From: "John R. S. Orange" <>
To: "''" <>
Date: 3/21/98 12:30am
Subject: FICPI Domain name submission

I enclose the FICPI submission in Word 8.0 (office 97)

23 March, 1998





FICPI ( La Federation Internationale des Conseils en Propriete Industrielle ) is an international organisation broadly representative of industrial property practitioners in private practice. It has over 3000 members in over 60 countries.

FICPI has read with considerable interest the innovative proposal put forth by the United States Department of Commerce. FICPI assumes that the Secretary of Commerce has had regard to current proposals being made by IAHC/POC/WIPO in connection with the preparation of the Discussion Draft. While the U.S. Discussion Draft incorporates elements that are clearly original in many respects, it mirrors the WIPO proposals in certain other regards. FICPI has actively participated in those discussions through the Trade Mark group of the Work and Study Commission ( CET) and contributed a number of amendments adopted in those discussions.

FICPIís concern with the draft proposal is not necessarily with any specific detail of the Discussion Draft at this point, although there are a few preliminary comments we may make at the appropriate time. The more important concern we have is that if the U.S. intends to retain substantial indirect control over the Internet and the domain name system, then we strongly recommend that broad based hearings to discuss this proposal, along the lines of the WIPO meetings, be held in Washington D.C. or some other acceptable city to be certain that international ideas and concerns are taken into account.


We recommend that representatives of organizations in the intellectual property field, the telecommunications field and members of the Internet community be invited to attend and discuss the U.S. proposal so that if it is to be implemented, it will be the beneficiary of widespread international input and support, rather than being perceived as an insular dictum. FICPI recognizes that while the U.S. may not particularly contemplate requiring such input or support, its long term benefits could be very valuable, including avoiding the splintering of the Internet with the resultant difficulties in protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Furthermore, while FICPI is impressed with the ideas expressed in the body of the Discussion Draft, there is concern that trying to implement a fairly sweeping set of new rules and regulations of international application, which is similar to a new statute, with little international consultation and with a very short shelf life of international discussion is inadvisable. This is particularly so, given the fact that general ideas, albeit promising ones, outweigh specific details in the U.S. proposal - and this is troublesome.

Accordingly, FICPI makes the following recommendations:

1) NSIís contract be extended for at least a further six months to one year at a minimum, in order to preserve the .com status quo, during the period of uncertainty in just about every other area;

2) Representatives of the Department of Commerce contact POC and WIPO, to determine if the two proposals, which represent somewhat polarized approaches to the problem, cannot be reconciled in some way;

3) The Department of Commerce contact the Registrars of the ISO country codes in all countries, to see if they can somehow be linked to the proposal;


  1. A series of meetings or discussions groups should be organized, to which representatives of the intellectual property community, the telecommunications community and members of the Internet community, together with the ISO country code Registrars, WIPO representatives and any other parties considered to be interested be called to discuss specific topics and seek specific recommendations, including:

- the cost and format of alternative dispute resolution of domain name and possibly other Internet disputes,

- the precise criteria required for obtaining a domain name,

- an effort to determine if some international consensus can be reached regarding famous marks and how they should be dealt with, with respect to TLDs,

- a careful and in depth look be taken at the problems involved in jurisdiction and enforcement in relation to domain names and intellectual property infringement on the Internet.

With regard to the jurisdiction issue, regardless of where control of the Internet rests, be it in the U.S. or in Switzerland, wherever control of the database and root servers are will create jurisdictional problems for persons not resident in those countries. For those that are resident, the proposal will neither add to nor subtract from existing rights and methods of enforcement - it is the vast majority of Internet community members however, who will have to deal with jurisdictional problems.

The peculiar nature of the Internet requires, in our respectful view, some innovative thinking with respect to solutions that can be implemented when disputants are not from the same jurisdiction and not willing or able to solve the dispute according to their respective national laws. It does not seem reasonable that the bulk of disputants should have to attorn to the jurisdiction of one state, regardless of which state that is.


There are many possible alternatives, such as an international treaty, an international tribunal or, perhaps modifications could be made to the current Department of Commerce proposals which would make them more workable for those with jurisdiction and conflict of laws problems.

Clearly there is no simple solution and it may well be that in the final analysis, for the foreseeable future no ideal international solution is possible.

However, in FICPIís view, the very act of opening up the process to international discussion and scrutiny will go a long distance in ensuring the long term, healthy and unified growth of the Internet which is so necessary to its stability.

In conclusion, the ideas expressed in the U.S. Department of Commerce 1/30/98 Discussion Draft are both interesting and promising. Obviously considerable effort and thought has gone into the preparation of the Draft and FICPI feels that it is well worth pursuing the proposal. FICPIís concern as iterated above relates to two main points. First, there is a perceived need to increase international input and debate with respect to the proposal. Second, there is a concern that the Draft as it currently stands is overly general and lacks sufficient detail to be implemented within the contemplated time frame; the situation is analogous to the introduction of a new statute without the required operating regulations being put in place concurrently. FICPI recognizes and applauds the U.S. governmentís well-founded concerns relating to the maintenance and improvement of the stability of the Internet during the period of transition, and it is due to these same shared concerns that FICPI suggests that it is not in the best interest of the orderly development of the Internet and the domain name system to introduce the Department of Commerce proposal without taking the steps outlined in this submission.

We would be pleased to address any specific concerns you may have.

Yours sincerely,



John R.S. Orange



From: "moetteli" <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/20/98 10:06pm
Subject: A U.S. Patent & TM Attorney's Domain Name Reg. Comment

Mr. Magaziner,

I am a tax-paying American, and would like my opinion registered regarding
the domain name registration system.


Although it might be convenient to maintain a large part of the control of
registration within the United States, (1) I do not see how we have the
right to impose our own system on the World Internet community, (2) I do
not understand, though I've read extensively on the subject, what was
unacceptable about the system proposed by the IAHC and the Council of
Registers, and (3) Geneva seems to be the natural place for the
administration of any system that is agreed to, due to it's neutral
political position and long established reputation as a center of
cooperation among nations.

I am a licensed U.S. Patent and trademark attorney, and have my own webpage
at . Drop by and visit and leave
me a note.


From: "moetteli" <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/20/98 10:13pm
Subject: Re: Discussion Draft

Mr. Magaziner,

My name is John Moetteli. I am a tax-paying American, and would like my
opinion registered regarding the domain name registration system.


Although it might be convenient to maintain a large part of the control of
registration within the United States, (1) I do not see how we have the
right to impose our own system on the World Internet community, (2) I do
not understand, though I've read extensively on the subject, what was
unacceptable about the system proposed by the IAHC and the Council of
Registrars, and (3) Geneva seems to be the natural place for the
administration of any system that is agreed to, due to it's neutral
political position and long established reputation as a center of
cooperation among nations.

Thank you in advance for helping us keep our hands off this one.

FYI: I am a licensed U.S. Patent and trademark attorney, and have my own
at . Drop by and visit and leave
me a note. Thanks again!


From: "Robert F. Connelly" <>
To: NTIA Green Paper Comments <>
Date: 3/20/98 6:42pm
Subject: Comments on Green Paper.

To Whom it May Concern:

The Green Paper preserves NSI in the commanding position of being Registry and Registrar with a thin veil between them, managing three highly esteemed, well known gTLDs. The GP then creates five weak net entities each limited to one hitherto unknown gTLD. It would be difficult to imagine creating a more effective system to assure the success of behemoth NSI and the failure of most if not all of the new registries.

At the just completed Internet meeting in Los Angeles, Donald Telage, Senior Vice President for Network solutions, claimed that the Green Paper solution was the proposal that NSI submitted to the USG Interagency Task Force back in October, 1997.

If such be the case, and Mr. Telage so stated in a public Internet venue, it would appear that NSI has deliberately plotted to bring about the failure of "most if not all of the new registries", as I have suggested, above.

The next section of the GP deals with IANA's potential liabilities:

CORE has already realized the need for protecting IANA and/or the proposed "new corporation" from exposure to "considerable liability...". CORE has immediate plans to build a defense fund to support IANA from liability suits.

Respectfully submitted,
Robert F. Connelly
Robert F. & Jane Wms. Connelly
Homat Camellia #502
20-1 Ichiban-cho
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-0082, JAPAN
(Home) 011-81-3-3262-1729; FAX +81-3-3265-9884
(Office) +81-3-3234-6921
Cell Phones: Bob: +81-10-508-0018; Jane: +81-80-113-6171
US Toll Free Voice/FAX +1-888-828-4177


From: "Stager, Keith" <>
To: "'NTIA'" <>
Date: 3/21/98 12:26pm
Subject: Technical Management of Internet Names and Adresses

It came to my attention today that a plan in under review the change the
way the Internet is governed. To this I must comment with the well worn
phrase, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it."

It would be hard to find a greater success story in the history of
American government than the development of the Internet. I would hate
to see this powerful tool for mass communication manipulated by
commercial forces. Let's focus making changes to our government in any
one of the many areas where it is failing, and leave one of its few
success stories alone.

Phone: 606-873-2710
Fax: 606-873-2614


From: "toru" <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 1:34pm
Subject: Comments on Green Paper

Comments on Green Paper--- For Development of the Internet Governance

Toru Takahashi
Chairman, Internet Association of Japan (IAJ)/Tokyo Internet Corporation
Chair of Executive Committee, Asia Pacific Network Information Center
March 22, 1998

My comments are reflecting my positioning as a gTLD-MoU Signatory and
Registrar. IAJ is one of the Signatories, and TokyoNet is also Signatory
and #88 Registrar, a member of CORE.
Please note this is my personal opinion, not official announcement.

1. Who developed the Internet?
Basically, I very much appreciate to read Green Paper. Because it is
concerning the Internet Governance totally, and expecting stable, advanced
operation of the Internet. Of course we need more stable operation and less
conflict Internet operation. I agree with Principles for new system in
I really want to say that development of the Internet had depended on
funding from US Government in ARPAnet and NSFnet days. In those days,
however, engineers from different countries joined to develop protocols and
private sectors contributed to spread the Internet widely. After
commercialization and privatization of the Internet, users have paid for
operating the Internet. USG or any government could manage and administrate
the Internet.

2. No reference of gTLD-MoU
I was amazed and deeply disappointed to read GREEN PAPER because there is
no reference of gTLD-MoU. We understood gTLD-MoU process is completely open
for everybody, and believe it is based of the discussion in the Internet
Community including US Government. There is fair competitiveness on the
registrars. Regardless of IAHC, PAB/CORE/POC means that GREEN PAPER is
opposing to the Internet Community. This is very controversial in the US. We
cannot understand why Anti-Trust Law in US is against the activities of the
Internet Community. And we cannot understand why we face on the threat of
jailing Dr. Jon Postel who has been contributing for developing the Internet
and proposed to change the Internet Governance. We understood US Anti-Trust
Law is effective in US only, not for foreign countries. The Internet exists
as an international entity. The appliance of US Anti-Trust Law might be
against the Internet. You can easily assume the population of the Internet
users after 3 years will be far beyond the population of the US. Is there
any reason why the Internet has to be regulated by US law?

3. Possibility of Self Governance
In GREEN PAPER there is a proposal to build a new not-for-profit
organization which will take over roles and functions of IANA under the US
Government. Certainly, this proposal is a result of regardless of ISOC which
has been playing initiative for development of the Internet. Regarding for
Registry functions, IANA with ARIN, APNIC and RIPE NCC are coordinating as
self-governance registry organization all over the world. And IANA is
proposing to transit itself to new IANA before GREEN PAPER. Last January,
Jon Postel of IANA and Brian Carpenter of IAB Chair proposed to have
advisory group for transitioning of IANA, as ITAG, which has members from
Australia and UK. At the same time, ARIN, APNIC, and RIPE NCC are discussing
to make new coordinating entity all over the world.
This situation shows us that Internet Governance could be Self-Governance.
We need no governmental coordination. We would like to say there should be
NO US GOVERNMENTAL management and control. And we hope every government
might help the self-governance of the Internet.
As for dispute between Domain names and intelligent property rights
including trademarks, there are many troubles. But none of these issues
cannot be solved. Already, in the process of gTLD-MoU, WITO has been
involved to make ACP drafts. There will be reliable and internationally
organized steady entity for solving problems and conflicts.
Self-Governance is a new concept for making new organization. Out of any
governmental power, Registries of the Internet can coordinate each other to
have better governance of the Internet.
For rapid growth of the Internet, the Internet Community has been discussing
and found new protocol orders by itself. Process of gTLD-MoU is developing
Registrar system by itself. And around protocol assignments, IETF and IANA
continued big efforts by themselves for making new technology standard.
Of course we need more effective works, however, not as new organization
but by the efforts of enforcement of the current IETF and IANA activities.

4. International Coordination
There are already many significant critics on the Green Paper. We almost
agree with critics from EuroISPA and other organization in Europe because
they pointed that development of the commercial Internet has been depend on
the technology from CERN as World-Wide Web. Moreover, Japan is contributing
to develop new IPv6 experiment and cording. These facts show the Internet
technology is consisted on the international coordination, not in one
country but world-widely.
It is natural for everybody that the Internet Governance should be
organized on international coordination, not only in US under USG control.
Please consider there are several CORE members as governmental organization
for instance Korea and China.
From the first, we hope new IANA should be generated on the international
coordination. In these several years, we have had significant critics to
US-centric thinking from Asia and Pacific region. And in this region, we
have only one organization, which is referred in GREEN PAPER as APNIC. As a
member of APNIC, we would like to enforce APNIC activities and its
organizational power for making better entity of international coordination
and cooperation as real distributed environment.

5. Proposals
1) We hope US Government to push promptly for making the Self-Governance of
the Internet based on international coordination and cooperation along with
ISOC, IANA, IAB, WIPO, INTA, and Registries/Registrars.
2) We hope in the Internet Governance to separate functions of Registry and
We would like to have fair and effective competitiveness on Registrar based
on the activities of CORE. As for Registry, we believe there should not be
any competition. With cooperating ARIN, APNIC, and RIPE NCC, there would be
new proposal, advised by ITAG. Regarding Root Servers and DNS, it is
necessary to have distributed environment internationally.
We would like to propose to cease off monopoly of Network Solutions, Inc.
(NSI) as soon as possible. NSI should be a member of CORE and release
gTLDs(.com, .net, and .org) for members of CORE under gTLD-MoU.
Regarding ccTLD, there are ISO-3166 country code NICs or individuals
assigned by IANA for registering ccTLDs. We agree basically with Dr. Jon
Postel who issued a proposal letter world-widely, that called for making
some forum of ccTLD registrars. At several regions with cultural or economic
similarities in the world, ccTLD forums should be formed. This forum should
make clear vision for differentiating from gTLD. It would be useful for
preventing conflicts between ccTLD and gTLD.

6 Requirement for CORE/POC
We hope CORE/POC or any organization of the Internet Community will work
together with US Government to develop user benefit for better and efficient
use of the Internet apart from US-centric Green Paper.

CC: "executive-council" <>


From: Karl Auerbach <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 4:41pm
Subject: Formal submission

This is a formal submission to:

Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses

I strenuously object to the way the NTIA has hidden my submission to these

I object to the fact that my submission, although made in proper Microsoft
Word format, has not given visibility equal to that of other submissions.

Despite being in proper form, my prior submissions have been hidden under
secondary URL's at:

(Copies may be also found at:


I consider this to be unfair and prejudicial discrimination.

I also consider it to be a material procedural defect.

However I demand that NTIA immediately reproduce my submission in the same
manner as other submissions.

I further demand that NTIA take such other corrective measures as to
remedy such damage as has been caused by NTIA's failure to give my
submission equal consideration.



From: Milton Mueller <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 5:29pm
Subject: Comments

Attached are my comments in the DNS proceeding. The document is
in Word 97.
Please confirm receipt.
--Milton Mueller

Before the

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Washington, DC 20230

In the Matter of )


Improvement of Technical Management of ) Docket No. 980212036-8036-01

Internet Names and Addresses )



Comments of Dr. Milton L. Mueller

Associate Professor and Director, Graduate Program in Telecommunications and Network Management, Syracuse University School of Information Studies. 4-285 Center for Science and Technology, Syracuse NY 13244. +1-315-443-5616


In its Green Paper, the Commerce Department sets out a plan to gradually extricate the coordinating functions of the Internet from the control of the US Government. On the whole, this historic and very difficult task has been handled carefully and responsibly. Most of the basic features of the plan deserve support, including:

These proposed institutional changes preserve the open and competitive character of TCP/IP internetworking while enabling the central coordinating processes to scale up and become internationally representative and independent of the US government.

My comments also identify areas where the draft needs to be improved or where additional elaboration is needed. These can be summarized as follows:

    1. insulate domain name registries from trademark claims, and otherwise make it clear that the process of domain name registration cannot become a proxy for trademark policing;
    2. not allow suspension of domain names by registries based upon the mere assertion of a trademark claim;
    3. move all trademark disputes into the courts, but expedite resolution by giving trademark-related claims statutory injunctive relief in the Patent and TrademarkOffice.


  1. The Proposal to create a private, non-profit corporation (NPC) commands widespread support. Many Internet users and students of Internet policy were relieved and heartened by the planís insistence that the NPC Board be independent of national governments. That aspect of the plan will receive criticism from some parties in Europe and Asia, but I urge you to stick to your guns. Governmental representation on the board can only politicize its operation and set in motion unhealthy forms of competition for geopolitical dominance. The Internet belongs to civil society, both commercial and noncommercial, and needs to be insulated from governmental interference.
  2. I also wish to express support for the rapid transition time frame. Reform of these problems should have been initiated three years ago. The quick assumption of operational responsibility by the NPC on September 30, 1998, combined with the residual authority of the US Government until September 30, 2000, represents a good balance between the need for stability and the fact that change is long overdue.
  1. The proposals concerning the composition of the NPC Board are broadly acceptable. However, the plan finesses what is bound to be one of the major issues in the transitional period, namely the role and identity of the membership organization representing individual users. This is quite an omission, given that this as yet non-existent organization will elect or appoint half of the Board. This aspect of the proposal may be a lot more important, and potentially dangerous, than the drafters of the plan appreciated. The report does not document why it does not consider the existing Internet Society (ISOC) suitable for this role. The evidence and factors underlying this determination should be a matter of public record. ISOCís independence and integrity have been badly tarnished by its recent political alliance with the ITU and WIPO. Allowing ISOC to choose the 7 board members might give it too much power, given the close relationship between it and IANA and the IAB, and its apparent determination to move ahead with the flawed IAHC/CORE/POC/PAB gTLD-MoU plan. Even those of us who disagree with ISOC are left wondering what alternative exists, however. Will an entirely new organization, created out of whole cloth in the next six months, have the legitimacy and stability to represent millions of Internet users?
  1. The Green Paperís invocation of the possibility of antitrust liability is a crucially important safeguard. The Paper identifies three functions (number addresses, root server operation, and maintenance and dissemination of protocol parameters for Internet addressing) that are to be provided on a centralized basis. While provision of these functions on a monopolistic basis may seem unobjectionable now, there is no guarantee that future developments will not change this. It is worth remembering that telephone service monopolies were created because it seemed evident by 1920 that a single company could most economically implement the interconnection of all telephone users. The changing technology and economics of interconnection in the age of digital electronics fundamentally altered the validity of this assumption. The potential application of antitrust law imposes upon the new organization an important form of discipline against institutional rigidification and abuses of power.
  2. One of the critical decisions the Green Paper made was to propose the creation of new gTLDs immediately, rather than waiting to let the new organization decide whether and how to implement it. I wish to express strong support for this decision. The US Government must stick to its determination to introduce competition. This requires adding new gTLDs to the root immediately. We must not allow the evolution of the Internet services market to be delayed even further by the inevitable politics and start-up problems attendant upon the creation of the NPC. If anything, the Green Paper vastly underestimates the extent of the disequilibrium between the supply of and demand for new registries and new names. The following items, all of which are beyond dispute factually, indicate that the market for registry and registrar services has been badly distorted by artificial restrictions on the supply of TLDs:

Please listen to what the market is trying to tell you. There is a substantial and immediate demand for new gTLDs.

  1. Waiting for the new NPC to establish the new registries would be pointless. The problem has been extensively debated since 1995. IANA, the gTLD-MoU organization, and the current proceeding have all aired the issues, and in each instance a decision to add new gTLDs was made. By now the essential points of contention and the positions of various stakeholders are clear. It is hard to see how another round of deliberations on this issue by the NPC will produce any new information or make the issue easier to resolve. An NPC decision would, however, drastically shift the political context in which the decision was made. This would necessitate a whole new round of alliance-forging, lobbying, and so forth. The entire consensus-building process cultivated by the NTIA proceeding would be tossed out and everyone would have to start over. Almost certainly, such a process, conducted under a completely new and untested set of procedures, would be slow, divisive, and possibly destabilizing for such a young organization. The US Government needs to set the stage for the new regime by making it clear that the new framework is mandated to promote competition among registries.
  2. The longer the process of adding new TLDs is delayed, the harder it will be to overcome the psychological and economic dominance of .com. The longer the period in which .com is the only commercial registry, the more domain names in that TLD acquire a premium value because of .comís widespread recognition and the tendency of users and browser software to start their searches for companies there. Competition in this area could be permanently impaired unless action is taken as soon as possible.
  3. The proposal to create only 5 new gTLDs appears to be the kind of badly thought-out compromise that fails to satisfy any of the contending positions. The US Government should authorize the creation of no less than 20 new gTLDs. There are a number of reasons why this is so:
  1. The Green Paper proposal is to be commended for its rejection of the ISOC/ITU argument that domain name registries are "public trusts" that should be exempted from the normal process of commercial competition. Historically, the same "public trust" approach to the allocation and assignment of radio frequencies has been proven to foster a needlessly restrictive, highly politicized approach to resource allocation. Recent experience with auctions and spectrum markets indicates that market forces have an important and beneficial role to play in the allocation of so-called "public" resources. Different registries, like different radio frequency bands, will never be perfect substitutes. But competition between registries will allow innovative ideas or service types to be introduced and tested, which will expand user choice. As long as there are many registries and the registrar service is shared, the risk of user lock-in will be minimal. In fact, some competition between commercial registries already exists. As noted previously, several owners of ccTLDs are being run as commercial registries that compete on a worldwide basis for both registry and registrar services. If the final proposal is wise enough to create 20 additional gTLDs, it ought to consider the possibility of making some of them exclusive (non-shared).
  2. The biggest changes need to be made in the Green Paperís approach to trademark issues. It is evident that the drafters of the Green Paper were struggling to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate claims of trademark owners and the needs of other Internet users. This attempt failed, however, because the reasoning of the Green Paper has been guided by fallacious assumptions about the relationship between domain names and trademarks. These erroneous assumptions push the Paper into a potentially disastrous attempt to link domain name registration processes to the resolution of trademark claims.
  3. I have no objection to those elements of the proposal designed to clearly identify the organizations and people who are registering a domain name. However, the Green Paper also proposes to link domain name registries with trademark policing and adjudication in a variety of ways. Most egregious is this: "If an objection to registration is raised within 30 days after registration of the domain name, a brief period of suspension during the pendency of the dispute will be provided by the registries." (Appendix 2--Minimum Dispute Resolution and Other Procedures Related to Trademarks).
  4. The proposed suspension policy is rife with opportunities for abuse. It is similar in logic and intent to the thoroughly discredited NSI dispute resolution policy. The NSI policy allowed anyone with a trademark registration to assert a sweeping property right over any character string corresponding to the registration, regardless of use, jurisdiction, industry, or likelihood of consumer confusion. Trademark owners exploited this policy to assert unreasonable claims to second-level domain names containing common generic terms, such as "juno" "clue" or "perfection," even when the names were used by businesses in completely different industries than those of the trademark holders. The challenged businesses were not engaged in infringement, dilution, or confusion of customers. Nevertheless, the threat of suspension provided trademark bullies with an immediate and costless method of imposing serious economic harm upon their smaller adversaries. Effectively, the loss of a domain name would have forced the domain name holder to shut down their Internet operations until the dispute was resolved or the name was given up. NSIís absurd and illegal policyónot the widespread nature of trademark infringement on the Internetóhas been the cause of most of the litigation surrounding domain names and trademarks.
  5. The "trademark dilemma" cannot be resolved without a better understanding of the legal and economic principles involved. There are three distinct categories of disputes regarding domain names and their relationship to trademark owners. These categories are exhaustive and mutually exclusive; that is, all cases fall into one and only one of them.
  1. It is important to distinguish clearly between these three categories of the trademark-domain name interaction. Under real trademark law in the physical world, only Category 1 activities are actionable. Category 3 does not constitute trademark infringement, because the names are not put into commercial use, and "usage in commerce" is a critical ingredient of trademark infringement. (In the Panavision case, wherein a name speculator was found guilty of infringement because of his use of the name, the Judgeís verdict hinged on the issue of commercial use. Had the name speculator not actually put up information for public display on the Web site, the case for infringement would have failed.) Even more obviously, Category 2 conflicts are not actionable in the real world. Trademark law establishes clear geographic, jurisdictional, and industrial boundaries between the users of similar names. Settled trademark law makes it clear that "A mark may not be expanded beyond the specific good or service for which it was originally intended." (Park 'N' Fly v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 204, 105 S. Ct. 658, 667, 224 USPQ 327, 333 (Sup Ct, 1985). Real-world trademark law would never allow a retail computer shop in New Mexico named after the state bird to be dragged into a dispute resolution process or have its trade name peremptorily suspended because it used the same character string as a trademarked cartoon character. Because the geographic, industrial, and jurisdictional categories that regulate the application of trademark law cannot exist in Internet domain names, Category 2 conflicts cannot be resolved by trademark law. It is simply a matter of first-come, first served. Trademark law has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Juno lighting company or the Juno email company gets to use the domain name, for example. Furthermore, in the physical world, trademark infringement disputes cannot be initiated until a name is actually put into use. Trademark cases require "usage in commerce" and a determination that consumer confusion would result. Real trademark law does not provide trademark owners with a centralized, prior review of name selections by all businesses, nor does it permit 30-day challenges after a selection is made. Litigation must be based on demonstrable behavior.
  2. The Green Paper expresses its intention to give trademark holders "the same rights they have in the physical world." I submit that trademark holders are demanding, and the Green Paper appears to be giving them, property rights in words and character strings that go far beyond what trademark law makes possible in the world of atoms. If one examines the record of litigation around domain names and trademarks, one finds only a tiny handful of cases that involve real infringement. In such cases the application of legal principles has been relatively unambiguous, and the offending parties have been shut down very quickly. The vast majority of domain name-trademark litigation has been over cases in Categories 2 and 3. In other words, trademark holders have attempted to exploit trademark law to gain control of second-level domain names they were too slow to register first, regardless of whether the conflicting user was engaged in real infringement or dilution. And they have attempted to use trademark law to avoid paying fees to name speculators. But whatever oneís opinion of its ethical character, name speculation does not constitute trademark infringement. There cannot be infringement without "usage in commerce."
  3. The drafters of the Green Paper do not seem to understand the amount of trouble they will be creating for new registries by linking them to trademark dispute resolution. If new gTLDs are indeed created, and trademark owners persist in their unreasonable attempts to control every character string that resembles their name in every TLD, regardless of how it is used, the new registries will be subjected to massive numbers of challenges and demands for suspension. Domain name registrants who suffer economic damages as a result of suspension or loss of their name will undoubtedly sue the registry and the NPC. Indeed, if NTIA persists in its attempt to rewrite trademark law from scratch, it will itself attract a great deal of unwanted legal and legislative attention.
  4. Thus, as a matter of both justice and pragmatism, the next draft of the Green Paper must be revised to separate thoroughly and unambiguously the registration of domain names from trademark claims. The process of registering domain names must not become an avenue for an extra-legal expansion of the rights of trademark holders. It must not become a way of subsidizing the policing of trademarks. It must not become a proxy for trademark litigation. Domain name registries and registrars are in the business of giving out domain namesónothing more.
  5. The large number of domain names distributed and the fast pace of Internet commerce do not mix well with the expense and slow pace of court proceedings. There is a relatively straightforward solution to this problem. The US Government can ask the US Congress to pass legislation allowing the Patent and Trademark Office to offer statutory injunctive relief in these kinds of disputes. This would allow informed officials to quickly determine the balance of the equities based on an application of settled trademark law to domain name disputes, reducing both the delays and the costs associated with normal litigation. Under such an arrangement, trademark holders would indeed have "the same rights they have in the physical world." Such a system would protect domain name holders from unreasonable trademark challenges as well as protecting trademark holders from obvious forms of infringement. It would also insulate domain name registries and registrars from litigation.
  6. These arrangements would, of course, only apply to registries located in the US and subject to US law. If the model proved to be successful, however, it would be imitated by other jurisdictions. Registries outside of the US that did not wish to adopt this dispute resolution model should be able to adopt other alternatives.
  7. The Green Paper asks for comment on the issue of "clearing" domain names to protect trademarks. "Clearing" is an attempt by certain companies to claim a right to pre-empt all possible uses of a character string (or even a broad category of similar character strings) in all jurisdictions and all TLDs, regardless of how or when it is used. This is, on the face of it, an outrageous and illegal expansion of the property rights of multinational corporate trademark holders at the expense of Internet users, especially Internet users in developing countries. Before the US Government even considers such a proposal, I would ask your next draft to provide a single law, case decision, or piece of legislation that would provide a legal basis for the claim of such a sweeping right.
  8. The Green Paper proposes to study the effects of adding new gTLDs on trademark holders. To an academic scholar, additional studies sound like a great idea. However, the research question as framed by the Green Paper is extremely prejudicial. It assumes that the only relevant question is how well the dispute resolution procedures serve the interests of trademark and IPR holders. Assessing the effects of additional gTLDs requires a much broader understanding of the economics of the DNS, how names really function in the Internet market, and above all, Internet user behavior. Such a study needs to be asking questions such as: How often do users rely on simple typing in of a character string to find a site? How often do they rely on other alternatives, such as directories, bookmarks, hyperlinks, printed documents or broadcast advertisements to find a site? How rapidly are these behavior patterns changing? How many users actually go to sites merely because the domain name character string corresponds to or is similar to the name of a "famous" organization or person? How will those statistics change as new gTLDs are added? How will the addition of new gTLDs affect the searching behavior of ordinary Internet users? What happens when users arrive at a site by typing in a name that directs them to an organization they did not want and did not expect? Are they confused, or do they just keep searching? Can the amount of "lost business" created by such confusion be quantified? Such a study must also attempt to document how users and uses of the Internet might be restricted or limited by empowering trademark holders with stronger rights in cyberspace than they are allowed in the real world. In short, there are a lot of important research questions raised by the addition of new gTLDs and a thorough and objective assessment of the proposed changes will look at all of them.
  9. To conclude, I offer these comments as an academic scholar with expertise in the study of telecommunications policy, institutions, history, and law. I have no business interest in the outcome. The Proposal as a whole is a welcome step forward in the maturation process of the Internet. It is flawed only by its poorly thought-out approach to the trademark problem. I sincerely hope that the Commerce Department listens carefully to all seriously elaborated and substantiated positions in this proceeding.


From: Garth Krock <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 8:33pm
Subject: Domain Names

As a small business owner, I take great interest in the administration of
the internet since my livelihood and the well-being of my family depends on
it. Approximately half of my business originates on the internet in one
way or another. It's not an exaggeration to say that my business depends
on the health of the Internet.

I used to think about the day when we ran out of .com names to use.
Obviously I wasn't the only one concerned. When I read the CORE plan to
create seven new TLD's, each one intended for a particular segment of the
internet community, I knew that was the answer. The gTLD-MOU plan solved
the problem of Network Solutions Inc.'s domination of the TLD's, and was
designed in a way to let competition grow.

First of all, the new TLD's would divide the net into logical categories,
depending on what kind of homepage the individual wanted to support. I
read the Green Paper set out by the FCC, and it doesn't even have definite
plans for what the new TLD's would be called, let alone when they would be

Secondly, the the increase in competition among the registrars would
certainly be beneficial to average users as well as businesses. Having one
company in charge of each of the new TLD's is definitely a blow to
competition. In the CORE plan, regisstrars would set themselves apart from
their competitors by either increasing the level of service they provide,
or by maintaining lower fees. In the Green Paper, all I see is the
creation of 5 new monopolies. How will a dissatisfied customer deal
effectively with complaints? Once that customer has a domain name, and has
built up some sort of reputation, they are stuck with that name. Their
customers know how to locate them on their browser, and most likely even
has it bookmarked. That's the kind of goodwill and reputation that I
cannot afford to lose just because the TLD supplier isn't giving me the
level of service I required.

Please reconsider ideas other than those set out in your Green Paper. My
business and many others like mine may depend on it.

Garth Krock
Sole Owner
GK's Hardware


From: Stephen Law <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 8:38pm
Subject: No More Monopolies!

IÆm concerned about the potential abuse of power of the five new
registries proposed by the draft published at

I feel thereÆs
potential for the new registries to raise their annual fees after their
customers have registered and have escalated their commitment to the
domain names.
I have had a similar experience recently, as my current ISP lured me in
with inexpensive Internet access and e-mail. After a few months, the
price nearly doubled! I could change ISPÆs but there are hidden costs.
For example, IÆve already printed and distributed my e-mail address on
hundreds of business cards. Although upset, IÆm not going to switch. My
ISP essentially has a monopoly on my e-mail address.
The companies that register domain names should compete, but they should
all have access to the same database of addresses (.com, .org, .etc.) so
that no company owns an individual address. Otherwise there is no real

Stephen Law
Concerned US Citizen


From: Daniel Leung <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 9:07pm

I just found out about the green paper. I have to wonder what business
our government has in medling with the future management of the internet
anyway. There is all kinds of talk about the government wanting to end
its involvement, but there is no action. The internet has been doing
just fine without the government trying to control it why start now?
The government shouldn*t be involved. Just look at China. There, the
government has been involved and controlling all aspects of citizen*s
lives, but even the government of China admits that it shouldn*t and
couldn*t get involved in controlling/ regulating/ *managing the growth*
of the internet. Yet here we are trying to run the show. The words
internet and regulation don*t mix.
Besides, why waste taxpayers money? I doubt that the average American
even knows what the government is trying to do with the internet. I*ve
been on the net for a couple of years now, but only heard about the
green paper recently, through a friend. The whole thing seems secretive
and suspicious like the government doesn*t want the public to know
what it is doing to control the internet. The internet is for everyone
and everyone has a right to know if the government wants to continue
administering it. It takes more than just posting the green paper to let
people know what is going on. The government has a responsibility to
Americans. But the internet is international and the government should
acknowlege this by letting the international community, and
specifically, the international private sector handle the management. I
understand that steps have been taken in this direction, but the
government is re-thinking its role. I say let the market decide. The
sooner the government hands over power the better.


Daniel Leung


From: Alan Lewis <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 9:23pm

Mr. Ira Magaziner,

I have to agree with the points outlined by Rick Tremblay on February
24th regarding the discussion draft entitled "A Proposal To
Improve Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses"

1. There are no deadlines in the proposal except for the ramp down of
internic*s monopoly position. This is critical because of the fast pace
of the Internet*s development. It is also necessary to keeping the
process acountable. Mr. Tremblay raises another good point that there
is already an immediate solution in the form of the Council of
Registrars (CORE) which has no ties to the government or the US. CORE
has thought through the process and established bodies, panels and
guidelines, including a framework for dispute resolution. The
government*s efforts are redundant and time-consuming. The draft does
not name CORE, nor does it make reference to the existing structures,
except for noting the possiblility of a *pioneer preference* for those
already in the registry business.

2. *The five registrars/registries have no ethical standards. They may
do as they see fit. They may charge as much as they would like. There will
be no competition if they each have one domain, as they will drive up the
cost to
astronomical proportions.* CORE has an extensive list of standards. And some
pioneering registrars have already made a commitment to price decreases.

3. *The draft is not international in its scope.*
The government claims to want to give up its involvement, but makes no
commitment to international participation. CORE is made up of 88
registrars from 23 different countries.

4. *If the U.S. government wants to get out, it should* The U.S. cannot
therefore, set grand, sweeping policy for the DNS.*
Policy should be set by an international organization, which CORE is.

5. *The draft does not introduce the end the Internic monopoly. The
draft does not introduce serious competition to Internic.*
In fact, each registry/registrar would have control over a TLD.

If the government truly wants to get out it should. If it wants to
retain some influence, it should do so through existing, international,
non-governmental organizations such as CORE. For further information,
check out

Yours Truly,

Alan Lewis


From: Tony Lim <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 9:39pm
Subject: Attn: US Commerce Department

The number of users, the number of sites, the access speed (hardware)
and the volume of transactions is increasing at an alarming rate, yet
the number of general top level domain names is constant. This situation
cannot last.
Although it is feasible to add hundreds of new top level domains, it is
not practical. Remember the reason we switched from a numerical IP
address system to a name-based system? Because of concern for users.
Ease of use is one of the most significant contributing factors to the
success of the Internet - the power of the Internet is virtually useless
unless it is practical.
Nor is the periodic addition of single top level domains is not
practical. I favor the proposal of the Generic Top Level Domain
memorandum of Understanding which sees the addition of new top level
domains in controlled groups, starting with seven new top level domains:
.firm, .shop, .web, .arts, .rec, .info, .and and .nom. (although .firm
is too similar to .com, especially as there are only guidelines for the
type of organization that may register under this top level domain and
the distinction is blurred). If there were too many top level domains
released at once, or if new individual top level domains were released
frequently, it would be confusing for the public, and difficult for
businesses to keep up-to-date.
A business should be able to register in all the new top level domains
with one single registrar at one time. In addition, the registrar should
be able to handle that companies trademark disputes across all top level
domains in a quick and efficient manner.
The new top level domains should be released as soon as possible to keep
up with demand. Commercial opportunities are missed by delaying the


Tony Lim


From: Brian Longstien <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 9:47pm
Subject: Don't Start!

Is the government genuinely concerned about the ôstabilityö of the
Internet or is it just worried about not having a hand in something as
prominent as the Internet.
The Green Paper states, ôThe U.S. government recognizes that its unique
role in the Internet domain name system should en as soon as is
practical.ö But is this only lip service? The government does not own
cyberspace. The Internet has grown up. Thanks to private funding and
initiative, the Internet is now much more than what it was when the
government, the military and the universities were funding and running
Where does it end? Taxing of file transfers over the Internet?
Censorship and discrimination of content and classes of content? The
government has already had a taste of the revenue-generating potential
of the Internet, having ôauthorizedö (as if the U.S. government has
authorization) the collection of over 46 million dollars in registration
fees. Will the government give up this monopoly? No. It is already
showing its greed: Internic was scheduled to hand over itÆs monopoly
this next month, with a six month transition period but suddenly there
is talk of Internic continuing as a registry and registrar. Talk about a
change in heart. Internic has an unfair advantage over other players in
number of customers, established framework, experience, recognition and
client network to name a few.
It is time for the government to let the Internet leave home. Everyone,
not just Americans has a stake in the future of the Internet. Let the
international private sector take control. Bring an end to the excessive
government intervention and legislation now.

Sincerely Yours,

A Very Concerned Citizen,

Brian Longstien


From: Robin Smith <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 9:56pm
Subject: Commerce Draft on Domains

Commerce Department,

Being a concerned netizen, I have taken it apon myself to learn as much as
possible about the proposals for the domain name registration system. I
have become very familiar with The Discussion Draft (formerly The Green
Paper) as well as the gTLD-MoU plan.

Frankly, I find it strange that the government sought to create their own
plan for the domain name registration system, even after CORE's plan was
introduced. The CORE plan, as you must know, has been agreed apon by
hundreds of signatories representing thousands and thousands of internet
users, and many of the most influential companies in the world.

It's time the Commerce Department, and everybody behind the scenes who is
responsible for the Discussion Draft, start to listen to the rest of the
world, and to the people who use the internet.


Robin Smith


From: Stewert Mctaggart <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 10:15pm
Subject: Opinion of a US Citizen

I am writing this letter to protest the proposals set out in the Discussion
Draft. I have talke to many people who agree with me that the proposals
leave too much control over the internet in the hands of the united States.

Obviously, much of the innovation and growth of the 'Net so far has ocurred
in the U.S., but this is presisely the reason why a more international
approach is necessary now. Most analysts agree that the vast majority of
future growth will happen outside the U.S. It seems inappropriate for the
decisions regarding the future of the 'Net to be made by Americans. An
appropriate analogy would be like the coach of a football team making the
rules for the entire league. The Internet is growing into uncharted
territory each and every day, so past experience in administraton of
Internet has little to do with the tasks that may be required in the near
future. The U.S. should not expect to have any better knowledge of how to
proceed than any other country who has interests in the Internet. For
these reasons, it is wrong for one country to assume any more control than
any other country.

As an international phenomenon, the Internet requires international
solutions to its problems, like those outlined in the gTLD-MoU.

Let me end off by saying that I am proudt to be born and raised in America.
My grand daddy fought in World War II along side many brave young men who
didn't come back. I still wear his pocket watch to this day.

This is not the time for the US government to shove its nose into an
International environment.

Leave the net alone, let the netizens who built it decide its future.


From: "HeyJim" <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 10:17pm
Subject: gTLDs

I am impressed with the model you have given in the proposal for
US government withdrawal from management of the DNS. Now if you
would please send this model over to whatever group oversees the
local phone companies, perhaps our communication system would
make some major needed improvements. :-)

I really like the idea of modifying the .us domain to make it
more commercially viable. Perhaps adding the gTLDs as gSLDs under
the .us TLD (,,, etc.) would give some of
us who's intended clientele is America. My online shop sells
informational materials (credit and mortgage information that is
US specific) that aren't of much use to anyone outside the
country. In time, gSLDs under the .us TLD would be known as
American national sites, and gSLDs under the .uk TLD would be
known as British national sites, etc. Sites with gTLDs such as
.com and .org would be known as international sites.

Jim Sheetz


From: <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 10:53pm
Subject: 217 entities support the gTLD-MoU

Dear M. Magaziner

I think that you should support CORE and sign the gTLD-MoU
like these 65 US entities on a total of 217 from 45 countries.

A.C.E.:Côte d'Ivoire---"Adega, LLC":USA---Adilan SA:France---Admiral
Systems Inc.:Japan---AETEA Information Technology
:Sweden---Albanian Mobile Communications (AMC):Albania---Aleph-One
sc:Belgium---Alinet Italia:Italy---Altair Data System:Italy---"American
Data Technology, Inc.":USA---American Internet Corporation:USA---ANPROTEL
- Asociación Nacional de Proveedores Telemáticos:Spain---Anwaltskanzlei
Tobias H. Strömer:Germany---Argo Interactive Ltd:United Kingdom---Ark
Inc.:Japan---"Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC),
Ltd.":Japan---ASNIC - American Samoa NIC:American Samoa---Asociación de
Usuarios de Internet:Spain---Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet
Indonesia (APJII):Indonesia---ASUSA Services &
Development:Switzerland---Beatriz Martinez S.L.:Spain---Bell
Canada:Canada---Biblios Pty Ltd.:Australia---"Blueshift,
Inc.":USA---Botswana Telecommunications Corporation:Botswana---Bunyip
Information Systems Inc.:Canada---CAL Institute Corp.:USA---Calgary
On-Line Inc.:Canada---Canada Internet Direct Inc.:Canada---CaryNET
Information Center:Hong Kong---"CASDNS, Inc.":USA---Charm Net
Inc.:USA---China Internet Information Center (CNNIC):P.R. China---"Clear
Thinking Technology, Inc.":USA---CompuTron GNetX
Germany:Germany---CompuTron GNetX Yugoslavia:Serbia---ComStar
Internet-Services:Germany---Connected Systems Group:USA---"Connetix,
Inc.":USA---Consulting:USA---CSC The United States Corporation
Company:USA---CYBERplex interactive media:Canada---DACOM
Corporation:Republic of Korea---Dana Point Communication
Systems:USA---DESIGN.NET:United Kingdom---Diario EL MUNDO -
Internet:Spain---"DIGEX, Inc.":USA---Digital Equipment
Corporation:USA---Directory Corporation:Commonwealth of the
Bahamas---Dokumenta / Maxdat Group:Germany---Domain Communications
LLC:USA---Domain Names International LLC:USA---"Dynatek Infoworld,
Inc.":USA---E.S.D.:New Zealand---Eaton & Van Winkle:USA---Ebone
Inc.:Denmark---eco - Electronic Commerce Forum e.V.:Germany---EdCom
International:USA---ep Productions Inc.:USA---"ETSI, European
Telecommunications Standards Institute":France---Europe Online
A.s.b.l:Luxembourg---European On-Line Partners:Ireland---Eurotel
GmbH:Germany---"First Identity Net, Inc.":USA---Flying Penguin
Productions Limited:USA---Fontes & Wituschek GBR:Germany---France
Telecom:France---Fundació Catalana per a la Recerca:Spain---Geoware
Software Design:Canada---"Global Caribbean Services, Inc. (Global
Caribbean)":Netherlands Antilles---Global Online Japan:Japan---GlobeCom
Network:Sweden---"GlobeComm, Inc.":USA---"Graefe & Partner, Rechtsanwälte
GbR":Germany---Gröna Verket AB:Sweden---Guernsey Network Information
Centre:"Alderney, Channel Islands"---Hiway Technologies
Inc.:USA---Hotspace Inc.:USA---I.P.F. Net - Internet Service Provider
GmbH:Germany---ICT AG:Germany---" (Internet Domain Names,
Inc.)":USA---IDT Corp.:USA---Imminus:United Kingdom---"Inet,
Inc.":Republic of Korea---Information Highway
S.A.":Spain---Interlog Internet Services:Canada---International Air
Transport Association (IATA):Switzerland---International Trademark
Association:USA---Internet Assigned Numbers Authority:USA---Internet
Association Japan:Japan---Internet Business Services:USA---Internet
Computing:Czech Republic---Internet Connect Services:USA---Internet
Domain Registrars:Canada---"Internet KSC Co., Ltd.":Thailand---Internet
Mail Consortium:USA---Internet Research &:---Internet Society - Chapitre
français:France---Internet Society - Norway Chapter:Norway---Internet
Society International Secretariat:USA---Internet Society of
Australia:Australia---Internet Society of Ghana:Ghana---Internet Society
Vienna:Austria---Internet Software Consortium:USA---"Internet Solutions
and Management, Inc. (ISAM)":USA---Internet Users
Society:USA---Internet-Way:France---"iPass, Inc.":USA---"Ipsilon
Networks, Inc.":USA---ISOC Geneva Chapter:Switzerland---ISOC Israel
Chapter:Israel---"ISOC-JP, Internet Society Japan Chapter":Japan---It
Comunicación:Spain---Japan Network Information Center
(JPNIC):Japan---Jersey Network Information Centre:"Jersey, Channel
Islands"---"Ji Tong Communications Co.,Ltd.":China---Josmarian
SA:Switzerland---Just Results Plc.:United Kingdom---"Kokusai Denshin
Denwa Co., Ltd (KDD)":Japan---Korea Network Information Center
(KRNIC):Republic of Korea---"LanMinds, Inc.":USA---Logic Group of
Companies:Singapore---LogoWEB Communications GmbH:Germany---"MagicNet,
Incorporated":USA---"Marylee Jenkins Robin, Blecker, Daley & Driscoll
":USA---"MC2 Cyberspace Research, Inc.":USA---MCI
Communications:USA---MediaFusion:Canada---Melbourne Information
Technologies Australia PTY LTD:Australia---MidWest
Group:China---Mindspring Enterprises Inc.:USA---Moniker Pty
Ltd:Australia---Moscow Patent Bureau (Mospatent):Russia---MP
Associates:Japan---N.E.&T. SRL- Internet Competence Center for Siemens
Nixdorf Spa:Italy---Nameshield:France---Nesser & Nesser
Consulting:USA---Net Searchers:United Kingdom---Net
Vision:Israel---NETBAY:Monaco---NetBenefit:United Kingdom---NetNames
International:United Kingdom---NetNames USA:USA---"NetVenture,
Inc.":USA---Network Computer Systems:Ghana---Networks Web Design Services
rdenamineto de Links Especializados, S.L (OLÉ)":Spain---"OuterNet
Connection Strategies, Inc.":USA---Oyster Systems Limited:United
Kingdom---"Partal, Maresma & Associats, S.L.":Spain---PBM
Internet-Services:Germany---"PERWORK, S.L.":Spain---Procurement Services
International:Japan---"Procurement Services International,
Inc.":USA---"Qurum Business Group, QBG":Oman---RapidSite
Inc.:Germany---Rebel Net:United Kingdom---Registry of Museum Network
Resources:Sweden---"Robert Ellis, Ellis & Aeschliman":USA---RomNIC -
Network Information Center for Romania:Romania---"Samsung SDS Co.,
Ltd":Republic of Korea---"Sattler & Schanda,
Productions:USA---Silver Server:Austria---Siraat Solutions:United
Kingdom---"Sociedad Internet de Mexico, A.C.":Mexico---Société
Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautiques (SITA)
S.C.:Belgium---Songbird:USA---Speewak Communications:Denmark---Spray
Interactive Domain AB:Sweden---State Department of Posts and
Telecommunication:Albania---SURFnet bv:The Netherlands---Sweden Post
Ltd.:Sweden---Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual
le2 AB:Sweden---Telecom Italia:Italia---Telefónica del
Perú:Peru---TELESUR:Suriname---Telia AB:Sweden---Telstra:Australia---Thai
Federation for Information Processsing:Thailand---Thailand Chapter of the
Internet Society:Thailand---"The Domain Source, LLC":USA---The Edge
Consultants Pte Ltd:Singapore---"the internetwork operating company,
inc./INTERNOCtm":USA---Togo Telecom:Togo---TOKYO INTERNET
Corporation:Japan---Top Domain Registry Inc.:USA---Trade Media
Ltd:Philippines---TRANSEO:France---U.S. Datanet:USA---UNINETT
AS:Norway---VBCNet GB Ltd.:United Kingdom---"Virtation Technologies,
Inc.":USA---Virtual Internet Limited:United
Kingdom---VLSM-TJT:Indonesia---Water Valley
Interchange:USA---WEB4U:Germany---Widely Integrated:Japan---Wyith R.
Cheng & Associates:Hong Kong---X-Media Venture:Singapore---"Xarxa CINET,


From: Rory McDonald <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 11:05pm
Subject: Green Paper

I appreciate the fact that the Department of Commerce is seeking public
opinion on the very important issue of the growth of the Internet. I
also believe that the goals of stability, competition, coordination and
representation are good goals for any plan to manage the Internet*s
However, there is little difference between the discussion draft of the
Green Paper and the actual Green Paper proposal. The discussion draft
was published, public opinion was gathered, and the final Green Paper
proposal was supposed to reflect the public input. There was, and there
continues to be much criticism over certain key issues in the proposal,

1. The monopoly position registries would enjoy over the new TLD*s.

2. Internic*s continued and unfair control over certain TLD*s.

3. The delay of Internic*s handover of power.

4. Lack of a single, simple, fast, unbiased, international trademark
dispute resolution procedure.

5. Ignoring CORE*s solutions to the Internet*s growth issues.

6. Lack of international participation in the Green Paper.
The point I*m trying to make is that the Department of Commerce seems
more intent on pushing the Green Paper through, than reaching consensus.
Will the Department of Commerce use public and international opinion to
address these issues and significantly change the Paper before it
becomes a reality? The Paper is full of hope for flexibility in its
proposals, using phrases such as, *we suggest**, *the new corporation
should be**, *The U.S. government would** and registrar functions
could** but it is also full of phrases such as *The new corporation will
be**, *The U.S. government will** that suggest the Paper has already
been approved in the minds of it*s writers. If the Green Paper is to
achieve any level of acceptance by the international community, the
international community must feel that its concerns and interests are
being addressed. As the Internet grows, international opinion about
managing growth becomes more important and more relevant. The Green
Paper is all but useless if it is rejected by the Internet community.

Yours truly,

Rory McDonald


From: Adrienne Madill <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 11:22pm
Subject: I am opposed to the Green Paper

I am unequivocally opposed to the Green PaperÆs inherent ethnocentrism.
IÆd like to know who died and gave the government total jurisdiction
over the Internet. Sure, the government originally helped fund the Net
and its development, but it doesnÆt own the Net and therefore canÆt
control it. The management of the Net should reflect the users and the
groups responsible for its growth. The reason the Net is growing so fast
is that people from other countries are logging-on and private,
competing companies are creating content for the Net neighborhood. The
Net should be self-governing. The only way that the Net will ever become
what futurists dream it can be, to reach its potential as a business
tool and a communication medium, is if those developing it have
something to gain by its development, and the barriers for users to join
the Net are low. And this means competition. The Green Paper outlines a
role for a not-for-profit organization run by a board of directors to
make major decisions, such as who, when, what and how new top-level
domains are added to the Net. The role of this board of directors would
be to set and oversee their policies for controlling the growth (read
imposing restrictions and slowing the growth of the Net) Actually, if
this board of directors didnÆt slow down the growth of the Net, then
they wouldnÆt be having much effect and they would be redundant. The
board of directors would be nothing more than a group of lazy
bureaucrats with no vested interest, nothing to lose or gain from the
success or failure of the NetÆs potential, and no vision for the future
of the Net. And adding a CEO with a background in the corporate sector
wouldnÆt do much to help the situation. Also, who would be allowed to
select this board of directors? If the government feels that it has the
authority to impose ôimprovementsö for the technical management of the
Internet, I doubt it would stop short of selecting its most favorable
candidates for the positions. Besides, the last thing the Net needs is a
big government body pumping out rules and regulations. What it needs is
for those companies from around the world with a vested interest in the
success of the Net to implement their plan for self-governance and
competition. Give CORE a chance.

Take Care,

Adrienne Madill


From: Alan May <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/21/98 11:41pm
Subject: Don't help NSI

Network Solutions is charging $100 (while they get 70$ of it) to register
new domain names while
it only costs them probably about 25cents in expenses due to automation -
the whole process is done by computer with almost no human intervention
and labout costs. In fact, most of the labour involved in information
gathering and coordinating between the customer and the registry is
supplied by individual ISPÆs. An extra six months extension on Network
SolutionsÆ contract means that itÆs making a huge sum of money during
this ôramp downö period. It doesnÆt need a ramp down period - private
companies and organizations have been preparing for months, maybe years
getting ready for the handover of power from Network SolutionsÆ monopoly
to a competitive market situation. This is the invisible hand of
capitalism working at itÆs finest. Imagine, private companies all over
the globe planning, discussing, coordinating and working together to
ensure the smooth transition of power - drafting self-imposed guidelines
and rules to avoid and resolve conflicts. This is the true spirit of the
Internet and this is what happens when there are no barriers to the
exchange of information.

Not only has Network solutions been given a six month extension on their
permit to print money, it has been invited to be one of the players in
the registration game after the contract is up. This is obviously unfair
to the start-up registrars as Network Solutions has a huge head start in
terms of infrastructure, networks and relationships with business,
know-how, and marketing. Network Solutions is known as THE place to
register domains. Network SolutionsÆ party should be over.

Government intervention is supposed to protect consumers from a monopoly,
not protect the monopoly at the expense of consumers.

Please change your plan now,


Alan May


From: "MailForm" <>
To: "MailForm User" <>
Date: 3/21/98 2:34am
Subject: Mailform Data

Posted From:
Date posted: 03/21/98 02:34:34

RE: Comments on the Green Paper (Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses)

NOTICE: The following is an automated response via

YES: I support and endorse CORE's 12-Point Action Plan in response to the Green Paper

NAME: John Moetteli
ORGANIZATION: U.S. Patent and Trademark Attorney

1. Immediately recognize IANA as the ultimate authority over the Root; allow it to continue operating as it has historically with no involvement of the U.S. Government and to evolve to a not-for-profit corporation with global consensus and without government hindrance

2. Create a board of directors for IANA from the world Internet community, based on the open, consensus-building process and standards promulgated by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet Architectural Board (IAB), Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and the Internet Society (ISOC)

3. Fund the new corporation through fees from domain name registries, regional registries, registrars and other mechanisms approved by its board

4. For future administration and marketing of the Domain Name System (DNS), create a two-tiered structure: non-profit Registries for the administering of new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) and country codes; and Registrars, either for-profit or not-for-profit, which will provide registration services to registrants worldwide in a competitive environment

5. Through the IANA board of directors, use the Internet Standards Process as outlined in RFC 2026 to establish technical and other standards for Registries based on the goals of: technical excellence; prior implementation and testing; clear, concise and easily understood documentation; openness and fairness; timeliness; and ethical standards as outlined in the gTLD Memo of Understanding (

6. Use the Memo of Understanding as the foundation for ethical standards to be agreed to by all Registries and Registrars; encourage comment and maintain an open process for its ongoing evolution and improvement

7. Based on approval by IANA, immediately add seven new gTLDs to the root and administer registration through the Shared Registry System (SRS) developed by the non-profit CORE Registry and already passed through acceptance testing; add more gTLDs as approved by IANA

8. To encourage stability, efficiencies, economies of scale and common standards among registries, CORE can provide Registry services to other gTLD Registries [AAA: delete this] and country codes; CORE will also make its SRS software available to any other non-profit organizations approved by IANA as a Registry for gTLDs

9. The U.S. Government should end the Network Solutions, Inc., monopoly on March 31, 1998, and open a public process for determining how Registry services will be administered for the gTLDs of .com, .org and .net without offering further monopoly protection or favored treatment to NSI.

10. Immediately convert NSI registry services to not-for-profit status; require that NSI open its SRS to all registrants on a cost recovery basis and operate within the same standards as all other registries; and require that NSI immediately hand over the authoritative root database and all coordination of the root server network to the control of IANA

11. Indemnify IANA against legal challenges

12. Ensure ongoing review and continuous evolution of all critical functions related to the Domain Name System through an open, public process carried out with international participation



Identical copies of the previous message were also received on this date from the following people:

NAME: Deanna Oxtoby
ORGANIZATION: Secret ShopNET (an ecom company)

NAME: Olafur Jon Jonsson
ORGANIZATION: Orbit Web Development

NAME: Thomas Spano

NAME: Manuel Vila
ORGANIZATION: Alpha Visa Congr s