NSI from making any disbursements during the audit to its privately held parent, SAIC; (d) an injunction requiring NSI to place Renewal Fees and the "Reservation" Fees ($49) in escrow, pending a determination whether NSI incurs any costs for these services; and (e) the return of the "intellectual property" developed under the Cooperative Agreement, including the Registry, to NSF.

In other words, contrary to Mr. Cook*s comments, we are not seeking to plunge the Internet into "crisis mode" -- we are simply challenging NSI*s multi-million dollar profiteering at the Registrants* expense. Thus, this suit is about fundamental principles that transcend the Internet. The law suit addresses the question whether as American citizens we will permit government agencies to disregard the limitations placed on them by the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. The Constitution prevents the executive branch of government from taxing. When your renew your car license, the Motor Vehicle Office can not impose a "surcharge" of $30 for the "preservation of the highways." When you enter a National Park, the Park Service cannot charge you a "surcharge" of $30 for the "preservation of the park system." The Independent Offices Authorization Act ("IOAA") prohibits any government agency, such as NSF, from charging "user fees" that exceed the cost of the service provided. Mr. Cook, that "cost" can include a reasonable profit.

In the law suit, the Plaintiffs contend that the profits realized by NSI are unconscionable. We maintain that the costs of initial Registration should not exceed $10. The costs for the renewal service is little more than the billing transaction costs. What has happened between NSI and NSF is unprecedented in the history of government contracting law. It cannot be disputed that if NSF itself performed the registration service, user fees would be limited to the cost of providing the service. Indeed, please recall that the domain name registration service was free until the September 13, 1995 secret amendment to the Cooperative Agreement ("Amendment 4"). In some magical manner, NSI/NSF claims that Amendment 4, authorizing NSF to charge Registration and Renewal Fees, excuses them from adhering to the limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and government procurement regulations. This contention -- which paves the way for government agencies to impose charges indirectly (through a private entity) that they could not charge directly -- is as audacious as it is threatening to our rights as citizens of this great country. The government has created in NSI a private monopoly which engorged with over $80 million in illegal profits is creating a massive infrastructure to dominate the Internet for years to come. Quite frankly Mr. Cook, the Department of Justice should be prosecuting NSI/NSF, not defending them.

Finally, I*m glad you mentioned Magaziner*s "Green Paper." This law suit has revealed that the Internet is built on legal quicksand. The promise of the Internet cannot be fulfilled unless a proper legal edifice is established. The private corporation envisioned by Mr. Magaziner does nothing to solve this problem. A better suggestion might involve the formation of a government-sponsored corporation to manage the Internet registry function. That entity would interface with another U.S. government chartered organization composed of International members to oversee other aspects of the Internet, such as those now run by IANA. These international members would contribute financially to the development of the Internet in recognition that over $4 billion in U.S. taxpayer money has developed the Internet. A model for this is Comsat Corp., the U.S. satellite corporation, and Intelsat, the international organization that regulates satellites. I refer you, in this regard, to the Press Release of the American Internet Registrants Association (AIRA) of which I serve as General Counsel at ""

Mr. Cook, I will be in Court next Tuesday morning protecting your rights, and the ethics of American capitalism. Your friend, William Bode.

For further information, contact: Judy Caruthers, or 202/828-4100


From: Bruce Kaduk <>
Date: 3/16/98 5:32pm

This draft has more holes than Swiss cheese. I think that should be
obvious by now.

The draft stinks even worse than Swiss cheese, though I doubt this
is what the department of Commerce's intended.

It's great cheese if you are Network Solutions. Think of it as just
that. There will only be five mice, NSI one of them. They will all
hoard the cheese and not allow any others to eat it. Greedy greedy

The trap will be set instead for the consumers of the domain names who
will have to fork over more and more cheese. That's a lot of cheese.

And Magaziner will be the big cheese on top of it all.

A metaphor by Bruce Kaduk

Get your free address at


From: "Jason Byrne" <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/16/98 6:05pm
Subject: Department of Commerce Green Paper

Dear Mr. Magaziner,

I applaud your efforts at trying to help the Internet along into what is
likely to be a much more commercial model than we had previously. Lord
knows that what was once an academic privilege has now become a
commercial necessity.

When I heard that the White House and other govt. offices would be
releasing a plan to manage the net's addressing system I thought to
myself "Thank God!". Our current net addressing system is in terrible
shape due to the mismanagement of the InterNIC and this must be
corrected without delay.

There are 1.5 million gTLD's registered at the moment and the demand is
growing increasingly. This has caused companies to pay huge amounts of
money to get a "good" name. Last year I read that a domain name brokers
outfit called 'idnames' had brokered a deal for '' for a
whopping $150,000!!! Not bad since it only cost the broker $100 to
register in the first place.

The reasons why .com is filled up is because Network Solutions allowed
(and continues to!) people to register their domain names even if they
didn't have working DNS name servers! That is also known as "lame
delegation" and is discussed in certain RFC's which Network Solutions
chose to ignore because they would loose money if they made people
follow the *rules*. They also screwed up big time by allowing people to
register names without payment in advance. This led many domain brokers
to register domains with the InterNIC and then not pay the bills for
them unless the broker found someone interested in the name they

Don't take my word for it. Assign 2 interns to submit 200 domain
applications to the InterNIC and if those 200 names are available you
will get them. Don't worry about technical things such as DNS as they
don't care about that. When you get their bills in the mail just ignore
them for the 3 months you'll receive notifications. Now after 3-4
months the domains will be deleted for non-payment. Don't worry Ira,
just tell your 2 interns to copy and paste the info into new
applications and the fun begins all over again!! You can tie up 200
names with the work of a couple interns! Thanks NSI!

See what I mean by mismanagement? When 100 brokers do this to 200 names
that means 20,000 names are out of circulation for no good reason.
Network Solutions could have easily prevented this but they chose to
keep their model as is because its a cash cow.

Some people think that there are a lot of good domains left. This is
not the case. See this site: for a
well done report on what slim pickings are left. We need to have more
choice for our $100 and by God if I have a choice between giving my $100
to the InterNIC or to a company with policies that took me into
consideration, I would choose the latter.

I am also upset that your draft makes no mention of the International Ad
Hoc Committee's proposal. Are the elected representatives of my country
so insensitive (or ignorant?) that they chose to ignore the work of
these experts? There is really no good excuse for you leaving out the
work of these experts and I suspect that your decision to do so came at
the behest of lobbyist for Network Solutions. If you left their work
out by accident I strongly urge you to at least mention their efforts in
your revised plans. This would at least give you the illusion that your
listening to parties besides Network Solutions.

While I DO NOT fully support the gTLD-MOU the IAHC came up with, I do
support some of its goals. For example, the MOU calls for a non-profit
registry to administer gTLD's which is far more superior than having a
for-profit registry own our domain name details. If the registry is
non-profit then there will be no incentive to keep prices artificially
high. In fact the prices a non-profit registry would charge its
registrars would have to be low or the registrars wouldn't survive. If
the registrars die out then the registry will too.

In no circumstance should the coming registries be allowed to be
affiliated with any particular registrar/company. If one registrar is
seen by the public as "being in there" with the registry then you can
bet your bottom dollar they will have an unfair advantage in the psyche
of millions of consumers. Your current plan though gives the upper hand
to NSI/Worldnic which everyone will know is the registrar which uses the
InterNIC/NSI registry to get their domains registered. Don't cripple
the competition before they even get out on the field.

While I think your plan has good sound intentions I would suggest you
revisit some of its major planks. I look forward to seeing your revised
proposal in the future.

Best Wishes,


Get Your Private, Free Email at


From: "Robert F. Connelly" <>
To: NTIA Green Paper Comments <>
Date: 3/16/98 7:07pm
Subject: Comments on Green Paper

Concerning the Green Paper references under the heading "The Trademark Dilemma", we would like to enter the following comments:

The first two paragraphs state, "The job of policing trademarks could be considerably easier..." have substantial fruit for our comments. The first of those paragraphs describes how poorly the Whois function works for Intellectual Property professionals. The Green Paper describes and prescribes just what CORE offers in the SRS, a "robust and flexible search tool..."

The Green Paper describes the type of procedure which was proposed in the gTLD-MoU and which CORE is building into the SRS. Intellectual Property professionals will be able to download batches of new listings from CORE on a daily basis. These can then be subjected to the algorithms used by well known international "trademark watch" systems. As noted in the Green Paper text, the present use of Whois limits these services to slow and tedious searches -- resulting in an overloaded service -- thus slowing the services available to the general Internet public.

Other registries should be required to provide such a service. The present system available for .com, .org and .net are woefully inadequate. We would hope that such a requirement is added to the recommendations for *all* existing and proposed registries subject to the Green Paper.

Respectfully submitted,
Robert F. Connelly

Robert F. & Jane Wms. Connelly
California Mailing Address
17300 E. 17th Street
Unit J-222
Tustin, CA 92780-1991
TEL (714)544-6242
FAX (714)730-9434
CellPhone (714)270-3599
FAX (714)730-9434
US Toll Free Voice or FAX to: 1-888-828-4177


From: "Dieter Pesch" <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/16/98 7:37pm
Subject: Tough Questions


As an American citizen (with a German father) living in Chile I have often had to
answer for my country. Now that the Internet has caught on here I am starting to
get questions from colleagues who know me asking about "The Green Paper". I guess
they ask me these questions cuz I'm the only "gringo" in the company. I don't know
what to tell them and hope you could help me answer some of their questions.

Here are their questions:

a. Why does the US govt. not support the international group which came up with
seven new names? Is this because the InterNIC stands to loose a lot of money if
people prefer .shop over .com?

b. Will we see any new domains happen this year or will the US keep this from happening?

c. Who will decide how much they cost and will they be cheaper than the InterNIC's

d. Will there be registries located outside of the US or will they be in Virginia

e. Will the new registries which are set up take into account that the US domain
holders are slowly becoming a minority (I get this one a lot!)?

And I have some of my own questions I would like to add to this.

1. Why did you let Network Solotions charge $100 for a .com domain? Who set that
price? If InterNIC made that price why didn't they think of the millions of their
customers who DO have computers and Internet access but to whom $100 is an outrageous
sum of money to pay for a domain name?

I would like to note here that I have registered a .cl domain for my family mailing
list because the fee charged here is $50 one_time_only and the Chile NIC is very
fast and efficient compared to the bureacracy of the US/InterNIC.

2. Since I read on CNN that a US lawyer got a court order to freeze some of the
money InterNIC collected for .com domains I would like to know if registrants in
countries outside the US will get a refund when the time comes?

I am very interested in this case because I believe that there was some monkey business
going on in Washington when InterNIC was allowed to charge such a large fee for a
public service. When I visited the Smithsonian Museum I paid $8 and boy was it worth
it! Now I understand that my 8 bucks helped pay for new exibits, cleaning of the
many buildings, and the staff of the musuem. The point is that I found the charge
to be in line with a public service of value.

But when InterNIC charges the public $100 for what their own SEC filings called "automatic"
is that in line with what the US government allows other agencies and contractors
to charge the public?

It is fair that InterNIC got to make some money to cover their expenses but if the
contract which made them multi-millionaires was made with the government that means
they cannot rake in the millions off our backs. My friends here sadly glaze over
when I bring up this point as corruption in the government and businesses is even
worse here than in the US.

3. Will US users ever get the chance to have a .us domain? I think it is absolutely
an American phenomenon that all Americans think .com is "ours" and they have no clue
that .us even exists although they have seen other country domains on the Internet.
If .us is going to be used in the future as you point out in your paper I would
hope that you don't allow one company like Network Solutions to control it. That
would be the biggest make imaginable and I sincerely hope you keep the idiots at
the InterNIC away from .us which is only in good shape to be used because the InterNIC
couldn't touch it.

I hope you don't find these questions too much to answer. Please try to answer questions
a-e so that I can show my colleagues from your reply that the US really is more advanced
them they are;) They don't speak English but I'll translate your answers the best
I can.

Thanks for taking on this task. I am sure that I speak for millions of Americans
and other nationalities when I say that anything you come up with for the future
will be better than having to deal with InterNIC.

Saludos y Paz,
Dieter Pesch

Get your FREE, private e-mail
account at


From: Kurt Clough <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/16/98 9:20pm
Subject: Policy Question

Dear Sir or Madam:

What in the world are you trying to do besides make a monopoly even stronger? I read your paper and it is clear that Network Solutions is held in high esteem in some cozy close quarters inside the Beltway. They are the registry for our domains now and they have a new company called Worldnic which is their friendly consumer face to the ugly and incompetent registry they run. Stop it right now!

I demand to have a full accounting of any and all meetings between representatives of Network Solutions/SAIC and officials of the US government in connection with your green paper. The public has a right to know what went on between a company with millions of dollars at stake and the officials which are supposed to be looking after us. FYI, I know politics and how they work. My Republican Congressman would love to hear any innuendo he can that lead to news articles about Democrats being bought by those with money. Prove my suspicions wrong by providing an accounting of Magaziner's meetings with Network Solutions.

Please don't extend or increase the monopoly power of Network Solutions as you lay out in green paper. This will only cause more small businesses pain and misery and will also result in a corruption of competition. You can't expect a company like TABNET (worlds biggest registrar) to offer .com domains to their customers competitively if Network Solutions remains the registry of .com and offers .com domains through their Worldnic company. This will perpetuate a monopoly that has had seriously damaging effects on companies. Network Solutions cuts off domains all the time when their OWN SYSTEMS screw up! Ask big companies like Microsoft what happened with and you'll see what I mean. Microsoft got their name back online quick because they have many more millions than Network Solutions. The majority of don't have the money for long distance phone calls to the InterNIC or time it takes to defend ourselves from their incompetence. If companies like Microsoft get screwed by t

he InterNIC can you imagine how many of us get screwed and you never hear about it?

I challenge the Department of Commerce to give me one good reason why Network Solutions shouldn't be banished from ever dealing with domain names again.

Has anyone asked why they continue to charge people two years fees in advance when their contract with the US to manage .com runs out in late September of this year? Isn't it FRAUD to make people pay in advance when you have no way of guaranteeing (or even knowing) if you will be handling that customer's account at a specified later date?

Is Network Solutions so well entrenched in Washinton D.C. that the President's advisor on the Internet is so afraid of upsetting a company with powerful allies that he is willing to sell the Internet short in order to keep Network Solutions on the gravy train? If the answer is "yes" I'm not suprised. If the answer is "no" then prove it by making the notes of your meetings available for public scrutiny.

Ashamed in the US,

Kurt Clough

Discovery Channel Online
Your World. Your Experience.

Sent by Discovery Mail


From: Joseph Friedman <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/16/98 9:19pm
Subject: Proposals on management of the DNS

Dear Sir,

I believe it would be beneficial to incorporate the Internet Assigned
Number Authority (IANA), as a private non-profit corporation based in the
United States. (New York City may be an ideal location, in its status as
the formal seat of the United Nations, and its being informally known as
"The Capital of the World".) Its responsibilities should include running
and maintaining the "A" root server, all other root servers, as well as all
of the generic Top Level Domains (gTLD) servers including .Com .Net .Org
and any of the new gTLDs. (Currently .Com .Net and .Org use the same
physical servers as the actual root servers. But that may soon change.)
This responsibility would be in addition to current non-DNS related
operations of the IANA, i.e. Internet Protocol (IP) number allocations.

It would make sense to have one organization (in this proposal IANA)
control Domain Name System (DNS) policy as well as run the actual root and
gTLD servers. The existing .Com .Net and .Org gTLDs should be maintained by
IANA as well. This would make IANA the one and only registry, in which
multiple registrars interact with. Costs incurred by IANA, in performing
its DNS operations, would be covered by a very minimal one-time fee (for
each domain registered) charged to the various registrars. These fees
should be on a per registration basis, charged only once--at the time of
registration. There should be no annual or periodic fees for a domain name
charged by the registry to the registrars, as the primary cost for the
registry is adding it to the database (and modifying it if requested--but a
domain name can, theoretically, be registered and never again modified).
This would allow the registrars to, if it chose, charge its customers a
small, or even possibly no fee.

All gTLDs should be available for registration to all registrars. New
gTLDs should be added on a regular basis. It may be wise to start the
process with perhaps 10-15 new gTLDs. (It should be noted that various
Internet experts, including Jon Postel, have indicated that adding 100's of
new gTLDs would not cause any difficulties. It should also be noted,
currently the same servers functioning as the root servers function as the
.Com .Net .Org .Edu and .Gov servers, containing literally millions of
domains in the servers.) The new gTLDs should be as generic as possible.
After a period of time, in which it is deemed that the new DNS system is
operationally working, and that any short generic term is already being
used as a gTLD (this may mean there are multiple hundreds of gTLDs, by this
time), any entity (individual or corporation) should be allowed to register
there own Top Level Domain (TLD) for use however they see fit (i.e. IBM may
choose to register .ibm as a TLD for its own use.)

Customers of registrars should be allowed to switch between registrars at
any time, for any reason. This can be accomplished by the registry (in this
proposal IANA) allowing the registrant of a domain name to renew his domain
name with any of the registrars. This is pro-competition.

Jon Postel, for over nearly 30 years, has demonstrated to be an effective
and wise leader in running various functions necessary to keep the Internet
up and running. As such, Mr. Postel ought to be maintained as the Director
of the newly incorporated IANA. I leave it to your wisdom, to design a
method to choose the board of directors of the organization.

Trademark law should be based on the location of the registry (in this
proposal there is only one registry, IANA, based in the United States) as
the physical servers will, presumably, be based in the same country as the
registry. Another option (I recommend the previous), is to have trademark
law based on the location of the registrar (which there will be many of).
The government of the United States of America, in its deliberations on the
future of the DNS, should not be cowed by foreign governments,
organizations, or individuals who deride this government for creating a
plan for the future of the DNS. It must be remembered that the when the
U.S. government was--and is--paying for the operation of the DNS and other
Internet functions (thru IANA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the
Department of Defense (DoD), the Federal Networking Council (FNC), and
other agencies and organizations), nobody was--or is--complaining. And
furthermore, it was the U.S. government that created, what is today known
as, the Internet. As such the United States has every right, indeed
obligation, to work towards a new entity that will govern the various
Internet functions. And, as such, has a right to have these new entities
based in the United States, and be subject to certain U.S. laws.

Joseph Friedman


From: Joshua <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/16/98 11:33pm
Subject: new TLDs

Attn: Ira Magaziner
Re: discussion draft

Please allow the new TLDs to be implemented in April at the
LATEST. Now I'm a big Clintonite, but your constriction of the
new TLDs is making it hard for young entrepeneurs like me to form
the web-based businesses we're anxious about. Thank you very much.