Figure 1. Increase in Internet Subscription.
The Internet at a turning point: Analysis and Proposals for Future Internet Domain Name Systems
Sawan P. Deshpande
Technology Policy Program, MIT, Cambridge, U.S.A.
617–225-9702 sawan@mit.edu
This paper analyses the present controversy surrounding the Internet Domain Name System (DNS), especially on the issue of adoption of the top-level domains (TLDs) based on national codes against those based on generic categories. We argue that generic top level domains are the way of the future as the Internet becomes more and more internationally widespread. However, at present, we do not recommend the total abolishment of the already existing National Top Level Domains (NTLDs) and propose a gradual introduction of new GTLDs. We also suggest the formulation of an impartial and internationally sustainable organization to guide this period of transition. This strategy would epitomize what the Internet represents: individual freedom and enterprise without international borders.
1. Introduction
Today’s Internet is an outgrowth of the commercialization of the US NSFNET, which was primarily used as a network for research and education. As a legacy of this inheritance, the US govt. through its various offices and agencies has been at the heart of maintaining and running the system. However over the last five years the Internet has become increasingly an international medium for commerce, communication and education and has burgeoned in terms of subscription (refer Fig 1). As this has been happening it has become more and more apparent for the US to relinquish is control over the administration and management of the domain name system. There are two immediate factors, which will decide the future of the Internet:
In this discussion we focus on the second issue: the issue of criteria for naming the top level domains (TLDs). At present there are two different naming structures in use. The larger naming structure is based on political geography, called national top level domains (NTLDs), and consists of two letter codes for countries and territories (ISO standards 3166). Also there are seven generic TLDs (GTLDs) based on recognizable categories based on the types of organizations they represent (Refer Fig. 2).
Figure 1. Increase in Internet Subscription.
Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), a US based company, does the registration and management of these GTLDs, , under a five-year cooperative agreement with the NSF. The NSI also maintains the root server, called "A" server, which maintains the authoritative root database and replicates changes to the other root servers on a daily basis.
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), headed by Dr. Jon Postel of the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) at the University of Southern California, coordinates this system by allocating blocks of numerical addresses to regional IP registries (ARIN in North America, RIPE in Europe, and APNIC in the Asia/Pacific region), under contract with DARPA. In turn, larger Internet service providers apply to the regional IP registries for blocks of IP addresses. The recipients of those address blocks then reassign addresses to smaller Internet service providers and to end users.
In this discussion we argue that generic TLDs (GTLDs) are more concurrent with the direction in which the Internet is progressing. We also argue for the need for more specific and user-friendly categories within the GTLDs. But on the other hand we also recommend that it is too premature to totally abolish the NTLDs. We present our arguments in four steps:
web.mit.edu
Figure 2. The domain name hierarchy (1)
2. Historical Evolution of the TLDs
The domain naming system took its present shape between 1981 to 1987. The first document to describe what is in effect the system of domain naming that existed until 1997 was RFC 920 (October 1984). The DNS linked the domains to organizations and conceived of domain registration as a hierarchy delegation among organizations. These categories typically represented the types of organization the US defense and research projects normally dealt with for e.g. military (mil), commercial (com), government (gov) and education (edu). They formed a more or less basic first glance reference for the person on the NSFNET. In 1984, the authors of RFC 920 proposed the idea of using the two-letter country codes as top level domains for countries. Actual use of the country code TLDS began in 1986 and expanded gradually. By 1997, the percentage of TLDs based on NTLDs has risen to 29% accounting for 44% of the Internet hosts.(1)
The important thing to note in the above was that the NTLD was introduced a convenient ad hoc measure, which was applicable at the time when the Internet was primarily concentrated in the US. The NTLDs meant that the first level of delegation would be the national authorities and the registrars would be the equivalents of the US government agencies. However, the commercialization and the rapid universal diffusion of the Internet since then have imposed on the DNS a more demanding and complex system.
During the privatization process, the global vs national status of the TLDs became even more confused. After 1990, regional NICs were established in Europe (RIPE) and then in Asia (APNIC) to begin geographically distributing the authority to assign numbers and register domain names. Most of the domain name applicants outside the US were registered under the two letters national TLD registries coordinated by the respective regional organizations. Although the original intention of the GTLDs had been to register any organization anywhere in the world, the new domain name system restricted three of the old GLTDs (.edu,.gov and .mil) to the registrants inside the US but the .com , .org and .net accept registrations globally.
The increasing disparity between the USA’s reliance on GTLDs and the rest of the world's reliance on NTLDs became increasingly more apparent.
3. Rationale for change
The US- based registries were the only ones eligible to register GTLDs and could grant licenses to organization/companies even outside the US. This made redundant the necessity to have the NTLDS. This also meant a company based anywhere in the world had to apply to the US for a GTLD. The dominance of the US in international GTLD market eliminates the fundamental purpose of having generic TLDs.
The most controversial problem arises from disputes over the right to control domain names that matched the company names. This is because the companies wanted second level domain names that are identical or at least semantically related to their name. That meant there was there was huge gap between the nominal fee required for a second level domain name (avg. 50$) and the economic value of having a particular domain name. This lead to instances of peoples preempting and hijacking common and saleable domain names for future profit from their resale.
Most of the NTLDs are administered by the respective national governments in the form of a monopoly. This seems to provide a huge stumbling block for the evolution of the Internet as a free market oriented medium.
There were also instances where the trademark law was invoked as a response to name speculation. While large corporations tried to register, they found that their names had already been registered, and they litigated under the trademark law. The IANA responded:
"In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the rights to a particular name, the registration authority shall have no role or responsibility other than to provide the contact information to both parties. The registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark status. It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating anyone else's Trademark." (2)
This merely represented an attempt to wash its hands off this issue and in fact represents the inability of the present system to arbitrate such disputes
The final straw came because of the proliferation of alternative GTLDs providers all over the world. Though they were not listed in the InterNIC root server they were visible to few people who knew how to manually reconfigure their DNS stub resolvers. These service providers have started putting increasing pressure on the already present GTLDs, especially .com, and are becoming more and more popular. This shows that unless there is some mechanism to regulate the introduction of such new GTLDs, there is going to be chaos with no way to control their growth.
In retrospect, the following things are becoming more and more obvious:
4. Principles of the future TLD system
Any domain name system that should evolve in the future has to be sustainable for the long term and be acceptable to all the stakeholders. For this to be true, we have identified the basic principles the new system would have to meet:
5. Identification of Strategy and Means
Within the guidelines set out in the previous section, in this section, we identify the underlying strategies and practical considerations to base our actions on.. It is critical to note that the decisions we take at this relatively incipient stage of the development of the Internet will have unimaginable implications on the future structure of the Internet.
6. Action Proposal
Any proposed plan of action should incorporate all the features we have outlined in the previous sections. The transfer of power from the US governmental agencies to an international organization seems inevitable. Also the addition of new GTLDs is something is necessary to balance the demand and supply for Internet domains. We present a rough plan:
This autonomous independent body will be independent of any political, governmental or national affiliations. The board of directors for the new corporation should be balanced to equitably represent the interests of IP number registries, domain name registries, domain name registrars, the technical community, and Internet users (commercial, not-for-profit, and individuals) (Refer Fig 3).
This international body will gradually add new GTLDS to this system based on generic categories. Feedback from the different stakeholders in figure 3 will determine the opening of a new GTLD. At least in the short run, a prudent concern for the stability of the system requires that expansion of GTLDs proceed at a deliberate and controlled pace to allow for evaluation of the impact of the new GTLDs and well-reasoned evolution of the domain space.
We do not advocate the immediate abolishment of the NTLDs. It will unnecessarily open a Pandora box, which should be avoided especially in this period of flux. The NTLDs still forms a maximum percentage of the Internet hosts (44%). There are yet several nations which are not yet ready and open to this kind of international and free forum for the Internet (Refer Fig. 4).
Competition should be introduced at the registry as well as the register level for the management and maintenance of TLDs. Competition among registries would allow registrars to choose among TLDs rather than face a single option. Competing TLDs would seek to heighten their efficiency, lower their prices, and provide additional value-added services. Investments in registries could be recouped through branding
Figure 3. Structure of new DNS management
and marketing. The efficiency, convenience, and service levels associated with the assignment of names could ultimately differ from one TLD registry to another. Without these types of market pressures, registries will have very little incentive to innovate.
The number of new top-level domains should be large enough to create competition among registries and to enable the new corporation to evaluate the functioning, in the new environment, of the root server system and the software systems that enable shared registration. At the same time, it should not be so large as to destabilize the Internet.
5) The Trademark Dilemma
For Internet to function as an effective commercial market, businesses must have confidence that their trademarks can be protected. On the other hand, management of the Internet must respond to the needs of the Internet community as a whole, and not trademark owners exclusively. The balance we propose is to provide trademark
Figure 4. The Proposed future DNS
holders with the same rights they have in the physical world i.e. to ensure transparency, to guarantee a dispute resolution mechanism with resort to a court system, and to add new top-level domains carefully during the transition to international coordination of the domain name system. To deter the pirating of domain names, the registry could also require applicants to certify that it knows of no entity with superior rights in the domain name it seeks to register. The databases also could be kept up to date by a requirement that domain name registrants maintain up-to-date contact information.
7. Conclusions.
The above discussion and the arguments it makes are an effort to analyze and develop a policy framework towards solving the issue of Internet DNS. The kind of system it envisages is one which , will take a considerable amount of international negotiations and enforcement. The success of the transition from a primarily US based system to a global one will determine the viability of and adherence to of the proposed structure.
8. References.