To the: 



United States Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20230

 

 

"DNS PROJECT

response to the 
United States Department of commerce 


(Docket No. 060519136-6136-01) 




PURPOSE

The DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration issued  Actions including a Notice of Inquiry, Notice of Public Meeting, and a Call for Comments and Written Comments (Docket No. 060519136-6136-01) regarding the The Continued Transition of the Technical Coordination and Management of the Internet Domain Name and Addressing System.  In Summary, the United States Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) seeks comment on the continuation of the transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet domain name and addressing system (Internet DNS) to the private sector.  In June 1998, the Department issued a statement of policy on the privatization of the Internet DNS, which among other things articulated four primary functions for global Internet DNS coordination and management, the need to have these functions performed by the private sector and four principles to guide the transition to private sector management of the Internet DNS.  On June 30, 2005, NTIA released the U.S. Principles on the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System further elaborating on these issues.  The Department of Commerce seeks comment regarding the progress of this transition and announces a public meeting to be held on July 26, 2006, to discuss issues associated with this transition. 

Because the current MOU will expire on September 30, 2006, NTIA seeks comment on the progress to date of the transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS to the private sector. 

 

 

INTRODUCTION AND FOREWORD

I, Stephanie M. Jordan, have been facilitating Domain and Internet Services since 1996.

I, of course, already had many documents about Internic and it's procedures and it's business, as well as, Network Solutions.  And alsoVerisign, in part because it acquired Network Solutions.  

I am knowledgeable about the transitions and have dealt first-hand with ICANN.  I am very familiar with the Internet environment over the last ten years, and much had first hand experience.  

I've read over the "White Papers" and the Government's Initiatives, Agreements, Contracts, Amendments, Reports, Testimonies and many other documents. 

But I still had many questions.  Does the United States Department of Commerce know what these people are really doing?  Why have they let these people control the Internet?  Why has this happened?  I always wondered why this was not an open bid as other solicitations are published and made available to bid for award.  How is it these people can make their own rules, and disregard people and the law and get away with it?  

And even when ICANN was suppose to make things fair and equal - it didn't.  

I know what happened.  I know the other side.  They would exert their power. 

But I needed to see in black and white (contracts/agreements) what had happened to let them get to here.  I saw the underlying intentions to control this system and it's vital and crucial structural support for communications and the internet, data and information, commerce and money and the direction of it's flow.  I saw the truth.

As I read over these documents, I contrasted with the Internet environment at that time.  

Overall, I did see the idealism of fairness to be enacted and the transparency that should envelope the policy and procedural provisions.

I believe that our United States Government had the best intentions for our people and the use of the "Internet" and it's initiatives to completely de-governmentize by therefore "privatizing".  From my understanding the fundamental goals by privatizing was so that the United States Government did not control all of Commerce and Industry and the "Internet".  Being that the sole source contract award that accomplished privatizing, went to a non government owned private entity, of course, some people expressed that because of this, Internic was able to monopolize the entire market.  I remember that time, and I believe, the general consensus was that "other" companies should have open access to bid on the contract to the United States Department of Commerce which at that time was a sole award to Internic. 

I also saw where the United States government gave control of a multibillion dollar revenue producing process developed by our United States Government for a contract amount of $00.00 (zero) but provided a way to earn revenue from the process itself.  

But of course I would wonder, why is the United States government letting them do this?  Have they given them the authority and requirements and specifications in these contracts to engage in these practices?

    

BACKGROUND

I have said that the Internet needs to be shifted for the publics’ best interests.  It was and is weighted to profit few at the expense of many.   Problem is, it still is.  

What if the government of the United States helped to create the infrastructure and the technology.  And individuals that foresaw new ways to monopolize and control and formed private corporations, fronts and entities.  Now imagine a world run by computers and networks and imagine many individuals, companies, entities and shielded corporations all using this technology to facilitate anything and everything that would put money in their pockets at any cost or expense.  Just try to imagine what they could do with the Internet. 

Imagine that in order to be fair and to create and distribute opportunity that our United States government assigned a private organization to track the names and addresses for the Internet and great wealth would be created by the facilitation of these services. 

The "Internet" refers to the global information system that (1) is logically linked together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons; (2) is able to support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP compatible protocols; and (3) provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services layered on the communications and related infrastructure described herein. 

The Internet was developed in the 1960's as a military operation to allow more efficient transfer of information.  The Internet was a communication and research tool used almost exclusively for academic and military purposes by the United States during the 1960s by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). 

Working under contract to the U.S. Department of Defense, ARPA initially connected computers at the Stanford Research Institute in California, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB), and the University of Utah and this network, the very first computer network, was called ARPANET (ARPA NETwork).  

As ARPANET grew in the 1970s, with more and more universities connecting to it, users found it necessary to establish standards for the way that data was transmitted over the network. To meet the needs of data transmission standards, computer scientists developed the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the Internet Protocol (IP). 

The Internet grew  and with the introduction of the World Wide Web, aka WWW, or W3, the  Internet provided programs, standards and protocols, hypertext documents containing text, links, graphics and files such as multimedia with video/audio, databases and technology advanced applications. 

An Internet Domain Name is a unique identifier for an Internet site that can be compared to a mailing address for a physical location. Common suffixes TLD's ("top-level domains") include .com, .net and .org, in addition to country-related domains such as .us for the United States. Separate registration is required for ownership of each variation of a domain name.  

The "Registrant" is the Owner of the Domain Name(s) 

The "List" of the .com, .net and .org domain names owners, contact information and name servers information was the "Registry". 

The "Registry" included Domain Name Registrants/Owners and their address, Administrative, Billing and Technical Contacts which includes Name, Organization, Address, Phone Number, Fax Number and Email Address. And the List also includes the server information as to where on the Internet  the files reside (a computer designated by IP address). 

The "Registrar" was the entity that facilitated and managed 1.) Domain Name Registrations  2.) Domain Name Registration Administrative, Billing and Technical Contact Information  3.) Domain Name Servers (DNS)  4.) Domain Name Servers (DNS) Contact Information 

Our United States government wanted this "neutral body" to keep up with the domain registrations, so in order to be fair and to create and distribute opportunity, our United States government assigned an organization to track the names and addresses for the Internet.  

Internic was put in place by an agreement from the United States Department of Commerce and under the authority and actions of the United States Department of Commerce and "Internic" was given authority to perform as a Registrar and to be that neutral body to keep up with the domain registrations.   

Internic aka, Network Solutions, Inc. aka Netsol and now known as "Verisign" was the Registrar for all domain names for the .com, .net, and .org (TLD's) Top Level Domains.  All domain registrations had to go through Internic.  ISP's and Hosting Companies could provide Domain Registration Services to Customers, but most charged fees in excess of Internic fee of $100.00 per Domain Name Registration registration which covered 2 years.  

Internic's Domain Registration Services information could be found on the Internic's website Domain at http://rs.internic.net/rs-internic.html.  

Internic/Network Solutions aka "The Dot Com People" had a lot of power, everybody needed them, they were making a lot of money and all they had to do was keep a database and send out bills for doing just that.  

Some protested that Internic aka Network Solutions had a monopolistic position as being the only provider of Internet/Domain Name Registry Services.

These people wanted the same rights  as Internic.  But that is not what happened.  

And although, the United States Government had wanted a neutral not for profit party to keep up with the registration/ownership records for these domains, that never happened.

In response, the United States Department of Commerce made an agreement with ICANN to fulfill original purpose. 

Our United States Government, wanted to first see if the Private sector could even handle the management of the DNS (Domain Name System) and ICANN assures the United States Department of Commerce that ICANN can accommodate the broad and diverse interest groups that make up the Internet community.  

The establishment of ICANN and authority given to ICANN by our government was to represent the Internet Community, protect the Domain Name Holders, and put Policy in place to protect those that need to be Represented.  

The Internet Domain Name System (the "Domain Names" and the corresponding "System" already in place that made it work) was functioning and if it was privatized collectively to be the responsibility of a private corporation whereby the authority was given to manage the "Domain Name System", the government did not want the stability and functionality of this system to be compromised.   

In the Memorandum of Understanding between the DOC, which under Section III give Authorities by which the Agreement could be enacted and states, "AUTHORITIES A.  DOC has authority to participate in the DNS Project with ICANN under the following authorities:(1) 15 U.S.C. § 1525, the DOC's Joint Project Authority, which provides that the DOC may enter into joint projects with nonprofit, research, or public organizations on matters of mutual interest, the cost of which is equitably apportioned; (2) 15 U.S.C. § 1512, the DOC's authority to foster, promote, and develop foreign and domestic commerce; (3) 47 U.S.C. § 902, which specifically authorizes the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to coordinate the telecommunications activities of the Executive Branch and assist in the formulation of policies and standards for those activities including, but not limited to, considerations of interoperability, privacy, security, spectrum use, and emergency readiness; (4) Presidential Memorandum on Electronic Commerce, 33 Weekly Comp. Presidential Documents 1006 (July 1, 1997), which directs the Secretary of Commerce to transition DNS management to the private sector; and (5) Statement of Policy, Management of Internet Names and Addresses, (63 Fed. Reg. 31741(1998) (Attachment A), which describes the manner in which the Department of Commerce will transition DNS management to the private sector.

Under Section B, the Purpose of the "Memorandum of Understanding" between the DOC and ICANN as, "Purpose - Before making a transition to private sector DNS management, the DOC requires assurances that the private sector has the capability and resources to assume the important responsibilities related to the technical management of the DNS. To secure these assurances, the Parties will collaborate on this DNS Project (DNS Project). In the DNS Project, the Parties will jointly design, develop, and test the mechanisms, methods, and procedures that should be in place and the steps necessary to transition management responsibility for DNS functions now performed by, or on behalf of, the U.S. Government to a private-sector not-for-profit entity. Once testing is successfully completed, it is contemplated that management of the DNS will be transitioned to the mechanisms, methods, and procedures designed and developed in the DNS Project."

The parties agreed to abide by Principles and defined "Stability".  The Memorandum Understanding states, "This Agreement promotes the stability of the Internet and allows the Parties to plan for a deliberate move from the existing structure to a private-sector structure without disruption to the functioning of the DNS."   

The Memorandum of Understanding and it Principles defined, "Competition" and stated, "This Agreement promotes the management of the DNS in a manner that will permit market mechanisms to support competition and consumer choice in the technical management of the DNS.  This competition will lower costs, promote innovation, and enhance user choice and satisfaction."

The Memorandum of Understanding and it Principles defined, "Representation" and stated, "This Agreement promotes the technical management of the DNS in a manner that reflects the global and functional diversity of Internet users and their needs. This Agreement is intended to promote the design, development, and testing of mechanisms to solicit public input, both domestic and international, into a private-sector decision making process. These mechanisms will promote the flexibility needed to adapt to changes in the composition of the Internet user community and their needs."

The Memorandum of Understanding, states under section "A. General. 2. The Parties agree that the mechanisms, methods, and procedures developed under the DNS Project will ensure that private-sector technical management of the DNS shall not apply standards, policies, procedures or practices inequitably or single out any particular party for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause and will ensure sufficient appeal procedures for adversely effected members of the Internet community."

Under Section C of the Memorandum of Understanding, ICANN agrees to perform the following activities and provide the following resources in support of the DNS Project and further agrees to undertake the following activities pursuant to its procedures as set forth and agrees, 2. Collaborate on the design, development and testing of procedures by which members of the Internet community adversely effected by decisions that are in conflict with the bylaws of the organization can seek external review of such decisions by a neutral third party.  3. Collaborate on the design, development, and testing of a plan for introduction of competition in domain name registration services, including:  a. Development of procedures to designate third parties to participate in tests conducted pursuant to this Agreement. b. Development of an accreditation procedure for registrars and procedures that subject registrars to consistent requirements designed to promote a stable and robustly competitive DNS, as set forth in the Statement of Policy.  c. Identification of the software, databases, know-how, intellectual property, and other equipment necessary to implement the plan for competition;"

Of major concern also to our United States Government was the Internet (Domain) Users and those "Registrars" that would operate "Registry Service" and requested ICANN to provide and accreditation procedure.  Usually, the term Accreditation has been historically to imply that an organization meets or exceeds all of the requirements and/or criteria that would set them apart from other organizations and/or entities.  In the Memorandum of Understanding our United States Government would address these issues and would make provisions in Section C3, and Stated in the Agreement that ICANN would, "Collaborate on the design, development, and testing of a plan for introduction of competition in domain name registration services and including: b. Development of an accreditation procedure for registrars and procedures that subject registrars to consistent requirements designed to promote a stable and robustly competitive DNS, as set forth in the Statement of Policy."   

Of major concern also to our United States Government were those already operating in the Internet Technical Community and that those Internet Technical Community Members, respectively have a voice in the formulation, which means at the beginning of the policy and procedure making process, and that actions be taken and methods be in place to solicit the comments, to evaluate these comments about the formulation of the policies and procedures and for methods for responding to the comments of the Members of the Internet Domain Name System community collectively and our United States Government took action and made provisions to ICANN in the Memorandum of Understanding to Solicit comments by these "Members"  and  made provisions in Section C6, and Stated in the Agreement that ICANN would, "Collaborate on the design, development and testing of a process for effected parties to participate in the formulation of policies and procedures that address the technical management of the Internet. This process will include methods for soliciting, evaluating and responding to comments in the adoption of policies and procedures."  

The United States Government made and set forth further protections in the Memorandum of Understanding in Section C8 and Stated in the Agreement that ICANN would, "Collaborate on the design, development, and testing of appropriate membership mechanisms that foster accountability to and representation of the global and functional diversity of the Internet and its users, within the structure of private-sector DNS management organization."

Under Section 9 of the "Memorandum of Understanding" states, that ICANN will  " Collaborate on the design, development and testing of a plan for creating a process that will consider the possible expansion of the number of gTLDs. The designed process should consider and take into account the following: a. The potential impact of new gTLDs on the Internet root server system and Internet stability.  b. The creation and implementation of minimum criteria for new and existing gTLD registries.  c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive environment for gTLD registries.  d. Recommendations regarding trademark/domain name policies set forth in the Statement of Policy; recommendations made by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) concerning: (i) the development of a uniform approach to resolving trademark/domain name disputes involving cyberpiracy; (ii) a process for protecting famous trademarks in the generic top level domains; (iii) the effects of adding new gTLDs and related dispute resolution procedures on trademark and intellectual property holders; and recommendations made by other independent organizations concerning trademark/domain name issues."

For Intellectual Property, Domain Names, Trademark and Copyright protections, Congress passed the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(d) prohibits registering or using a domain name that is confusingly similar to another name, with the intent to profit. Other situations involving Web sites that are used to promote fraud or illegal activity can be addressed under existing laws that address financial fraud and computer crime (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §1101 - Fraud and False Statements, 18 U.S.C. §1030 - Fraud in Connection with Computers, 18 U.S.C. §1343 - Wire Fraud). Suspicious activities involving domain names should be reported according to existing instructions for filing Suspicious Activity Reports with their primary federal regulator and law enforcement agencies.

"Cyberpiracy" and other deceitful anticompetitive business practices, as well as the dissemination of information to facilitate fraud via wire had become increasingly big, and of course was of concern, the agreement with ICANN, enclosed and provided by our United States government in the Memorandum of Understanding that stated  "Recommendations regarding trademark/domain name policies set forth in the Statement of Policy; recommendations made by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) concerning: (i) the development of a uniform approach to resolving trademark/domain name disputes involving cyberpiracy; (ii) a process for protecting famous trademarks in the generic top level domains; (iii) the effects of adding new gTLDs and related dispute resolution procedures on trademark and intellectual property holders; and recommendations made by other independent organizations concerning trademark/domain name issues."

With best foresight possible, of major concern to our United States Government was bias, and acts that would harm and injure others.  Our United States Government would address these issues and would make provisions to prohibit or prevent bias from this managing (controlling) ICANN and also to Prohibit a "party in the DNS Project or in any act related to the DNS Project to act unjustifiably or to injure particular persons or entities or particular categories of persons or entities."

The DOC published its Statement of Policy, Management of Internet Names and Addresses, 63 Fed. Reg. 31741(1998) (Statement of Policy) which addressed the privatization of the technical management of the DNS and the DOC stated its intent to enter an agreement with a not-for-profit entity to establish a process to transition current U.S. Government management of the DNS to such an entity based on the principles of stability, competition, bottom-up coordination, and representation.

ICANN was put in place.

From the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an office of the Department of Commerce, a press release on November 30, 1999 announced a new version of the InterNIC website launched on December 1, at http://www.internic.net/ whereby the new site provides the public with information regarding domain name registration and a directory of domain name registrars accredited by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that are currently taking registrations in the .com, .net and .org domains.  

ICANN enacted policy for new Registrars.  

ICANN Accreditation procedure would provide to ICANN $70,000 fee (US Dollars) that must be submitted with the application to start the process to become a new "ICANN Accredited Registrar".

Before new ICANN "policy", Network Solutions had enacted it's own policy for companies that  had a business model of registering domain names for other people (clients).  

Network Solutions had already implemented a program for companies that depended on them to register names for their customers.  Network Solutions enrolled these companies in the Network Solutions Business Account Program which was active by March of 2000, and would send the following email to message to Business Account Program Members at enrollment, "Please read the following Welcome message carefully and save the instructions for future reference.  Welcome! Network Solutions appreciates the opportunity to welcome your company to the Business Account Program. Thank you for joining!     As a Business Account Program member, you will enjoy full use of our  convenient email template and invoicing system to process your domain name  (Web address) registrations. You may wish to review and print our Business Account Program Service Agreement for future reference:   http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/business-agreement.html.  Business Account Program benefits are extended only to members who remain in good standing.  To register new web addresses or modify existing ones using the email  template registration system, email your templates to REGISTRATIONS@NETWORKSOLUTIONS.COM . [Instructions on How-To-Register a domain name using the email template process are noted at the end of the  email.].  Please review the following sections for information that you may find useful - General Information, Trouble-Shooting and How To Register a Web Address. Once again, thank you for joining the Business Account Program with Network Solutions, Inc.   Sincerely,  The Network Solutions Business Account Team  >GENERAL INFORMATION  Your Business Account can be updated by sending your changes to BusinessAccount@networksolutions.com . The subject line should designate the type of change requested: Change MailFrom address; Add MailFrom address; Add reply-to address; Change contact information. Please be sure to send your instructions from the designated contact email address.  We request you designate the additional address using an all capital  letter format. [Example - Subject: Add mailfrom address XBBX@XBBCX.COM].  Each account is limited to three  MailFrom/Reply-To addresses.  Your MailTo Address is REGISTRATIONS@NETWORKSOLUTIONS.COM  The latest version of the registration template is 6.0 - and is found at  this ftp site - > ftp://www.networksolutions.com/templates/domain-template.txt . You will notice three new fields - the ability to extend the registration of a name for up to 10 years - (Default/Minimum is 2 years for a new registration),  an opt-out of WHOIS database and a Channel Identifier. Your unique  Channel Identifier may be obtained by calling the Business Account Program  Support Center at 1-877-438-8580 or via email to bapq@netsol.com. The Channel Identifier field must be completed on each template to qualify the registration for the revenue share program. The revenue share program is defined at this site - http://www.networksolutions.com/partners/business-account/business-upgrade.html"

Network Solutions enrolled members in the Business Account Program and made Introduction to Business Account Program Members with a Welcome and an offer for the Revenue Share Program.  At the that time, the revenue for Network Solutions and it's "Financial Value" was based on 2 years of revenue for every one domain registration.    

The Network Solutions Channel Identifier was the unique account number assigned to each member enrolled in the Business Account Program, and to one Business enrolled in the Business Account Program, Network Solutions assigned the following Channel Identifier #BA-100010100.

I'm not sure how many companies and businesses that registered domain names for their customers ever enjoyed any "revenue share" from Network Solutions.  

Also, I would like to note the elite power that Network Solutions had - consumers and businesses were required to pay 2 years in advance for the service.  Many, many consumers and businesses had to oblige because they had no other choice.

ICANN enacted policy where companies who were involved in registration of large or larger amounts of domain name registrations and modifications/management, and already performing services to others as that of a "registrar" would now have to pay $70,000 fee to become an "ICANN Accredited Registrar". 

The Complaint alleges that the "DNS" (Domain Name System) has changed, before ICANN, a registry was the list and the new registrars were to compete with current registrar (Network Solutions) and that ICANN has failed to allow for fair competition and in accordance with Memorandum of Understanding. 

The complaint charges that the accreditation procedures that ICANN and Registries/Registrars implemented procedures that fostered greed, lessened fair competition, have been anticompetitive. 

New "ICANN Accredited Registrars" (those persons that had access to $70,000.00 to be accredited to register domain names) were quickly abusing the Privilege.  At that point, queries were going through the databases to check availability and ownership and querying the “new” Registrars' databases'.    

With new Registrars in place, Registrations for domain names were being returned as an error stating that domain was already registered  although the query displayed "no match found".  

As the queries for availability were going to Network Solutions and then to the other registrars, along the way new Registrars had access to the domain name(s) being queried and could submit registration also.  

New Registrars could secure the domain first and faster and if New Registrations for the same name arrived at the same time, then the "Registrar" would then have preference for the ownership of the domain name.

The process allowed Registrars to register like and similar names because they now had access to Domain Name WHOIS Queries and Domain Name registrations. 

This had been going on a long time.  Searches would be facilitated through WHOIS and within a short time the names would be registered.  But now this was happening by more than one Registrar.

By April 5th 2000, VeriSign (VRSN:Nasdaq) added 10 3/8, or 9%, to end at 130 3/8, while Network Solutions (NSOL:Nasdaq), which is being bought by VeriSign and moves in tandem, finished up 13 5/8, or 11%, at 140 15/16.  Network Solutions became Verisign.  

Verisign acquired Great Domains at www.GreatDomains.com and began selling domain names and accepting offers for sale.  By May 2, 2000 Great Domains was marketing via email.  "How much is your DOMAIN NAME REALLY WORTH?  You received this copy as a subscriber to our opt-in email list. If you no longer wish to receive solicitations simply unsubscribe by clicking here: http://www.postmasternetwork.net/remove/ http://www.postmasternetwork.net/remove/Unsubscribe........ How much is your domain name really worth? $35? $35,000? $35,000,000? When it comes to appraising your domain name, GreatDomains.com is the expert! We recently brokered the sale of loans.com to Bank of America for $3,000,000. We have over 600,000. listings and sell domains every single day. Find the true value of your domain investment, Check out: http://www.greatdomains.com/appraisalinfopostmaster.asp We're the only company who can tell you what your domain is truly worth, simply because we've brokered the most domains on the open market.  Our appraisal team has:  - the most experience - the most complete transaction database  - the most respected reputation in the industry  Using our patented 4-C Valuation Model we take into consideration the most important aspects of a great domain. With over 5,000 appraisals to date, we have the expertise and the sales data to give you the fair market value of your name.  If you're an entrepreneur looking for venture capital or if you just have a great domain name and want to see what it's worth, a GreatDomains.com appraisal will tell you the true value of your investment.  Check out: http://www.greatdomains.com/appraisalinfopostmaster.asp  AOL members:  http://www.greatdomains.com/appraisalinfopostmaster.asp  Click Here"

In an email Sent Saturday July 22, 2000 at 12:47 PM from Afternic by UrlyIndicators@afternic.com, "FEATURED DOMAIN NAMES CustomerParking.com $500,000, AuthorizedSignature.com. $500,000, HomeSaving.com  $500,000, domainsdepot.com  $385,000, blond.com  $300,000, FuneralCost.com  $300,000, e-cellulars.com  $200,000, For the full list, check out: http://www.afternic.com/index.cfm?a=auctions&sa=feat --------------------- FEATURED DOMAIN NAMES  HOW MUCH FOR THE SHOES MISTER? Are your shoes for sale? What if someone offered you a million dollars for them? How much would it take to get you barefoot?  What about your domain name? Maybe you're actively using it but what if someone was willing to make it worth your while to part with it? Well Afternic can't help you sell your footwear but we recently launched a new auction-type that lets you accept offers on your domains whether you're selling them or not. Our new Make Offer auctions allow name holders to accept offers on any of their domains. Of course, this new type of auction is also useful to those that are actively looking for buyers because it gets your domain out to more than 20 million potential domain buyers that our network reaches every month".

July 16, 2000 in Yokohama, Japan ICANN announced that it adopted a policy that will introduce new global top-level domains (TLDs).  ICANN's policy was enacted and provided to public to submit suggestion for a new TLD (Top Level Domain)" would require a $50,000 fee (US Dollars) to ICANN.

An article was featured August 8, 2000 in The Standard stated, "DOT CROWD CONTROL? Proposing a new top level domain name will cost companies or organizations a $50,000 application fee, but the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is betting access problems will make it worthwhile. Applications will be accepted from Sept. 5 to Oct. 2, followed by two weeks for public comment and a decision on new suffixes in November. Suggestions so far have ranged from .xxx for sex sites to .movie for film locations.  http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2430573.html  http://www.icann.org/tlds/application-process-03aug00.htm".

Sent Monday August 21, 2000 at 2:08 PM from TheStandard.com, market_movers@reply.thestandard.com and states, "Analysts also showered praise on the high-flying Net security firm VeriSign, which rose almost 3 percent, or $4, to $163.75."

By October 2, 2000 the Application process for new TLD’s was finalized and by November 16, 2000 ICANN announced approval of seven new domains extensions; .biz, .info, .name, .pro, .aero, .coop, and .museum  TLD (Top Level Domains) to begin in domain extensions that will be awarded to registries in December 2000.  

New registrars that were to be accredited by ICANN were to be equal with Internic/Network Solutions, but this is not what happened - ICANN made effort to keep Verisign in it's monopolistic position and to allow new registrars and domain holders to remain 100% dependant on Verisign and acting as a reseller for Verisign's services and thus would have to implement new TLD's so that others had a shot a wholesale level and mainly to allow Network Solutions to keep their monopoly.  

On February 8th, 2001, Dr. Vinton G. Cerf, Chairman of ICANN, testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, and stated, "My name is Vinton G. Cerf, and outside of my regular employment at WorldCom, I am the volunteer Chairman of the Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).  Vinton G. Cerf, gave testimony that ICANN Accomplished in operation only 14 months and says, "Still, even in that short span of time, some significant things have happened."  Vinton G. Cerf, gave testimony that ICANN had introduced Retail Competition and states, "As one of its very first actions, ICANN created an accreditation system for competitive registrars and, pursuant to its NSI agreements, gave those new competitors access to the NSI-operated registries."

Operating from the vantage point of "enterprise", Worldcom has the largest network, WorldCom with the networks of PSI, Intermediaand UUNet, made WorldCom  the main facilitator for most of the Internet usage, and stated revenues in excess of billions dollars. WorldCom was largely institutionally owned.                 

Vinton G. Cerf, gave testimony that ICANN accomplished the creation of a Cost-Effective, Efficient Dispute Resolution System and says, "The UDRP is limited to certain very specific claims, is intended to require only about $1,500 in costs and 45 days to invoke, and is required to be included in all name registration contracts by all ICANN-accredited registrars, thus providing the basis for global uniformity in the resolution of this particular class of domain name disputes."  

Prior to ICANN Network Solutions had a Dispute Policy that was disclosed in the process for Registration for a Domain Name and was incorporated in to the Registration that was to be sent in by email ">>>> >******* Email completed agreement to hostmaster@internic.net ******* NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION AGREEMENT as  C. Dispute Policy. Registrant agrees, as a condition to submitting this Registration Agreement, and if the Registration Agreement is accepted by NSI, that the Registrant shall be bound by NSI's current Dispute Policy. The current version of the Dispute Policy may be found at the InterNIC Registration Services web site: http://www.netsol.com/rs/dispute-policy.html"

ICANN's new policy that was suppose to be "cost effective and efficient" now would cost somebody a minimum of $1500.00.  

With ICANN "enacted procedures", those people who lost domain names for whatever reason and felt that they had been injured and wronged, when making contact to resolve issues, these people were directed to a web site called DomainMagistrate.com and to call a phone number to Domain Magistrate which offered a prerecorded message that instructed them to fill out a Uniform Dispute Resolution Form and $1500.00 fee (US Dollars) for Arbitration.

Vinton G. Cerf, called the introduction of the new Top Level Domains the third major accomplishment of ICANN in its short existence: the creation of additional competition at the registry (or wholesale) level of the namespace. 

ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" has driven up the price of domain names, encouraged greed, fraud, unethical behaviors and abuse of the public internet that has seriously effected Individuals, Businesses and Commerce. 

The total operating costs for domain names have increased.  When there was the .com, .net and .org, a company could, if they wanted, register those 3 names, while most companies operated their web presence from the main .com.  But because VeriSign was to keep total control over the .com and .net registries, and the need to make open and free market, they decided to let VeriSign keep it's monopoly, it had to allow others access to other new registries to be "fair".  By this standard of thinking it increased the economic cost output  by businesses to protect domain names and trademarks, as well as other service marks and copyrights.  

In a hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Communications on February 14, 2001, Michael M. Roberts, President and Chief Executive Officer of ICANN testified, "Competition was also an important goal set forth in the White Paper, which stated that "[w]here possible, market mechanisms that support competition and consumer choice should drive the management of the Internet because they will lower costs, promote innovation, encourage diversity, and enhance user choice and satisfaction." Competition in the registration of domain names is theoretically possible at both the registry (or wholesale) level, and at the registrar (or retail) level. Increasing competition at the retail level involves only allowing multiple providers of registration services to add domain name registrations to registry databases; as a result, that objective can be accomplished without major stability concerns. For this reason, adding new competition at the retail level was the first substantive goal that ICANN quickly accomplished after its formation.  By contrast, the introduction of competition at the new registry (or wholesale) level requires the introduction of additional Top Level Domains into the namespace, and thus does raise potential stability issues of various kinds. As a result, and given its prime directive to protect stability, ICANN has moved forward in this area in a prudent and cautious way, consistent with recommendations from many constituencies with a stake in the Internet."

By 2001, Verisign links to GreatDomains.com from Verisign's website which states, "Search our catalog of over 2 million pre-registered domain names."     

New registries were introduced by ICANN.  These included .biz which was to be ran by NeuLevel, and the .info was given to Afilias which from the Afilias.info web site stated that "Afilias is a global leader in advanced domain name registry services."

The greed was flowing from the Registrars and especially with the introduction of these new TLD's. 

In an email sent Sunday, March 4th 2001, from InternetMarketingDirect.com. Subject: biz, .info new domain news.  The email states, "I am pleased to announce the launch of http://www.preregisteryourdomains.com It is expected that over 3 million of the new domain names will be registered in the first minutes when they become available early this year. This will be the largest virtual real estate land grab in history. The race is on!  You can try to get a great name like Medical.info or Monkey.biz but you will  be competing with some stiff competition, like these folks.  http://www.preregisteryourdomains.com has built the premier submission service engine to help you to protect or procure your Internet identity."  I had always read this domain address as "PreRegister Your Domains", but given the "new" definitions of "Registry" and "Registrar", maybe it was really "Pre Registry Our Domains".  

SnapNames "wants to make it possible for registrars to take a cut of the aftermarket by providing services they can resell, allowing buyers to put orders on names so that when a registration expires, a new customer can snap it up. The company will also organize auctions. And for name holders, SnapNames can automatically reregister a domain, should the record change for any reason. This new focus on monitoring existing names is unique, leverages existing registration sites, and could potentially increase their revenues as the domain-name market continues to move from original registrations to the aftermarket."

On Monday April 2, 2001 the Wallstreet Journal published, "ICANN Gives Verisign '.Com,' Not '.Org' - ICANN voted to give Verisign longer rights to manage the ".com" Web site addresses, in exchange for giving ".org" to another organization." 

On Thursday May 17, 2001, the Wallstreet Journal published, "Verisign, U.S. Resume Talks - Officials from Verisign and the U.S. plan to resume talks regarding VeriSign's proposal to extend its monopoly on operating the central database of most Internet addresses."

Also in 2001 the United States Government Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration office and on the government website was a file, an internic10801 file, under the NTIA home folder, and contained an announcement at  http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/internic10801.htm for a license agreement with ICANN for use of the InterNIC service mark in continuance of the InterNIC concept as a neutral network information resource.  

From newsletter@www.tv, sent Tuesday 1/22/2002 with a Subject: Exciting News at The .tv Corporation!.  The email States, "We are very excited to inform you that The .tv Corporation has been acquired by VeriSign, Inc. Under the agreement, The .tv Corporation becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of VeriSign and will continue to operate as the administrator for the .tv top-level domain.  What does this mean to our customers? For our customers, it is business as usual. You will continue to be able to register and manage all of your domains at www.tv with the confidence and trust that you have grown to expect.  The people of the The .tv Corporation could not be more excited! With the full support of the leading provider of digital trust services in the world, we now have even broader resources to continue our global success and growth with .tv -- the Web address for today's and tomorrow's dynamic online content! About VeriSign VeriSign, Inc. (Nasdaq:VRSN) is the leading provider of digital trust services that enable everyone, everywhere to engage in commerce and communications with confidence. VeriSign's digital trust services create a trusted environment through three core offerings - name, authentication and payment services - powered by a global infrastructure that manages more than five billion network connections and transactions a day. Additional news and information about the company is available at www.VeriSign.com. Questions? Email us at customercare@www.tv or call us toll-free (within the US and Canada only) at 1 (800) 255-2218 or +1 310 481-3737 (International), Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time). We'll continue to do everything we can to make your domain name experience the best on the Web!  Sincerely,  The .tv Corporation www.tv."

The complaint alleges the the ICANN/Registry/Registrar Domain Name System "Registry" and "Registrars" are marketing and providing access to register like and similar names to domain names that are like and similar to domain names that are already registered and that these actions are substantially and adversely effecting interstate commerce are not protecting domain name owners and trademark owners and are illegal, unauthorized, and have violated copyrights, trademarks and trade names and brand names.        

So, for example if someone went a domain registrar site online and entered "futurenetworks.tv",  the database and online documentation and response might come back like this, "futurenetworks.tv has been registered but Additional names available for registration. Check the ones you like and click "Continue"  future-networks.tv, future-networks.tv, futurenetworking.tv, future-networking.tv, future-computer.tv"

So, where the Department of Commerce wanted to protect businesses and copyright and trademark holders.  The masterminds behind the facilitation for domain registrations that have a customer that has registered the name futurenetworks.tv and may have a trademark for that business name and the customer has paid for the domain name and is being undermined by the Registrar/Registry service provider by providing to the online querier like and similar names to the registration that is already in the registry  and platform that encourages and makes it easy for someone to register similar and like and names to brand names that are already registered. 

In addition, to providing access to from query of a domain name availability,  ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" provides and displays, markets and provide information, links and access to register like and/or similar names to register domain names that are like and similar to domain names that are already registered when Internet Domain Name System user makes query via ICANN/Registry/Registrar Domain Name System WHOIS.  

The complaint alleges unfair and anticompetitive practices that are effecting interstate commerce where monopolization of the Domain Name System and it's internet functions to standardize "Registry" and "Registrars" providing access to register like and similar domains which would put Domain Name Registrants/Owners and Trademark owners and brands and copyrights at risk. 

The complaint alleges that ICANN policies and procedures are in opposition with the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Government Department of Commerce and in violation of C9d to provide (ii) a process for protecting famous trademarks in the generic top level domains; (iii) the effects of adding new TLDs and related dispute resolution procedures on trademark and intellectual property holders;.

With Internic/Network Solutions registration process, a company could submit a registration with a registered trademark symbol.  So, for example a company could instead of registering the owning entity as Future Networks for the name futurenetworks.com or futurenetworks.net could submit Registration as Future Networks®.  The trademark owner this could add a certain amount of protection for brand names/registered trademarks, because at least the public queries would display an entity that had a registered trademark for that brand name, that provides Federal and international protections for the registered trademark holder, and could hope to deter similar and like brand name domain names being registered.

Also, with some ICANN Registrars/Registries the functionality to provide the symbol for the Federal Registered Trademark has altered/modified/distorted.

The ability to use the ® symbol and some Registrar/Registries databases would change/alter/distort the ® symbol to a series of symbols that made no sense with it's scrambled characters after the Registrant's/Trademark owners name.

The complaint charges rthat ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" whereby registry and Registrars' are facilitating make offer services, which has effected overall stability of "Domain Name System" and using this "Domain Name System" to provide "secondary market" by make offer facilitation.

ICANN/Registry/Registrars are facilitating make offer services, which has effected overall stability of "Domain Name System" and using this "Domain Name System" to provide "secondary market" make offer facilitation, via response to a domain name query and has been harmful, detrimental to users. 

The Domain Name Registrant/Owner may not know that the domain name is being marketed, and in most cases, the Domain Name Registrant/Owner never agreed to be for sale or to accept solicitations or offers and the domain name is most likely not for sale and in most cases, authority to solicit, accept offers and promote and provide access to make offer to purchase and provide links to makes offers to buy names that are like and similar,  provide  information and/or access to facilitate registration of like and similar names, would be detrimental to Domain Name Registrant/Owner.  

The processes have been altered and modified. 

Prior to these modification and alterations, Search Functionality, returned that the domain name was not available and the search box was displayed to enter a different domain name.          

From Verisign's website at http://www.verisign.com provides "Digital Brand Management Services" and states, "Built on the proprietary Verisign Internet Infrastructure that empowers over 10 billion domain name system queries every day, Digital brand management Services help Global 2000 companies throughout the United States, Europe and Asia develop successful strategies to consolidate and mange their domain portfolios, extend brand reach, and build trust in their products and services online.  Learn more about how enterprise companies use our services to manage their domain name portfolios, or take our quiz to determine whether your brands are at risk."  Verisign and Registrars provide and deliver access to register like and similar domain names names and then Verisign asks "Are your brands at risk?"  Also from the promotion of services at website at www.verisign.com, Verisign states that it provides, "DNS Assurance Services > VeriSign operates the largest infrastructure in the world as the COM NET Registry.  DNS Assurance Services delivers reliability and security to companies with significant online presence."  

Verisign is approximately 82% institutionally owned.  The "Global 2000" also is, by and large, mainly institutionally owned. 

Institutionally owned  - means that the "Corporation" is mainly owned by large Banking, Brokerage and Securities "Corporations" who own large percentages of the "Corporation" by stock ownership, mutual fund ownership and other equity positions and as well by stock ownership, mutual fund ownership and other equity positions in the other "Institutions" that own, respectively and collectively, the "Corporation". 

So, let's look at what is happening here.  

For your typical Internet community member that had a business and got their .com early on, and established an identity on the Internet, they were not provided Representation and Protection.   

For your typical Internet community member that had a business and got their .com early on, and established an identity on the Internet and that had a registered trademark for their brand name, they were not provided Representation and Protection.   

But the Global 2000 and enterprise provides, themselves, special and preferential Representation and Protection.     

It is necessary to promote and maintain the integrity of the Internet where the facilitators of the of the "network" are less biased.  

Furthermore, the complaint alleges practices that are effecting interstate commerce where an unfair, and anticompetitive "Domain Name System" provides no Representation to the Members of the Internet Community, the Domain Name Owners.   And whereby Domain Name/Trademark Registrant/Owners are not provided Protection and Representation in the "Domain Name System" for domain names, protection of trade names, trademarks, and brand names, and that Representation is provided to selective entities representing and serving the same institutional ownership that which is provided inside information with regards to public queries, companies and brand names, existing domains and ownership and that they have used this inside information to profit greatly and to monopolize and control which members of Internet Community are provided Representation.

These people did not create the Internet, although they have profited greatly from the direction of  the flow of data, information, communications and funds.  

The complaint alleges that these and other practices have provided for a concentration of wealth by manipulation of the "network".

The "Domain Name System" is in violation to Memorandum of Understanding, in violation of the the purpose and mission and directives of the United States Government Department of Commerce and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration whereby ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" that is substantially effecting commerce.

The Complaint alleges the competitive environment and stability "Domain Name System" has been harmful and has been detrimental to Domain Name Registrant/Owners and other members and user of the Internet Community.

This Complaint alleges that ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" is in direct disaccord with the MOU that states to "Collaborate on the design, development and testing of a process for effected parties to participate in the formulation of policies and procedures that address the technical management of the Internet. This process will include methods for soliciting, evaluating and responding to comments in the adoption of policies and procedures." 

The complaint alleges that the policy and procedure enacted, and the adoption of policies and procedures, and the process(es) by which the policies and procedures are adopted and enacted ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" is in direct disaccord with the United States Government Directives, DNS Project Purpose and Mission and representation of Internet Community and Domain Name Owners, Internet Service Providers and other effected parties.

This Complaint alleges that less information is provided to the "Public".  Under ICANN, the information provided to the public changed.  ICANN and ICANN policy implemented "Domain Name System" is in violation of  Section 7 of the Memorandum of Understanding where ICANN would, "Collaborate on the development of additional policies and procedures designed to provide information to the public." 

The Complaint alleges that less information is provided to the public and the information that is provided to the public has changed dramatically and not for the publics' best interest.  

The WHOIS information distributed to the public is more more limited and narrow.  The ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" has removed the functionality and capabilities of "WHOIS' and have limited access to information

The complaint alleges the the ICANN/Registry/Registrar Domain Name System has changes Standards of delivery and format and purpose of WHOIS and have caused detriment to functionality and capabilities.

When Internic was Domain Registrar - all queries went through the Internic web site at http://www.rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/domain and then displayed the response.  

If no match was found, the query would retrieve that information and would display, "No Match for  "WHATEVERDOMAIN.COM " - this meant there was not an owner or registrant and/or corresponding data found in the "Master Database" (List of Domain Names and who owns them).  If  a "No Match" was displayed as response to a query for a domain name, this meant the domain name could be registered.  

WHOIS was implemented to ask WHOIS = Who is?????  

The Internet user queried the computer via WHOIS, "Who is domainname.com?"  

Example, "Who is ABC.com?" and for the Internet user to query the registry (the list in a database format residing on a server and contained vital ownership and functional and contacts information for Administration, Technical and Billing Information) of Domain Registrants and then display the "Domain Registrant" information in a "standard" format.

Or to ask, "Who is 196.75.32.543?" and the query then displays the WHOIS information for that IP Address.

Or to ask, "Who is a Registrant or a Contact for domain names?" The Internet WHOIS user would receive the reply to the query.

Now when most "Registry" and "Registrar" Databases do a query for a domain name - the WHOIS information for a domain now displays the Registrar information first.  

The "WHOIS" user did not ask WHOIS, "Who is registrar for domain.com?" the Internet "Domain Name System" user asked WHOIS, "Who is domain.com?" 

The "Domain Name System" provided much more data and much more interactive abilities to disseminate the information and also displayed up to 50 records. 

ICANN Registry/Registrar in the direct disaccord as of the Memorandum of Understanding and stated in the Agreement that ICANN would, "Collaborate on the development of additional policies and procedures designed to provide information to the public." 

The complaint charges that the policies and procedures of "Domain Name System" by ICANN/Registry/Registrars and the actions implemented are adversely effecting the Internet Community and it members.

ICANN/Regisrty and Registrars have changed "Domain Name System" and the "Standards" and the format and delivery of the WHOIS information. 

Registrant Owner Information and facilitation is vital and integral of the Domain Name System and the ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" has greatly diminished the integrity, stability, functionality thereof.  

User-queried Domain Name System information provided via Domain Name System by ICANN/Registry/Registrars provides restricted information and has provided Standards of delivery and format which have harmed Domain Name Registrant/Owners. 

The compliant alleges that the "Standards" were changed and "Stability" has been harmed.  The ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" did not work as it did and ICANN/Registry implemented by policy and procedure to bring about the changing the standards and the integral and fundamental stability, functionality and accessibility.  

The compliant alleges that the modifications implemented to the ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" have provided for less abilities/functionalities in the technical management of the DNS.

Before, the Domain Name Registrant Owner and only the Designated Administrative, Billing or Technical Contacts were the only "authority" to make any and all changes to the domain. These Changes could only be made through the email of the Administrative, Billing or Technical Contacts.  

Now with ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" the domain name Registrant/Owner cannot make changes directly and must make these changes through an ICANN Accredited Registrar to the Registry (List Keeper) and therefore any changes may or may not be in accordance with the Internet/Domain Name Owner.

The Complaint alleges the ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" provides to the Internet Community less access to the functionality and technical aspects for domain name Registrantations/Modifications/Updates.

The complaint alleges under ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" the rights of the Domain Owner/Registrant to perform these actions and functions and to have these actions implemented, have been removed.

The compliant alleges that the actions, policies and procedures implemented to the "Domain Name System" are seriously and adversely effecting the internet and it users, and have not provided for "Competition" and is in violation of the Memorandum of Understanding which states, "This Agreement promotes the management of the DNS in a manner that will permit market mechanisms to support competition and consumer choice in the technical management of the DNS. This competition will lower costs, promote innovation, and enhance user choice and satisfaction." 

The compliant alleges that (100%) "Domain Name Registrants/Owners" rely on Verisign, formerly known as Network Solutions and Internic and now by way of the agreements and confidentiality agreements with all "Retail Registrars" (ICANN Accredited Registrars). 

The compliant alleges that by implementing "Registry" and "Retail Reseller Registrars" and subsequently by agreement and design, allowing and providing for mutual Non Disclosures between main Registry/Registrar and it's Registrar/Resellers have placed the Internet Domain Registrant/Owner at a further disadvantage, as now those acting as Registry(ies) will have no contact or little contact and will inform the domain owner that they have Non Disclosures in place and are not there to be of service or help to Domain Name Registrant/Owner and that their Contracts and Agreements are with each other. 

This Complaint alleges that these processes, and collusive, anticompetitive actions have caused substantial harm and detriment to the Internet Community and Domain Name Owner/Registrants.  The complaint alleges that the practices, procedures and actions are substantially effecting interstate.  

The Complaint alleges these actions by "Registry" and those acting as "Registrar" are anticompetitive and are making these actions in a collusive manner with each other (ICANN/Registry/Registrar), and the ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" encompasses mutual agreement/contracts and provisions for protections and representation and includes Confidentiality, Non Disclosure, Hold Harmless, and to Defend each other. 

The complaint alleges that those acting as "Registry" (Verisign aka VGRS) and those acting as "Registrars"  have signed Non Disclosures with each other and are operating and taking collusive actions that are substantially effecting intrastate commerce.

Whereby, Verisign "The Registry" maintains in the Retail "Registrar Agreement" that "Registrar(s)" must consent to which states, "Indemnification. Registrar at it's own expense and within thirty (30) days of presentation of a demand by VGRS under this paragraph, will indemnify, defend and hold harmless, VGRS and its employees, directors, officers, representatives, agents, and affiliates, against any claim, suit, action, or other proceeding brought against VGRS or any affiliate of VGRS based on or arising from any claim or alleged claim (i) relating to any product or service of Registrar; (ii) relating to any agreement, including Registrar's dispute policy, with any Registered Name holder of Registrar, or (iii) relating to registrar's domain name registration business, including, but not limited to, Registrar's advertising, domain name application process, systems and other processes, fees charged, billing practices and customer service; provided, however, that in any such case: (a) VGRS provides Registrar with prompt notice of such claim, and (b) upon Registrar's written request, VGRS will provide to registrar all available information and assistance to defend such claim, provided that registrar reimburses VGRS for its actual and reasonable costs.  Registrar will not enter into any settlement or compromise without VGRS written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.  Registrar will pay any and all costs, damages and expenses, including but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs awarded against or otherwise incurred by VGRS in connection with or arising from such indemnifiable claim, suit, action or proceeding."   And Exhibit C of the Verisign Registry - Registrar agreement states in Section "1 Confidential Information 1.1 "Confidential Information", as used in this Confidentiality Agreement shall mean all information and materials including, without limitation, computer software, data, information, databases, protocols, reference implementation and documentation, and functional interface specifications, provided by the disclosing party to the receiving party under this Confidentiality Agreement and marked or otherwise identified as confidential, provided that id a communication is oral, the disclosing party will notify the receiving party in writing within 15 days of the disclosure. 2 Confidentiality Obligation 2.1 In consideration of the disclosure of confidential information, the parties agree that: (a) The receiving party shall treat as confidential, and use all reasonable efforts to preserve the secrecy and confidentiality of, all Confidential information received from the disclosing party, including implementing reasonable physical security measures and operating procedures.  (b)  The receiving party shall make no disclosures whatsoever of any Confidential Information to others, provided however, that if the receiving party is a corporation, partnership, or similar entity, disclosure is permitted to the receiving party's officers, employees, contractors and agents who have a demonstrable need to know such Confidential Information, provided the receiving party shall advise such personnel of the confidential nature of the Confidential Information and of the procedures required to maintain the confidentiality thereof, and shall require them to acknowledge in writing that they have read, understand and agree to be individually bound by the terms of this Confidentiality Agreement." 

The complaint alleges unfair and anticompetitive practices that are effecting interstate commerce where an unfair environment and structure has implemented to perform these domain name processes does not provide any "Representation" to the members of the Internet Community, the Domain Name Registrants. 

The Complaint alleges ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" provides to Domain Name Owners a "Domain Name System" where there is no Representation and/or fiduciary relation to Domain Name Owner/Registrant and does not provide any Accountability.

ICANN has created an  ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" where the master list keeper (VeriSign) aka Network Solution aka Internic has always been the master list keeper and have put agreements in place that include Non Disclosures and Confidentiality Agreements that provide and allow for a fiduciary Registry-Registrar relationship to each other at the damage and detriment to the "Domain Name Registrant/Owner" and are enacting and facilitating actions, policy, procedure, methods, means that are very serious in nature, anticompetitive, monopolistic and fraudulent to implement collusively control.

Further, the Complaint states that these Implementations of Policy is unacceptable as Registrars are dependent upon VeriSign and must consent to their demands.  

The Complaint alleges ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" provides to Domain Name Owners a "Domain Name System" where there is no accountability and those acting as "Registry" and those acting as "Registrar"  have signed non disclosures with each other and are operating "Domain Name System" functions and taking actions that are substantially effecting interstate commerce. 

ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" provided to Domain Name Owners and the Internet Community a "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy" where each Registry/Registrar is under to agreement to Defend each other and to Hold Harmless and are bound to Confidentiality to each other.

Disputes have arisen, many and numerous have been cited, and many more have been unresolved.   

To file a Dispute, the disputing Party seeking protection must consent to Hold Harmless in the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy which states, "Complainant agrees that its claims and remedies concerning the registration of the domain name, the dispute, or the dispute's resolution shall be solely against the domain-name holder and waives all such claims and remedies against (a) the dispute-resolution provider and panelists, except in the case of deliberate wrongdoing, (b) the registrar, (c) the registry administrator, and (d) the Internet corporation for Assigned names and Numbers, as well as their directors, officers, employees and agents."  

The "Registry" will make no action on behalf of the "Domain Owner" and that those acting as "Registry" and those acting as "Registrar" are not providing any representation, or  providing and fiduciary/agent (on behalf) relationship and to the owner of the domain name.   

And the complaint alleges that the actions are anticompetitive as 100% of "Registrars" (resellers) are dependent upon the VeriSign to enact the registrations and control all registrar (reseller) options and processes available to "Retail" resellers they are providing in the functionality of the Registry System  provided to "Registrars". 

The compliant alleges that all registrations for .com and .net are still activated through the same corporation that was Network Solutions, Inc. formerly known as Internic and now known as VeriSign.  Before new "ICANN", 100% of all those who performed domain registration services on behalf of clients and businesses relied on Internic and now, in our Post Competition era - 100% of all those who perform domain registration services on behalf of clients and businesses still rely on VeriSign formerly known as Internic aka Network Solutions. 

ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" and is in violation to Memorandum of Understanding, in violation of the the purpose and mission and directives of the United States Government Department of Commerce and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

The "Registrars" and "Registries" have implemented procedures through the VeriSign Name Store at the Registrars' customer Service web based interface for the deletion of names and the Registrar can delete domain name(s), place in a pending status and make the domain inactive and block access to owners site and to users' via the global network and therefore cause the web site functionality and email to not work within a matter of days.  

The Registrars' are then charging the domain owner a penalty fee sometimes demanding 500% to 1000% penalties and fees and if the domain owner does not or cannot pay or if the Registrar refuses to accept payment, the Registrar can take ownership of the domain name(s).   VeriSign as "Registry" then provides those facilitation services to the "Registrars" via via VeriSign's internet web-based interface for facilitation of domains for registrars' which at this time 100% of registrars are dependent upon VeriSign for the facilitation of the .com Top Level Domains (TLD). 

Until now America has had the right to pursue life liberty and happiness, we have a right to own business in America.  Our constitution provides for for due process in seizure of property and including with regards to very own government.  We all know an America where there is always due process in any transfer of ownership of personal property.  

No where can I think of, in any instance, case, scenario and including all and any business, industry or government, except for communism, can a persons' personal and/or business property be seized in a matter of days in demand  payment and 500% - 1000% penalties to return.  Not in the automobile business, can in a matter of days, penalty be demanded of 500-1000% in exchange for return of the automobile.  Or in the home mortgage business, can in a matter of days, payment be demanded and penalties of 500-1000% in exchange for return of possession of the house back.  

Not with any other business, industry and/or provider of other goods and services and/or with    any other Internet Based Services does this apply.  Due process is always applicable.

Even with abandonment of property or in probate - due process is still applicable.  

And even in cases of rentals and leases  - due process to take possession, repossess and/or to seize property is still is applicable in every case under law.  

Letters usually have to be sent, delivery by the United State Postal Service and proof of delivery/Certified Mail Receipts may have to be provided.  A law enforcement agency may be responsible to serve papers, notices may have to be ran in the paper, documents may have to be filed within the Clerk and/or other office to be in accordance, and sometimes a  judge may be involved.    

Even when Network Solutions maintained the only database and registrations for domain names, domain name owners received a paper bill and had 30 days to pay the domain name.  A domain owner could extend time up to 60 - 90 days and received paper statements and a notice titled "final notice".  The Domain Owner could contact the Network Solutions directly and speak with someone and could extend time to pay for domain name(s).   

Verisign, the Registry to the "Registrars" has promoted and provided processes within the "Name Store" (Introduced By Verisign) to provide an web Interface to the "Registrars" to delete customers domains and be able to charge high interest penalties and fees and is promoting this "Name Store" and provided to Registrars plans to place these domains name in "Name Store" and auctioning these domain names via in the "Secondary Market". 

ICANN/Registry/Registrars "Domain Name System" is disregarding state and federal laws, charging 500-1000% penalties and/or removing, seizing and or taking possession of personal and business property, and causing subsequent damage to owner's livelihood by means, and/or deny rights, and with all disregard of all federal and states' law.  In the meantime by "Policy", Registrars can bring down web site  and email (Commerce) to domain name owners.  

For these web sites to work, Domain Name Owners have to pay separately for hosting/servers, DNS management  and for email services.  Businesses mainly rely on domain names to serve customers, and to serve the functions of the business utilizing the Internet network via the domain name, and with all it's relating and relative provisioning that make the domain and it's corresponding email addressing and network capabilities work.  

Current registrar's fees and penalties increase domain registrar's total sales volume and total profit and therefore increase, rather than decrease costs to domain name owners.  And with the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy fees would also increase "Costs" and "Expenses" associated to Domain Name Registrants, and would also increase "Revenue" and "Income" to ICANN Registries/Registrars. 

The complaint alleges that the policies and procedures of ICANN that have allowed and provided for Verisign to have complete and total monopolization of the registry/main registrar (Wholesale ) provider providing 2nd level Retail (Resellers) services provider has not promoted innovation, has not enhanced user choice as all acting as "ICANN Accredited Registrars" are just mere "Retail" resellers of Verisign's exclusive services. Verisign still has complete monopolization, since 100% of "Registrars" are dependent upon Verisign and therefore are only performing and acting as "resellers" to Verisign.  

Although, ICANN chose to see these issues as Wholesale and Retail.  The complaint alleges serious harmful and detrimental effects that have been caused to the integrity and stability of the internet and commerce as collusive have made been made and collusion agreements and accordance put in place to sustain a false competitive environment in the "Domain Name System" whereby Verisign is the Wholesale Level and Registrars are retailers (approximately $6.00 per domain name), which makes the Internet Domain Registrants/Owners paying prices above retail and up to secondary market, auction or by direct sale via domain Registrars/Registries which therefore total price per domain could have increased per domain name, rather than decreased as ICANN has made claim to have accomplished.  

To the Domain Owner/Registrant these new 'Registrars" only took over the functionality and purpose of the Administrative, Technical and Billing Contacts who were the only authority to make these changes by email.

When the email protocol was utilized, Domain Owners/Registrants were able to submit changes and had a copy in their email "sent" items for the Registrations/Modifications submitted.  

Now, Domain Owners/Registrants may be limited online to Create and/or Update Contact Information, Create Name Servers, Update IP Addresses, etc.  Sometimes the changes may look like they have gone into effect with the "Registrar" but then changes are not updated to the "Registry".  For example, a Domain Registrant/Owner could submit changes online to the "Registrar" and these changes may or may not be updated to the Registry and/or other Registrars.  

The online system also provides the Domain Owners/Registrants with less documentation in the event of an error or discrepancy or failure of the Registry/Registrar to accept/generate the Registrations and Modifications.

Compared to the Online Systems, the "Email Authentication" was a more secure process, because it created a validation procedure, and because the changes were implemented and updated and reflected in the database that publishes online of the domain registrants and also because the Internet Domain user has record sent requesting for modifications to be made.  This new online Registry/Registrar System does not provide these same assurances to the Internet member. 

The complaint charges that user satisfaction has been omitted from the policies and procedures and implementation of these policies and procedures and that these actions, policies and procedures implemented have seriously and adversely effected the Internet Community and it users.  

The complaint alleges that the "Domain Name System" and it's implemented measures for policy, control of application and functionality of stability of structure and that the ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" has been harmful and detrimental to members of the Internet Community. 

The complaint alleges illegal, actions have specifically led to the abuse and fraud and that these actions have resulted in the deterioration of the Internet .  

The complaints charges that the policies and procedures of "Domain Name System" by ICANN/Registry/Registrars and implementation of these policies and procedures, and by other practices, the ICANN/Registry/Registrar "Domain Name System" is anticompetitive and actions are seriously and adversely effecting interstate commerce.

The Complaint charges that collusive manners, means, methods, practices and actions have led to control, domination, and monopolization of delivery and dissemination of the the Internet.

The Complaint charges  that these actions and other practices are anticompetitive.  

The complaint alleges that the manipulation of the "Domain Name System" and it's functionality by monopolization, manipulation and by controlling Domain Name System has specifically led to illegal practices, fraud and abuse. 

The complaint alleges these actions have resulted in deterioration of the Internet Network to the detriment of the publics' interests and integrity of the "Domain Name System".  

The Complaint alleges that Domain Name Registrars and Registries are manipulating domain names, web site functionality, email communications and substantially effecting Interstate Commerce.  

The Complaint charges that ICANN, Domain Name Registrars and Registries are conspiring in collusive and anticompetitive manners. 

The complaint alleges that illegal, unauthorized actions are causing harm and are seizing property without due process.

The complaint alleges that these and other actions have resulted in an unfair anticompetitive marketplace and have resulted in deterioration of the Internet and the communications network to the detriment of the publics' interests and are substantially effecting Commerce.

The Complaint alleges manipulation of the Internet that has been harmful and detrimental to the public by Corporate (Institutional) monopolization. 

The complaint alleges that actions have been harmful and detrimental to the public that have led to almost complete control and manipulation of the "Internet".  

The Complaint charges that the above mentioned have conspired in a collusive manner to control, dominate, and monopolize and that these practice and actions are anticompetitive, and are substantially effecting Commerce. 

These "Institutions" have gained control of the "Internet" and by this the complaint alleges that these and other practices and actions are seriously and adversely effecting interstate commerce and has greatly contributed to the "Wealth Effect". 

It seems thus far, that they have managed to position themselves very well.  The opportunities for institutional ownership to have virtually complete control over the domain name system and the Internet have given those same institutions the chances to make billions and billions of dollars.    

For the rest of us - it is an immeasurable loss.  

This is not what our United States government intended, to allow few people to profit and control the internet.

The DNS Project is ongoing.  

In Summary, our Internet, and the "Domain Name System" and the direction and flow of the money and commerce is controlled, owned and operated by unfair and anticompetitive practices that have been and are substantially harming and effecting the public

 

RELIEF AND REMEDY 

On behalf of public and consumer interests, and for the protection of the best interests of the people, Relief and Remedy, is whereby necessary by obligation to provide just and fair relief and remedies on behalf of public and consumer interests, and for the protection of the best interests of the people and our future, this complaint is respectfully submitted to the United States Department of Commerce under proper Venue and Jurisdiction.

 

REQUESTS

There are serious and critical issues and complaints regarding the management of  "Domain Name System".  The "DNS Project" is an ongoing project and, Whereby in response,  I resolve to provide any and all services and information available in the manner and format requested to help achieve a more balanced and open, fair environment for the "Internet", it's Member Community and the ongoing  "DNS Project" and by this written paper and submission of this Scope of Work to the United States Department of Commerce to: 

Provide for the Facilitation of Technological Services to Support the Management of the Registry(ies).
Support Directives and Initiatives for the Provisioning of Equal Access and Growth of the Internet.
Support the DNS Project Mission and Initiatives.
Adhere to the Purpose and Intent of Initiatives and Goals.
Develop a Broad Based, Member Constituency for the Provisioning and Policy of Internet Space, Domain Names and DNS.
Be of Service for Instrumentation of Policies that direct Procedural Decisions that effect members of the Internet.
Provide Global and Local Community based Research and Impact Studies. 
Provide Ongoing Levels of Standards that Support DNS Project Mission and Initiatives.
Provide Expertise, Knowledge, Research, Documentation and Testimony and to Support the DNS Project.   

 

 

RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

1. The DNS White Paper articulated principles (i.e., stability; competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and representation) necessary for guiding the transition to private sector management of the Internet DNS.  

Are these principles still relevant?  

RESPONSE: Yes, I believe these Principles are still relevant. 

Should additional principles be considered in light of:  the advance in Internet technology; the expanded global reach of the Internet; the experience gained over the eight years since the Department of Commerce issued the DNS White Paper; and the international dialogue, including the discussions related to Internet governance at the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)?

RESPONSE:  Many changes have taken place over the last eight years.  Truthfully, the Internet has served a large part to bring us where we are.  I think if we looked back at the last eight years and at major events in America and worldwide, the internet has played a large role in shaping events.

In the past, although the Internet was thought of in ideals, I don't think we realized it would bring a lot of bad things too.  I could give many examples.  Years ago, advocates for an the ideal internet would cite educational value, which would hopefully in turn provide better access to opportunities for the user due to the ability to have  at their fingertips mass amounts of quality information.  Right.  That's how it was suppose to work.  But here's what really happened.  By 2006, a child on the Internet today has a 1 in 5 chance of being solicited for sex by a pedophile.  This is just one example, but I  think it is important.  

The Internet today is not considered a  "safe" environment.  

Did we mean to create an Internet of viruses, and trojans and spyware, data collection and  monitoring, and mass amounts of global unsolicited invasions?  Did we want to create an Internet that would allow for substantially large institutionally owned corporations another avenue to own and monopolize a new market (the world)?  Did we want to create a tool that would be amass illegal activities that would blur the borders of enforcement of the United States?   More than ever, the experience of the past is critical and necessary to use a factors in considering the overall goals and to provide for sustainability of those goals and their purpose, regardless.  It is extremely important to look at what the initial goals for the Internet were and what has happened, how we have been effected each, individually, and as well, globally.  Years ago, when we talked about the Internet  - is this the Internet we were trying to create?  


2.  The DNS White Paper articulated a number of actions that should be taken in order for the U.S. Government to transition its Internet DNS technical coordination and management responsibilities to the private sector.  

These actions appear in the MOU as a series of core tasks and milestones.  

Has ICANN achieved sufficient progress in its tasks, as agreed in the MOU, for the transition to take place by September 30, 2006? 

RESPONSE:  No


3. Are these core tasks and milestones still relevant to facilitate this transition and meet the goals outlined in the DNS White Paper and the U.S. Principles on the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System?  

RESPONSE: Yes

Should new or revised tasks/methods be considered in order for the transition to occur?  

RESPONSE: Yes, I hope I have provided testimony to the actual manner in which agreements and Memorandum of Understanding has been implemented in real terms and I hope that I have raised issues that will be transitioned following the principle objectives and purpose for the initiatives.  Something has to be done to insure the public's best interest.  In my opinion, by every measure, the purpose and objectives have not been applied satisfactory.   

And on what time frame and by what method should a transition occur?  

RESPONSE:  I believe the transition process should begin immediately and the United States Department of Commerce, and by jurisdiction and venue has authority to facilitate this transition.  Incorporated into Memorandum of Understanding amendment 1, Section 3 provides that, "ICANN agrees that, in the event of the termination by DOC of Cooperative Agreement #NCR 92-18742 pursuant to Section I.B.8 of Amendment 19 to that Cooperative Agreement, ICANN shall (1) exercise its rights under its Registry Agreement with NSI to terminate NSI as the operator of the registry database for .com, .net, and .org and (2) cooperate with DOC to facilitate the transfer of those registry operations to a successor registry."  Section 4 Provides, "In the event that DOC, pursuant to the terms of the Registry Agreement between ICANN and NSI, approves the assignment of that agreement by ICANN to another non-profit entity, that new entity shall also be required to agree to be bound by this MOU, and that entity shall succeed to the duties, obligations and benefits of this Agreement, and shall be recognized by DOC as the "NewCo" identified in Amendment 11 to the Cooperative Agreement and Section I.B.1 of Amendment 19 of the Cooperative Agreement".  And Section 5 states, "If DOC withdraws its recognition of ICANN or any successor entity by terminating this MOU, ICANN agrees that it will assign to DOC any rights that ICANN has in all existing contracts with registries and registrars."  


4.  The DNS White Paper listed several key stakeholder groups whose meaningful participation is necessary for effective technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS.  

Are all of these groups involved effectively in the ICANN process?  

RESPONSE:  The DNS White Paper provided and directed that meaningful participation is necessary for effective technical management of the Internet.  I believe that Representation has not been provided for the Internet Community members.  It has been slanted to 1.) allow for many to not be able to participate and 2.) provided for those in position of policy making to profit at the expense of many.  So, although all are represented in the picture, most 1.) do not have a voice, 2.) are not able to participate, and 3.) are not able to partake in the wealth and mass amounts of financial opportunity created.                              

If not, how could their involvement be improved?  

RESPONSE:  One way, to improve large community, (local and global), participation would be to provide open access to policies that effect users of the Internet.  Comments and Suggestions and specific Actions that effect any large number of people could made made available by posting and archiving by subject, which could provide an Open Forum to any member of the Internet Community.  That's the beauty of the Internet - it allows the opportunity to communicate with just about anybody around the world 24 hours a day.  The Internet, ideally, and the objectives and goals for the facilitation/delivery and management of the Internet, was suppose to break down the limits and barriers that had existed before. 

If we looked at this approach for subject of the new .TLD extensions, for example.  We know that ICANN enacted policy to even make a suggestion for new extension would require a $50,000 fee (US Dollars) payable to ICANN. 

But with open approach, any member of the "Internet Community", locally and globally, and certainly those effected, would have been able to go to the website, find the initiative to launch new extensions (example), and/or Global Message Board, submit some suggestions, post messages of approval/disapproval and/or an opinion with regards to modification of top level domain extensions or with regards to policy and direction.  There could have been an Online Form with a list Domain Name Extensions and "Internet Community" members could have checked off the one they would have like to have seen be added.  Internet community members could have decided for a new .xxx to designate growing amount of pornography from the designated .com commercial domain.  Internet community members could have decided to hold off on new domain extensions because the Internet was already a big mess.  We don't know what  members of the Internet Community, locally and globally, and collectively would have had to say about this subject because they were only given the opportunity to respond by submitting a $50,000 fee (US Dollars) to ICANN for each new extension recommended.  

Are there key stakeholder groups not listed in the DNS White Paper, such as those with expertise in the area of Internet security or infrastructure technologies, that could provide valuable input into the technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS?  

If so, how could their involvement be facilitated? 

RESPONSE:  Yes.  I believe there any many that could provide valuable input.  Specific approaches and infrastructure should be developed to solicit, classify and organize technological advancements and industry professionals input and advice.

I believe ideally that measures and protocols need to be enacted and re-enacted to make sure that they are followed to provide Management that incorporates basic principles, design, process and implementation for the Internet Community. 

Internet Security encompasses some big issues.  Internet Security is necessary on many levels, there could be attacks to the infrastructure by virus, Trojan, application or by some other electronic wire/wireless attack or other attack?  For the some members of Internet Community hacking is another security issue for Internet File Servers and Virtual Private Networks (VPN's).  Hackers (usually individuals) isolate servers and usually by IP address attack use the server to find open ports and/or to run brute force attacks to break into the server.

Internet Community members to date have received mass amounts of unwanted email.  This email that was unsolicited and unwanted to the email recipient is now known as spam.  Some spam is received from IP Addresses that appear to be outside the United States, but the Domain Name Registrant may show a United States Address.  

Another problem that has occurred has been an initiating of a Trojan or another application to an unsuspecting server (computer) with an email program, that then takes that server and uses it to run mass spamming unbeknownst to the server's operator.  

Encryption and security protocols for websites and ecommerce, all provide another level of security issues for overall security of the Internet and especially with regards to payment processing, data collection, warehousing and storage, as well privacy issues raised from data exchange. 

Other issues effecting stability of  the Internet and security with regards to users of the Internet and theft by some online means and/or identity theft.  

Analysis and collaboration to provide Management for the delivery of protocols and policies for members of the Internet Community for issues that are effecting members of the Internet Community with regards to Internet Security, and Breaches thereof is critical.  Definitions and examples should be cited to provide classification and organization of what constitutes, validates and breaches Internet Security.  

Analysis of the conditions, variables and it's effects, locally and globally should be evaluated.  In other words, in this Electronic World on the Internet, what would constitutes breaches of Internet Security and who get's violated and what are the effects?  

Internet Security issues effecting the Internet Community Members should be of major importance to protect the stability and integrity of the Internet.  

Infrastructure should support necessary Internet Security Protocols and Applications to allow for Management to enhance electronic delivery and dissemination for Internet Community Members, locally and globally.


5. The DNS White Paper listed principles and mechanisms for technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS to encourage meaningful participation and representation of key stakeholders.  

ICANN, in conjunction with many of these key stakeholders, has created various supporting organizations and committees to facilitate stakeholder participation in ICANN  processes.  

Is participation in these organizations meeting the needs of key stakeholders and the Internet community?  

RESPONSE:  No.

Are there ways to improve or expand participation in these organizations and committees? 

RESPONSE:  N/A


6. What methods and/or processes should be considered to encourage greater efficiency and responsiveness to governments and ccTLD managers in processing root management requests to address public policy and sovereignty concerns?  

RESPONSE:  I believe that many of the major provision for government and country code ccTLD designations are already provisioned in Internet and Domain Space.  Issues and problems facing Internet Community Members, including government and ccTLD managers, should encompass methods and/or processes and policy enacted that provide for communications to serve responsibly to the Internet Community Members in manners of openness, responsiveness, collaboration, and representation. 

Please keep in mind the need to preserve the security and stability of the Internet DNS and the goal of decision-making at the local level.  

RESPONSE:  Yes.  I thought Management of Internet DNS and by it's purpose should track the names and the IP addresses for the Internet.  But even today. Internet community members have to manage their own DNS or retain the DNS management from someone else to do this.  I do not understand why.  I thought that was what they were suppose to be doing?  I am not trying to over simplify this but I  thought this was how it was suppose to work. 

The United States Department of Commerce gave notice of action for the Management of Internet Names and Addresses Docket Number: 980212036-8146-02 and issued a Statement of Policy by the Authority of 15 U.S.C. § 1512; 15 U.S.C. § 1525; 47 U.S.C. § 902(b)(2)(H); 47 U.S.C. § 902(b)(2)(I); 47 U.S.C. § 902(b)(2)(M); 47 U.S.C. § 904(c)(1). In the Background it states, "Domain names are the familiar and easy-to-remember names for Internet computers (e.g., "www.ecommerce.gov"). They map to unique Internet Protocol (IP) numbers (e.g., 98.37.241.30) that serve as routing addresses on the Internet. The domain name system (DNS) translates Internet names into the IP numbers needed for transmission of information across the network."  The statement of Policy for the management of Internet  Names and Addresses described the Domain name as easy-to-remember names for Internet computers that routes  to  the Internet Protocol (IP) numbers (e.g., 98.37.241.30) to serve as routing addresses on the Internet.

To effectively manage the domain name system, a domain name would translate an internet name to an IP address to find a web site on the Internet.  And ICANN and Registries and Registrars are suppose to be doing this.  To make this real simple to make a web site work you have to have a domain name and it has to know a server name and/or IP address to route to. 

So for example, the domain name www.OperationsNetwork.net files on the global computer network is at 209.192.10.94.  According to the definition of a domain name and purpose of the Agreements and Memorandum of Understanding it would seem like this is how the government wanted this process to work.  That is the the definition of a Domain Name and from everything I understand that is how the government designed the Internet to work.  And that is what has been outlined and provisioned in all of these agreements and papers to be managed.  

This is not how it works.  In reality, once someone has purchased domain and has expenses for hardware and software to maintain web site and has a IP address allocated to define space on network, the Internet user in order to make the domain name work at this point still must incur more costs to make the web site work.  The Internet user would have to maintain a separate server to "Manage DNS".  The Internet user must install DNS Software to manage the DNS for the server to update DNS to the Internet.  

The Internet user would have to incur more costs for hardware and software and implementation and increased lines charges to "Manage DNS".   Or the Internet user would have pay a company to manage DNS, which has server(s) running software to manage DNS that provides IP addresses to the Internet user that route to the real IP address(es) of the Internet user's machine.  The user will be charged fees ranging from $3-$20 per domain name, plus sometimes additional fees for email retrieval.  Some companies add email backup as a service and provide services for resellers. 

If domain names and a domain name by definition would translate an internet "name" to an "IP address" in order to find a web site on the Internet and if companies and entities and individuals have to manage their own DNS to make the domain name(s) work, then within the structure currently for Management, what are they really managing if individuals, entities and other businesses are "Managing DNS" domain name(s) to resolve to an IP address on the Internet? 

Are there new technology tools available that could improve this process, such as automation of request processing? 

RESPONSE: Yes, technology has advanced.  And technology was at the foundation for the development of the Internet.  But I believe what is important is recognizing "technology" for what it is.  Technology is a "tool" that helped to build the Internet which then became much, much larger and greater than the "tool" itself.   Computer processing and storage capacities have been constantly increasing.  Software technologies for operating systems are still being enhanced and revised and effort is being made by many to incorporate these processes into to current and future software and applications to provide and further developments that we call "technology".  I believe technology is only a tool to be used in the processes to support the Internet and it's Management and that the Human factor is the most  important tool that will determine what the Internet provides for it's members. 



7.  Many public and private organizations have various roles and responsibilities related to the Internet DNS, and more broadly, to Internet governance.  

RESPONSE: Yes, many public and private organizations and individuals have had various roles and responsibilities and/or have made contributions.    

How can information exchange, collaboration and enhanced cooperation among these organizations be achieved as called for by the WSIS?

RESPONSE:   I think that there needs to be a more proactive approach that allows for sufficient information exchange, collaboration and cooperation for all Members of the Internet Community.  Locally and globally, support and representation is important. 

 

"DNS PROJECT" response to the United States Department of commerce  Actions including a Notice of Inquiry, Notice of Public Meeting, and a Call for Comments and Written Comments (Docket No. 060519136-6136-01)

 


 

 

I certify that copies of the foregoing was delivered by:

 

Stephanie M. Jordan
Future Networks®
PO Box 12292
Huntsville, AL 35815
1-877-872-3888

to the 

United States
Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20230
1-202-482-1866