From: Weight Watchers International, Inc.
Submitted on disk

Robert W. Hollweg
Secretary
Director - Legal Affairs
516 390-1754
Fax 516 390-1719

March 23, 1998

Office of International Affairs
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Room 4701, U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230

Attention - Karen Rose

Dear Ms. Rose,

This responds to the request for comments on the Administration domain name proposal, entitled Improvement of Technical management of Internet Names and Addresses (the "Green Paper"). These comments are on behalf of Weight Watchers International, Inc., a subsidiary of H. J. Heinz Company, and a worldwide leader providing weight control services to the public under its well known name and trademark WEIGHT WATCHERS. They also represent my own personal point of view as an attorney actively practicing trademark law in the United States and internationally for some thirty years and as a former President of the International Trademark Association.

A careful review of the "Green Paper'' proposal, indicates that it lacks the following:

I found it disturbing to find the "Green Paper" downplaying what it calIs the "Trademark Dilemma," and then stating that trademark/domain name disputes arise very rarely on the Internet today.

MINIMUM TRADEMARK STANDARDS

There should be a "go-sIow"' approach with respect to the addition of new generic top level domain names since they pose a policing problem for trademark owners.

With regard to applications, applications should include the following information:

*detailed identifying information, including applicant's name; state of incorporation or partnership (if applicable); address; telephone/facsimile numbers; and e-mail address.

* designation of an agent for service of process. The application should include the agent's name, address, telephone and facsimile numbers and e-mail address.

* statement of bona fide intent to use the domain name within a time certain.

* statement of bona fide reason for using the domain name, e.g. the domain name is the applicant's name or trademark or a variation thereof.

* statement of intended use of the domain name, e.g. as e-mail, website, BBS, or other use, and the goods/services in connection with which the applicant intends to use the domain name.

* statement that the applicant, to the best of its knowledge, believes that the domain name is available and that the intended use will not infringe the trademark or other rights of any other party.

* an agreement to submit to personal jurisdiction concerning disputes related to thedomain name in the countries where the applicant/registrant resides, where the root server is located, where the Registry is located, and where the Registrar is located. A challenger also should be able to bring legal action in any other country where personal jurisdiction may be exercised against the challenged party.

Renewal of a domain name should be required annually and renewal applications should confirm and update information contained in the original application.

Prepayment of the requisite application/renewal fee should be made before the application or renewal is examined for completeness and, where the fee has not been paid, the application/renewal should be rejected. Registrars should immediately examine each application/renewal for completeness and should reject an application/renewal if incomplete.

Applications, including all the information included therein should be posted within a week of receipt by the Registrar on a publicly-available, searchable website. All Registrars should use the same application and should post the application on one website shared by all Registrars. This website should be easily searchable across all Registries. This website also should be updated as often as possible, preferably at least every 30 days, by each Registrar. The registration database should be monitored for "deadwood", i.e., domain names which are not actually in use, and an appropriate removal policy implemented.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY

Neither the Registrars nor the Registries should be responsible for developing dispute resolution policies. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, should be available. Where possible, these procedures should be conducted on-line and shouId be expedited. There shouId be an administrative dispute policy ("Registry Dispute Policy') that, at least during the experimental period is limited to cybersquatting, false application/renewal statements and other clear instances of abuse.

A domain name shouId be suspended if the challenger makes the challenge under the

Registry Dispute Policy within 30 days after publication, pending resolution under the

Registry Dispute Policy.

The trademark community must be included in developing an appropriate Registry

Dispute Policy.

Finally, Registries and Registrars should be located in countries which are signatories to the Paris Convention (an international agreement providing that member nations shall

give foreign nationals the same treatment as the member nations provide their own

citizens ).

 

GOVERNING BOARD COMPOSITION

It is vitally important that the trademark owners and the broader trademark community have adequate representation on the Board. An organization that is representative of the trademark owners and that community shouId sit on the Board, along with other voices from the business community.

If the Internet is to serve the needs of international commerce, including business' interests in maintaining brand equity and investment and consumers' interests in relying on such brand equity to identify the product, service or company of the consumers' choice, the business community must have a significant voice in Internet domain name policy.

As the Board is currently envisioned, it is weighted particularly heavily toward the Internet technical community, which does not fully understand or appreciate the relevance of trademark concerns to business and consumers. Because trademarks are the lifeblood of international commerce and the backbone of the worIdwide web, the business and trademark community should comprise at least one-half of the representation on any governing body, in balance with the technical community.

The Internet represents a tremendous vehicle to promote and publicize brands internationally. Failure to recognize the importance of brands in formulating an Internet name and address policy will not serve the business or public interest. It is essential for the United States government to safeguard the invaluable economic and business assets as we move into the Twenty -first century.

Very truly yours,

Robert W. Hollweg
Secretary
Director - Legal Affairs

###

From: Joseph Friedman <josephf@touro.edu>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/24/98 1:29am
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 (through 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: Cal Godot <cal@jazzflavor.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/24/98 2:16pm
Subject: What to do with DNS

WHAT TO DO ABOUT DNS

1. The words "internet" and "international" are very similar. This
should be your first clue.

2. But for many people, it is not. Americans have a long tradition of
keeping to ourselves; we do not play well with others, and we only share
our toys when there is a profit to be had.

3. The future health & growth of the Internet demands international
effort. How can the whole world be wired if only the US controls the
system for naming?

4. We know from our own laws and theories guarding monopolies that a
single owner of a resource or commodity is a gurantee that there will be
little growth or innovation in that resource or commodity. In addition,
it will likely cost a premium for others to use it.

5. Let's take this opportunity to create a new paradigm for
international cooperation. The point of the Internet is not to get rich
or tocontrol everything; the point of the Internet is to unify the world
on at least a communication level.

-----
yr pal cal
cal@jazzflavor.com
www.jazzflavor.com

###

From: WerBAC <WerBAC@aol.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/24/98 2:54pm
Subject: NIC Regulation

I speak on behalf of the 'little guy'. As a sole-proprietor, I have already
become a victum of this 'stealing of domain names' and I am so glad to see
that SOMEONE can see the problems. I am from the BBS era and that is were we
need to go back to if people cannot learn to not steal.

I opened my business July 1997, computer related of course, under a name I
have used FORMALLY and INFORMALLY since 1991. I have had two business license
with the name in two states. I had a fellow competitor get angry because I
found that he was reading his customers email and threw him from my office.
HE BLUNTLY TOLD ME THAT HE READ THEIR MAIL....I knew I didn't want to do
business with this character so I threw him out. Within two months, he
registered my company as his. I contacted him via email and two voice calls
asking that he consider relinquishing it. He responded he would on three
conditions.....as follows;
1.. I apologize to him, his webmaster and partner for being an a**
2.. I say please and thank you when talking to him
3.. I promise to stay as physically far away from him and his customers
as possible....

MIND YOU...I did none of these. I have since found that the name is available
again...I wonder...but he registered it with the .net extension....... Once
again...he infringed on my company.

What do I do? Called attorneys..they all say it is a hard case to fight..just
apologize and pay him.

Here is my point....YES there needs to be a regulation. We need to quit
having all those stupid domain names and those that are preverted as well. I
would like to see that even the big boys learn to use their company instead of
their products as domain names.

I AM IN FULL SUPPORT OF REGULATION and suggest that documentation of sorts be
provided before registration can be complete; such as:
BUSINESS LICENSE
WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM OWNER w/COPY OF BUSINESS LICENSES
FROM THE PERSON REGISTERING and THE COMPANY TO BE
REGISTERED (i.e. ibm.com is sought by an isp...both must provide
license)
A STREET ADDRESS and PHONE (not a PO BOX)

That is all I have for this today...

Cassandra A. Simpson
WerBAC Automated Industries
Seneca, SC 29678
WerBAC@aol.com or WerBAC@juno.com

###

From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@MHSC.COM>
Date: 3/23/98 5:00pm
Subject: Domain Marks (was: domain police)

At 06:33 PM 3/22/98 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>Doesn't the GP only state that the Registry and Registrars are to request
>>certification from the applicant that the requested name does not infringe
>>the Trade Mark Rights of another?
>>
>>SAme with Company names and Business name sin AU (as well as Domain Names).
>> It's the appplicants reponsibility to ensure no conflict.
>>
>>That's how we operate.
>
>But, what do you do if a conflict is presented? One can do a "due
>diligence" trademark search but to do so in the international business
>community is virtualy impossible. If it were an absolute requirement for
>internet business than we can shut the whole mess down right now and save
>ourselves the grief. Someone, somwhere, can claim a apriori restraint on
>virtually *any* name. Ergo, no new domains and a radical reduction in
>existing domains. This is not good.
>
>We need some common-sense, lacking that, we need to keep the TM rascals out
>of the domain name business.

Iperdome addresses this issue through the concept
of a Domain Mark(sm) as part of our response to the
Green Paper. Please see:
http://www.iperdome.com/dms/

Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET"...

###

From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("weisberg@texoma.net")
Date: 3/24/98 12:35pm
Subject: Re: Who wrote the GP?

At 09:46 AM 3/24/98 -0600, Eric Weisberg wrote:
>Can anyone verify or expand upon the following comment to the GP?

Shortly after the final version of the IAHC plan was
announced, many people and organizations came out against
that plan with proposals that include many of the concepts
that have been incorporated into the GP.

Iperdome, IO Design, MCS Net, PSI, NSI, CIX, and the ISP/C
were among the first to do so.

After the first round of public comments as administered
by the NTIA, many other companies and organizations like
the Cato Institute added their thoughtful comments to
this process.

Robert's claim that NSI wrote the GP sounds like sour grapes
to me, and discounts the multitude of contributors who are
ultimately responsible for the current direction of the GP.

IMHO & FWIW.

Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com

>From: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
>To: NTIA Green Paper Comments <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
>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.
>
>
>--
>DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
>To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
>For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET"...

###

From: Adam Todd <at@ah.net>
To: Drew Schaefer <drew.schaefer@WIPO.INT>
Date: 3/24/98 8:18am
Subject: Re: Green Paper posting censorship

Drew I have to repeat your comments and inclusion, because I think this is
really important.

Not only is CORE misbehaving by causing NTIA staff a headache of overtime
work, and I assure you if I started to find the same documents time ane
time again, I'd toss the whole damn lot out, but IIA (Internet Industry
Alliance) in Australia condones the same behaviour of their submission.

That being all ISP's in AU should copy and send the same document forward to
NTIA also. As described below:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Luke Carruthers <luke@magna.com.au>
To: dns@iia.net.au <dns@iia.net.au>
Date: Monday, 23 March 1998 14:46
Subject: DNS: Response to the US Green Paper on domain names

>At the forum held in Melbourne last Friday to develop a response to the US
>Dept of Commerce Green Paper upon the DNS a brief one-page submission was
>requested from IIA/ADNA that could be both sent on behalf of those
>represented, as well as adopted and sent separately by those interested. A
>fuller response will be be delivered via NOIE at a later date. While we
>didn't manage to keep it to one page, the result is attached.
>
>The response can be sent via email to dns@ntia.doc.gov, and must be
>delivered by the end of today, March 23rd. Further details on submitting
>can be found at
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/022098fedreg.txt.
>
>An ASCII copy of the response as well as a Word 97 attached version are
>included below. Don't forget to change the attribution in the attachment
>if you want to send it under your own name. . .
>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't envy those poor hard working staff an NTIA reading the same
submission 200 times (as in the case of the AU submission)

I and do not back, support or agree to this kind of behaviour from those
whom claim to represent the majority. Clealry the tactics being used are
representatie of a small minority fearful of loosing what minimal control
they have.

I certainly have NOT asked AURSC members to post forward the AURSC/TODD
joint Proposal changing my name to theirs on the submission. I'd never
dream of such a thing.

Thanks Drew for drawing attention to this issue. Suzanne (my wife) has
been reading NTIA submissions the last two days and started making comments
like "How many CORE members have posted the same/similar document?"

It's a very sad world, and I'm sure the NTIA staff will pick up on this and
regard the content in the manner it deserves. Certainly I've seen little
in the IIA document that addresses anything other than "we'll cry if you
don't pick us too" and "hey pick me pick me" type of responses.

<sigh> Now back to Karl Cavebears response ...

>To: "MailForm User" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
>Date: 3/20/98 11:02am
>Subject: Mailform Data
>
>Posted From: ppp341.itw.com
>Date posted: 03/20/98 11:02:55
>
>RE: Comments on the Green Paper (Technical Management of Internet Names
>and Addresses)
>
>NOTICE: The following is an automated response
>via http://www.domainbank.net/support2.html
>
>******YES: I support and endorse the following 12-Point Action Plan in
>response to the Green Paper
>
>NAME: J
>ORGANIZATION:
>E-MAIL:
>COMMENTS:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The advice offered in this email is not considered professional advice,
or it would be accompanied by an invoice. No permission is granted for
republication of comments, without written consent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Development, Technology Domain Registration and Network Advisory
Telstra Convery Member AURSC http://www.aursc.ah.net
Adam Todd Personal http://adamtodd.ah.net
at@aus or at@ah.net http://adam.says.sheesh
Phone +61 2 9729 0565 Network http://www.ah.net
AU Internet News http://www.ah.net/lists/lwgate/INTERNET/
AU Internet User Mail List http://www.ah.net/lists/lwgate/OZ-USER/

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET"...

###

From: John Vorstermans <john@actrix.gen.nz>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/26/98 12:54am
Subject: ISOCNZ submission to Green Paper

I sent in a submission to the Green Paper on March 22nd from the Internet
Society of New Zealand and have as yet had no response to indicate that you
have received this.

Can you please let me know what the status is?

I have attached the original MS Word 97 copy as was sent.

Regards
John Vorstermans
Internet Society of New Zealand.

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("jhiggins@netedge.co.nz")

INTERNET SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED

Comments of the Internet Society of New Zealand Inc. in regards to the US Department Of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration

15 CFR Chapter XXIII

[Docket No. 980212036-8036-01]

"Green Paper"

1. The Internet Society of New Zealand Inc.

1.1. The Internet Society of New Zealand Incorporated ("ISOCNZ") is a voluntary non-profit association of organisations and individuals with an interest in the development and management of the Internet within New Zealand. It was established in 1995 to foster coordinated and cooperative development of the Internet in New Zealand. It also works to safeguard the Internet's philosophy of open and uncensored exchange of information.

1.2. ISOCNZ is not part of nor funded by Government, although some Government agencies and employees are members and councilors.

1.3. ISOCNZ currently has no affiliation with The Internet Society (ISOC). It is a completely autonomous organisation.

1.4. ISOCNZ has responsibility for management of the country code Top Level Domain, ".nz", by authority delegated from IANA.

1.5. The ISOCNZ Council, elected by its members, formulates policy and undertakes other initiatives in respect of the .nz domain, the second level domains within .nz and the allocation of names within .nz. The policies can be found at www.isocnz.org.nz.

1.6. ISOCNZ has formed a separate company, "The New Zealand Internet Registry Limited", trading as Domainz, to carry out the "registry" function for the .nz domain. Domainz performs that function on a commercial basis, directed by the policies specified by ISOCNZ and therefore within the policy framework derived from NSF, IANA, the RFC's and other rules, which govern the internet generally.

1.7. ISOCNZ is a leading commentator on Internet issues, representing member views to politicians, industry figures, and the media in New Zealand.

1.8. The email address for further information regarding this submission is secretary@isocnz.org.nz

2. Green Paper

2.1. ISOCNZ regards the "Green Paper" as a positive step in the direction of placing the management and infrastructure of the Domain Name System and IP address allocation under an international authority. The designation of this body as a not-for-profit organisation is one that we fully support.

2.2. ISOCNZ is pleased to be given the opportunity to comment on the "Green Paper". The paper outlines much of the way we ourselves have set-up structures for the management of the NZ Domain Name space (ccTLD) over the last 2 years. We would like draw on our experience to make some comment on parts of the paper for further consideration.

3. Submission overview.

3.1. ISOCNZ has identified a number of problems and issues in the proposal as circulated in the discussion draft. For ease of reference, the main points are summarised immediately below, and then more detailed comments follow.

3.1.1. The authority of the new-IANA needs to be clearly defined and continuity maintained throughout and after the transition period to the new organisation

3.1.2. There is a strong focus on issues relating to the US with insufficient attention being paid to non-US Internet participants.

3.1.3. Greater consideration must be given to the maintenance of ccTLD's. Consideration must also be given to those countries, which are not able to operate their own ccTLD registry function.

3.1.4. The trademark issue that is a major point of the green paper is a red herring and draws attention away from the overriding management issues.

3.1.5. The .us domain should be promoted strongly for use within the US by US only companies, leaving the gTLD's to organisations with genuine international presence. As a part of this, the .mil and .gov domains that are solely for US organisations should be moved into the .us domain.

3.1.6. The document is confusing in its use of the words 'registrars' and 'registries'. The clear term for 'registrars' may be 'approved registration agencies', with registrars/registries being the underlying databases and their managers.

3.1.7. The structure of the new management board should be determined by a strong international consensus, not by US Government dictate.

4. Comments on the Proposal

4.1. ISOCNZ's primary concern.

4.1.1. The green paper did not specifically address the policies and procedures for the management of ccTLDs, but focuses closely on the gTLDs. ccTLDs are of major importance to all non-US based Internet users and organisations and the management of them needs to be accorded an equal level of consideration in the proposed new structure. Conversely a mechanism must be provided for users in all countries to have a single point of access to any new gTLDs.

4.1.2. From the perspective of ISOCNZ, the most important shortcoming in the proposal is the lack of an explicit mechanism to preserve the existing delegated authorities and management structures associated with ccTLDs. These authorities and structures, which have been put in place by virtue of the authorities of NSF and IANA must be preserved. Specifically, it is important that ISOCNZ and other ccTLD registries are able to carry out their existing functions without disruption and with legitimate authority, unless and until an appropriate procedure is adopted for implementing any changes to those arrangements.

4.1.3. In particular, there should be no doubt where the ultimate authority resides for

(a) granting exclusive franchises to the managers of ccTLDs; and

(b) control and operation of what is currently known as the IANA root zone.

4.1.4. ccTLD registries will continue to have the same powers and authorities as before, granted by an existing or a new entity which clearly has the powers to do so;

4.1.5. Any changes to those arrangements must be controlled by suitable consultation and change control procedures.

4.1.6. If part of the objective in setting up the new entity is to create a more formal (probably contractual) framework to link the parties involved in managing and using the internet, then that framework must be equally explicit in dealing with the country code domains.

4.1.7. Consideration needs to be made to ensure that countries unable to maintain their own management structure are able to be supported/fostered under a delegated authority until such time as they are able to maintain this for themselves

4.2. There are several other issues which less directly affect ISOCNZ in the performance of its management functions, but which do concern all users of the Internet and are important for the stability and sound management of the Internet worldwide. The main issues of concern are:

4.2.1. The proposal does not sufficiently reflect the international character of the net. While it incorporates elements of US legal and institutional framework, it does not deal adequately with matters which will fall outside the US domestic jurisdiction;

4.2.2. The proposal perpetuates the US preoccupation with trademark issues. While these are important, they are secondary to the proper management of the addressing and naming systems, which are central to the correct function of Internet. The parties involved in those disputes should be responsible for dealing with them, as with other transborder issues, such as copyright, taxation, advertising standards and pornography;

4.2.3. The proposal to create new generic TLD's will exacerbate the problem of name confusion, as name claimants seek to register their preferred names in multiple domains. In isolation from attention to the ".us" domain it will lead to a proliferation of US names in domains which should be international. It would be better for the US to rationalise the .us domain, before any new gTLDs are created.

4.2.3.1. The .us domain should be promoted strongly for use within the US by US only companies. This would relieve some of the pressure on the gTLD space. As a part of this, the .mil and .gov domains that are solely for US organisations should be moved into the .us domain. RFC 2146 provides a framework for this already.

4.2.3.2. The gTLDs would be more appropriately used for organisations requiring an international presence. Rather than mandating the creation of an ad hoc set of new top level domains, ISOCNZ would recommend the development of a policy for the creation of new top level domains by consensus. ISOCNZ has established a model for the creation of new second level domains within the '.nz' domain, and we would refer the Committee to our web page that outlines this, as a model for creation of new global top level domains. (http://www.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/~hine/ISOCNZ/DNS/Change2LD.html)

4.2.4. Trademark Issues

4.2.4.1. We can see no particular reason why those who manage the Internet naming system should become involved in disputes between trademark holders and those who may or may not infringe trademark rights. Use of the Internet across national boundaries creates the potential of infringing a range of other rights including copyright, advertising standards, tax rules and censorship laws.

4.2.4.2. We commend to you the approach taken in New Zealand, some (but not all) elements of which seem to be reflected in the discussion draft.

4.2.4.3. As a first principle, anyone who wishes to use or publish a name or any other material on the Internet should take responsibility for the consequences. If their action amounts to an infringement of trademark (or any other rights), that should be a matter between the Internet user and the trademark holder or person whose rights are allegedly infringed. To ensure some accountability we suggest that:

4.2.4.3.1. Every name applicant must indemnify the registry for any consequences which follow from the use of the name or other material.

4.2.4.3.2. There is no reason why trademark holders should have to rely on the applicant's choice of forum. The choice of law and forum should be with the parties involved;

4.2.4.3.3. Name applicants should be required to provide sufficient information, for publication, to ensure that any trademark claimant can identify them and take steps if an infringement occurs;

4.2.4.3.4. There may be scope for some voluntary dispute resolution mechanism, though we do not believe that is a responsibility of the top-level registries. Such mechanisms only work as far as the parties are willing to submit to them.

4.2.5. International makeup of the new board

4.2.5.1. It is very important to the continuing growth of the Internet that the managing board represents a spectrum of interests internationally. A mechanism must be put in place to allow direct input or representation from ccTLD managers.

4.2.5.2. ISOCNZ believe that the makeup of the new-IANA should be determined by international public discussion in public forum.

4.2.5.3. It is much more important that the new-IANA be responsive to the various interests and needs on the internet. Users must have an acceptable set of procedures and remedies, and a clear statement of the terms on which the various parties are contracting for management of the net.

5. Conclusion

Support the recognition of the need for smooth and ordered transition.

Seek recognition of the needs of managers of ccTLDs.

The new-IANA must have international acceptance.

The .us domain should be sorted out before introducing new gTLDs to avoid repetition of current problems.

###

From: Larry Vaden <vaden@texoma.net>
To: Mike Nelson <mnelson@fcc.gov>
Date: 3/24/98 9:03am
Subject: Re: Comments of Internet Texoma, et al in Docket No. 980212036-8036-01

At 04:09 PM 3/23/98 -0600, Eric Weisberg wrote:
>The following attached in RTF) are the comments of Internet Texoma,
>Inc., Eric Weisberg, Larry Vaden and Peter Veeck on the Proposal for the
>Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses.
>***************************************************************************
*************

Eric,

Please don't use my name further in this.

>Before the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
>National Telecommunications and Information Administration
>Washington, DC 20230
>
>Notice of Proposed Rule making
>
>In the Matter of
>IMPROVEMENT OF TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT Docket No. 980212036-8036-01
>OF INTERNET NAMES AND ADDRESSES
>
>Comments of
>Internet Texoma, Inc., Eric Weisberg, Larry Vaden, and Peter Veeck
>By Eric Weisberg, General Counsel
>200 W. Main, Denison, TX 75020-3025
>submitted March 23, 1998
>
>
>I. INTRODUCTION
>
>We are ERIC WEISBERG, General Counsel, and LARRY VADEN, Founder and CEO
>of
>INTERNET TEXOMA, INC., filing this individually and on behalf of
>Internet
>Texoma, Inc., an ISP which serves North Texas from the Dallas calling
>scope to the Oklahoma border. Our subscribers are primarily in rural
>areas. Internet Texoma is a member of ARIN, ISP/C, and TISPA. We are
>joined by Peter Veeck, owner of Regional Web, a website for local
>content
>in the areas served by Internet Texoma. We are all founders of the
>North
>American Internet Registry (NAIR), an "organization in formation" which
>filed an application with the IANA for a block of Internet Numbers " for
>the purpose of acting as an IP registry on a non-profit or profit making
>basis (we asked for guidance on that from the IANA, but received no
>response). No further action has been taken relating to that project.
>We
>have no other direct financial interest in the proceeding except as tax
>payers and as stake holders in the overall success of the Internet.
>
>II. SUMMARY
>
>A. Principles to be Applied
>
>We move that the following principles of FAIRNESS guide the decision
>making
>process you have undertaken:
>
> 1. Representation of all significant interests,
> 2. Equal access to resources,
> 3. Competition instead of monopoly solutions where possible,
> 4. Due Process in adjudication, and
> 5. Open meetings and records.
>
>B. Organization of Comments
>
>Internet Texoma will discuss specific parts of the proposal in the order
>they appear in the document. As will become clear, we have some
>conceptual
>objections which transcend the specific language.
>
>C. General Objections, Observations and Recommendations.
>
>1. We specifically OBJECT TO the creation of PRIVATE MONOPOLIES in
>domain
>name REGISTRIES unless there is strict regulation or other means of
>protecting the public from unfair or predatory practices.
>
>Private Monopolies offer no benefit over government monopoly control.
>Private monopolies subject consumers to price gouging and oppression
>without the real benefits of competition. We do not see domain name
>registration as an inherently entrepreneurial enterprise. On the other
>hand, we value the legal protections afforded the public in dealing with

>governmental entities--representative governance, open meetings and
>records, and due process. We oppose the loss of those protections
>without
>the benefit of completely open competition. And, we object to the
>incredible windfall profits to the monopoly registries which may result
>from this proposal.
>
>2. If you attempt to create a registry system dependent upon
>REGULATION
>by the MARKET (which is a questionable proposition given your proposed
>approach and the difficulty and expense of changing one's name), the
>EXISTING TLDs will have to be under GOVERNMENT or NON-PROFIT CORPORATION
>(IANA or its successor) MANAGEMENT (or the registries will have to
>simply
>be contractors carrying out the technical function for others who
>actually
>control the TLD, as will be discussed in item 3 below). That would
>provide
>price and service leadership and competitive regulation on any private
>or
>non-profit monopoly in the new registries which are allowed.
>
>3. Or, you will have to adopt a different approach than is proposed for
>ownership or control of TLDs -- one which will ELIMINATE the issue of
>MONOPOLY REGISTRIES. That might be accomplished if the registries do
>not
>have any right to the domains they register, but only perform the
>registry
>function as contractors to registrars or registrar coalitions or
>federations. Registry organizations should be able to manage as many
>domains as they can get to contract with them. The registrars/registrar
>federations should be able to change registry contractors whenever they
>see
>fit. We believe that this approach will allow competition between
>registries as well as registrars. To this end, the registry
>intellectual
>property which the USG recovers from its contractor, NSI, should be
>placed
>in the public domain for the use of all registries and registrars.
>
>4. The criticism that this proposal fails to deal with the
>international
>nature of the Internet must be considered. There must be broad
>international representation on the board of the new Corporation,
>possibly
>through representation of regional organizations.
>
>5. We suggest that various approaches be allowed simultaneously - CORE ,
>eDNS, Iperdome, AURSC, AlterNic etc. should be allowed to participate
>in
>the new DNS world we are creating.
>
>6. We further OBJECT to any TRANSFER of ownership of or interest in the
>EXISTING TLDs to any private entity or any contract to manage the
>registry
>function for existing TLDs WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDS. These were
>developed
>at US Government expense, are of significant value, and there is no
>justification for giving these resources to private parties to exploit
>without full compensation to the Government.
>
>7. We OBJECT to any PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT for the current DNS
>contractor,
>NSI.
>
>8. We DEMAND the RETURN to the registrants or the US Government of all
>moneys and other BENEFITS RECEIVED by NSI over and above the cost-plus
>contract originally entered into with NSF. We believe that the 1995
>amendment to the so called "Cooperative Agreement" is illegal and
>immoral

>and disgorgement of all monies and benefits flowing from the amendment,
>including the hardware and software bought and/or developed with such
>funds
>should be compelled.
>
>Thus, we MOVE that your demand return of all such assets, immediately
>and
>refer all unresolved questions, including disgorgement, to the
>Department
>of Justice to determine the USG's legal interests and how beset to
>protect
>them.
>
>9. We question whether the proposed mechanism for electing the board to
>govern the IANA's successor will result in fair representation for all
>legitimate interests.
>
>10. Since the seat of Internet governance must be somewhere and subject
>to
>some law, there is no reason that the US should not act to assure that
>it
>is located in the United States, is organized in a fair and
>representative
>manner, is subject to the rules of open governance and due process as
>would
>be applicable to a governmental entity in the United States, and
>guarantee
>access to the US courts for redress of grievances relating to the
>performance of its duties.
>
>11. We suggest that the ownership of NEW TLDs be declared public
>resources
>and explicitly VESTED in the non-profit CORPORATION/IANA.
>
>
>III. Observations about Specific Comments in the Proposal:
>
> Para. V
> A. Stability
> The U.S. government should end its role in the Internet number
>and
>name
>address systems in a responsible manner..."
>
>These are just words, not substance. You make three assumptions--that
>the
>US government should end its role, that it can do so in a responsible
>manner, and that your proposal accomplishes that end.
>
>Governance is governance, no matter what entity is carrying out those
>functions, private or public. There is no guarantee that the functions
>to
>be transferred to private entities will be handled more fairly or with
>less
>expense to the public than if the US government were to perform those
>functions or contract out the performance of those functions as it did
>in
>1993-94 (with certain improvements). Privatization is of interest if it
>will work on a fair and competitive basis. However, you are simply
>proposing a shift from public to private monopolies in the "registry"
>function (which is the focus of our attention, rather than the
>"registrar"
>function). You will not achieve more stability in this manner. Nor
>will
>you achieve a fairer form of governance. We oppose any change which
>degrades the quality of governance we should be able to expect from the
>US
>Government.
>
>Please remember that we are not discussing a function which is difficult
>or
>expensive for the US government to perform. It does not require many
>people nor much equipment. And, it pays for itself through user fees.
>It
>can be contracted out on a set price bid or cost-plus basis at very
>little
>expense or run by an entity such as the US Postal Service. This is not
>a
>"have to" situation for privatization.
>
>We believe that one or more of the following mechanisms -- utility
>regulation pricing, retention of the .com, .org and .net domains by the
>USG

>or the Corporation or control by a federation of registries will have a
>NATURAL COMPETITIVE REGULATION effect upon the multiple new domains
>which
>may be run privately -- i.e. they will have to compete against the USG
>domains on price, performance and governance, assuming the price of
>existing of government TLDs will reflect actual costs rather than a
>preferred monopoly position. A mixed system where the USG, IANA or
>registrars conferation directly or indirectly manages the existing
>domains
>might obviate the need for significant governmental regulation of the
>new
>registries you propose to create.
>
>*************
>
> Para. V(A)(4)
> Seats on the initial board might be allocated as follows:
> Three directors from a membership association of regional number
>registries, representing three different regions of the world. Today
>this
>would mean one each from ARIN, APNIC and RIPE. As additional regional
>number registries are added, board members could be designated on a
>rotating basis or elected by a membership organization made up of
>regional
>registries. ARIN, RIPE and APNIC are open membership organizations that
>represent entities with large blocks of numbers. They have the greatest
>stake in and knowledge of the number address system. They are also
>representative internationally."
>
>A word of caution, here. The registries are servants, not masters and
>should not be both the governors and the entities created to govern.
>They
>should not be represented. Also, IP registries may or may not represent
>the interests of the majority of the NET who get their IP addresses
>from
>up-stream providers. Further, the supposed justification for IP
>registry
>representation on the board may not be significant as the rules of
>these
>organizations will be rather static and their issues limited. And, they
>will have a conflict of interests with the rest of the net when it comes
>to
>the issue of expanding the number of registries or encouraging
>competition
>between registries, which many believe should be done. If they are to
>have
>representation, suggest limiting them to one chosen by a different
>registry
>each term on a rotating basis making their representative (if they
>should
>have one) a non-voting member. We also note that these entities are
>not
>necessarily "representative," but may have very narrow constituencies.
>Those constituencies may be influential in other groups represented on
>the
>board.
>
>But, more significantly, we are concerned about where this process is
>going. If we are moving toward more significant Internet governance by
>this organization in the future, we oppose structuring the board in any
>manner other than by representation of specific interests. We oppose
>representation of entities which are not chosen by and responsive to
>specific interests. Thus, we can imagine (and support the concept of)
>one
>representative for ISP organizations from each continent or region of
>the
>globe.
>
> Two members designated by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB),
>an

>international membership board that represents the technical community
>of
>the Internet. Two members designated by a membership association (to be
>created) representing domain name registries and registrars.
>
>First, we oppose representation for technical groups as opposed to
>interests. Second, we would give the domain registries at least as much
>representation as the IP registries, and, probably more, since they deal
>with broader interests and issues. They should be excluded from voting
>upon, if not from discussing, expansion of the gTLDs. Third, we believe
>that ISP organizations should have greater representation as they are
>the
>predominant consumer and vendor of the various products and services and
>protocols involved in the operation of the Internet.
>
> Seven members designated by a membership association (to be
>created)
>representing Internet users. At least one of those board seats could be
>designated for an individual or entity engaged in non-commercial,
>not-for-profit use of the Internet, and one for end users. The remaining
>seats could be filled by commercial users, including trademark holders.
>
>This is easier said than done as far as providing real representation
>for
>the distinct interests identified is concerned. We have come to like
>your
>idea of creating a new forum solely for the purpose of electing
>representatives, as that resolves the thorny issues of stability and
>discrimination between trade groups which might otherwise choose the
>representatives. However, we do not know how to define members of the
>organization or of the various sections so that one or several interests
>are not dominant in voting for representatives of all the interest group
>sections. Perhaps "members" would be limited to voting in only one
>section. We wonder how you would deal with entities having large numbers
>of
>employees who might be members (voters). Thus, implementation of this
>section is a concern.
>
>************
>
> Para. VI(B)
> We concede that switching costs and lock-in could produce the
>scenario
>described above. On the other hand, we believe that market mechanisms
>may
>well discourage this type of behavior. On balance, we believe that
>consumers will benefit from competition among market oriented
>registries,
>and we thus support limited experimentation with competing registries
>during the transition to private sector administration of the domain
>name
>system.
>
>You recognize but fail to deal with the problems. You simply hope that
>they
>will not be manifest during your experimental stage. The problems you
>describe are with the system you would create rather than with the
>situation which exists. Your proposal is flawed in its conception. You
>would create monopolies which you hope to regulate by competition.
>"Competitive monopoly" is an oxymoron! You lack the fairy godmother to
>force Cinderella's foot into the competitive shoe.
>
>The problem is made intractable because you are counting upon
>competition
>between unequals. The .com, .net and .org registries already have the
>cream of the industry locked up. You only leave stragglers for the

>competition. They will never in our lives be able to compete with the
>established TLDs on an equal footing in any regard. Suggesting
>otherwise
>requires the perspective of an head buried ostrich.
>
>We suggest that the best way to handle this is by some form of
>government
>or Corporation/IANA run or licensed registry and shared access to any
>qualified registrar for at least the .com, .net and .org domains. Then,
>the competitive model has a chance of working for the new domains.
>Otherwise, there must be price control/regulation of .com, .org, and
>.net.
>
>*************
>
> Para. VI(C)
>
> Attempts to impose too much central order risk stifling a medium
>like the
>Internet that is decentralized by nature and thrives on freedom and
>innovation.
>
>The problem is who should own and profit from particular identifiers and
>who should be allowed to get into the registry and registrar business.
>Privatizing the function of distributing limited natural resources
>(domains) by creating a limited number of private monopoly registries
>results in a system which is more difficult to manage and is subject to
>greater abuse than retaining control of the registry function by the USG
>or
>the Corporation/IANA.
>
>***************
>
> Para. VI(E)
> allocation of a portion of the registration fee to the Internet
>Intellectual Infrastructure Fund should terminate on April 1, 1998, the
>beginning of the ramp down period of the cooperative agreement.
>
>It is time to end the $35 per year fee to NSI and discuss "disgorgement"
>of
>the obscene amounts NSI has receive under the $50/yr registration fee
>arrangement which was instituted without competitive bid.
>
>***************
>
> VII(A)
> 1. ...NSI will continue to operate .com, .net and .org but on a
>fully
>shared-registry basis... The registry will treat all registrars on a
>nondiscriminatory basis and will price registry services according to an
>agreed upon formula for a period of time.
>
>It is time for the Government to stop buying $750 hammers and giving
>away
>gold mines and other natural resources. NSI should not get these
>domains
>without a competitive bid process. If it is to continue to temporarily
>operate the registry as a government contractor managing the public
>resource (the domains), the terms of such contract should result in
>fair,
>but not excessive compensation to NSI, and the contract's duration
>should
>be reasonably short and periodically reviewed.
>
>Remember, NSI is a new-comer, not the pioneer which developed the
>Internet
>DNS system. There are a lot of others who did more and got a lot less
>for
>their efforts. NSI did not create these domains and it was paid
>handsomely
>to husband the these resources for the past five years. It has a
>FIDUCIARY
>and, we assert, a legal duty to return the resource entirely and intact
>to
>the government so it may continue operating its domains without a
>glitch.
>
>The Government MUST take immediate steps to deal with what appears to be
>an
>emergency created by the end of the "co-operative agreement." It must
>start with a demand for copies of the data and programs necessary to

>operate the DNS system, arrange for Government or alternative management
>to
>begin prior to the end of the agreement, be prepared to seize or
>exercise
>imminent domain to gain control of these assets if it does not get the
>unqualified co-operation of NSI, and begin exploring, now, the various
>options for managing the resource in a way to maximize the revenue which
>can come to the US Treasury from the existing TLDs.
>
>*****************
>
> Appendix 1--Recommended Registry and Registrar Requirements
> ...If, after it begins operations, a registry no longer meets
>these
>requirements, IANA may transfer management of the domain names under
>that
>registry's gTLD to another organization.
>
>This provision implies (and you must specifically spell it out) that
>ownership of the intellectual property associated with the new domains
>which are allowed will be vested in the IANA or its successor
>Corporation.
>The registry should be a contractor or concessionaire, not the owner.
>
>*******************
>
> Each top-level domain (TLD) database will be maintained by only
>one
>registry and, at least initially, each new registry can host only one
>TLD.
>
>This may not be appropriate if the registry is simply performing the
>technical service and control of the TLDs is in some other party.
>
>*******************
>
> Appendix 2
> 4. Alternative Dispute Resolution of Domain Name Conflicts.
> a. There must be a readily available and convenient dispute
>resolution
>process that requires no involvement by registrars.
> b. Registries/Registrars will abide by the decisions resulting
>from
>an
>agreed upon dispute resolution process or by the decision of a court of
>competent jurisdiction. 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.
>
>We question the lack of a standard procedure for all US based
>registries.
>We would provide for immediate access to the courts if one of the
>disputants feels it appropriate, especially to enjoin a use or
>suspension.
>And, there would have to be a tolling of time limits for lack of
>knowledge
>of an infringing use or other extenuating circumstances.
>
>IV. Conclusion
>
>The proposal offers a starting point but not a final nor acceptable
>resolution of the various issues it addresses. Furthermore, this
>process
>was begun to late to deal with these issues in a deliberative and
>responsible manner. NSF is responsible for this unfortunate situation
>and
>should be brought to task. The only reasonable way to proceed is to
>return
>to a cost-plus contractual relationship with NSI while we work through
>the
>problems and come up with a broadly acceptable structure to carry us
>into
>the future.
>
>We also suggest that the issues of who owns the property bought,
>assembled
>or developed in connection with the co-operative agreement and whether
>NSI
>should be required to disgorge the $100 million it has reaped since
>September, 1995, should be referred to the Department of Justice for

>investigation and appropriate action.
>
> Respectfully
>submitted,
>
> Internet Texoma,
>Inc.
>
>
>
>
> Eric Weisberg
> General Counsel
>
>EW:dkl
>
>

CC: "Sr. Management" <sr-management@texoma.net>

###

From: "MailForm" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
To: "MailForm User" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 3/24/98 4:16pm
Subject: Mailform Data

Posted From: stronghold.wind-river.com
Date posted: 03/24/98 16:16:44

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

NOTICE: The following is an automated response via http://www.domainbank.net/support2.html

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

NAME: Kelly Perkins
ORGANIZATION: Wind River Visual Communication
E-MAIL: kellyp@wind-river.com
COMMENTS:
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 (www.gtld-mou.org)

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

Submit SEND MAIL

###

From: "MailForm" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
To: "MailForm User" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 3/24/98 5:43pm
Subject: Mailform Data

Posted From: 208.230.51.245
Date posted: 03/24/98 17:43:46

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

NOTICE: The following is an automated response via http://www.domainbank.net/support2.html

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

NAME: Gavin Rodkey
ORGANIZATION: CareerBuilder, Inc.
E-MAIL: gavin@careerbuilder.com
COMMENTS:

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 (www.gtld-mou.org)

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

Submit SEND MAIL

###

From: "MailForm" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
To: "MailForm User" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 3/24/98 8:49pm
Subject: Mailform Data

Posted From: lab-dl15.hsclib.sunysb.edu
Date posted: 03/24/98 20:49:11

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

NOTICE: The following is an automated response via http://www.domainbank.net/support2.html

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

NAME: Michael Sondow
ORGANIZATION: Virus Immunology Study Group
E-MAIL: msondow@ic.sunysb.edu
COMMENTS:

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 (www.gtld-mou.org)

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

Submit SEND MAIL

###