08-14-97 Electronic Filings on Internet Domain Names

###
Number: 268
From:     <Pabatan@kiki.com>
To:       NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:     8/14/97 6:04am
Subject:  Comments On Domain Name Strategies

Comments on Internet Domain registration :

I have a company registered as Business Information Technology Management,
abbreviated as BITMAN. However, there is a graphic design company already
registered as WWW.BITMAN.COM. In order to resolve issues like this it will
be better if domain names could be registered according to the industry
sector they operate in for example, in situation the graphic art company
will registered as :-
     www.graphics.bitman.com
  While my company that is in the IT sector will be registered as :-
     www.it.bitman.com
  And if there is a law firm with the same name it will be :-
     www.law.bitman.com
 
The company I currently work for is called Knowledge Insight and normally
call themselves KI, which means you will expect their web site to be
www.ki.com, but this site is already used by another company. 

I believe that this will do a great deal in actually distinguishing
organizations and resolve conflicts among domain name systems. Please
contact me on Peter@KIKI.COM if you are interested in my ideas, or you
want me to do more research work on this issue. 

Sincerely,


###
Number: 269
From:      "Gymer, Keith" <GymerK@hlcec1.agw.bt.co.uk>
To:        'NTIA - DNS COMMENTS' <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date:      8/14/97 7:53am
Subject:   BT Response to US Government RFC - Part 1 - A (a to f)

This is the formal response on behalf of British Telecommunications plc
(BT) to the US Department of Commerce Request for Comments on the
Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names.  For
convenience, the questions raised in the document are reproduced
indented >, with BT's responses in plain text below.  BT has responded
to all questions.
Owing to email limitations the response is being sent in three parts.

In the event of any problems with this email, or for clarification or
further comments on any of the issues raised here, please contact:

Keith Gymer
BT Group Legal Services
Intellectual Property Department
8th Floor, Holborn Centre
120 Holborn, London
EC1N 2TE, UK

Tel: +44 171 492 8129
Fax: +44 171 242 0585


>DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
>
>[Docket No. 970613137-7137-01]
>
>Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet
Domain Names
>
>AGENCY: Department of Commerce.
>
>ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.
>
>SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce requests comments on the
>current and future system(s) for the registration of Internet
>domain names. The Department invites the public to submit
>written comments in paper or electronic form.(1)
>
>DATES: Comments must be received by August 18, 1997.
>
>ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to Patrice Washington, Office
>of Public Affairs, National Telecommunications and Information
>Administration (NTIA), Room 4898, 14th St. and Constitution
>Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
>for electronic access and filing addresses and further
>information on submitting comments.
>
>FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Bruening, NTIA, (202) 482-1816.
>
>SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
>
>Electronic Access and Filing Addresses
>
>The address for comments submitted in electronic form is
>dns@ntia.doc.gov. Comments submitted in electronic form should
>be in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, or ASCII format. Detailed
>information about electronic filing is available on the NTIA
>website, http://www.ntia.doc.gov.
>
>Further Information on Submitting Comments
>
>Submit written comments in paper or electronic form at the
>above addresses. Paper submissions should include three paper
>copies and a version on diskette in the formats specified
>above. To assist reviewers, comments should be numbered and
>organized in response to questions in accordance with the five
>sections of this notice (Appropriate Principles,
>General/Organizational Framework Issues, Creation of New gTLDs,
>Policies for Registries, and Trademark Issues). Commenters
>should address each section on a separate page and should
>indicate at the beginning of their submission to which
>questions they are responding.
>
>Background
>
>The rapid growth in the use of the Internet has led to
>increasing public concern about the current Internet domain
>name registration systems. According to Internet Monthly
>Report, registration of domain names within a few top-level
>domains (.com, .net, .org) has increased from approximately 400
>per month in 1993 to as many as 70,000 per month in 1996, the
>overwhelming majority in the .com category. The enormous growth
>and commercialization of the Internet has raised numerous
>questions about current domain name registration systems. In
>addition, the present system will likely undergo modification
>when the National Science Foundation's cooperative agreement
>(NSF agreement) with Network Solutions Inc. to register and
>administer second-level domains for three top-level domains
>expires in 1998. Resolution of these issues will also affect
>the future operation of the National Information Infrastructure
>(NII) and the Global Information Infrastructure (GII).
>
>The United States Government played a central role in the
>initial development, deployment, and operation of domain name
>registration systems, and through the NSF agreement as well as
>Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) agreement(s)
>continues to play a role. In recent years, however, Internet
>expansion has been driven primarily by the private sector. The
>Internet has operated by consensus rather than by government
>regulation. Many believe that the Internet's decentralized
>structure accounts at least in part for its rapid growth.
>
>The Government has supported the privatization and
>commercialization of the Internet through actions such as the
>transition from the NSFNET backbone to commercial backbones.
>The Government supports continued private sector leadership for
>the Internet and believes that the transition to private sector
>control should continue. The stability of the Internet depends
>on a fully interconnected and interoperable domain name system
>that must be preserved during any transition.
>
>Various private sector groups have proposed systems for
>allocating and managing generic top level domains (gTLDs). The
>Government is studying the proposals and the underlying issues
>to determine what role, if any, it should play. The Government
>has not endorsed any plan at this time but believes that it is
>very important to reach consensus on these policy issues as
>soon as possible.
>
>The United States Government seeks the views of the public
>regarding these proposals and broader policy issues as well.
>Specifically, the Government seeks information on the following
>issues:

BACKGROUND

British Telecommunications plc, trading as BT is the UK's major
telecommunications operator.  BT is a world leader in the provision of
international  communications networks and services.  BT has numerous
operating alliances across the globe, including its principal
collaboration with MCI Communications in the Concert Communications
joint venture providing internet infrastructure (e.g. Concert Internet
Plus) and services.  This business will expand in future through the
imminent merger of BT and MCI's businesses.

BT is also a major trade mark owner, and as a consequence has been the
target in several cases where its trade marks have been misappropriated
in domain names by unprincipled speculators with no rights to such
marks.  BT has also experienced the situation where another entity has
acquired a domain name incorporating a mark to which it and BT both have
legitimate rights in the real world.  Such pre-emptive legitimate
registration of a domain name under the present systems, however,
excludes any other party from using the same name in cyberspace
regardless of the fact that both can happily co-exist in the ordinary
course of business.

BT has been actively involved in commenting and in discussion
particularly with interested parties in the UK and Europe during the
evolution of the IAHC/iPOC proposals.

These experiences highlight the two issues which, in our view,  it is
essential to resolve in order to allow the internet to fulfil its
optimum potential and provide an efficient and effective medium to meet
the needs of consumers and business for reliable and secure services in
the 21st century information age.  These are:

1. That the DNS should be structured to allow businesses which have
legitimate rights to use names and marks in the real world without
conflict to be able to use the same names in cyberspace also without
conflict and without discrimination.  Businesses use marks and names for
identification and to give customers assurance about whom they are
dealing with.  Domain names, therefore, certainly can and do perform a
trade mark function on the internet.

Fundamentally, a more equitable and formal structure for the allocation
of names and a move away from the inappropriate first-come, first-served
model  - FCFS - (which is really first-come, ONLY-served) would seem to
be desirable.  The current essential  uniqueness of domain names coupled
with a simplistic FCFS system only encourages a "land rush" approach to
grabbing of names to prevent others getting them or to hold potential
users with legitimate rights to ransom for their preferred names.  What
is needed is a more sensible, orderly system which gives businesses and
consumers confidence that the interests and rights of all (not just the
fastest to register) will be properly considered and balanced.  Domain
names need to be as available for use as trade marks are in the real
world, whether a business comes early or late to the net.

2. As noted above, it is unsatisfactory that the first to register a
domain name should be able to exclude any other business with legitimate
real world rights from using the same  name or mark in a domain name
when it could not maintain such exclusivity in the real world.
Conversely, however, trade mark owners are entitled to prevent those who
have no such legitimate rights from misappropriating their names and
marks in domain names.  Owing to the instant international reach of the
internet and the corresponding  potential for rogue registrations to
cause significant immediate damage to a trade mark owners rights, it is
essential that any domain name registration system should have an
effective and fast dispute resolution procedure to resolve such
conflicts and to deter such piracy.   Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), of
course, does have a dispute policy (see
http://rs.internic.net/domain-info/internic-domain-6.html ).  However,
it has been criticised as inadequate and lacking transparency by trade
mark owners and domain name holders alike (see e.g. Carl Oppedahl's
comments at http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht and the International
Trademark Association's comments at http://www.inta.org/intaprop.htm ).
BT itself has had the unsatisfactory experience whereby NSI's policy has
not been applicable to rogue registrations of domain names such as
british-tele.com and bt-mci.com, for example.

In this respect, BT considers the alternative dispute resolution and
administrative challenge proposals originally produced by the Internet
International Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC) and which are being refined by the
Interim Policy Oversight Committee (iPOC) offer significant improvements
over NSI's policy and have the potential to be fairer and more
effective.

The merits of alternative proposals for domain name administration will
stand to be judged against these two principal criteria.


>A. Appropriate Principles
>
>The Government seeks comment on the principles by which it
>should evaluate proposals for the registration and
>administration of Internet domain names. Are the following
>principles appropriate? Are they complete? If not, how should
>they be revised? How might such principles best be fostered?

The IAHC in its gTLD-MoU (see http://www.gtld-mou.org/ ) has provided a
clear statement of the basic principles which it believes should apply
to the administration of domain names.  BT considers that these basic
principles are sensible and realistic and worthy of support.  They are
certainly preferable to some of the principles underlying the
alternative models we have seen proposed by NSI, PGP Media, eDNS,
Alternic and others.  Accordingly, and notwithstanding the fact that BT
has serious concerns about other details of the IAHC's proposals, BT
would be prepared to endorse the basic principles in the gTLD-MoU and
would commend the US Government to do likewise.  These principles are:

(a)  the Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) name space is a
  public resource and is subject to the public trust;

(b)  any administration, use and/or evolution of the Internet
  TLD space is a public policy issue and should be carried out
  in the interests and service of the public;

(c)  related public policy needs to balance and represent the
  interests of the current and future stakeholders in the
  Internet name space;

(d)  the current and future Internet name space stakeholders
  can benefit most from a self-regulatory and market-oriented
  approach to Internet domain name registration services;

(e)  registration services for the gTLD name space should
  provide for global distribution of registrars;

(f)  a policy shall be implemented that a second-level domain
  name in any of the CORE-gTLDs which is identical or closely
  similar to an alphanumeric string that, for the purposes of
  this policy, is deemed to be internationally known, and for
  which demonstrable intellectual property rights exist, may be
  held or used only by, or with the authorization of, the owner
  of such demonstrable intellectual property rights.
  Appropriate consideration shall be given to possible use of
  such a second-level domain name by a third party that, for the
  purposes of this policy, is deemed to have sufficient rights.


>a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name registration
>system should be encouraged. Conflicting domains, systems, and
>registries should not be permitted to jeopardize the
>interoperation of the Internet, however. The addressing scheme
>should not prevent any user from connecting to any other site.

BT certainly believes that competition in services for registration is
desirable.  The IAHC proposal for shared registries, therefore, which
allows for competition between registrars is preferable to NSI's
monopoly control of registration in the existing gTLDs.

However, "expansion" of the DNS is a different issue and this requires
wider and deeper consideration.  The proliferation of non-specific
gTLDs, even to the limited extent presently proposed by the IAHC, will
inevitably result in a diminution of the utility of the DNS generally as
a meaningful alternative to less memorable number strings (IP addresses)
and will pose an increasing problem for trade mark owners in policing
unauthorised use of marks in domain names and consequent infringement or
dilution of established trade mark rights.

There is a case for controlled expansion of the DNS to allow for
properly qualified, and industry specific gTLDs where these can
facilitate identification of businesses and improve usability.  There is
also a case for an alternative "shared" gTLD (see below for further
discussion) as an option for resolving the first issue (equitable rights
to use real-world names in cyberspace) identified in the preamble above.

BT believes that an expansion of the DNS by adding the seven new gTLDs
as currently specified by the IAHC, with allocation continuing to be
made by a  simplistic FCFS  process  is inappropriate.  The likelihood
is that such expansion will only replicate and multiply the problems
already experienced with existing gTLDs.  They are not adequately
structured to allow different businesses with legitimate rights to the
same name to have equitable access without risk of conflict or
confusion.  This lack of distinguishing structure and the FCFS
allocation system will mean that, if they can, businesses will be
obliged to try to register their key marks in each new gTLD in order to
strengthen their association with those marks and to exclude others as
far as possible.   The addition of new gTLDs has been discussed by BT
with representatives of other major trade mark owners, the UK Trade Mark
Registry, the European Commission, European ISO3166 country code
registrars (e.g. Nominet UK) and others - the overwhelming weight of
considered opinion is against the addition of any more general gTLDs at
this stage.  Whilst, as the International Trade Mark Association and
others have observed, the addition of only seven new gTLDs is
potentially less prejudicial than the 150 or more that have been
advocated by some from the "internet community", we firmly believe that
NONE should be added for now.

Accordingly, BT recommends this aspect of the IAHC plan should be
thoroughly reconsidered and that no new gTLDs should be added at least
until the IAHC plan has been proven to work with the existing gTLDs
(.com, .org and .net).  Obviously, this implies that steps must be taken
to ensure that NSI's monopoly control over these gTLDs is transferred to
iPOC on expiry of NSI's present contract with NSF in March 1998.

From a business and operational perspective, stability and consistency
in the administration of the DNS are highly desirable.  The DNS must be
managed to allow universal access to any valid address.  Fragmentation
of the DNS and conflicting alternative systems must be avoided.  This is
particularly important in the case of gTLDs.  BT supports the IAHC call
for all gTLDs to be administered according to the same principles as
specified in the gTLD-MoU.  Ultimately, it would also be desirable to
encourage ISO3166 National Registries  to operate according to the same
principles and with consistent procedures.  However, this is clearly
likely to be a longer-term objective, which might require the internet
equivalent of the WIPO Trade Mark Law treaty to establish!


>b. The private sector, with input from governments, should
>develop stable, consensus-based self-governing mechanisms for
>domain name registration and management that adequately defines
>responsibilities and maintains accountability.

BT strongly supports the implementation of private-sector led
self-regulatory mechanisms for DNS management, with governmental input
where relevant.  To this end, the IAHC/iPOC initiative is a commendable
precedent.  However, BT considers (and we believe the iPOC itself
recognises) that the appropriate balance of the various stakeholders who
need to be involved in the process is yet to be established.  At the
moment, BT's impression is that the process is still substantially being
"technically driven" rather than genuinely "market led" (i.e. those with
technical expertise and those internet-specific businesses with a
specialist technical interest are pushing for more gTLDs, for example,
while the wider business community is unconvinced that they are needed
or that they will resolve the perceived problems with the existing
system.)  In these circumstances, BT would suggest that the balance of
representation on iPOC (or any successor private sector management body)
should evolve to have greater mainstream business and ordinary
(non-technical) consumer/user representation and the weight of
representation from the technical side should be reduced.   Thus
additional representatives might be drawn from groups like the
International Chamber of Commerce or other business organisations
world-wide as well as from mainstream consumer organisations.


>c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the
>inherently global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve
>as necessary over time.

This is an essential.  The internet has grown from its original US roots
into a truly international medium.  It would be inappropriate and
counterproductive now for any national government or any self-governing
body to treat it as a parochial asset (although ISO3166 national
registries obviously remain free to establish national rules for domain
names under their respective national country codes).   More
specifically, it is desirable that the DNS should become more flexible
and less anglo-centric, so that other non-English/American character
sets, for example can validly be used.  This is an important issue for
members of the European Union where there are many languages in use
other than English!


>d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should
>be open, robust, efficient, and fair.

Again, BT completely supports these principles.  And we reiterate that
the "fairness" must extend to enabling equitable access to domain names
for all with demonstrable rights (not just the most "internet aware" who
happen to be fastest to register under existing systems).  However great
are the claims for the growth of the internet, there are more potential
users still to connect (who will legitimately want representative domain
names in due course) than there are connected now.


>e. The overall policy framework as well as name allocation and
>management mechanisms should promote prompt, fair, and
>efficient resolution of conflicts, including conflicts over
>proprietary rights.

As indicated above, BT considers this to be a major issue.  It is much
to be preferred that a policy framework should enable and promote
settlement of any conflicts and elimination of disputes BEFORE names are
registered and allowed to go live.  It is unsatisfactory and
commercially  prejudicial both for domain name registrants and trade
mark owners to have disputes arise after use of a domain name has taken
place for any length of time.

To this end, the IAHC proposal to establish Administrative Challenge
Panels (ACP) for fast track administrative review of challenges together
with options for pre-registration publication and for post-registration
suspension during adjudication of a challenge is a positive step.  The
IAHC proposals to require substantive details from a potential
registrant (as would be required from a trade mark applicant) and
submission to a defined jurisdiction are also welcome.

However, the iPOC's present plan to open its proposed new gTLDs to a
free-for-all on day one with no provision for provisional applications
before that is a recipe for provoking conflicts and for encouraging
rip-offs.    It may evoke fond memories of the Oklahoma land rush as the
internet-aware scramble to stake their claims, but now just as then,
there will be other groups who consider they would have prior claims to
the "land" (or names in this case) which should not be pre-empted by
such a manifestly crude system of allocation.  If the internet is to
evolve seriously as a mainstream business tool then it needs a more
mature approach to administration in a civilised and orderly fashion,
not according to some rough traditions of frontier law dating from the
nineteenth century.

When a new trade mark law is introduced these days (such as the
Community Trade Mark) it is common practice to accept applications prior
to the start date, to accord all such applications the same priority and
to resolve any conflicts equitably.   If unqualified new gTLDs are to be
introduced, then BT considers an analogous procedure should apply to
discourage rip-offs and to provide a genuinely equitable opportunity for
all who might have legitimate rights to use any given name.

Similarly, applications for domain names in the new gTLDs could be open
for a reasonable period (say six weeks) before the start of operation of
the new gTLDs.  In the event of multiple applications for any given
domain name in the new gTLDs, those domain names would NOT be delegated
immediately, but the claimants would be told to resolve their competing
claims in some mutually acceptable fashion (and subject to some rules to
prevent spurious claims and dilatory behaviour).  For example, the
claimants might adopt different names, modified to distinguish the
parties and/or might agree to sharing the primary (contested) domain
name.  This would i) reduce the potential for the new  CORE Registry to
get  involved in disputes;  ii) remove the opportunity for FCFS
pre-emptive grabbing of non-exclusive names which simply favours the
net-aware (and the technically adept at flooding the CORE registry with
applications at zero hour);  iii) promote resolution of disputes BEFORE
registration; and iv) result in a more equitable allocation of domain
names giving more companies a chance of obtaining at least a share of a
name to which they might have a claim.

>f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent
>consideration of these issues permits.

BT would encourage an early international adoption of a practical
framework for DNS management consistent with the basic principles
expressed in the IAHC gTLD MoU.  The only clear deadline which we are
aware of in this respect is the 31 March 1998 expiry of the NSI contract
with the National Science Foundation (NSF).  It would obviously be in
the interests of all parties for the future administration of the
existing gTLDs to be specified before then.  As we understand it, the
NSF can oblige NSI to hand over the necessary data to enable others to
administer these gTLDs if desired.  BT would recommend that NSF should
assert this right and transfer responsibility for administration of the
existing gTLDs to iPOC.  NSI's interests as a registrar could be
sufficiently preserved by "grandfathering" NSI as a Registrar under the
gTLD-MoU (provided NSI then agreed to abide by the gTLD-MoU principles).


From:      "Gymer, Keith" <GymerK@hlcec1.agw.bt.co.uk>
To:        'NTIA - DNS COMMENTS' <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date:      8/14/97 7:55am
Subject:   BT Response to US Government RFC - Part 2 - Q1-20

>B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
>1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain
>name registration systems?

ADVANTAGES:
i) IF one is first to register then one gets completely EXCLUSIVE rights
to a domain name even if one would not be able to exert such exclusivity
in the real world.  Thus, for example, there is only one apple.com (the
computer company) even though there are several other companies who
could also legitimately use the trade mark "APPLE" in the real world.
ii) A trade mark owner can use NSI's dispute policy to force a
registrant with no demonstrable rights to relinquish a disputed domain
name.
iii) The acquisition of domain names is generally a quick, automated
process which is significantly faster and cheaper than obtaining trade
mark registrations!

DISADVANTAGES
i) If a domain name is already registered to a holder with legitimate
rights then that party has completely EXCLUSIVE rights regardless of
whether any other party might have equivalent rights to use the same
name in the real world (thus what is an advantage for the first to
register is a disadvantage to everyone else who might also have
legitimate real world rights - remember, it's not just FCFS, it's first
come, ONLY served!)
ii) Unscrupulous or covetous trade mark owners can attempt to use NSI's
policy to force legitimate users to relinquish a disputed domain name
(see the PRINCE.COM case).
iii) The existing gTLDs have been over-used by entities which are
parochial and not genuinely international.  Thus registrations which
ought more logically to be under national country code domains have been
made in .com, .net  and .org as these are seen as more "prestigious".
iv) the original distinction between .com, .org and .net has not been
enforced by NSI and therefore has not been respected by domain name
registrants.  Consequently, where a commercial, non-network business
might previously only have had to worry about trade mark infringements
by rogue registrations under .com, now trade mark owners must monitor
and act against registrants in .net and .org as well.  This demonstrates
the ineffectiveness of simply adding gTLDs without requiring and
enforcing objective criteria for registration in those domains.  Thus
.net was intended to be for organisations with network infrastructure,
but that requirement was not enforced and so the utility of .net as a
separate and distinct name space from .com has been lost.  Similarly,
.org was intended for non-commercial organisations, and this distinction
has also been lost because it has not been enforced.
v) The registration details required by registrars like NSI are often
insufficient, although NSI is by no means the worst offender.  Most of
the national ISO3166 registries make little or no information available
on domain name registrants.  There are numerous instances of false IDs
and email addresses being used to obtain domain names, particularly by
so-called "cybersquatters" or domain name pirates who register
well-known names and then attempt to sell them to the legitimate owners
of rights in those names.  The inaccuracy and inadequacy of registrant
information frequently makes it problematic for a legitimate trade mark
owner to track down and take action against an infringer who has
misappropriated a mark in a domain name.
vi) The databases of ISO3166 registered domain names are frequently
unavailable  altogether for any checking - i.e. there is no WHOIS
facility at all.  (In contrast, NSI provides a rather good WHOIS
service).
vii) Many of the national ISO3166 registries have far too restrictive
policies on who may register what names.  Whilst these systems can
almost completely eliminate disputes under the relevant ISO3166  country
code, effectively what happens is that the disputes are transferred
elsewhere (e.g. to .com) as businesses seek to get the names they
originally wanted in a national TLD in one of the gTLDs.

>2. How might current domain name systems be improved?

i) For gTLD administration, adopt the basic principles in the IAHC
gTLD-MoU.
ii) Generally, for all domains, adopt more sophisticated and independent
dispute resolution systems (cf. the ACPs proposed by the IAHC).
iii) Make more use of the national TLDs - national TLDs should be
encouraged to adopt more open registration policies generally (subject
to providing adequate structure under the national country code).
iv) In particular, make .us more attractive for US entities
v) Establish structural requirements for gTLDs and/or other means for
enabling equitable use of real world marks in domain names (cf. Issue 1
in the preamble above).
vi) Add new gTLDs only where these distinguish classes of business and
assist user access and where registration can be subject to objective
tests for qualification (e.g.  .air might be established for IATA
airlines with qualification determined by IATA).  There is also a strong
case for having a content-specific gTLD (and corresponding SLDs under
nTLDs) such as .xxx or .sex.  Sexually explicit services could then be
legally required to operate with domain names in this gTLD (or SLD under
an nTLD) which would make it much simpler and easier to control access
to such sites to protect children for example.
vii) Require sufficient application details (and evidence of
qualification for entry in class-specific gTLDs) from any registrant as
would be required for a trade mark application - the IAHC proposals are
exemplary in this respect.  Make registration revocable if the details
are falsified or qualifications shown not to exist.
viii) Reintroduce and enforce the original intended qualifications for
registration in .org and .net (this might need to be phased in over a
period to avoid excessive disruption to existing registrants who do not
meet the relevant criteria but who have been allowed to register because
of the absence of enforcement by NSI).


>3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should
>current domain name systems be administered? What should the
>makeup of such an entity be?

i) All gTLDs should be administered by a genuinely international body
with representatives of all potential stakeholder interests.  The IAHC
proposal provides a practical basis on which to establish such a body,
although, as noted earlier, we do not believe that iPOC as presently
constituted yet represents all relevant stakeholders.  Ultimately, we
feel the representation will probably need to give substantially greater
weight to mainstream business and consumer interests if it is to be
genuinely market-led rather than technology-driven.
Obvious constituencies with a representative interest would include:
Technical:
IANA
IETF
CORE/Registrars
Business:
Mainstream business organisations (e.g. ICC) from all the geographic
regions
Consumers:
ISOC (net-aware bias?)
Mainstream consumer organisations from the geographic regions
Legal:
INTA
International Telecomms/Legal
ITU
WIPO

BT particularly supports the involvement of the ITU and WIPO as
absolutely appropriate given the nature of the subject matter and the
issues concerned.  Through their membership of these international
bodies, national governments can provide appropriate input and direction
to the initiative to manage gTLDs and allow the internet to develop as a
genuinely global resource with no individual Government exerting a
proprietary claim to the whole.  Although some  commentators have
criticised the ITU and WIPO actions, BT believes such criticisms are
misguided and that the ITU and WIPO bring absolutely invaluable
experience at the international level in dealing with the communications
and intellectual property issues which affect the DNS.  The active
participation of these bodies brings the benefit of real-world expertise
and credibility to the DNS administration.  The informal procedures
which were effective in the initial development of the internet are no
longer appropriate given the scale of the network growth.  More formal
organisation and processes are required in which WIPO and ITU are well
qualified.

ii) For the ISO3166 nTLDs, it would seem similarly desirable for all
relevant national stakeholders to have appropriate input into the
administrative decisions for registration of domain names under their
national country code.  Thus, for example, for .uk one might reasonably
look to Nominet (the .UK Registry) to extend consultation on
administration policy issues to include parties such as (say) the
Confederation of British Industry/ ICC(UK), the Consumers Association,
the Institute of Trade Mark Agents, and the Department of Trade &
Industry.


>4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as models
>for deciding on domain name registration systems (e.g., network
>numbering plan, standard-setting processes, spectrum
>allocation)? Are there private/public sector administered
>models or regimes that can be used for domain name registration
>(e.g., network numbering plan, standard setting processes, or
>spectrum allocation processes)? What is the proper role of
>national or international governmental/non-governmental
>organizations, if any, in national and international domain
>name registration systems?

The DNS certainly needs to be as scaleable as the telephone numbering
plan.  This suggests that it also needs to be more formally structured
and organised both at first and second and possibly at the third level
of the domain name if the advantage of having meaningful mnemonic names
is to be preserved.

The proper and essential role of international organisations like WIPO
and ITU has been discussed under 3 above.  BT believes that at gTLD
level national Governments should channel their advice and
recommendations via such international organisations and should not seek
to exert any individual control (other than where necessary to establish
effective international administration of gTLD namespace - i.e. in the
US case by assuring the NSF requires NSI to pass administration of the
existing gTLDs to iPOC.)


>5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be
>retired from circulation? Should geographic or country codes
>(e.g., .US) be required? If so, what should happen to the .com
>registry? Are gTLD management issues separable from questions
>about International Standards Organization (ISO) country code
>domains?

It has been suggested (and it would be technically possible) that all
existing gTLD names should be migrated to be under .US (i.e. .com would
become .com.us etc.).  However, this would clearly cause major
inconvenience to existing registrants and is probably not a realistic or
necessary option.  If more detailed structure is adopted at gTLD level,
then it may be appropriate to stop further registration under existing
gTLDs if replacement gTLDs with more specific registration requirements
were to be introduced.  The same applies to .net and .org.

Presently, there are two gTLDs .edu and .mil which are not genuinely
international and are expressly reserved for US entities.  Consistent
with this national restriction, it would be desirable to migrate
registrations under these domains to be under .us.  As the number of
registrations affected is many less than under .com, this would appear a
reasonable and practical option.

It would certainly be helpful to encourage more use of ISO3166 nTLDs,
particularly by organisations with only a national presence.  However,
it would probably be considered unreasonable to make this mandatory
given the widespread commercial appeal of gTLD registrations.

gTLD management issues are separable from ISO3166 nTLD management
issues, as INTA has observed (see INTA Response
http://www.inta.org/rfcidns2.htm ), for historical and political
reasons.  IANA has always been prepared to allocate national authorities
independent control over the administration of their own country code
domains.  Universal attachment to National sovereignty is likely to
dictate that countries will want to retain that independence.  However,
BT considers that it would be highly desirable to work towards
establishing international agreement (perhaps through an "International
Domain Name Administration Treaty" under the auspices of ITU/WIPO)
setting minimum consistent standards as, for example,  the Trade Mark
Law Treaty does for Trade Mark Law.  The objective would be for nTLDs to
have consistent standards for such matters as name allocation,
application information and dispute policy.


>6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain name
>registration issues? Are there any issues concerning the
>relationship of registrars and gTLDs with root servers?

It would be possible (at least for websites) for internet browser
software to be adapted to enable more structured domain names to be used
to improve usability and help users access the businesses they require.
Already, browsers can assume elements of a uniform resource locator such
as "http://www." and the concluding ".com" so that a user  merely typing
in "microsoft" can immediately be taken to Microsoft's website.  Thus,
for example, browsers could provide users with pick-lists of countries
(by country code) and type of business (e.g. by using Yellow Pages
classifications) so that a user might select (say) "Airlines" or "Foods"
and by typing "United" be taken to United Airlines or United Foods as
the case may be.  Such a facility would vitiate the present perceived
advantage of obtaining the shortest domain name (there can only be one
united.com, but united-airlines.com and united-foods.com would obviously
be more helpful to a user seeking one or the other).  Other
technological options utilising shared domain names, for example, could
also be feasible to alleviate the present problems and reduce conflicts.

The roots servers are critical to the operation of the internet as
recent problems experienced by NSI have demonstrated.  It is vital that
they are maintained by a trusted authority independent of any individual
registrar, for reasons of operational security and reliability and to
remove the potential for partisan monopoly control as exercised by NSI
at present.  In this respect, BT considers the IAHC proposals for CORE
offer a practical and preferable alternative to the present
NSI-controlled system.


>7. How can we ensure the scalability of the domain name system
>name and address spaces as well as ensure that root servers
>continue to interoperate and coordinate?

If the DNS is to be properly scaleable to meet future needs then more
radical solutions for the DNS structure are required than the piecemeal
addition of new gTLDs as presently proposed under the gTLD-MoU.  BT
believes the introduction of new gTLDs should be postponed for this
reason.

Co-ordination and interoperation of the rootservers should be assured by
placing them under control of an appropriate single authority such as
CORE which is independent of any individual registrar.  For political
reasons and possibly to provide greater international resilience, more
rootservers should be established outside the US (where most presently
reside).


>8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?

BT believes that the transition to any new system should be progressive
and deal with acknowledged existing problems first.  Specifically,
therefore, considering the administrative systems proposed by the IAHC
offer an improvement over those presently adopted by NSI, BT recommends
the first step should be to transfer administration of the EXISTING
gTLDs (.com, .org, .net) to the iPOC and to assess how this change works
BEFORE proceeding to introduce any further new gTLDs.

In order to achieve this transition, as noted above, it is understood
that the NSF must instruct NSI accordingly.  If so, then obviously this
should be done as soon as possible to allow time to plan a smooth
transition which causes the minimum disruption to the continued
operation of the internet.


>9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?

These issues cannot be considered in isolation, but impact upon and are
affected by other issues, particularly any policy regarding protection
of trade mark rights in relation to domain names.


>C. Creation of New gTLDs
>10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy
>considerations that constrain the total number of different
>gTLDs that can be created?

We are not aware of any technical constraints.  However, as indicated
above, BT does not believe it would be desirable either for practical or
policy reasons to expand the number of gTLDs in an unconstrained and
unstructured manner.  To do so would diminish the basic utility of the
DNS over a numerical system and would significantly increase the risk of
cyber-piracy  for trade mark owners.


>11. Should additional gTLDs be created?

At this stage, NO!  See the reasons already given above.  Simply adding
new gTLDs without qualification is not an effective solution to the
long-term scaleability which is required.  A much more structured system
of industry specific gTLDs (and second level domains under nTLDs) with
strict qualifications for name registration in such specific gTLDs is
more likely to provide a usable solution.


>12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
>guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated with
>increasing the number of gTLDs?

Yes.  As noted in the response to Question 10 above and elsewhere,
scaleability based on the continued use of more memorable names in place
of numerical addresses will require a formal and logical structure to be
introduced  if the utility of the DNS is to be preserved.  Otherwise,
the unstructured proliferation of gTLDS would have significant
disadvantages particularly in increasing confusion and making it more
difficult for users to find what they want.


>13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
code domains?

See the relevant answer to Question 5 above.


>14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?

See the response to Question 9 above.


>D. Policies for Registries
>15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a
>particular gTLD? Are there any technical limitations on using
>shared registries for some or all gTLDs? Can exclusive and
>non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?

Under the IAHC model, the preference is for shared registries and
potentially unlimited numbers of registrars with no registrar having
exclusive control over any one gTLD.  As a system which should enable
competition without necessarily requiring the proliferation of new
gTLDs, BT believes it is a desirable model.  However, in the longer term
there must be some doubt about the ability for large numbers of
registrars to survive commercially and ultimately one would anticipate
that the number of registrars active in providing registration in all
shared gTLDs may be small.  In such circumstances it will be important
to ensure that quality of service and effective competition is still
maintained.

In certain circumstances it may be appropriate for a registrar to have
sole control over a gTLD, but this would probably only be appropriate in
cases where a gTLD has a very limited number of potential registrants
who must meet special criteria (cf. .int).  In such cases a registrar
might conceivably  be given a specific charter and be subject to
stricter controls on matters of service and charges, for example.

We are told that it is not intended that there should be any technical
limitations on the use of shared registries for any or all gTLDs.
However, we understand that the development of the necessary software is
likely to take longer and be more complicated than originally predicted.
 As shared operation on the scale required is reportedly untried, a
cautious approach to its introduction would seem prudent.  This would
also suggest that it might not be wise to expose the software to an
uncontrolled flood of applications on day one, but to roll it out
gradually, perhaps starting with .org and proceeding via .net to .com
and then to any new gTLDs if introduced.

Exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs should be able to co-exist without
problems provided the rootservers are appropriately managed.


>16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name
>registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars
>have? Who will determine these and how?

From a competitive perspective, it is obviously desirable that the
barriers to entry are not set unreasonably high.  However, we believe
that the IAHC is right to demand a relatively high level of threshold
requirements from new registrars.  It is important that customers should
be able to rely on a registrar being adequately resourced to provide a
consistent, reliable service.  A high standard of integrity and probity
is also to be demanded to ensure that a registrar does not abuse its
trust, for example, by encouraging misappropriation of trade marks in
domain names.   The IAHC thresholds were developed after considerable
analysis of such issues and therefore should provide a reasonable guide
to what standards ought to be applied.


>17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars?

Not so far as we are aware.


>18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about
>the name space raised by increasing the number of domain name
>registrars?

Yes.  To ensure that the integrity and reliability of the DNS is
maintained it is important that  Registrars are subject to strict
standards of conduct.  It would be very undesirable to find registrars
abusing their privilege.  One important requirement established by the
IAHC is that registrars must be established in a jurisdiction which
applies certain minimum standards of protection for intellectual
property rights.  This is of especial concern to trade mark owners who
do not want to find rogue registrars promoting "cybersquatting"
(misappropriation of trade marks in domain names) in jurisdictions with
weak trade mark laws.

Under the IAHC model, BT believes that it will be particularly important
that CORE should enforce its rules and act promptly against any rogue
registrar which fails to adhere to its contractual obligations in this
respect.   Discipline must be applied to deter abuse of the system.


>19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a
>given registrar can administer? Does this depend on whether the
>registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the gTLD?

There should be no reason to limit the number of shared gTLDs that a
registrar might choose to operate in.  If the choice of gTLDs it wishes
to register in is left to the registrar, then it will be important to
ensure that sufficient registrars do operate in each shared gTLD to
ensure effective competition.

As noted above, it should be exceptional that a private registrar is
accorded exclusive control over a gTLD.


>20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?

See the response to Question 9 above.


From:      "Gymer, Keith" <GymerK@hlcec1.agw.bt.co.uk>
To:        'NTIA - DNS COMMENTS' <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date:      8/14/97 7:55am
Subject:   BT Response to US Government RFC - Part 3 - Q21-28

>E. Trademark Issues
>21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks, common
>law trademarks, geographic indications, etc.), if any, should
>be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names?

All trade mark rights need to be respected, whether registered or common
law.  Geographic indications will also merit protection to the extent
legal rights are available.  However, achieving the appropriate level of
protection is not a straightforward matter.

Trade marks are inherently subject to national rights which are
generally specifically limited by territory and class of business.
Trade marks are not normally unique.  Frequently, several different
businesses may each have rights to use the same mark in the same
jurisdiction but for different goods or services.  Trade mark rights are
restricted to distinctive signs (words) which are not descriptive of the
relevant goods or services.  Thus generic words are not protectable as
trade marks.  Neither, in general, are geographic names.

In contrast, under existing gTLD policies: domain names do not need to
include any territorial or business identification; domain names must be
unique, so only one entity may ever have a particular domain name;
descriptive, generic and geographic names may all be registered.

In these circumstances it is easy to see how conflicts of rights can
arise and not so easy to see how the system might be modified to reduce
or avoid such conflicts.

However, as courts in many jurisdictions have already determined,
trademark law most certainly does apply to domain names and trade mark
rights can be infringed and diluted by use or registration of trade
marks in a domain name.

Consequently, the domain name system needs to be adapted to deal with
the problems this raises.  As explained in the introductory pre-amble,
there are principally two issues:

1. That the DNS should be structured to allow businesses which have
legitimate rights to use names and marks in the real world without
conflict to be able to use the same names in cyberspace also without
conflict and without discrimination.
2. That  trade mark owners are entitled to prevent those who have no
such legitimate rights from misappropriating their names and marks in
domain names.

To deal with the first of these issues the logical solution is to import
relevant features of trade mark law such as territorial and business
restrictions to the extent required.  In the case of territorial
limitation, it would seem appropriate to encourage greater use of the
ISO3166 nTLDs.  For business distinctions, it might seem logical to
construct a system using distinctions such as SIC (Standard Industrial
Classification) or existing trade mark classes as a basis for industry
specific gTLDs.  However, the former is probably too general and the
latter includes many different businesses in each class.  A more
flexible and practical classification may come from consolidation of
Yellow Pages categories.  Thus one could envisage introducing an
international system of business-specific gTLDs (and SLDs under ISO3166
nTLDs) familiar to users world-wide and based on Yellow Pages!  However,
coupled with intelligent browser software the potential exists to use
plain numeric gTLDs, each associated with a particular business, which
the browser would then convert  into the appropriate language for users
in different countries.  Thus a gTLD code .1234 might be displayed on a
browser as the category for [automobile] businesses in the US, [cars] in
the UK and [voitures] in France.

To enable effective protection of trade mark rights, as noted in the
preamble, the key is the establishment of an open and independent
fast-track dispute resolution procedure.  In this respect the ACP model
developed by the IAHC is promising. However,  BT is concerned that it
may be too restricted in its application unless any party with
registrations in more than one country is able to  make use of it.


>22. Should some process of preliminary review of an application
>for registration of a domain name be required, before
>allocation, to determine if it conflicts with a trademark, a
>trade name, a geographic indication, etc.? If so, what
>standards should be used? Who should conduct the preliminary
>review? If a conflict is found, what should be done, e.g.,
>domain name applicant and/or trademark owner notified of the
>conflict? Automatic referral to dispute settlement?

It would be preferable, as we have previously indicated, for potential
conflicts to be resolved before a domain name registration is allocated
or used.

However, in the case of unstructured gTLDs, it is clearly impractical to
undertake comprehensive world-wide checks for any possible conflicts
internationally.  Unfortunately, most trade mark registers are not
accessible on-line and the detailed databases which would be needed to
provide a reasonable degree of confidence in any international checking
procedure simply do not exist at present.

In these circumstances, again, the logical path to reduce the potential
for conflicts is to incorporate more effective territorial and business
distinction in the structure of the DNS, and to provide effective
challenge procedures (similar  to conventional opposition procedures in
trade mark law) to allow rights holders to challenge domain name
registrations which may conflict with those rights.  The IAHC model
provides a good basis for developing an appropriate challenge procedure.

Additionally, it would help to educate users to consider and respect
trade mark rights when selecting a domain name.  It is also essential
that any DNS administration should have policies which actively
discourage "cybersquatting" and trade mark piracy.  At its simplest
level this must mean that applicants with no demonstrable rights to a
name will not be able to retain that name in the face of a challenge
from a party which does have such rights.  This is not to say that the
policy should then automatically re-allocate the disputed name to the
challenger.  Indeed, where more than one party may have demonstrable
rights it is always going to be considered inequitable by one or other
for a policy to attempt to choose between parties who each have a
legitimate claim.   This is another reason which again suggests there is
a need to consider a more sophisticated allocation policy than
First-come, Only-served or re-allocation to the first challenger.  This
issue needs further review.  For example, a policy which mandated that
disputed names would not be delegated and which encouraged parties to
select distinctive variants on the name in dispute might be more
appropriate if the DNS is to be able to cope with the anticipated
problems from the increasing scale of demand.  Alternatively, a scheme
which had a resolution procedure whereby any parties with legitimate
claims could share a disputed domain name (subject perhaps to payment of
premium fees to discourage mere hangers-on) might also be practical for
new domains.  Again we believe more radical solutions to the allocation
of names are required, beyond merely adding new gTLDs, to maintain the
utility of the DNS.

In ISO3166 nTLDs, where it is logically possible to make a presumption
that the jurisdiction of the relevant nation will prevail, it would seem
potentially practicable to have the applicant (or registrar) carry out a
check of registered trade mark rights in that jurisdiction (assuming the
relevant Trade Mark Register is readily accessible electronically).  An
applicant would then be on-notice of potentially conflicting rights and
a registry might set its policies to require sufficient distinctive
structure to distinguish names where conflicts might otherwise arise.
So, for example, GUARDIAN Insurance might be distinguished from GUARDIAN
Newspapers in the UK  by business class: GUARDIAN.ins.uk
GUARDIAN.news.uk.  Again, the principle is to add logical structure to
remove the potential for conflicts. 


>23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should
>trademark rights be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain
>names? What entity(ies), if any, should resolve disputes? Are
>national courts the only appropriate forum for such disputes?
>Specifically, is there a role for national/international
>governmental/nongovernmental organizations?

As noted above, preferably, disputes should be resolved voluntarily by
the parties.  Domain name policies should be structured to facilitate
and encourage this.

National Courts will always provide the definitive judgments in trade
mark conflicts.  Administrative DNS procedures should be directed at
minimising the need for recourse to the Courts, but must ultimately
always leave it open for trade mark disputes to be subject to formal
jurisdiction in a Court of applicable law.  In this respect, the IAHC
ACP procedures are properly to be seen as "administrative" in that they
are to be restricted to making decisions on whether or not a disputed
domain name should be registered.  BT supports the WIPO role in the
administration of such procedures and considers that it is appropriate
in the international context of gTLD administration that a specialist
body such as WIPO should be involved in setting up a dispute resolution
system which is independent of the registrars.  This is a far more
acceptable system than that practised by NSI where decisions are made in
secret by the registrar itself.


>24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented? What
>information resources (e.g. databases of registered domain
>names, registered trademarks, trade names) could help reduce
>potential conflicts? If there should be a database(s), who
>should create the database(s)? How should such a database(s) be
>used?

As noted in the responses to previous questions, in order to best
prevent trade mark conflicts we believe a more radical revision of the
DNS structure is required in combination with policies which are
directed at encouraging constructive solutions by agreement between
disputants.

Whilst it would obviously be helpful to have additional database
resources (such as, for example, provided by the Directory Corporation's
initiatives at http://www.trademark.org and http://www.dir.org ).  It
would also be helpful for all national trade mark offices to make
available their databases in electronic form for convenient access.

However, the flexibility of the DNS  means that the DNS could provide a
very effective directory function itself without the need for separate
services simply by incorporation of appropriate structure into domains,
for example, by adapting the Yellow Pages categories as we have
suggested in the answer to Question 21 above. It has been argued that
the existing "internet community" with its anarchic preferences would
not accept the introduction of the more formal structure required to
achieve such solutions.  It is submitted that it is of far greater
interest for the majority of users and businesses yet to come onto the
internet that a logical and stable structure should exist to facilitate
commerce and communication and ease of use.  The old simplicity may be
attractive but a more sophisticated system is essential as the internet
matures into a global medium for use by all.


>25. Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate
>that they have a basis for requesting a particular domain name?
>If so, what information should be supplied? Who should evaluate
>the information? On the basis of what criteria?

As previously noted, a significant problem with almost all existing
domain name registries is the inadequacy and inaccuracy of information
available on the applicants for and registrants of domain names.  This
severely hampers legitimate rights owners when seeking to track down or
investigate infringements, not just of trade marks in domain names but
also of businesses infringing copyright or otherwise acting illicitly
from a site.

Both for gTLDs and ISO3166 nTLDs it is very important that applicants
should be required to give adequate contact details such as would be
required for a trade mark application to enable the holder of  a domain
name to be identified and tracked down.

The template produced for this purpose by the IAHC/iPOC (see
http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/core-mou.htm at Appendix C) is exemplary in
this respect.  BT strongly believes all registries should require such
information from domain name applicants and that domain  names should be
subject to cancellation if critical details identifying the domain name
owner and his contact details are falsified.  This requirement to
provide such information would act to discourage abuses such as
cybersquatting.

Critical details include:
 -Identity and contact details for applicant  and basis for claim to
requested name
 -Country of establishment
 -Name and address of agent for service of legal process
 -Warranty of bona fide intention to use and identification of purpose
of use 
 -Warranty that name requested does not infringe third party rights
 -Submission to appropriate jurisdiction.

Registrars should be responsible for ensuring all the required
information is provided and registries should not issue domain names if
any critical information is missing.  Provision of false information
must carry the potential penalty of cancellation of the domain name.


>26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of
>registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark
>disputes?

Simply adding additional gTLDs without qualification will inevitably
multiply the problems and expense for trade mark owners in policing and
in pre-emptively registering their marks in each new gTLD.  So long as
there is a lack of adequate distinction between the gTLDs, then each new
gTLD will provide a further opportunity for cyber-pirates to
misappropriate valuable trademarks and businesses will consider it
necessary to prevent dilution by registering their important marks in
the new domains as well as the existing ones.  In the case of the new
gTLDs presently proposed by IAHC/iPOC, for example, this will inevitably
mean that businesses who might already have THEIRMARK.com will also feel
obliged to try to register THEIRMARK.web, THEIRMARK.info etc. as these
gTLDs do not adequately allow businesses with the same marks to be
distinguished.


>27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for
>a single domain name, are there any technological solutions?

As previously noted, we consider that adding more specific structure to
domain names would significantly relieve the potential for conflict over
a single domain name.  Combined with technological solutions in the form
of intelligent browser software, as also suggested above, we believe
such changes in policy need not result in users having to remember
longer names, but could still allow selection by a single mark.  e.g.
typing "apple" might then take the user to Apple Computers or Apple
Records depending on the business class selected by the user.


>28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?

See the response to Question 9 above.


###
Number: 270
From:      Sonny Ferguson <sonny@netgrp.net>
To:        "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date:      8/14/97 5:47pm
Subject:   DOMAIN NAME CONFLICT

Please consider that some corporate attorneys are claiming rights to
domain names because of a single word or common name being similar... i.e.
I registered ferguson.com about 21 months ago.  Our company was founded in
1953 as William V. Ferguson Company and changed in early 70's to The
Ferguson Company. We have maintain the ferguson.com site since registering
the name. 

Several weeks ago, a Washington law firm demanded that we release the
domain to their client Ferguson Enterprises claiming that we infringed on
their trademark [Ferguson Enterprises]. We obviously do not, and do not
intend, to infringe on their trademark. 

But in checking, I found multiple domain names registered to Ferguson
Enterprises - NONE of which were active - STRICTLY accumulating names...
fei-inter.com, the-stockmarket.com, plumbsource.com, ferginc.com

Large corporations with large law firms should not be able to threaten
existing domain name strictly as an attempt to force existing domains into
their holdings. 

It is interesting that the single court decided dispute is in UK and the
court ruled in favor of the earliest registered site. 

I believe that the internic policy that they remove the domain until the
parties settle the dispute only give strength to those disputing legally
registered domain sites and creates an even larger problem. 

Thanks for the opportunity to respond to the public comment period. 

Sonny Ferguson
President - Ferguson Company
Knoxville, TN


###
Number: 271
From:      Wehbe Roger F. <wehberf@pbac.edu>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/14/97 1:44pm
Subject:   Domain Names

Drop Internic as sole provider.
Let Courts settle out disputes over domain names.


###
Number: 272
From:      Shirley MacPherson <smac@followme.com>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/14/97 7:47pm
Subject:   Re: Name Space

I don't really understand the problem of name space on the internet. 
I want it to remain out of the hands of governments and vested interest
groups.  Everyone should have the right to make his/her opinions known. 

Because large corporations own the press and TV, ordinary people are no
longer able to express opinions that do not coincide with corporate
thought.  We are censored.  Stories are deliberately ignored.  Important
stories are not broadcast.  Internet is the only public forum that 
expresses all opinions.

As long as the net follows the same laws on libel and decency as other, 
publications, there should be no problem.
-- 
Yours truly,
Shirley MacPherson
smac@followme.com



###
Number: 273
From:      Jon Postel <postel@isi.edu>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/14/97 6:45pm
Subject:   Domain Name Comments


TO: dns@ntia.doc.gov

Patrice Washington,
Office of Public Affairs,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA),
Room 4898, 
14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20230.

( via Electronic Mail)


FROM: postel@isi.edu

Jon Postel
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
c/o USC - ISI, Suite 1001
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695

Talk:  +1-310-822-1511
Fax:   +1-310-823-6714
EMail: IANA@ISI.EDU


Discussion:

Your request for public comments on the domain name system comes in
the context of the Internet community process to evolve the system to
a more open and competitive model.  The key committee work in this
process was done by a group called the IAHC.

The IAHC process was as open and as available for public participation
as the organizers and participants knew how to make it.  Perhaps there
were important constituencies that were somehow not aware of the
process or slow to realize the significance of the activity.

I believe the IAHC has provided a tremendous public service under
difficult conditions. I am confident that the members of this
committee do not expect to personally gain from the system they have
proposed.

It may be that the IAHC proposal needs to be evolved and expanded to
address the concerns of additional parties, however i do believe that
the work done so far is quite general.

The particulars of the IAHC plan should be flexible, for example, the
exact membership (and member selection procedures) of the Policy
Oversight Committee (POC) may need to be revised, and the exact
choices (and number) of the new gTLDs may need to be revisited.

I firmly believe that moving forward with the IHAC plan (in the
general sense) is in the best interest of the Internet community,
including the users, business, and the technical operation of the
system.

Comments on the questions:

     A. Appropriate Principles

     The Government seeks comment on the principles by which it
     should evaluate proposals for the registration and
     administration of Internet domain names. Are the following
     principles appropriate?  Are they complete? If not, how should
     they be revised? How might such principles best be fostered?

These principles are good.  The role of government should be to foster
a fair system of self governance for the Internet that embraces open
competition where possible on a international scale.

     a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name
     registration system should be encouraged.  Conflicting
     domains, systems, and registries should not be permitted to
     jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet, however. The
     addressing scheme should not prevent any user from connecting
     to any other site.

Good.  Note that competition should be based on price and service and
not on who has the "best" gTLD.  Competition should involved not only
the original choice of registrar, but also the continuing use of a
registrar; thus, names must be portable.

     b. The private sector, with input from governments, should
     develop stable, consensus-based self-governing mechanisms for
     domain name registration and management that adequately
     defines responsibilities and maintains accountability.

Good.  And should be based on careful evolution from the existing
mechanisms, practices, and procedures.  Continued stable operation for
the existing users is critical. Evolution not revolution.  

     c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the
     inherently global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve
     as necessary over time.

Good.  The international nature of the Internet is very important to
keep in mind.

     d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should
     be open, robust, efficient, and fair.

Good.

     e. The overall policy framework as well as name allocation and
     management mechanisms should promote prompt, fair, and
     efficient resolution of conflicts, including conflicts over
     proprietary rights.

Good.  Of course it would help if the system of recognizing
proprietary rights on an international basis were more coherent.

     f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent
     consideration of these issues permits.

Good.  Rapid action is need to eliminate the current temporary
unusual situation of a monopoly operation.

     B. General/Organizational Framework Issues

     1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain
     name registration systems?

The current system is fairly simple to use and provides fast service
entirely through electronic communications (in the vast majority of
cases).  The big disadvantage is that there is a single company in a
dominant role (in essence a monopoly), such that there is no market
driven check on service quality or price competition.

     2. How might current domain name systems be improved?

By adding a competitive element to the business of registration.
There should be multiple companies in the business of handling
customer requests for registration.  These companies should all have
access to the full set of gTLDs, so that the competition is based on
service performance and price, rather than any "ownership" of the more
desirable gTLD.

     3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should
     current domain name systems be administered? What should the
     makeup of such an entity be?

The current management by the IANA should be evolved so that the IANA
is a free standing independent entity funded by the community,
particularly those other entities that use its services.  This free
standing IANA should be an institution in the sense that in is managed
by a committee or board with procedures for refreshing the membership
of the board as needed and with the responsibility of selecting the
executive an staff to perform the IANA task.  Thus this future IANA
should not depend on any particular individuals.

It is possible that an intermediate step would be to change the IANA
from its current position as a task at a research institute at a
university to a separate corporate entity managed by the university
with a council of advisors drawn for key Internet constituencies.

     4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as
     models for deciding on domain name registration systems (e.g.,
     network numbering plan, standard-setting processes, spectrum
     allocation)? Are there private/public sector administered
     models or regimes that can be used for domain name
     registration (e.g., network numbering plan, standard setting
     processes, or spectrum allocation processes)? What is the
     proper role of national or international
     governmental/non-governmental organizations, if any, in
     national and international domain name registration systems?

There are two distinct ideas here: the domain names, and the Internet
addresses (32-bit numbers).

The domain names are a structured set of names but not limited in
principle.  These are not a scarce resource.

The Internet addresses (32-bit numbers) are by definition a limited
and increasingly scarce resource.  The management of these addresses
in somewhat similar to the allocation of telephone area codes or radio
frequency spectrum.

These are both international in scope and generally speaking (except
for the country code TLDs) not generally amenable to management at
the national level.  Procedures that work on the international scale
are required.

     5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be
     retired from circulation? Should geographic or country codes
     (e.g., .US) be required? If so, what should happen to the .com
     registry? Are gTLD management issues separable from questions
     about International Standards Organization (ISO) country code
     domains?

It is completely impractical to have names that are in wide spread use
stop working.  The existing gTLDs must continue in service, to do
otherwise would have great impact on the existing users of the
Internet and seriously impact the stability of the Internet as view by
the business community.

The gTLD management issues can be separated from the management of the
country code domains.  Of course, any good ideas, procedures, or
practices should be shared both ways, but they can be treated as
different classes of TLDs and can develop in different ways.

     6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain
     name registration issues? Are there any issues concerning the
     relationship of registrars and gTLDs with root servers?

The problem is not technical in nature but rather a social, political,
business issue.  The solution is to change the business model to
provide competition.  There are no technical roadblocks to
accomplishing this.

There is one technical aspect that needs to be tested - the operation
of a central database to be shared among the multiple companies
providing registration services.  This is not a new concept but it
should be proven out before existing service are required to convert
to this model.

There are no technical problem with the relationship of the root
servers and the gTLD servers.  Additional gTLD servers can be
introduced with no changes to the existing software.

The operation of the root servers must be separated from the operation
of the gTLD servers.  This means the management control should be
separated to eliminate any real or perceived conflict of interest, and
the set of actual machines should be separated for robustness of
operation.

     7. How can we ensure the scalability of the domain name system
     name and address spaces as well as ensure that root servers
     continue to interoperate and coordinate?

The scalability of the DNS depends on structure.  The more structure -
that is hierarchy - that can be used in the system the more it can
scale.  My opinion is that there should be at most about 200 gTLDs
(and there are about 200 country code domains).  Thus the root servers
would handle about 400 TLDs total.  This is quite reasonable
technically.

The address space (that is the IP 32-bit numeric addresses) must be
allocated in a very conservative manner since it is a fixed resource.
The best scaling (for routing) is to use CIDR blocks effectively.

     8. How should the transition to any new systems be
     accomplished?

Carefully.  Some new gTLDS should be created and some new companies
should start registering users with names in these new gTLDs using a
shared database.  This new system should begin operation as soon as
possible to provide a period of proven service before the end of the
current agreement with Network Solutions.  Once the new model of
operation is proven successful, then the existing gTLDs should be
added to the shared database and all the registration companies should
be able to register customers under any of the gTLDs (new and old).
NSI certainly is welcome to participate in both phases of this plan.

     9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this
     area?

Not at this time.

     C. Creation of New gTLDs

New gTLDs should be created, initially a limited number (say 20) and a
few (say 5) added each year until the total reaches about 200.

     10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy
     considerations that constrain the total number of different
     gTLDs that can be created?

There are no technical issues that limit the number of gTLDs to less
than a million.  There may be practical and policy reasons to strongly
limit the number of gTLDs to provide stability and minimize user confusion.

     11. Should additional gTLDs be created?

Yes, to provide diversity, and access to simple domain names by the
holders of not-so-strong trademarks.

     12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
     guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated with
     increasing the number of gTLDs?

There are no technical problems with increasing the number of gTLDs,
the scalability of the DNS system in technical terms is not an issue.
There may be good business and policy reasons to limit the number of
gTLDs and the number of new gTLDs introduced per year.  One of the key
concerns is stability of the system.  It may be difficult for
businesses and end users of the Internet to cope with an explosion in
the number of gTLDs.

     13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about
     ISO country code domains?

Yes. There need be no technical or policy connection between the ways
in which these are managed.  A country code domain may be managed
in was that are responsive to the culture of the country and this may
vary substantially from country to country. Of course, good ideas
about procedures and technology to provide robust and reliable service
should be shared between the gTLDs and the country code domains.

     14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in
     this area?

Not at this time.

     D. Policies for Registries

     15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a
     particular gTLD?  Are there any technical limitations on using
     shared registries for some or all gTLDs? Can exclusive and
     non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?

A key issue is portability.  If the customer has registers a domain
name with one registration service and subsequently decides that he
would rather use a different registration service (for whatever
reason, for example, billing problems, service choices) the customer
wants to keep the same domain name.  This can be done under the IAHC
shared registries model.  It can not be done if a registrar has
exclusive control over a particular gTLD.  Technical there could be
some d exclusive gTLDs and some non-exclusive gTLDs simultaneously.
However, i can not see any social, political, or business reason to
have such a situation except during a brief transition period, and it
could be very confusing to the customers.

     16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name
     registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars
     have? Who will determine these and how?

There should be some minimum business and technical requirements to
enter the registration service business.  This should be determined by
a reasonably representative body with business and technical
experience.  The applications should be evaluated against the criteria
by an independent third party such as an auditing company.

     17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of
     domain name registrars?

There may ultimately be technical limitation of the access to the
shared database, but this type of technology limit changes as the
underlying technology improves.  There are not likely to be any
practical limits with this.

     18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about
     the name space raised by increasing the number of domain name
     registrars?

There are no technical problems to increasing the number of registrars ???

     19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a
     given registrar can administer? Does this depend on whether
     the registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the
     gTLD?

     20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in
     this area?

     E. Trademark Issues

The trademark situation is very complicated with respect to domain
names since the trademark situation itself is very complicated.  The
basic facts are that trademarks are not unique, and that domain names
must be unique.  The reason there is so much trouble about using
trademarks in domain names is that the trademark system is a mess.

Trademarks are not unique:  There is no place to register a universal
world wide trademark.  There are no globally unique trademarks.  There
are "strong" trademarks, these are trademarks that companies that own
them defend very vigorously in all venues and for all usages (example:
"Coca-Cola").

However, there are many more not-so-strong trademarks that are used in
one or only a few counties (or within the United States in one or only
a few states), or used in a particular industry sector (such as
hardware or food).  For example, ACME might be the trademark of a
hardware company, and at the same time be the trademark of a coffee
producer.  This is allowed because the consumer is unlikely to confuse
the ACME hammers and saws with a beverage.  However, there can only be
one ACME.COM since domain names must be unique.  If the hardware
company registers ACME.COM first then the coffee company can't have
that name and may feel it has been prevented from using its properly
trademarked name as its Internet identity.

Introducing more generic top level domains may allow more of the
companies with not-so-strong trademarks to have access to using their
"obvious" name as a domain name under one generic top level domain or
another.  There are many more small companies with not-so-strong
trademarks than there are big companies with strong trademarks.

     21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks, common
     law trademarks, geographic indications, etc.), if any, should
     be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names?

This is up to the trademark lawyers and the courts to decide.

     22. Should some process of preliminary review of an
     application for registration of a domain name be required,
     before allocation, to determine if it conflicts with a
     trademark, a trade name, a geographic indication, etc.? If so,
     what standards should be used? Who should conduct the
     preliminary review? If a conflict is found, what should be
     done, e.g., domain name applicant and/or trademark owner
     notified of the conflict? Automatic referral to dispute
     settlement?

And how long should it take?  The domain name registration process has
been designed so that it could be completely automated and in
principle be completed in minutes.  How much of the "preliminary
review", and "determination of conflicts" can be done in a few
minutes?

     23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should
     trademark rights be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain
     names? What entity(ies), if any, should resolve disputes? Are
     national courts the only appropriate forum for such disputes?
     Specifically, is there a role for national/international
     governmental/nongovernmental organizations?

This looks like a role for the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO).

     24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented? What
     information resources (e.g.  databases of registered domain
     names, registered trademarks, trade names) could help reduce
     potential conflicts? If there should be a database(s), who
     should create the database(s)? How should such a database(s)
     be used?

If there were a single agreed on list of unique trademarks
and their owners, such checking could be easily performed by an
automated process.  So far, no such list exists, it is the
responsibility of the trademark world (not the Internet) to create
such a list.  The closest approach to such a list is managed by the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under an agreement
called the "Madrid Convention".  However, to date several economically
important countries (including the United States and Japan) have not
signed this agreement.

     25. Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate
     that they have a basis for requesting a particular domain
     name? If so, what information should be supplied? Who should
     evaluate the information? On the basis of what criteria?

How would such a process be automated?  How would cheating be detected?

     26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of
     registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark
     disputes?

It depends on how it is handled.  If there is a common dispute
resolution procedure and organization, the number of registrars should
not have any significant impact on the cost of resolving disputes. If
there is a common list of strong trademarks that are not to be
registers except by their owners then even the number of gTLDs should
not be a significant factor in the cost of resolving disputes.

     27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights
     for a single domain name, are there any technological
     solutions?

No.  Two different people can't use the same domain name.

     28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in
     this area?

The key is to sort out and rationalize international trademark law,
which is not an easy or short term task, however, these problems will
not go away until it is done.

If the holders of strong trademarks want to have an easy way to
protect the use of their marks in the context of domain names they
need to give the domain name technologist the necessary information.
This necessary information is a list of the strong marks to be
protected world wide.  It is up to the trademark users to establish
this list.

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


 
###
Number: 274
From:      "Goldstein, Mitchell P." <mpgoldst@mwbb.com>
To:        'Commerce' <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date:      8/14/97 6:37pm
Subject:   Comments on Internet Domain Names


Hope this helps.

                        QUESTIONS/ANSWERS


B.   General/Organizational Framework Issues

1.  What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems? 

     Advantages:
          single registry easier to administer
          avoids conflicting domain names
          allows for networks to interconnect with a uniform system

     Disadvantages: 
          less competition means no reason to innovate
          more expensive than it needs to be


2.   How might current domain name systems be improved?

          more organizations requesting domain names under a uniform
system administered
          by an international, non-governmental organization
          more competition will yield faster registration and more
innovation
          agreements and treaties will insure that the system still allows
users to connect to
          any system and any site

3.  By what entity, entities, or types of entities should current domain
name systems be
     administered?  What should the makeup of such an entity be? 

     A nongovernmental organization (NGO) which includes all interests -
government,
     research, corporate, family, educational, etc. - should adminster the
domain name
     registration system.  It should be made up of representatives from
various organizations
     (e.g., the UN, educational institutions, industry).  It should not
have any official
     government representatives on it so that it does not become a
political entity. 

4.  Are there decision-making processes that can serve as models for
deciding on domain
     name registration systems (e.g., network numbering plan,
standard-setting processes,
     spectrum allocation)?  Are there private/public sector administered
models or regimes that
     can be used for domain name registration (e.g., network numbering
plan, standard setting
     processes, or spectrum allocation processes)?  What is the proper
role of national or
     international governmental/non-governmental organizations, if any, in
national and
     international domain name registration systems? 

     It should be administed on a first come, first served basis.  An NGO
can ensure that
     Internet remains private and still efficient.  Governments will only
make it political and
     then political and national fights will spill onto the Web. 

5.  Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be retired
from circulation?
     Should geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) be required?  If so,
what should happen to
     the .com registry?  Are gTLD management issues separable from
questions about
     International Standards Organization (ISO) country code domains? 

     Generic top level domains should be expanded 

          .com
          .fam (for family and personal domain names)
          .mil
          .gov
          .edu
          .org
          .net (for networks like Internet service providers and registries)

     The .com gTLD should further be expanded by industry:

          .tec - technology
          .man - manufacturing
          .fin - finance
          .con - consumer related
          .med - health care
          .ind - industrial
          .bus - business services
          .tel - telecommunications

     The result would be (domain name).(industry).com


     Countries should use mandatory geographic codes or .int
(international - reserved for
     organization. like multinational corporations and international
organizations). 

     .int will be more expensive because it will block out all similar
domain names with only
     country code (e.g., McDonalds.com.int would block out
McDonalds.com.us) 


8.  How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished? 

          give domain name owners one year to switch to new system. 
          during that year, the old name and the new expanded domain name
will work
          after that year, the old name will no longer exist




C.   Creation of New gTLDs

11.  Should additional gTLDs be created?

     See #5.

13.  Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
code domains? 

     Mandatory country codes will expand the availability of domain name
worldwide. 


D.   Policies for Registries 

15.  Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a particular
gTLD?  Are there any
     technical limitations on using shared registries for some or all
gTLDs?  Can exclusive and
     non-exclusive gTLDs coexist? 

     All registrars should have Joint control over gTLDs.  If a domain
name is available, any
     registry should be able to register it.


16.  Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars,
and what
     responsibilities should such registrars have?  Who will determine
these and how? 

     Domain name registrars would be required to maintain a database that
all can access to
     determine domain name availability and maintain interconnectivity. 
The requirements will
     be determined by NGO through global meetings open to everyone


17.  Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
registrars? 

     The number will be limited by what the market can bear.


18.  Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name
space raised by
     increasing the number of domain name registrars?

     Limitations - mil. gov. will be reserved






E.   Trademark Issues

21.  What trademark rights (e.g.,, registered trademarks, common law
trademarks, geographic
     indications, etc.), if any, should be protected on the Internet
vis-a-vis domain names? 

     Common law and registered trademarks and trade names should be
protected on the Net. 


22.  Should some process of preliminary review of an application for
registration of a domain
     name be required before allocation, to determine if it conflicts with
a trademark, a trade
     name, a geographic indication, etc.?  If so, what standards should be
used?  Who should
     conduct the preliminary review?  If a conflict is found, what should
be done, e.g., domain
     name applicant and/or trademark owner notified of the conflict? 
Automatic referral to
     dispute settlement? 

     Trademark owners should be responsible for seeking redress;
registrars should not make a
     determination.  Registrars would publish new domain names for a
30-day period before
     granting a domain name thereby giving others notice; then they can
decide whether to take
     action.  Also, any registry must agree to accept jurisdiction of all
national courts (e.g.,
     should accept injunctions issued). 
     Registries are not full of trademark lawyers and experts.  They
should leave
     determinations up to the current legal system.


23.  Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark rights
be protected on the
     Internet vis-a-vis domain names?  What entity(ies), if any, should
resolve disputes?  Are
     national courts the only appropriate forum for such disputes? 
Specifically, is there a role
     for national/international governmental/nongovernmental
organizations? 

     National courts should resolve trademark disputes on the Net like
they resolve trademark
     disputes in real space.  We could add provisions to (or create) an
international treaty. 


24.  How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented?  What
information resources could
     help reduce potential conflicts?  If there should be a database, who
should create the
     database?  How should such a database be used? 

     There should be a database paid for by all registries and maintained
by an NGO.  All
     registrars would have to open their registers to the NGO's database
to allow for
     preclearance searches and backup their registers on the large
database. 
     This would involve little or no government interference. 




25.  Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate that they
have a basis for
     requesting a particular domain name?  If so, what information should
be supplied?  Who
     should evaluate the information?  On the basis of what criteria? 

     Applicants should not have to prove that they have a basis for
registering name; impedes
     freedom and growth of Internet. 


26 How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars
affect the number
     and cost of resolving trademark disputes? 

     Increasing the number of gTLDs would increase cost of trademark
disputes and the
     number of suits; however the Net will be able to expand. 


27.  Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single
domain name, are there
     any technological solutions?

     Valid but conflicting trademark rights will be resolved by using
geographic or country
     codes.  Longer domain names and letting market place handle
conflicting rights will
     resolve the problems.  Expanded domain name levels should decrease
the problems. 


28.  Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?

     The main point to remember is to have as little government
involvement as possible and
     little opportuniry for a large company or a small company to hold up
development of Web
     sites through frivolous actions. 


Mitchell P. Goldstein
Staff Attorney

 


CC:        "Goldstein, Mitchell P." <mpgoldst@mwbb.com>


###
Number: 275
From:      "mare@hrc.wmin.ac.uk" <Mare.Tralla@violet.xs2.net>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/14/97 12:38pm
Subject:   Comments on Domain Names


PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES

(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)


     I Mare Tralla do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).

     The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS").  The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.

     pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries.  The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.

     The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.

Description of the name.space(tm) service:

     On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace).  All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries.  The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.

     Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge.  (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD).  IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".

     Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server.  During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name".  The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed.  All other account information, of course, remains
confidential.  The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications.  Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol.  The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.

Issues and Answers

     Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars.  Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.

     These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand.  Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.

     All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system.  As NSI admits:

"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced.  The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."

(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)

Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded.  The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.

     The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm.  Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names.  The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature.  The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.

     With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties.  However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.

     Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market.  Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).

     In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.

     The name.space(tm) system is a reality today.  The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .

     I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.

-------------------------------
Thursday, August 14, 1997 12:36:25 EDT
Mare Tralla

31 Jackman House
Watts Street
Wapping
London E1 9PU



###
Number: 276
From:      "incontinence@hotmail.com" <Leann.Wieand@violet.xs2.net>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/14/97 3:44pm
Subject:   Comments on Domain Names


PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES

(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)


     I Leann Wieand do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).

     The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS").  The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.

     pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries.  The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.

     The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.

Description of the name.space(tm) service:

     On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace).  All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries.  The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.

     Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge.  (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD).  IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".

     Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server.  During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name".  The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed.  All other account information, of course, remains
confidential.  The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications.  Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol.  The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.

Issues and Answers

     Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars.  Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.

     These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand.  Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.

     All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system.  As NSI admits:

"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced.  The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."

(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)

Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded.  The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.

     The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm.  Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names.  The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature.  The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.

     With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties.  However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.

     Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market.  Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).

     In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.

     The name.space(tm) system is a reality today.  The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .

     I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.

-------------------------------
Thursday, August 14, 1997 15:42:42 EDT
Leann Wieand



###
Number: 277
From:      "mylikoski@hotmail.com" <Maria.Ylikoski@violet.xs2.net>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/14/97 9:22am
Subject:   Comments on Domain Names


PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES

(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)


     I Maria Ylikoski do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).

     The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS").  The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.

     pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries.  The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.

     The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.

Description of the name.space(tm) service:

     On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace).  All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries.  The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.

     Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge.  (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD).  IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".

     Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server.  During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name".  The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed.  All other account information, of course, remains
confidential.  The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications.  Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol.  The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.

Issues and Answers

     Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars.  Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.

     These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand.  Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.

     All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system.  As NSI admits:

"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced.  The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."

(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)

Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded.  The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.

     The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm.  Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names.  The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature.  The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.

     With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties.  However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.

     Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market.  Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).

     In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.

     The name.space(tm) system is a reality today.  The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .

     I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.

-------------------------------
Thursday, August 14, 1997 09:13:37 EDT
Maria Ylikoski

###
Number: 278
From:     bob@ct1.nai.net <Matt Anderson@zero.tolerance.org>
To:  NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:     8/14/97 12:07am
Subject:  Comments on Domain Names


PETITION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE
NAME.SPACE(tm) SYSTEM OF GLOBAL DIRECTORY SERVICES

(The New Paradigm for the Old DNS)


     I Matt Anderson do hereby support the design of the expanded toplevel
Internet namespace which is currently operated by pgMedia, Inc.'s
name.space(tm) service, located on the internet at
http://namespace.pgmedia.net (or http://name.space).

     The paradigm implemented by name.space(tm) is the most pro-competitive,
democratic and open system proposed so far with respect to opening up the
administration and operation of the Domain-Name-System ("DNS").  The
structure advocated by name.space(tm) removes the artificial barriers to
entry that exist today as a result of the monopolistic control over the
domain name registration market exerted by Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
The name.space(tm) paradigm incorporates a fair, competitive structure
which encourages investment and innovation by companies wishing to compete
in the provision of this service which is essential to the operation and
continued growth of the Internet.

     pgMedia, Inc. has created, through substantial private investment in
research and development, its name.space(tm) registry administered by
thirteen toplevel root-directory servers located in five countries.  The
name.space(tm) registry uses innovative and creative techniques which bring
the old DNS out of the Cold War and into The 90'S.

     The name.space(tm) system decentralizes the administration of DNS and
enables open competition in the Public Domain Toplevel Namespace without
regulation by any governments or quasi-governmental authority, nor does it
require the enactment of new laws or regulations.

Description of the name.space(tm) service:

     On the name.space(tm) system, name registrations are taken by registrars
who administer client accounts under the given toplevel name categories
(publicly shared toplevel namespace).  All registrars must register their
digital ID with a trusted third party/parties which authenticates and
authorizes them to function as registries.  The application process is
administered by an independent company, similar to the process used by
banks when authorizing merchant credit-card accounts, and the operation of
secure servers used in commercial transactions on the Internet today.

     Registries update the database on demand based on the availability of a
given name address using the IDSD system (IDSD=Integral Database
Synchronizer Daemon), a secure protocol developed by pgMedia which is
available, without limitation or charge.  (A detailed description of the
IDSD protocol can be found at http://namespace.xs2.net/IDSD).  IDSD makes
it technically feasible for ALL registries to share the toplevel namespace
equally, eliminating any technical justification for "exclusive" control
over any given toplevel name by a single registry, such as NSI currently
enjoys with ".com".

     Registration is accomplished instantaneously through an interactive,
form-based interface on the World Wide Web with online payment options via
a secure server.  During the registration process, a registrant establishes
an account, a contact "handle" and, of course its "name".  The registrant
has the option to choose whether or not its personal contact information
will be publicly listed.  All other account information, of course, remains
confidential.  The registrant may then establish a Portable Address Record,
over which it has full administrative access on the name.space nameservers.
This service allows a registrant to change service providers and easily
take its "name" to a new host without delay or complications.  Upon
completion of the registration process by the registrant, the
name.space(tm) system immediately processes the information and creates the
second level entry into the toplevel database, which is then distributed to
all other root-servers via the IDSD protocol.  The registration process and
the creation of Portable Address Records are instantaneous, and function on
the Internet within minutes, not days or weeks as in the current system.

Issues and Answers

     Under the name.space(tm) paradigm, the toplevel namespace functions as a
Global Directory Service and would be managed within the competitive
marketplace in the general interest of the Internet public through the
various independent registrars.  Each generic TLD ("gTLD") is administered
by all registrars who wish to offer services thereunder with no exclusive
claim of ownership of any toplevel name by any individual, corporation or
government, subject to existing intellectual property law.

     These gTLDs may be added or removed based on public demand.  Also, gTLDs
may include languages other than English, limited only to the US ASCII
character set, the English alphabet plus 10 digits and the hyphen for a
total of 37 characters.

     All leading authorities are in agreement that there is no limit to the
number of possible toplevel names, as there is no limit to the number of
root directories under the UNIX file system.  As NSI admits:

"DNS is highly scaleable. There is no technical limit to the number of new
top-level names that could be introduced.  The original designer of DNS,
Paul Mockapetris, has verified the scalability of DNS."

(http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/jun97/MYTHS4.html)

Thus, any claim that expanding the toplevel namespace is technically not
feasible is simply unfounded.  The proponents of such claims seem to be
guided by a desire to limit the potential market so as to create an
artificial scarcity which translate into higher prices and profits.

     The use of arbitrarily defined and limited categories such as ".com" has
forced many registrants to engage in verbal gymnastics, and to rely on
unwieldy content-based search engines - this would be obviated by the full
implementation of the name.space(tm) paradigm.  Thus, for example,
Acme.computers and Acme.plumbing could both have a presence on the Internet
without having to artificially pervert their names.  The "byte-counter
mentality," which has plagued us with the dreaded "Millennium Bug," was
responsible for the initial constraints on the toplevel domain name
nomenclature.  The name.space(tm) system simply recognizes that such
limitations have long since been eliminated and are wholly artificial.

     With respect to intellectual property issues, no regulatory framework can
assure the complete protection of holders of such rights against
infringement by unauthorized parties.  However, the potential for such
infringement, which exists in all published media, should not be used as a
basis to limit the free speech rights of the vast majority of law abiding
users of the Internet, while protecting artificial monopolies.
Furthermore, it is wholly inappropriate to empower any registrar to
adjudicate the rights of holders of intellectual property, for that role
must ultimatly reside with the courts.

     Fees for registration services should be dictated by the market.  Waiver
of fees and discounts should be considered for qualifying educational and
non-profit organizations, as well as a selection of totally free categories
(such as the Free.Zone provided currently by name.space*).

     In conclusion, name.space(tm) has developed and implemented a new paradigm
for the Global Directory Services on the Internet by bringing the function
of the old DNS, a legacy of the Cold War, into sync with the current
dynamic of the public, global, civilian and commercial Internet.

     The name.space(tm) system is a reality today.  The name.space(tm)
automated registry has been fully functional for nearly one year now and
has proven its reliability and desirability as evidenced by the thousands
of users who have been using the name.space(tm) servers to resolve their
DNS and those who have registered their names in name.space(tm) .

     I fully endorse and support the endeavors of pgMedia, Inc. and the
name.space(tm) system and highly recommend that the U.S. Department of
Commerce recommend and concur in its full implementation on the Internet.

-------------------------------
Thursday, August 14, 1997 00:05:46 EDT
Matt Anderson