08-15-97 Electronic Filings on Internet Domain Names

###
Number: 279
From:      steve <usdh@mail.ccnet.com>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/15/97 7:50pm
Subject:   BRIEF: DNS, Language, and the Constitution, by Dr. S.J. Page

Before the

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

In Re:  Constitutional, Economic, and Social Relevance of a             )
        Scalable, Open Free Market Approach to Implementing             )
        Internet's Domain Name System (DNS)                             )
        for Maximum Value to Present and Future Internet Users          )

Brief of Stephen J. Page

1. This brief is submitted for information purposes to accompany actionable
matters before the U.S. Department of Commerce' National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA), which is evaluating the impact of
changing the Domain Name System (DNS) of the Internet from a controlled
monopoly to other forms of governance. The purpose is to further the
momentum behind the movement to let the market decide what is useful,
therefore valued when pertaining to Domain Name System (DNS) Top Level
Domains (TLDs).

2. This brief indirectly relates to and any or all of the following
agencies: U.S. Department of State, Federal Communications Commission,
Register of Copyrights, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where the
agencies individually or collectively are being requested to bar the IAHC's
gTLD-MOU instrument from becoming a self-enacting international
intergovernmental agreement by virtue of its submission to and circulation
by the International Telecommunication Union.

3. Qualifications of the Petitioner.  He possesses Bachelor of Science
degrees in Combined Sciences (physical, biological, and social sciences),
and Physiological Optics (the study of how human beings' brains process
light energy), Doctorate in Optometry, and a Masters degree in Business
Administration.  He was a Distinguished Military Graduate and George C.
Marshall (citizen/soldier) Award Winner prior to serving as a Commissioned
Officer in the Regular Army of the United States.  He served as Assistant
Chief, Optometry Section, Landstuhl Army Medical Center, Landstuhl,
Germany.  In 1992 he submitted a Proposal for an Intelligent Health
Delivery System to the National Institutes of Standards and Technology
Advanced Technology Program.  In 1993 he submitted a Proposal for Network
Architecture to the Department of Defense' Advanced Research Projects
Agency, (DARPA), which was funded at the time of funding project for
initial commercialization of the Internet, CommerceNet. (referenced below).
His specific focus has been on network architecture and design of
telecommunications data networks, with an emphasis on the role of human
(biological) network architectures and their resulting impacts on the
future of telecommunications and economics, the subject of electronic
commerce.  Below, he includes elements of a Scientific Proof in Support of
the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights to support the
concepts of an open, free market for Domain Name Services (DNS) which will,
in turn, flexibly support various economic models for the emerging
electronic commercial Internet activity.

I.  The Constitution of the United States is the fundamental document which
places protecting the inalienable rights of individuals as the highest
value which its governing bodies can achieve.

4.      Historically, benevolent governmental institutions have been
developed which place at the center of their existence, a recognition of
certain inalienable rights of individuals.  Fundamentally, the right to
pursue happiness is one such right, that is recognized to be "above all
meddling" by any governmental structure created by mankind.  Another such
right is the right to congregate freely.  Another such right is the right
to inform others, or freedom of the press.  The most important right, upon
which happiness is based, is the fundamental right to speak freely.  It is
these principles of rights and freedoms which form the core of the
Constitution of the United States, through the formal Bill of Rights, as
well as the core of most other benevolent, democratic governments in the
world.

5.      The essence of these governments is the focus on the protection of
individual rights.  Without understanding the cognitive science or
knowledge of biological networks, the Framers of the Constitution
understood the essence of human beings is their desire to be free and to
puruse happiness. As creatures with an physical energy-core, freedom means
being free to exchange energy with others.  This energy exchange can take
many forms, emotional energy (anger, fear...), sexual energy (kissing,
intercourse...), physical energy (heat, movement...), intellectual energy,
(ideas, thoughts, and language...).  The framers recognized that there was
no place for government meddling in the personal affairs and exchange of
energy between individuals, especially when it related to language, a
freedom formally protected under the First Amendment.

5.      With respect to the Internet, the absence of an easy method for
locating others, built upon the structured use of language as a program for
organizing information, has been the primary impediment to the development
of an electronic transaction-based economy.   Presently, Internet
information is popularly exchanged via the World Wide Web using a
visually-oriented browser, typically organized in a uni-directional manner
where the user 'pulls' the information toward them by 'clicking' on icons
which represent information organized at a particular 'site' called a 'web
page'.

II. DNS is Structured Like a Tree Root (with unlimited ability to extend
from the central root into smaller and smaller branches, over time.)

6.      Today's DNS problem is fundamentally due to the absence of a
scalable, common vocabulary (or lexicon of meaningful words) which can be
useful to persons who choose to exchange energy electronically with others
across the free and open commercial Internet medium.  Since the DNS was a
contolled and monopolized service for many years, this was not a problem
then.  However, as the Internet has gained commercial value, its control or
governance is an issue.

7.      Without a rich and meaningful grouping of words with which people
can organize their internal energy, and interact with others who may want
to organize themselves in a manner where seekers can find them, topically,
categorically, or by activity, significant commerce will not happen.  So,
without the programming 'tools' to make 'electronic' commerce happen, which
allow individuals to organize themselves, the promise of electronic
commerce remains unfulfilled.

8.      Contrast the situation of an individual who owns a rich vocabulary
which organizes how he/she thinks, acts, and interacts (exchanges energy)
with a situation where a new broadly applicable medium (Internet) is
created with a very narrow purpose (defense-contractor-government
communications) for exchanging energy electronically.  This Internet
(called DARPANET) is organized structurally around an unlimited,
multi-level naming system (analogous to the structure of language), but
limited in vocabulary (lexicon) to seven abbreviated words (COM, ORG, NET,
GOV, MIL, INT, ARPA).  Such a limited implementation of a vocabulary
applied to this limitless language program, has been a bottleneck to the
mass adoption of this new medium by people worldwide, and therefore a
bottleneck to Internet Commerce.

9.      Commerce functions because meaning is exchanged when individuals
speak using the same language program, and have the same general vocabulary
(word lexicon).  Without language, there is a bottleneck to commercial
communications, especially when viewed from the medium of the Internet,
where facial expressions and body language are not viewable.  If commercial
communications cannot occur, commercial transactions cannot occur.

10.     The shift in the Internet's defense-focus to commercial focus
occurred in 1993/94, and paradoxically where the present struggle to define
and control useful language in the  Internet-medium began.  Although the
technology for enabling commerce has been rapidly evolving, an
understanding of the importance of a subsequent shift from a limited
vocabulary to an "open vocabulary" has not been achieved by the
historically technically-focused leadership of the "Internet community".

III. Language is, like DNS, Structured Like a Tree Root, with the Alphabet
at the Root.

11.     The Root elements of language are sounds and symbols (letters).
Both elements are the building blocks of language.  As visual
representations of language, letters form the root elements or common
denominator of any text-based electronic communications which are
transmitted across Internet.  As the building blocks, they are simpler in
form and structure than any other language element, and more flexible than
any other language element.

12. Principles of Language Ownership
1) Language is owned by the individual speaker(s), and is protected in law
2) The right to create language exists with the individual, and is
protected in law
3) The right to decide how to use language resides with the individual, and
is protected in law
4) Language is not a public resource, it is a private energy channel, whose
expressed output (words and ideas), chosen or created by the
creator/sender/speaker, can be used in either a generic (free) form, or in
an ownable form.  The right to create either form should be protected and
safeguarded by law, as it is in Nature.

13.     This issue of Domain Names is a "use-of-language" issue, and
therefore an individual rights issue, and as such, related Constitutionally
to the U.S. Government which stimulated the development of this medium of
communications, for the benefit of individual users assigned to the Defense
Department, commissioned to Protect and Defend the Constitution.

14.     Therefore, the present move, to stimulate the creation of an
intergovernmental organization to control the allocation of vocabulary,
ensuring only a limited use of by individuals, suddenly required to be
subservient to this body, is Unconstitutional, and furthermore, it will
unnecessarily impede the development of user acceptance of commercial
activity on the 'net, and therefore damage the opportunity for return on
investment by those individuals who have invested in preparation for the
acceptance of electronic commerce by individual users.

15.     The key question in the Domain Name issue is, "Who owns language?"
The answer is fundamental and simple, "The two individuals who agree to
exchange energy via speaking, own it." The U.S. Constitution has been
created to protect individual rights, not only to be free, but to ownership
of the products of their use of language.  Free individuals are not
required to ask permission from an intergovernmental body to speak, nor
should they be required.  History is full of examples of unelected,
unrepresentative, authoritarian (top-down control) regimes which have
attempted to impose controls upon people, and those controls have included
attempts to control the use of language by indigenous people.   However,
all have basically failed in their attempt to control language because the
ownership lies at the speaker level.

16.     The historical study of language bears the truth of individual
ownership of language, and this explains why languages evolve over time.
New individuals, with new experiences, will add elements to existing words
which become roots for other words over time.  If we go back in time, the
evolution of human language resembles the roots of a tree.  So, it is no
accident that the Domain Name system is designed in a manner which
resembles the roots of a tree, either.  In fact, the computer backbone of
the Domain Name System is a set of computers called "Root Servers" whose
purpose is to enable the energy to flow from one user to another user in a
manner which supports the user control of language.   The useful language
at the Root Servers are the Top Level Domains (TLDs), which can be viewed
historically, as the modern equivalent of the ancient Root Words of the
future language family of a globally reaching, electronically-enabled
socio-economic system.

17.     Language is as alive as the people who use it, regardless of the
medium in which  they choose.  When the people who speak a language die,
new people are born who add new elements, keeping it dynamic and alive,
ever-changing.  This has occurred since the beginning of mankind's
recognition of the value of sounds and symbols.  One very recent example
can vividly provide a case study to support these truths.

18.     One year ago, the word 'ebonics' did not exist. Focusing on the
process of creation, it was created by one person, unknown to me, who
recognized the need to describe a simple term for the style of speech which
inner city African Americans have used at times when speaking.  That person
combined the root word 'ebony', (meaning 'shade of brown') with the suffix
of the word 'phonics' (meaning 'sounds'), mathematically into:  eb- +
-onics = ebonics.

19.     In this example, the owner  of the unique idea chose to express the
term generically, enabling free and open use by anyone who wants to use the
word, thereby giving up the right to ownership of the word.    However, the
owner could have chosen to express the ownership of the term by applying
copyright or by using the term exclusively for private benefit in commerce,
by applying for registration.  The key issue here is that the ownership
rights to use, and decide, reside with the speaker or creator of the
language.  To summarize, there appear to be some clear truths recognized in
Law (although I am not a lawyer),

20.     Language represents a 'handshake' forming a bi-directional energy
channel  which can exists between any two human beings.  As the basis for
communication of energy across this channel, language serves as the product
of an implicit agreement between communicators.  When applied to a
bi-directional electronic energy channel like the Internet, the principles
which apply to language above, can be applied to a limited subset of
language applicable to this commercially useful medium.

21.     The IAHC, structured as a "top-down" organization, with its
gTLD-MoU instrument, is attempting to gain control of globally applicable
Internet  "vocabulary", under the false pretense of international consensus
among intergovernmental bodies. The IANA, historically and legitimately
controlling names and number allocation during the early evolution, is no
longer able to maintain its monopoly, if the Internet is to achieve full
commercial relevance and value.  As I have attempted to demonstrate, each
individual owns creative rights to language.  Therefore, language can be
viewed as an energy channel owned by each speaker in a cooperative
structure.  As owners, we might choose to lawfully exercise our right to
own what we create by protecting the creations using Copyright or Service
Mark/Trademark law.

22.     Under the IAHC scheme, the rights of individuals to use language
freely for their own purposes are not recognized, nor are they respected.
Similarly, under IANA, there is no mechanism for expanding DNS top level
domain name usage.  By IAHC seeking to control the allocation of
vocabulary, and IANA and InterNIC (Network Solutions) controlling the
allocation of TLDs into the "root servers" both organizations attempt to
monopolize all future language-related activity for this medium. The IAHC,
and to a lesser degree, the IANA/InterNIC has positioned themselves and
their supporters as mandatory editors of human activity, in a style which
is reminiscent of authoritarian regimes from the past.

23.     The proposed IAHC solution (the gTLD-MOU) is clearly not aligned
with any laws which exist in nature, or support self-organizing,
democratically created, self-governing bodies, despite the rhetoric from
its supporters.  The existing InterNIC exclusion of alternative TLDs from
its root servers is contrary to the stated position of U.S. leadership
which supports free market economic activity.

24.     The present monopolization and control of language by Network
Solutions in its management of the InterNIC function, does not serve the
individual user, who values choices and competition in commerce.

IV. Scientific Knowledge Supports What the Framers Instinctively Knew: That
Individual Freedoms and Rights to Use and Own God's Gifts, Further the
Pursuit of Happiness.

25.     All people interact with physical electromagnetic frequency energy
by absorbing it (photons, heat, etc.), by storing it (calories, heat,
photons, etc.), and by producing it for our personal benefit and ultimate
survival (heat, photochemical processes, electrochemical processes,
biochemical processes...)

26.     As energy life-forms, we obey the laws of physics, internally and
externally because we exist in a universe governed by these laws.
Therefore, all of our internal and external individual actions,
interactions, and experiences, as well as our collective actions,
interactions, and experiences, are influenced by these laws.  As both
individual and collective actors in this energy environment, we, therefore,
can be studied and analyzed scientifically, using the laws of physics and
the tools of mathematics to aid in our understanding.

27.     We exist within a framework called a Universal Set of energy which
is expanding in space and time. The Universal Set of energy can flow in
various ways:  radiading,  broadcasting, channeling, or randomly.   There
are a myriad of subsets of the overall energy superset, which we can call
the Universe.  The subset of visible energy we can call the outerNET(c),
because it is outer relative to ourselves.  The subset of all invisible,
but internalized understandable energy we can call the innerNET(c).  In
this same manner, the term Internet (interNET) can achieve its true
potential as a communications 'channel' between individual human beings,
used to help them in their creation and absorption of energy.  The ultimate
goal of these activities for each individual is the pursuit of happiness.

V.  The process by which subject instruments (gTLD MOU and InterNIC root
server monopoly) was prepared is intended to be executed, and the
associated transfer of existing Federal authority and responsibility are
unlawful.

28.     Any proposed structure for determining which names will be used by
millions of Internet users worldwide in the future undermines the
inalienable rights of individuals to choose how they will use their
language...for speaking, for organizing their thoughts, for organizing
their economic activities.

29.     As a researcher who recognized the need for a broader perspective
on the Committee, I submitted a proposal on January 17, 1997,
Draft-IAHC-SJPAGE-001, under the Call for Proposals calling for 1)
broadening of IAHC representation to include experts in Cognitive
Perception (language and vision experts), since both language and sensory
capabilities represent THE two most critical skills required by users for
successful interaction and navigation of Internet-accessible equipment.

30.     Until that point, I had been an active participant in what had been
said to be an 'inclusive' process of obtaining feedback from the
'community' (bottom up preferences).  However, I quickly learned that the
IAHC was not interested in responding to the comments of highly educated,
committed researchers in the field of user-focused network architectures,
which had been the focus of our ARPA grant.  All comments were ignored by
IAHC. It was apparent to one with intimate knowledge of user perceptual
processes and visual processes that this Committee was unqualified to
provide the solutions to the two distinct 'problems' which it had set
itself up to solve, 1) oversight of the process of populating the
Internet's Root Name Servers with a language vocabulary which would be
valuable in commerce, and 2) governing the business of registering domain
names.  Going hand-in-hand, the IANA/InterNIC supported the process, which
is clearly not Constitutional.

31.     Since ignorance of the basic human and scientific issues which
relate to the DNS has been apparent, I've offered to share the efforts of
twenty-one years of education and training, focused squarely on
understanding exactly what both IAHC and IANA have been trying to do, while
doing it with a Constitutional-supporter's perspective.  I became an active
participant in the process to replace their solution with a user-focused
solution.

VI. Several Federal agencies have explicit delegated Constitutional
responsibilities to act in this matter.

32.     In the Bill of Rights, the right to freedom of speech is evidence
that the Founding Fathers recognized that the owners of language are
individual speakers, and that no governing body has the right to control
it.  The result of the MoU of the IAHC would be a situation where an
international reaching,  self-appointed, intergovernmental body would
assume the uninvited role as 'managing censor' of language used at the Root
level of commercial activity on the Internet.  The thought is repugnant to
anyone who cherishes the inalienable rights of human beings, as protected
in the Constitution of the U.S.

33.     As the owners of a system of government created by thoughtful
people, the American people are the custodians of individual rights as they
pertain to the sovereign territory called the United States.  As direct
descendants of the Framers of the Constitution who recognized that specific
protections of individual freedoms would be forever necessary if people
were ever to have the opportunity to pursue happiness, the responsibility
for maintaining the torch of liberty rests with us, individually and
collectively.

34.     Americans who have had the opportunity to travel the world in
leisure or in defense of the Constitution, expose themselves to forms of
government which do not recognize the rights and freedoms of individuals.
We understand that the U.S., especially the Statue of Liberty, are
worldwide symbols of hope for people whose circumstances leave little for
which to be hopeful.  Protecting our freedoms requires constant vigilence.
Powerful forces, directly opposed to individual rights, are constantly
manifesting themselves in different geographic spheres around the world, as
well as within our own borders, because they exist within each individual.

35.     When groups of individuals possessing such opposing ambitions hide
them from trusting individuals who might be naive to the danger,
opportunities for either entrenching themselves within organizational
structures or creating new structures should be fought with all resources.
The seeds of destruction of liberties are planted very quietly and sprout
very quickly when backed by powerful forces.

36.     As a cancer which begins with one cell, the idea for controlling
language usage in the medium of Internet begins.  This idea, masked under
rhetoric of 'inclusiveness' and 'community' and 'competition', when
uncloaked is really about one thing...control of the Root program of
personal thinking and interaction of the individual, language, and its use,
through the control of the Root Server network of vocabulary tables
maintained presumably for the benefit of individual users.  If one is able
to control language, one is able to control user activity.  If one is able
to control individuals, then it is impossible for the individual to ever
hope to pursue happiness, because true happiness is predicated upon freedom
and liberty.

37.     Anything which serves to impede the ability of people to be free to
use language, and pursue happiness, is inconsistent with the intent of the
Constitution of the United States, and should not be permitted to move
forward.  Furthermore, the signing of the IAHC's MoU by representatives of
the United States Government or its contractors is an abomination and a
direct insult to the People of the United States, and the people of the
world.

38. Conclusions Pertaining to Domain Name System
1) Domain Name System is a subset of language, and as such be protect under
the laws which protect the rights of individuals to own, create, and use
language freely.
2) Domain Name System should not represent only the 'generic' form of
protected speech, especially if used in an open and inclusive commercial
purposes.
3) No governmental or intergovernmental has the right to supercede the laws
of physics and biology which govern the individual's right to own and
control language.

VII.  Pursuing a Balanced Course Which Supports the Principle of
Self-Determination, Openness, and Self-Organization, Makes Sense at this
Point in Time

39.     Such a service would seem to be an appropriate consideration for a
free market alternative to the IAHC process, which would serve as an
example of a self-organizing system might be created from the bottom-up
level, by market participation of those interested in doing business as
registries.

40.     If it were deemed important to stability of this emerging industry,
this system could be partially funded by a contract with the National
Science Foundation to assist in the building of Intellectual
Infrastructure, as envisioned by the existing arrangement which exists
between NSF and InterNIC.  Since the NSF contract with InterNIC is
apparently expiring in 1998, such a transition strategy for building a free
market might be an appropriate, Constitutionally supported alternative to
the IAHC process.

41.     The Department of Defense, as the Constitutional arm of our
benevolent government tasked with defending the Constitution, created the
'chain of events' which led to what we presently know as the Internet.
Presumably, in this process of events, there was an unbreakable chain of
Constitutional intent which has flowed with the events.  At each link in
the chain, from the initial DARPANET to the NSFNET, and now the Internet
whose Root Name Servers are managed under contract by either Defense
Information Systems Agency (DISA) or National Science Foundation (NSF) by
the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), it is presumed by the
People of the United States that there is no dilution of the protections of
individual rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution.

42.     If IANA is indeed a signatory to the IAHC MoU, with a presumption
of Constitutional intent and authority, answering to the People of the
United States, how is the Constitutional responsibility to protect the
rights of the People of the United States specifically ensured by the IAHC
process?  Where are individual rights prevented from being diluted?   Where
is the accountability the People of the United States?   How is the
democratic process of ensured?

43.     The NTIA, or another governing body should be responsible to the
people to oversee (not control) the process of transition of the Internet
from a limited-use, defense-focused medium, with limited usage of
vocabulary (COM, GOV, ORG, NET, INT, ARPA, MIL) to a truly free market
economic medium.  This responsibility should not be handed off to any
unelected governing body.  Such a process would constitute an illegal
transfer.   The Laws of Science, especially physics, have been specifically
applied above in order to better understand the inherent truths in the
Constitution, and the continued need for vigilance in the defense of
individual rights and freedoms.

VIII. A Suggested Course of Action: a Non-Profit Service for Maintaining
TLDs from a Variety of Open, Free Market-supporting Root Server Consortia

44.     The NSF has been contracted to place thirty percent (30%) of all
Domain Name address revenue into a fund for building Intellectual
Infrastructure.  The present amount of the fund is presumably $15 million.
Using a portion of that amount to build intellectual awareness through
education of the interNET, innerNET(c), and outerNET(c), and could be very
useful to assisting all individuals in the attempts to grasp the essence of
the importance of words, vocabulary, and language, in human life.
Language, as an agreement between people, is a fundamental compromise
between sovereign beings.  All activity flows from that point forward.

45.     If the U.S. government and its people support the creation of a
truly free market for (interNET) domain names, as it did when it supported
the creation of CommerceNet in 1994 (funded by DARPA), one way to support
such a system is to use a portion of the 30% to fund a self-sustaining,
non-profit, self-organizing association of free market name registries
which all agree to participate in the open-market populating of generic AND
non-generic words in a manner in which vocabulary will be open and useful
for individuals worldwide.  This process has already begun, and would
require little except for 1) formal support for the concept, and 2) limited
financial support, 3) participation by IANA/Network Solutions as InterNIC.

46.     By way of example, such an association could be folded into an
"intellectual infrastructure fund" which is educational.  In 1996, the word
"dot" was chosen as the Word of the Year (by an organization which does
this each year), because of the fact that the world "dot" is the common
element of each and every internet domain name and address.   In
approximately 18 months ending December 31, 1996, about 1 million domain
names were registered and being used in Commerce, through advertising and
marketing programs.  The meteoric awareness of the word transmitted in
auditory fashion generically, as well as generically as a punctuation
separator, ".", had created an immense opportunity  to leverage this
awareness into understanding.  To further the cause, dot Registry, Inc.,
was incorporated in California earlier this year, for this specific
purpose, and is looking to participate in the education process, which
could be sponsored by either NSF or NTIA, with initial memberships from
Network Solutions, Alternic, Name.space, eDNS, uDNS, and the growing number
of other root server operators.

August 15, 1997
(Signed)
Stephen J. Page, President,
Internet .A*-.Z* Name Registry, Member, dot Registry Inc, Root Server
Operator Association
1113 Hopkins Way
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Tel: +1 510.484.4557
Fax:+1 510.484.0448

(c) Copyright, 1997.  Stephen J. Page.  All Rights Reserved.  This
copyright serves only to establish the creative source of the material.
Users are free to duplicate in order to further their own knowledge.  This
Brief was designed to support the position of the Brief(s) of Anthony
Rutkowski before the U.S. Department of State, Federal Communications
Commission, National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
Register of Copyrights, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well
as to support the creation of a governance structure which allows for an
unlimited number of Top Level Domains, for sale to the consumers of
emerging Internet Registry Industry products and services.  Let the market
decide what is useful, therefore valued.

This Brief is excerpted from a forthcoming book entitled, The innerNET(tm).







CC:        NTIADC40.SMTP40("casrokcomm@aol.com","hongd@slip.n...

###
Number: 280
From:      "joseph j. kim" <jokim@ipcom.com>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/15/97 8:45pm
Subject:   dns tld proposal based on trademark



Internet Draft                                             Joseph J. Kim
Expiration Date: Feb 1998                                          Ipcom
                                                             August 1997
 
 
       DNS Top Level Domain Name Classification and Structure

                     draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt
 
 
Status of this Memo
 
     This document is an Internet-Draft.  Internet-Drafts are working
     documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
     areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also
     distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
 
     Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
     months and may be updated, replaced, or made obsolete by other
     documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-
     Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as
     ``work in progress.''
 
     To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check
     the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-
     Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa),
     nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim),
     ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
 

Abstract
 
     This document specifies a structural organization of Internet top
     level domain names based on the International Schedule of Classes
     of Goods and Services. This structure intends to provide a 
     framework for classification such that web content providers can
     differentiate their goods and services and minimize the probability
     of name confusion and collision. Under each class, as specified by
     the International Schedule of Classes of Goods and Services, single
     or multiple top level domain names should be specified each 
     appropriately partitioning the class of goods or service into an
     appropriate sub-categorization. A method will further be described
     to incorporate additions/modifications as becomes necessary by as
     of yet unforseen future developments.
 
     This document does not address the delegation or the administration
     of top level domain names which the author feels should be 
     considered separately. However, the author does acknowledge that
     some form of centralized authority should be in place to properly
     control the structure to be described.


 

Joseph Kim                                                      [Page 1]

Internet Draft          draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt           August 1996


1. Introduction
 
     Many new TLDs will soon be created, however, a framework for 
     classification which appropriately limits the scope of TLD names is
     not yet formally specified. Instances of name space collision in ".com" 
     illustrate the potential of future conflict by TLD names which are
     not appropriately limited in their scope of application. In other
     words, TLDs with names which are too general in nature will be a
     cause of conflict since multiple entities may have an interest in 
     registering similar names under a particular TLD.

     A TLD naming system based on the trademark system is in no way
     novel. In fact, many have independently realized and suggested
     variations of this approach before. However, a flexible system
     which 1. maintains a fairly flat structure allowing for short and
     easily remembered names (the whole purpose behind DNS in the first
     place), 2. allows for flexibility in the definition of 
     sub-categories and names under goods and service classes as needed,
     and 3. considers future revisions and modifications, has not been
     specified to date. The definition of sub-categories is especially
     important in light of the fact that most Internet related 
     businesses would likely fall under one of the 8 service classes 
     especially class 42: "...services that cannot be placed in other 
     classes [Int-sched]".

2. The Current System
 
     In the current system, the majority of domain names fall under the
     TLDs administered by Network Solutions, Inc. of: 

     .com
     .net
     .org

     These TLDs have been in use for some time. However, conflict from
     name collision and trademark issues continue as companies desire 
     the same names under a particular TLD. Current TLDs simply do not 
     provide enough granularity in terms of partitioning specific names
     with categories of goods and services.












Joseph Kim                                                      [Page 2]

Internet Draft          draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt           August 1996
 
 
     A recent proposal by the "IAHC" [Final-report 97] suggests 
     implementation of 7 new top level domain names including:
 
     .arts
     .rec
     .per
     .store
     .info
     .firm
     .web

     However, the generic nature of some of these domain names and the 
     lack of guidelines for names to appropriately limit scope 
     [suffers 
     from the same problems encountered by the generality of ".com". 
     Future conflict is thus inevitable and a more robust and scalable
     solution preferred.
 
3. Proposed Structure
 
     The International Schedule of Classes of Goods and Services is the 
     international standard for trademark. The proposal in this document
     assumes the right of the trademark holder as a priority in 
     determining the rights to a particular domain name under a 
     particular TLD name space. 

     Top level domain names should be specified and categorized based on
     the International Schedule. Each class as defined by the 
     International Schedule should have associated with it a single or
     multiple top level domain names. Thus multiple TLDs may exist under
     a single class, unlike in the trademark system. This allows for 
     finer levels of granularity where needed and easily remembered TLD
     names associated with particular products or services.

     Again, each top level domain name would specify a particular subset
     of goods or service for it's associated class. Thus, for example,
     class 25 according to the International Schedule covers "Clothing,
     footwear, headgear". Possible top level domain names under this 
     class could include:
 
     .cloth - for clothing in general
     .shoe - for footwear
     .caps - for athletic caps
 
     Actually, a more elaborate and formal description of the scope of
     each top level domain name should be given. However, for the 
     purposes of illustration, the above should be sufficient.
 



Joseph Kim                                                      [Page 3]

Internet Draft          draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt           August 1996


     In a like manner all 34 classes of goods and 8 classes of services
     should be appropriately partitioned and given appropriately
     associated TLDs. Further each TLD should have a specific and 
     clearly defined scope of coverage. In other words, ambiguity and
     overlapping of what goods and services are covered by a TLD should
     be minimized as much as possible.
 
     In the above example, if it is not clear whether socks fit into
     ".cloth" or ".shoe" then this should be made concrete by the 
     governing body controlling the definition of these TLDs (more on 
     this governing body in the next section).
 
     A single and complete description of all TLD names under their 
     appropriate class of goods or service should be provided. The 
     author currently keeps a proposed description at 
     "http://www.idns.net" (will be updated regularly). The initial 
     suggestion of TLDs in each class is also included in Appendix A.
     Again what is provided is a suggestion and even after a formal
     categorization is constructed future modifications as needed should
     always be possible.
 
4. Coordination and Management of TLD Names and Name Scope

     The question now arises how to determine names for each class and
     how to incorporate new names as the need arises in the future? 
     Ideally some international, governing body consisting of various
     members of Internet and trademark bodies could be created and this
     body could reach a consensus on the categorization and scope of 
     each TLD. This governing body could also deal with disputes.

     However, the reality in creating such an organization may be 
     difficult. Also, the current power struggle between various 
     factions vying for control of the TLD name space makes this an 
     issue which will ultimately be decided by the victors of this power
     struggle.
     
5. Future Modifications in TLD Name Space

     When modifications need to be made in the classification of a TLD
     or it's scope, it may become necessary for some domain name holders
     to move from one particular TLD to another.










Joseph Kim                                                      [Page 4]

Internet Draft          draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt           August 1996

 
     TLD name changes will probably take the following form:
     1. the addition of an entirely new TLD which does not conflict with
     pre-existing TLD names and does not conflict with the scope of 
     coverage of other TLD names within the same class, 2. the change of
     a particular TLD name to that of another, 3. the creation of a new
     TLD with some scope "stolen" from other TLDs, 4. the aggregation of
     2 or more old TLD names into 1 TLD name, and 5. the splitting of a 
     single TLD name into 2 or more TLDs.
 
     Case 1 should not not produce any difficulties.
 
     Case 2 and 3 would require that old TLD name holders will need to
     change to use the new TLD name. For this case, some kind of a
     standard grace period should be provided (preferably for at least a
     year) in which the old TLD remains active. No new registrations 
     would be allowed in the old TLD but eventually after the grace 
     period expires old users would be forced out of the old TLD name 
     space and into the new TLD name space.
 
     Case 3 presents an interesting issue in that if a new TLD name 
     space is created, whether domain name holders under the old TLD be
     given priority for "generic" names under the new TLD name space. In
     other words, if someone has a generic name (which implies no 
     trademark protection) such as "cat" or "house" or "sex" does that
     person have rights to that same name in the new TLD name space?
     The author's tentative suggestion is to allow old domain name 
     holders rights in the new name space as well.
 
     In Case 4, which seems fairly pathological, there is a contentious
     point of issue for domain name holders with "generic" domain names.
     Assuming, this event were to occur (which most likely would never 
     happen) some form of prioritization needs to be established (i.e. 
     whoever registered first, etc.).
 
     Finally case 5, should be similar to case 2 and have the same kind
     of associated action.
 
6. Incorporating the IAHC Proposal and NSI TLDs
 
     There are obvious problems with the current IAHC assigned TLD names
     as well as the current NSI governed TLD names. For example
     ".store" and ".firm" are too similar and their scope becomes 
     ambiguous in relation to each other and ".web" and ".info" are too
     general. This is not to mention NSI's ".com" which conveniently 
     covers the entire realm of commercial enterprise. However, if the
     "IAHC Proposal" is successful with their 7 new TLD names then it
     would be useful to consider how to incorporate that possible 
     outcome with the suggestions outlined in this document.



Joseph Kim                                                      [Page 5]

Internet Draft          draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt           August 1996

 
     The first step would be to place the 7 new tlds in a particular
     class as specified by the International Schedule and the second 
     step would be to appropriately limit the scope of the current 
     names. Priority should be given to those who have priority for a 
     certain name given the associated scope of a given TLD as 
     specified.
 
     A tentative suggestion is as follows and is by no means definitive:
 
     class 41. "Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting
     and cultural activities [Int-sched]."
 
     .arts -  libraries; museums; clubs centering around an artistic 
              focus; 
     .rec -   recreational centers; health clubs; sporting centers;
              sporting events; other recreational events;
     .nom -   "for those wishing individual or personal nomenclature 
              [Final-report 97]"
 
     class 42. "Providing of food and drink; temporary accomodation; 
     medical, hygienic and beauty care; veterinary and agricultural 
     services; legal services; scientific and industrial research; 
     computer programming; services that cannot be placed in other 
     classes [Int-sched]."
 
     .info -  directory services; Internet searching; white and yellow
              pages; whois;
 
     .web -   web related advertising firms; 
 
     .store-  see below
     .firm-   see below
 
     Eventually, .store and .firm should be obsoleted and registrants
     should be moved (as specified by this document) into appropriate 
     TLDs to be created in the future. 
 














Joseph Kim                                                      [Page 6]

Internet Draft          draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt           August 1996


     Similar to incorporating IAHC TLDs, the TLDs currently administered
     by NSI of .com, .org, and .net could also be handled.
 
     class 42

     .org-    non-profit organizations; 
     .net-    network consultants; isps; web design firms; 

     .com-    should be obsoleted as .store and .firm

     As future TLDs are created some of the above listed TLD names can
     be changed or moved or deleted as per the specification of this
     document.


7. Acknowledgements
 
     Many people have expressed various ideas about incorporating 
     trademark into the DNS, however, the first real codification of
     those ideas, and similar to those ideas expressed in this document,
     came from a now expired IETF draft document by Simon Higgs of Higgs
     America.

     The problems associated with the "IAHC proposal" (as well as a 
     stimulus for writing this document) and their 7 new top level 
     domain names was best described by Donna Hoffman in her article
     "IAHC'S Seven New Top Level Domains Will Confuse Customers" 
     [Hoffman 97].
     




















Joseph Kim                                                      [Page 7]

Internet Draft          draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt           August 1996


8. References
 
     [Int-sched] International Schedule of Classes of Goods and 
     Services
      
     [Final-report 97] Final Report of the International Ad Hoc 
     Committee: Recommendations for Administration and Management of
     gTLDs

     [Hoffman 97] Hoffman, D., "IAHC's Seven New Top Level Domain Names
     Will Confuse Customers", The COOK Report on Internet, Vol. 6, No.
     4/5, 1997.


9. Author Information


     Joseph Kim
     ipcom
     811 Haverhill Dr.
     Sunnyvale, CA 94087
     Phone: (408) 527-2579
     email: jokim@ipcom.com
 

Appendix A.  Initial Recommendation of TLD Names and Scope

     All TLDs should be 3-7 characters in length.

     Goods:
     =====

     Sub-categorizations for classes is listed with examples listed to 
     the right. Manufacturers of the associated goods described should
     apply for domain names under the appropriately designated TLD.

     Class 1-
     
     .CHEM     chemicals used in industry, science, and photography, as
          well as in agriculture, horticulture and forestry;
     .PLAS     unprocessed plastics
     .MANURE   manures
     .PRSRV    chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs
     .ADHSV    adhesives used in industry




Joseph Kim                                                      [Page 8]

Internet Draft          draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt           August 1996


     Class 2-

     .PAINT    paints, varnishes, lacquers; colorants;

     Class 3-

     .LNDRY    bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry
          use.
     .SOAP     soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair 
          lotions.
     .CLEAN    cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations

     Class 4-

     .OILS     industrial oils and greases; lubricants; dust absorbing, 
          wetting and binding compositions; candles, wicks.
     .FUEL     fuels.

     Class 5-

     .PHARM    pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations.

     Class 6-

     .METAL    common metals and their alloys, pipes and tubes of 
          metal; ironmongery, small items of metal hardware; safes;
          goods of common metal not included in other classes.

     .ORE ores.
     .WIRE     non-electric wires of common metal.
     .CABLE    non-electric cables of common metal.

     Class 7-

     .MCHN     machines and machine tools; motors and engines
     
     Class 8-

     .RAZOR     razors
     .CUTLRY    cutlery; knives
     .TOOLS     hand tools and implements (hand operated)











Joseph Kim                                                      [Page 9]

Internet Draft          draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt           August 1996


     Class 9-

     .INSTR    scientific, nautical, surveying, electric, photographic,
          cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, 
          signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and 
          teaching apparatus and instruments; 
     .RECORD   apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction
          of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording 
          discs. 
     .VEND     automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin 
          operated apparatus;
     .CASHREG  cash registers.
     .CALC     calculating machines. 
     .COMP     data processing equipment and computers.
     .FIREX    fire-extinguishing apparatus.
     .NTWK     routers, switches and hubs; modems and other network 
          related machinery. 

     Class 10-

     .SURGI    surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments
          artificial limbs, eyes and teeth; orthopedic articles; suture 
          materials

     Class 11-

     .LTNG     apparatus for lighting.
     .HEATER   apparatus for heating.
     .STEAMG   apparatus for steam generating.
     .KITCHEN  apparatus for cooking, refrigerating, water supply and
          sanitary purposes.
     .WTRSPLY  apparatus for water supply.
     .VENT     apparatus for ventilating.
     .DRYER    apparatus for drying.

     Class 12-

     .VEHI     apparatus for locomotion by land, air, or water

     Class 13-

     .ARMS     firearms; ammunition and projectiles; explosives; fireworks









Joseph Kim                                                     [Page 10]

Internet Draft          draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt           August 1996


     Class 14-

     .JEWEL    jewellry, precious stones; 
     .WATCH     horological and chronometric instruments (wrist based)
     .CLOCK     horological and chronometric instruments (non wrist based)

     Class 15-

     .MUSICI   musical instruments

     Class 16-

     .PRINT    printed matter; bookbinding materials; printers' type;
          printing blocks.
     .BRUSH    painters brushes.
     .PAPER    paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials.
     .CARD     greeting cards; playing cards.
     .STNRY    stationery. 
     .TAPE     adhesives for stationery or household purposes.
     .PHOTO    photographs.

     Class 17-

     .RUBBER    rubber, gutta-percha, gum asbestos, mica and goods made 
                from these materials.
     .PIPE      flexible pipes, not of metal.
     .PACK     packing, stopping and insulating materials.
     .PLSTC    plastics in extruded form for use in manufacture.

     Class 18-

     .LTHR     leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these
          materials and not included in other classes; animal skins ...
     .HIDE     animal skins, hides.
     .SADDLE    harness and saddlery         
     .UMBRLA   umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks.
     .WHIPS    whips.

     Class 19-

     .BUILD    building materials (non-metallic); rigid pipes for 
                building; asphalt, pitch and bitumen; non-metallic 
          transportable buildings; monumetns, not of metal.








Joseph Kim                                                     [Page 11]

Internet Draft          draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt           August 1996


     Class 20-

     .FURN     furniture, mirrors, picture frames; goods (not included
                in other classes) of wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker,
          horn, bone, ivory, whalebone, shell, amber, 
          mother-of-pearl, meeschaum and substitutes for all these
          materials, or of plastics.


     Class 21-

     .HSHLD    household or kitchen utensils and containers (not of
          precious metal or coated therewith); combs and sponges;
          brushes (except paint brushes); brush-making materials;
          articles for cleaning purposes; steelwool; unworked or
          semiworked glass (except glass used in building); 
          glassware, porcelain and earthenware not included in
          other classes.

     Class 22-

     .ROPE     Ropes, string, nets, tents, awnings, tarpaulins, sails,
          sacks and bags (not included in other classes); padding
          and stuffing materials (except of rubber or plastics);
          raw fibrous textile materials.


     Class 23-

     .YARN     yarns and threads, for textile use.

     Class 24-

     .TEXTILE  textiles and textile goods, not included in other 
          classes; bed and table covers.

     Class 25-

     .CLOTH    clothing in general; socks; caps.
     .SHOE     shoes; boots; thongs; other types of footwear.











Joseph Kim                                                     [Page 12]

Internet Draft          draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt           August 1996


     Class 26- 

     .LACE     Lace and embroidery, ribbons and braid;

     Class 27-

     .CARPET   Carpets, rugs, mats and matting, linoleum and other 
          materials for covering existing floors; 
     .POSTER   wall hangings (non-textile)


     Class 28- 

     .GAMES    Games and playthings; gymnastic and sporting articles 
          not included in other classes. 
     .XTREE    decorations for Christmas trees.

     Class 29-

     .MEAT     Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; edible oils
          and fats.
     .?????    preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables.
     .JELLY    jellies, jams, and fruit sauces.
     .DAIRY    milk and milk products.

     Class 30- 

     .COFFEE   Coffee and artificial coffee.
     .TEA Tea.
     .SUGAR    sugar.
     .SALT     salt.
     .RICE     rice.
     .FLOUR    flour.
     .BREAD    bread.
     .PASTRY   pastries.
     .HONEY    honey.
     .SPICE    spices.
     .CONDMNT  condiments, sauces, mustard, and ketchup.
     .ICE ice










Joseph Kim                                                     [Page 13]

Internet Draft          draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt           August 1996


     Class 31-

     .AGRI     agricultural products not included in other classes
     .HORTI    horticultural products not included in other classes; 
          plants and flowers.
     .FRSTRY   forestry products not included in other classes
     .ANIMAL   live animals
     .FRUIT    fresh fruits 
     .VEGE     vegetables.
     .FEED     foodstuffs for animals
     .MALT     malt

     Class 32

     .BEER     beers
     .BEV mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic 
          drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other
          preparations for making beverages.

     Class 33

     .ALCO     Alcoholic beverages (except beers).

     Class 34

     .TBCO     Tobacco; smokers articles; matches.


     Services:
     ========

     Class 35

     .ADS Advertising;
     .BUSI     Business management; business administration; office
          functions.

     Class 36

     .INSU     Insurance.
     .FINA     Financial affairs; monetary affairs.
     .REAL     Real estate affairs.

     Class 37

     .CONST    Building construction.
     .REPAIR   Repair services
     .INSTALL  installation services.





Joseph Kim                                                     [Page 14]

Internet Draft          draft-kim-tld-class-00.txt           August 1996


     Class 38

     .TELCO    Telecommunications.

     Class 39

     .TRANS    Transport
     .SHIP     Shipping of goods.
     .TRAVEL   travel arrangements
     .STRAGE   Packaging and storage of goods.

     Class 40

     .MTRLS    Treatment of materials.

     Class 41

     .EDU Education.
     .TRAIN    providing of training.
     .SPORTS   Sporting activities.
     .CLTRE    Cultural activities.

     Class 42

     .ADLT      web sites containing adult/mature material.
     .BAR bars.
     .MOVIE     movie information.
     .RESTNT   restaurants
     .HOTEL    hotels.
     .MOTEL    motels.
     .MED medical care.
     .COSM     hygienic and beauty care.
     .VET veterinary services.     
     .AGRIS    agricultural services.
     .LEGAL    legal services.
     .RSRCH    scientific and industrial research.
     .PROG     comoputer programming.
     .NET network consultants; isps; web design firms.
     .ORG non-profit organizations
     .NEWS     newspapers; news related web sites
     .INFO     directory services; Internet searching; white and yellow
          pages; whois/rwhois.











Joseph Kim                                                     [Page 15]




###
Number: 281
From:      "Gregory B. Bulkley, M.D." <gbulkley@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/15/97 3:26pm
Subject:   Government interference in the Internet

As has been clearly exemplified in the past several years, especially
by the present administration, attempts by the government to increase
its power to further interfere in our lives are always justified by
intellectually dishonest arguments which exaggerate a real or imagined
problem, (a problem often created by prior, misguided attempts at
government regulation,) and the (usually short-term) benefits purported
to be obtained, while ignoring or minimizing the long term loss of our
freedom created by yet another ceding of the control of our lives to the
statist-collectivist sociopaths who fight indefatiguably and ruthlessly
for the power provided by that very control.   In the past decade, two
phenomena have emerged that threaten this widespread, pathologuic world
view to a greater degree than anything since lassaiz-faire capitalsim: 
The first is a global economy that has proven virtually impossible to
regulate, and has therefore been freed to produce an immeasurable
increase in the standards of living of rich and poor alike, all over the
world, except in a few closed societies (North Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba,
Iraq and perhaps Iran) that are strangulating themselves by their
isolation therefrom.  The second is the Internet, the enormous growth
and utility of which is due almost entirely to the fact that its content
is virtually unregulated.  As access to and control of information
itself continues to increase exponentially in value relative to other
commodities, especially traditional goods and services, it poses an even
greater threat to the statist-collectivist world view.  This has been
clearly illustrated by the current administration's pathologic fervor in
pursuing control of the encryption of electronic communication, which
has beeen rationalized on the basis of better control of drug
trafficking, an arguemnt so patently riciculous that it should be
laughable.  This is indeed ironic, as it draws attention to the
collossal failure of the "War on Drugs," an outcome which has been
purchased at enormous cost to our financial resources and personal
freedom, and therefore a perfect example of the logical, indeed
inevitable outcome of this same line of reasoning.  Make no mistake
about it:  the attempts to control the content of the Internet represent
a blatant attempt to control communication itself, and by clear
implication, our thought processes.  Moreover, this fact is clearly
understood by those who seek such control.  Their arguments for this
interference are so patently ridiculous that they can only be advocated
by the truly stupid or the intellectually dishonest, and these actual
and aspiring bureauocrats are not that stupid, at least in the usual
sense of the word.  Fortunately, I think that the Internet, even more
that the international trafficking in narcotics, will probably prove to
be unregulatable anyway.  Nevertheless, as is clearly illustrated by the
"War on Drugs," attempts at such regulation by the government may well
generate untold human misery, loss of personal fredom for persecuted
individuals, and enormous economic cost.
  (Hopefully, this document will be posted before it is read by the
mindless bureauocrats who undoubtedly administer this forum.)

     Gregory B. Bulkley, M.D.
     Ravitch Professor of Surgery
     The Johns Hopkins University
     gbulkley@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu

     (These opinions are my own, and are almost certainly not representative
of the University.)


###
Number: 282
From:      Michael Loftis <mjl@tcbbs.net>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/15/97 1:30pm
Subject:   InterNet Domain Regulation

I feel that Internet Domain regulation should not be that of the courts,
nor the Department of Commerce to decide.  The "first come first serve"
law has allways held up until a few stupid lawers changed that.  Now I
have to worry about some person sueing me for my domain name!

This is ridiculous.  I also feel that the creation of TLDs (Top Level
Domains, such as .com .net and .org and others) should be regulated in
the same way it is now, by an International committee.  

By and large the court system has *no idea* what the heck a DNS server
is much less what it does.  If they do know the knowledge is only
rudimentary.  If we let everyone create a TLD either through committee
review or not there would be too many lawsuits and it wouldn't be long
before the root DNS servers simply died, or became too overloaded to
handle all the requests.

We have this problem starting to appear with the .COM domain because of
peoples reluctance to move to a nation-centric approach.  I would have
used a .US domain had there been any way for me to get in contact with
the registration authorities for it.

MAny people suggested adhering to the set-forth hierarchy (.NET for
ISPs, .COM for COMPANIES (no more of you movie idiots there) etc etc)
this is by and large an excellent idea.  It is just stupid the way
everyone wants to use .COM domains.  These are for COMPANIEs or
COMMERCIAL sites.  InterNIC has *NOT* handled its contract properly and
I hope that a committee will remove it from its contract and find
another agency that will do its job and not allow movies in the .COM
domain and instead push for a .MOVIE domain for movies only.

OK, I feel better now.  LEts just hope something is done about it.  The
US DoC has no business in meddling with anything Internet related until
they can show that the majority of them have working technical knowledge
of DNS, NIS, and WHOIS also.  Without some knowledge of these protocols
it is impossible to judge accurately as to the fate of the current DNS
system.  They must also understand the impact that a major change in the
naming system would incur.

<soapbox mode off>

###
Number: 283
From:      "Timothy K. Timlin" <timothy_usa@mindspring.com>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/15/97 6:47pm
Subject:   Domain names and governmental involvement

Let the computer / communications [internet] industry resolve this
matter themselves.  If not, then create a quasi-governmental responsible
to Congress/Senate to resolve the matter.

_______________________
Timothy K. Timlin

timothy_usa@mindspring.com

###


Number: 284
From:      Johanna Byrne <infopros@mhtc.net>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/15/97 7:41pm
Subject:   Domains

I believe that the InterNIC has done a good job sofar in its handling of
web site name registration and that there is no reason to take this
"authority" to a different organizaiton.  Since it makes no difference
where InterNIC is located in respect to the registering company, it
should be no issue at all that InterNIC happens to be physcially located
in the U.S.   Starting up an international governmental agency sounds
too Orwellian to me...

I can see the need for further domain segmentation, but surely hope that
the companies that already have a .com designation do not have to pay
again to get a new designation in a .com subcategory!!  And maybe even
would have to battle someone else for a name they have been using with
.com for a couple of years.

Johanna Byrne
Website under construction
www.tranquiltime.com



###
Number: 285
From:      Dallas Jones <djones1@san.rr.com>
To:        "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date:      8/15/97 8:53pm
Subject:   DNS

Simply put. Keep it as un-obtrusive as possible. I will gladly take the hit. 
Keep the Gov't out as much as possible.

###
Number: 286
From:      "David H. Klein" <davidhk@cint.com>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/15/97 3:55am
Subject:   RFC on Internet Domain Name Administration

Dear DOC,

Attached to this e-mail is a Word 7.0 file that have my full comments. The
same file is being sent in print form, on disk, and will also be available
later this week at: http://www.cint.com/dns.htm

Sincerely,

David H Klein

This is a Response to:

 

Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet

Domain Names

 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE - Docket No. 970613137-7137-01

 

DATE: August 14, 1997

 

TO: Patrice Washington, Office of Public Affairs

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

Room 4898

14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20230

 

FROM: David H Klein - Cambridge Internet

9123 E Mississippi Ave #19-301

Denver, CO 80231

(303) 696-9098

davidhk@cint.com

http://www.cint.com 

 

 

Table of Contents

 

I. A New Model

Introduction

The New DNS Administrative Model

Principles

Operation of the Root Servers

Choosing the TLD names

Creation of new TLD’s

Code of DNS Dispute Resolution

Advantages of this model

II. Answers to the DOC Questions

A. Appropriate Principles

Comment on the Appropriate Principles

B. General/Organizational Framework Issues

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

2. How might current domain name systems be improved?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

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?

11. Should additional gTLDs be created?

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

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?

16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars have?

Who will determine these and how?

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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

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

 

I. A New Model

Introduction

 

The purpose of this response to the DOC’s request for comments is to both provide a potential new model for the administration of the Domain Name Service and answer all questions that I am qualified to. The answers to the questions will come from the perspective of the state of DNS today and the new model listed in this document.

 

As you go through Section II, the answers to the questions, I have put a title page in front of each grouping of questions that lists the ones that I have chosen to answer.

 

The New DNS Administrative Model

 

Principles

 

The organization of DNS should be supported legally by either the United States of America and/or the United Nations.

The rules for organization of DNS legally describe a GTLD, the root servers, and registration companies that manage, maintain, and operate the distribution for each GTLD.

The control of the root servers is government regulated at a minimum. A contract to a third party for the maintenance of the GTLD database is acceptable, but the company that maintains it can not also be a distribution registry for any individual GTLD.

There are multiple TLDs and registries.

The TLDs should be created so that certain named TLDs afford legal protection to corporations, trademarks, and copyrights.

A uniform code of DNS resolution will regulate name disputes. The first part of the resolution would require arbitration. Extensive disputes would be handled by the court system.

 

 

Operation of the Root Servers

 

The root servers of DNS control who has the table for each Top Level Domain. Due to the organization of DNS it is appropriate for there to be exactly one root server database. There are great difficuties in a DNS system that does not have one root database. The coordination of multiple databases is extremely complicated. In addition, multiple root server databases could potentially bring chaos to the entire addressing system for e-mail addresses and websites. By having exactly one root server database, we can have a consistent organization for Domain Names and TLDs.

 

The root servers should be operated by a company or multiple companies who agree to keep the computers operational 24 hours a day, 7 day a week for the length of their contract. They will also agree not to operate the database for any individual TLD.

 

One of the greatest advantages of multiple companies with multiple computers with a single database that they all have the same copy of is for the protection of the root server database from hackers. If a company has more than one computer and it is determined that their database has been corrupted, intentionally or not, that computer can be immediately turned off without affecting DNS world-wide. The company can then have a spare computer available with a copy of the accurate database.

 

Even in the situation that a company suffered from a large disaster, the outage of an individual company will not effect world-wide DNS. The secondary DNS servers will just move on to the next set of servers at another root server company.

 

In order to keep the root databases coordinated, all of the servers can be set up to receive the database information from one computer controlled directly by one governmental organization.

 

Choosing the TLD names

 

The best way to allow for competition in domain name registration and protect organizations and trademarks legally is in the choice of the TLD names.

 

New recommended names:

 

.TM1 Trademark Registry #1

.TM2 Trademark Registry #2

.TM3 Trademark Registry #3

.INC1 Corporation Registry #1

.INC2 Corporation Registry #2

.INC3 Corporation Registry #3

.NOM1 Surname Registry #1

.NOM2 Surname Registry #2

.NOM3 Surname Registry #3

.ORGx Non-profit Registries

.NETx Network Entity Registries

 

The new TLDs should all have two parts. The first part identifies the type of organizations or domain name. This must always consist of two to four letters. The second part would follow immediately and always be a number that identifies a TLD registry. Because a TLD type would always have a number following the name that identifies a company, a consumer could always go to a different company to get a domain of the same type.

 

So from the Registry comanys’ perspective, upon deciding to become a registry, they would be assigned a number. That company would then be responsible for any GTLD they wished to administer by adding a number to the end of the registry name. For example, if I registered my company, Cambridge Internet, as a registry, the governmental organization would assign a number to my company, let’s say 4. From that point forward I could register domain names under my registries for: .TM4, .INC4, .ORG4, etc.

 

From the perspective of a domani name holder, they would always have a choice of multiple companies to register their domain name. For example, let’s assume that my company, Cambridge Internet, chose the domain name CINT.INC. I could then have it fully assigned as CINT.INC1, CINT.INC2, or CINT.INC3, etc. If I were not happy with the service I was receiving from registry #1, I could always switch it to #2 or #3 as long as that domain were not previously assigned.

 

In this system, there would not be a TLD that did not have a registry number. This way, no individual registry could have an advantage over another by having the shorter and potentially more desirable name. For example, there could not be a TLD called .INC instead of .INC1, .INC2, .INC3, etc. A name without the number would likely be more desirable to consumers because shorter names are preferred for domain names on the Internet.

 

The best advantage of this system would be to afford legal protection to some of the names and allows others to be unrestricted. For the companies that have trademarks they wish to protect on the Internet, we can require that the only domain names that go into a .TMx registry must have proof of a Federally Registered Trademark. All companies or organizations registering in the .INCx registries must have documents of Incorporation as proof.

 

Other domains such as .NOMx for surnames and .FUNx for entertainment, would not have to prove anything. Anyone could register within these names. The only requirement for an unregulated TLD would be that an individual or organization could not have the same domain in multiple unregulated registries. For example, I could sign up KLEIN.NOM1, but would not be allowed to own KLEIN.NOM2 and KLEIN.NOM3 in order to corner the market on all .NOMx domains that began with KLEIN.

 

The only rule that would be needed for trademark or corporate protection at this point would be that the use of an unregulated TLD domain could not represent one that is regulated in any manner. For example, in this model I could not sign up MICROSOFT.ORG1 and attempt to represent myself as Microsoft. This would clearly be a trademark infringement. On the other hand, this would allow me to make a website dedicated to discussing snakes called SLINKY.FUN1 without infringing on the product which would be registered under SLINKY.TM1.

 

In order to accommodate people who are currently in domains without registry numbers, a one-year period would be allowed for both unnumbered and numbered registries to co-exist. During that period, all individuals and organizations must update to the new numbered system. After that period, unnumbered TLDs would cease to exist.

 

Creation of new TLD’s

 

The only reason that a new TLD should be created is in order to provide groups different set of protection based on their product, service, or affiliation. The new TLDs would be best kept at a minimum for efficiency, but should go through the vote of a committee if there is a legitimate reason for a regrouping.

 

Probably the best example of a new TLD that might or might not need legal protection would be .MOVx for movie title websites.

 

A new TLD should be created when there is a potential conflict in two types of domains within one existing one. The purpose of the creation would be to minimize any potential conflicts within one TLD.

 

NOTE: Please see question 7 in Section IIB of this document.

 

Code of DNS Dispute Resolution

 

As long as the extensively distributed naming system above is used, there should be few conflicts altogether. The only cases that should bring a dispute to arise is when either one company attempts to corner a domain name within many different registries or a company or individual infringes upon the legal corporate or trademarks of another by misrepresenting their domain.

 

If either of these cases do occur, the current method of arbitration or prosecution should be sufficient to deal with these cases.

 

Advantages of this model

 

There would be redundancy of the root DNS database.

No single organization, company, registry, or domain name holder would have the monopoly rights to the root DNS database, a TLD, or complete domain name.

There would be competition for the registration of domain names, thereby improving the service to domain name holders.

Due to the allowance for market competition, domain name holders would likely face a fair market price for the registration and service of their name.

With registration laws afforded to certain TLDs, trademarks and corporations would be protected from infringement of their product, service, or good name.

Due to the equal use of all registries for any TLD, a domain name holder would not have to worry about being blocked out of the domain name of their choice.

 

II. Answers to the DOC 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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

Comment on the Appropriate Principles

 

The most important change to the principles listed above is the elimination of self-governing mechanisms. If the new model listed in the first document is implemented, there is little need for regulation or governing the operation of the registries.

 

However, it is necessary and imperative that the government step in with a set of rules and regulations so that the root DNS database has legal protection. Without it, an individual or organization can destroy Internet commerce completely by taking over or destroying the access to the root DNS servers.

 

The foundation of DNS today is now and should be a public service. Governments are necessary where the common good is enhanced by a service that would fail under the self-interests of individuals or companies. This is the same reason that Interstate Freeways are funded by the Federal Government.

 

B. General/Organizational Framework Issues

 

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

 

2. How might current domain name systems be improved?

 

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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

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

 

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

 

Disadvantages:

 

Because there is no competition for the registration of domain names, it is in the economic interest of Network Solutions, Inc. to provide as little and/or no support for the registration of a domain name. Once they have the $100 registration fee, the less support of the domain name they operate, the greater percentage of the registration fee is kept as profit. Therefore, it is in their self-interest to not help or serve their customers.

Network Solutions, Inc. has the ability to cut off a domain name and substantially damage a company that does business over the internet. The domain name customer has little to no recourse.

Because they can have a monopoly over a domain name and the root servers, they can prevent others from becoming registries.

Due to the limited number of GTLDs that companies can register domain names within, an individual or organization can prevent others from access to a domain name. For example, if I wanted to start a consulting company called "Klein Networks" and use a domain named called KLEIN.NET, I could not because the company that currently holds it will not let me use or rent it.

Because an individual or organization can block others from use, many domain names have been purchased in order to charge significant sums of money to those who could have a use of it for any purpose besides real-estate holding value.

 

2. How might current domain name systems be improved?

 

Allow for multiple registries of domain names that each individually do not have a monopoly of any TLD.

Require that certain TLDs have proof in order to get a domain name under them. (i.e. In order to get a .TMx domain, you must show proof of a Federal Trademark. In order to get a .INCx domain, you must show proof of incorporation.)

A company that runs a Root Server should not be allowed to have any interest in a Registry.

 

 

3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should current domain name systems be administered?

 

GTLD

TLD

Root-Server Company

Registry

Domain Holder

What should the makeup of such an entity be?

 

GTLD - a Global Top Level Domain that either has or does not have regulations on its usage. For example, a GTLD under the system in Section 1 would be .INCx, .TMx, .NETx, etc.

TLD - the complete Top Level Domain that an individual registry could give out complete domain names from. For example, a TLD under the system in Section 1 would be .INC2, .TM8, .NET5, etc.

A Root Server Company - is a company that lists the IP addresses of the servers for each TLD in its root DNS database.

A Registry - is a company with a specific registry number that can

 

5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be retired from circulation?

 

No.

Should geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) be required?

 

No, but there is also no reason to eliminate them either.

If so, what should happen to the .com registry?

 

If the new suggested model listed in Section I of this document is implemented, the following transitions should occur:

 

A one year period should be allowed for current holders of domains within the .COM registry to migrate to new gTLDs.

Once at least two new registries have been formed with the new system, there should not be any new registrations within the .COM registry.

A domain name representing a trademarked product or service should migrate to a .TMx registry.

A domain name for an incorporated company should migrate to a .INCx, .LTDx, .LLCx, or .GmbHx domain

 

 

6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain name registration issues?

 

Not that I am aware of.

Are there any issues concerning the relationship of registrars and gTLDs with root servers?

 

A registrar should not at the same time be allowed to maintain operate or have any interest in a root server or the database contained on any. The common control of both allows undue power to be given to an individual. The registry would then have the ability to use the monopolistic power made illegal by our Sherman Anti-Trust act.

 

This exact type of incident has already occurred with Network Solution’s operation of the root servers. The Department of Justice has already started looking into Network Solution’s use of this monopolistic power. This action is also publicly listed within Network Solution’s S-1 form to the SEC in its filing for an Initial Public Offering of stock.

 

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?

 

As long as TLDs are created for domain names that can be grouped under new TLDs, the DNS database structure should grow evenly between all the new TLDs.

 

Probably the best model for adding a new TLD is to ask:

 

If this TLD existed, would more than 1000 domains be registered under it?

 

If the answer is yes, then it should be created. If no, then it should not be created.

 

 

In order to keep any individual TLD from becoming too big, the following question should be asked:

 

If this TLD has more than 1,000,000 domains, can it be broken into one or more groups that contain at least 100,000 domains?

 

If the answer is yes, then a committee should recommend one or more TLDs. If not, then the TLD should be allowed to grow.

 

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

 

See question 5.

 

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?

 

11. Should additional gTLDs be created?

 

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

 

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

 

If the model in this paper is used, the potential number of gTLDs will be TLD x # of registries. Due to the cost of maintaining a registry, it is unlikely that there will be more than 1,000 registry companies.

 

11. Should additional gTLDs be created?

 

Yes. The current system allows for no differentiation of domain names since the vast majority of domain names currently reside in .COM. There are also a significant number of advantages that support the existence of multiple gTLDs including:

 

The prevention of one individual or organization from blocking another from the legitimate use of a domain name.

Greater differentiation of domain names to reduce the size of any individual registries’ database.

By creating special purpose, regulated domain names, we can give corporations trademark protection.

 

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

 

In general, No. The current system has more than 1,000,000 .COM domain names. DNS software has scaled well for the quantity.

 

However, it would be wise to limit the creation of a gTLD for a registry only. Otherwise this system will probably run into the same problem of multiple people fighting over the names that would represent companies or trademarks. For example, we would go through the same headache again when multiple organizations begin fighting over .IBM or .MICROSOFT. As long as we follow the rules suggested in the answer to question 7 in this document, there shouldn’t be any trouble in the expansion of gTLDs.

 

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?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a particular gTLD?

 

No.

Are there any technical limitations on using shared registries for some or all gTLDs?

 

If the system does not allow for multiple registries to use the TLD numbering system as described in Section 1 of this document, then we must assume that there can only be one descriptive TLD (i.e. there would only be one .TM or .INC). In this case it would be, for all practical and technical purposes, impossible for multiple organizations to control and manage a single TLD database. The regulation and cooperation required would not be worth the headaches involved.

Can exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?

 

If we allow all registries access to a TLD via the registry numbering system listed in Section 1, then the answer is yes.

 

16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars have?

 

Yes. The responsibilities should fall into two categories: technical operation of the service and customer service. In technical operations, a registry needs to guarantee redundant 24 x 7 operation of the servers on circuits directly connected to a backbone of the Internet. For customer service responsibilities, the registry should be able to respond accurately to the requests of a customer within one business week.

Who will determine these and how?

 

A board that regulates the DNS structure as a whole.

 

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

 

There shouldn’t be more than 1,000 for ease of regulation and technical scalability if all registries are allowed to manage all TLD’s as described earlier in this document.

 

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

 

If we do not allow for multiple registries to give out TLDs as defined in question 3, they will continue to fight and sue each other for the ability to monopolize a GTLD.

 

19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a given registrar can administer?

 

As long as a registry can have any GTLD they wish to register via the TLD numbering system, no.

Does this depend on whether the registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the gTLD?

 

Yes.

 

E. Trademark Issues

 

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.?

 

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?

 

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

 

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

 

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.?

 

No. Due to the fact that there can be legitimate use of a domain if it does not fall within a .TMx domain, there should not be any pre-checking of an unregulated domain name. It is possible for the use of a domain called SLINKY.EDU1 to discuss snakes without infringing on the product that would reside under the domain name SLINKY.TM1.

 

In general, it is not required that a small company, individual or organization attempt to seek permission for any potential use of the word "slinky in their advertising or documentation". It is the responsibility of the company that holds the SLINKY trademark to protect itself against infringement. This should hold true if we give a GTLD that will clearly identify them.

 

25. Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate that they have a basis for requesting a particular domain name?

 

In the case of regulated GTLDs, yes. In unregulated ones, no.

If so, what information should be supplied?

 

For a domain .TMx, a Federal Trademark registration should be supplied. In the case of .INCx domains, articles of incorporation should be.

Who should evaluate the information?

 

The registry should require it in their application process.

On the basis of what criteria?

 

Legal documentation.

 

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

 

As long as the new GTLD system prevents an organization from blocking access to a legitimate trademark, product, service, or company representation, then the only rules that need to apply are the normal ones of trademark protection.

 

The key issue that has caused disputes in domain name usage has been the sole representation of one domain for the name of a product or service.

 

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

 

Yes, a domain name can be split up. If the only uses of the domain are e-mail and a website, both parties should be given the choice of one of the following two solutions:

 

The domain name in question should be put under the control of a third, uninvolved party. This party will replace the website at the domain name that lists the new websites for the disputing parties. Both companies will have only one e-mail address in the disputed domain.

They resolve their dispute.

 

If the new system described in Section 1 is used, then the disputing parties could have WIDGET.TM1 and WIDGET.TM2.


###
Number: 287
From:      "David R. Johnson" <david.johnson@Counsel.COM>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/15/97 12:12pm
Subject:   DNS NOI

David R. Johnson hereby submits comments in electronic form, in
Microsoft Word format, in response to the Department of Commerce's
Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet
Domain Names.

Acknowledgement of receipt (to david.johnson@counsel.com) would be
appreciated.

/s/
David R. Johnson

                                
                           Before the
                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
   National Telecommunications and Information Administration
                      Washington, DC 20230



      In the Matter of                    )
                                          )
      REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF  ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
      INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES               )
                                                  
 
                  Comments of David R. Johnson
                                
                                          
    ___/s/________________
    David R. Johnson
    3650 Appleton Street, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20008
    August 15, 1997
   


TABLE OF CONTENTS


 
                    Summary 
       A. Appropriate Principles
       Principles a-f 
       Other principles 
       B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
       Questions 1-9 
       C. Creation of New gTLDs
       Questions 10-14 
       D. Policies for Registries
       Questions 15-20 
       E. Trademark Issues
       Questions 21-28                                   
    
     

SUMMARY

     1. The basic principles articulated by the government are sound. The
U.S. Government should foster those and related principles by using its
role as an early operator and subsidizer of key net resources to
facilitate the growth of a sound private sector-driven system of
self-governance for the Internet. 

     2. Any system for Internet self-governance must be based on a web of
contracts entered into between users, ISPs, registrants for
net-identifiers, registrars, and various parties (such as the operators of
root servers) who implement those contracts. In general, the marketplace
can and should decide what contracts will be entered into. 

     3. The government should encourage and allow the development of
contracts that provide coordination among all registrars regarding the
terms and conditions under which net identifiers will be issued, used and
revoked. Such contracts ought not to be found to violate antitrust laws or
other public policies. Those engaged in constructing such self-regulatory
regimes should be provided with appropriate immunity from liability,
provided that they act to improve the Internet rather than for private
financial gain or special competitive advantage. 

     4. Disputes regarding registration and uses of domain names should be
resolved by a global arbitration process, resort to which is made a
condition of registration of any domain name. Such a process will produce
efficient and expert decisions that are easier to enforce globally than
are judgments by local courts. 

     5. The domain name system involves many policy issues and potential
disputes that have no relationship to traditional trademark law. Trademark
concerns should be fully taken into account but should not drive the
engineering decisions nor determine the overall shape of the system likely
to be used, more generally, for Internet governance.

                           Before the
                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
   National Telecommunications and Information Administration
                      Washington, DC 20230



      In the Matter of                    )
                                          )
      REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF  ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01
      INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES               )
                                                  
 
                  Comments of David R. Johnson
1.  I, David R. Johnson, respectfully submit comments in this proceeding.
I am Chairman of Counsel Connect, an online system for lawyers, and
Co-Director of the Cyberspace Law Institute. I have written various
articles on domain name system administration and on related Internet
governance issues (See, generally, www.cli.org). These comments are
submitted in my individual capacity.
 


A. Appropriate Principles

    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. 
       1. Competition should be analyzed at various different levels. For
any given domain, there may be a natural monopoly with respect to the
single database used to make sure that second level domain name
registrations are unique. In contrast, the provision of registration
services may benefit from competition. Certainly, the provision of lower
level identifiers (e.g., email accounts and web addresses within a
particular domain) ought to be provided on a competitive basis. 

     2. Insofar as certain types of domain names may provide a useful
"signaling" function by being associated with particular terms and
conditions (e.g., a requirement that users of ".edu" be educational
institutions), competition among registrars to provide registration
services might create confusion if the registrars were free to attach any
given terms and conditions, or to use differing levels of zeal in
enforcing standard terms. For example, certain domains might come to be
understood to include only registrations from certain types of persons
(corporations) or from persons who can be identified and found at
particular geographic addresses. If competition among registrars were to
reduce the certainty that particular terms and conditions are being
applied consistently within a particular domain, then a loss in signaling
efficiency (and an increase in information costs and transaction costs
incurred by users) would result.  The remedy for this would be for all
registrars for a particular domain to enter into and clearly disclose
concrete agreements regarding any minimum set of terms and conditions that
will be applied by all registrars to applicants for registration in that
domain. 

     3. The U.S. Government (and other governments) should make clear that
collaboration and agreements designed to produce a responsive and
responsible domain name governance system are not violations of antitrust
laws. Governments should also take all available steps to protect those
engaged in creation and administration of domain name governance systems
from risks of litigation and liability that would otherwise chill this
important activity that serves the public interest. 

     4. While there is merit in any proposal that preserves universal
addressability, some addressing schemes may reasonably require certain
actions and/or agreements on the part of the user before they provide
access to the addressed sites. For example, web sites may require
registration and agreement to particular terms as a condition of access.
Certain subdomains, such as those used by software agents, might operate
in a similar fashion.  Rather than seeking to eliminate such barriers, the
government should support the general principle that fully disclosed terms
and conditions for access to online spaces should be enforced, as a matter
of contract law, unless they violate commonly accepted trade practice
applicable to electronic commerce. New technologies and experimental
addressing schemes should also be encouraged so long as they do not cause
undue confusion or interfere with the functionality of established and
widely relied-upon systems. 

     5. Any domain name governance system should be designed to work
generally with all functional domain names, including those associated
with country codes. Insofar as the government of a particular country
asserts a desire and obtains the means to set policy with regard to its
country code domain, the degree of competition allowed or required for
provision of registration services with respect to such country code
domain should be determined by the public policy of that country, subject
only to a requirement that all registrars, including those operating with
respect to country code domains, should comply with generally applicable
trade practices as established by contracts among such registrars. Insofar
as a particular registrar sets policies that conflict with those agreed to
by most other registrars, the majority group should have the right to
cease cooperation and interconnection with those implementing conflicting
policies.  Delegation of responsibility for registration for top- level
domains, including country code domains, should take account of the
desirability of preserving a consistent and widely agreed upon policy
regime for all domains. 

    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.
       1. Private sector self-governance for the domain name system,
including policies applicable to the issuance, registration, revocation
and use of domain names at all levels, must take the form of a
multi-tiered contract regime. The accountability of such a system comes
from the fact that each actor at each level -- end user, domain name
registrant, registrar, and collaborating registrar groups and their agents
-- must voluntarily agree to specific contract terms and conditions that
define the rights of various parties with respect to the domain name in
question. Governments may, of course, become parties to such contracts in
their capacities as users of certain portions of the domain name system.
The resulting contracts will provide a flexible regime informed by those
who know most about and care most about the growth of global electronic
commerce. Such contracts should be enforced under local law unless they
violate commonly accepted trade practice or are found, by appropriate
dispute resolution mechanisms, to violate rules the parties are
contractually bound to obey. 

     2. While consensus is a laudable objective, there will always be
disagreements among some parties regarding what rules ought to apply to
the domain name system. It is not feasible to resolve such disputes by
means of electing representative legislative fora or writing mandatory
rules that could be imposed "from the top down,"  whether by local law or
international treaty. To the contrary, the best means of developing
commonly accepted and workable rules for administration of the domain name
system is to enter into multiple contracts that, collectively, "from the
bottom up," define the rights and responsibilities of the parties.
Registrants can and will decide what terms and conditions to accept in
connection with their use of particular second-level domains. Registrars
will need to attract registrants by offering acceptable terms -- and to
avoid serious risks of liability by avoiding practices that unreasonably
and unjustifiably impose harm on third parties. It is critical for the
development of this private contract-based system that governments make
clear that they will not intervene to impose rules on the participants and
that they will seek to provide a shield against antitrust and tort
liability for those engaged in good faith in the development of such an
open, responsible, and responsive self-regulatory regime. 

    c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently
global nature
    of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over time. 
       1. No one country can assuredly establish jurisdiction over, or set
rules for, all participants in any given Internet domain. Even country
code domains are used in many instances by parties that are not physically
within the jurisdiction of the particular country in question, nor bound
by its laws. Moreover, the pervasive availability of materials sent over,
or located on, the net means that non-territorially based addressing can
be very useful and most appropriate in many circumstances. Insofar as the
terms and conditions applicable to use of such addresses is based on
contracts, such rules may be easier to enforce on a global basis than
would be the rules or decisions of any particular country. 

     2. The Net is still evolving rapidly and it is reasonable to expect
that the demands placed on Internet identifiers will change quickly.
Necessary flexibility is most likely to come from decisions made by
private sector participants. 

    d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open,
robust,
    efficient, and fair. 
       1. Openness to competition should be assessed not just with respect
to the potential role of competing registrars but also with respect to the
question whether those seeking to register and use a Net identifier have a
maximum degree of freedom of choice with respect to the nature of such
identifiers and the terms and conditions under which they are obtained and
used. 

     2. Reliability of domain name resolution, including assured
uniqueness of such resolutions and the continuous availability of needed
root servers and databases, can best be assured by means of inclusion in
contracts among registrars and between registrars and root servers of
appropriate terms limiting participation in the mainstream system by those
who do not avoid duplicative addresses or do not meet applicable technical
reliability standards. 
     
     3. Any particular role, including provision of root servers,
registration of domain names, and operation of centralized registry
databases, should be open to those who meet reasonable qualifications.
Where there is a limitation on the number of parties who can play a role
at any given time (such as the need to operate one centralized database
for any particular domain), the selection of the party to play that role
-- and the terms and conditions under which the selected party performs
such services -- should be set by means of a contract entered into between
that party and the beneficiaries of such services.  Thus, the registrars
for any particular domain should contract with the provider of the central
database services and should reserve in that contract the right to replace
such central database administrator for cause or on other specified
conditions. Similarly, the registrars for all interconnecting domains
should contract with those who provide the root servers that make it
possible for end users to find applicable domain databases, and may agree
among themselves on the terms on which new qualified registrars will be
admitted to the group.

     4. In order to be "fair," the contractual agreements entered into
among participants in a particular domain name administration system need
not have been subject to individualized negotiation. The fairness of such
systems of contracts will stem from the facts that (1) to be bound by the
rules, the participants must have voluntarily entered into the agreements
that implement such systems, and (2) those who are not willing to accept
the terms and conditions available from any particular set of participants
remain free to deal with other groups or to set up their own system of
interrelated contracts.  The robustness and efficiency of the system will
come from competition among private parties to build reliable and
cost-effective systems that attract end users. Such competition and
overall "fairness" can only be preserved if the system remains "open" in
the sense that anyone who thinks they can develop a better system, without
breaking or otherwise interfering with the operation of the existing
system, remains free to do so. Preserving this openness requires that no
centralized body be given the power to prohibit the creation of sets of
contracts and operational procedures that might otherwise create
responsible competing regimes. 
    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. 
       1. Conflicts are sure to arise regarding the use of Net
identifiers. These conflicts will involve application and interpretation
of particular contract terms, claims regarding rights to continue to use
(or to revoke or transfer)  particular identifiers, and some concerns
regarding confusion, dilution or infringement of trademarks and trade
names registered under various local legal regimes. Resolution of such
conflicts will be most efficient and prompt if alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) methods are used. If resort to, and compliance with, such
ADR procedures were required under contracts among the participants, the
resulting decisions could be enforced efficiently on a global basis. 

     2. There will always be some risk that a conflict will involve a
party who has not contractually agreed to use efficient ADR methods or to
abide by the results of a fair process widely accepted by participants in
electronic commerce. Such a risk of "end runs" should be minimized by
requiring all participants in electronic commerce expressly to agree that
all disputes primarily relating to such participation should be resolved
by means of ADR.  Governments should expressly support such ADR procedures
and should take the view that it is fair and permissible to require all
participants in global electronic process to be required to resolve their
disputes in this manner. Reservation of the rights of all parties to seek
separate remedies in local courts will merely prolong and complicate
disputes, often to the detriment of all involved. Any parties who have not
entered into such agreements to use ADR may reasonably be identified as
such, so as to allow those who do not wish to deal with such "holdouts" 
to avoid doing so. 

     3. The mechanism provided for ADR should maximize the ability of the
parties to a particular dispute to choose among a wide range of neutral
and expert mediators, arbitrators, or other decisionmakers. In light of
the global character of the Net, and the presence online of most likely
parties to disputes, such ADR mechanisms should make maximum use of online
means of presenting the parties' arguments and reaching and publishing the
needed decisions. 

    f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration
of these
    issues permits. 
       1. Insofar as a robust and open framework will evolve from the
bottom up, as a result of contracts entered into among participants in
global electronic commerce, there is no need or occasion for any rush
towards promulgation by any "authoritative" body of any "top down" set of
rules. But it would be helpful for all governments promptly to make clear
that they will enforce the contracts entered into by the parties and that
they will shield those engaged in creation of a responsible and responsive
governance mechanism from risks of antitrust and tort liability. 

     2. Insofar as the U.S. Government subsidizes or provides particular
elements of the domain name system, it should promptly make clear the
specific terms and conditions on which it will continue to do so.  Insofar
as the U.S. Government uses the domain name infrastructure, it should
enter into agreements consistent with those acceptable to most private
participants. 

    Other principles
       1. No government should reserve the right to pass laws or make
policies applicable to persons or resources not within its physical
territory.  In particular, the mere fact that practices engaged in by
those administering the Internet identifier systems might have an impact
in any particular country, based on the accessibility of the Net from
within that country, is not sufficient to support a claimed right of any
such country to regulate the terms and conditions under which Net
identifiers are issued or used. 

     2. No single group of private (or even "public interest") actors may
legitimately claim the right to set rules or establish mandatory practices
applicable to the issuance and use of Net identifiers, regardless of the
relationship of such group to historical means by which such rules and
practices have evolved. Instead, the claim to legitimacy of any set of
rules must stem from the entry by appropriate participants into binding
contracts that embody those rules. 

B. General/Organizational
Framework Issues

    1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration
    systems? 
       1. The mnemonic character of domain names is very valuable, not so
much for its "guessability" but rather for the aid it provides for
preserving relevant addresses in short term human memory. 

     2. The variety of terms and conditions under which Net identifiers of
all types can be issued to end users is very valuable. 

     3. The current relative speed and relatively low costs associated
with issuance of domain name registrations should be preserved. 

     4. There is now an unfortunate level of uncertainty regarding the
extent of rights to prolonged use and enjoyment of registered domain names
and concerning the specific terms and conditions under which such use
occurs (including questions regarding the procedures by which such terms
and conditions may be established and changed). 
    2. How might current domain name systems be improved? 
       1. Domain names could provide substantially more meaningful
information regarding the character of the party using a particular
address, or the nature of the material or service found at a particular
address, or the terms and conditions under which a particular identifier
is used, could be improved substantially, insofar as applicable sets of
terms and conditions were more clearly established and reliably enforced. 

     2. Uncertainties regarding the extent to which continued use of
domain names is assured to registrants (and regarding who sets the terms
and conditions under which registration under particular domains is
offered)  should be reduced. 

     3. Costs associated with resolution of disputes between domain name
holders and owners of trademarks should be reduced. 
    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? 
       1. The party accepting an application to register a domain name
should have a clear and assured right to provide the registrant with
accurate information regarding the availability of the name, with reliable
entry of the registration, and with stable and secure enjoyment of the
rights to use such name in accordance with applicable contract terms. 

     2. The party operating a central database of registrations for any
particular domain should be able to provide reliable service to the
registrars and, indirectly, to registrants. 

     3. A party providing root server services should be contractually
obligated to participating registrars to provide reliable and responsive
service. 

     4. There need not be, and should not be, any single central entity
whose agreement or permission is required as a condition to establishment
of what would otherwise be a domain name system that does not break or
interfere with established systems, cause undue confusion, or infringe
third parties' proprietary rights. 

    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? 
       1. The core decisionmaking process that ought to underlie any
domain name system is the entry by participants into binding contractual
agreements. 

     2. The proper role of governments is to enforce such agreements,
unless they violate antitrust laws or other public policies. As long as
the agreements provide for open processes, they should be found not to
violate antitrust policies. In assessing the limitations provided by
"public policy," governments should look to the "trade practices"
established by participants in global electronic commerce. Governments
should also provide immunity from tort liability for those engaged in
creation of responsible and responsive self-governance mechanisms for the
Internet. 

    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? 
    
       1. Many private parties have made major investments based on
assumptions regarding the continued availability of the .com registry and
other top level domains. Little is to be gained, and much would be lost,
by elimination of such domains. 

     2. Because the Net is accessible on a global basis, use of
nonterritorial domains is appropriate and useful in many contexts. Any
required use of country code identifiers would be most unlikely to
eliminate or substantially reduce uncertainties or conflicts regarding
application of local laws. In particular, there is no necessarily valid
inference that those operating within a country code domain are bound by,
or found within, the jurisdiction of that country's laws. Efforts to
require contractual agreements that condition operation within a country
code domain upon submission to that legal jurisdiction would create
increased confusion and conflicts of laws: the enforcement of such
contracts would still be contested in other jurisdictions, persons from
different domains would still need to interact, and the cost of locating
and applying local laws to particular cross-boundary transactions and
disputes would still be substantial. 

     3. While it may be possible in theory to separate gTLD management
issues from questions about country code domains, there are many reasons
to adopt a single policy paradigm for all top level domains. Sound
operation of a core root server function probably requires that the root
server operators have the same contractual relationships with all the
cooperating registrars they serve. Confusion and operating costs will be
reduced, if as many top level domain registrars as feasible enter into a
cooperative agreement. The potential for confusion, abuse and infringement
exist in all top-level domains -- so any applicable policies and
dispute-resolution procedures designed to deal with trademark issues will
operate most effectively if applicable to all top-level domains. This is
not to say that all top level domains must have the same sets of policies,
procedures, rules, and terms and conditions for registration. To the
contrary, any standardization should be adopted only to the extent this is
voluntarily agreed to among participants, based on what appears necessary
to achieve the most reliable and flexible and valuable system.
Nevertheless, the policy paradigm should allow for the possibility that
all types of top-level domain registrars may want to agree upon some core
(i.e., standardized) rules or practices. 

    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? 
       1. There does not appear to be any technological means of
eliminating the possibility that a domain name or other Net identifier may
be used in a fashion that creates confusion regarding the source of
information or services. Some set of rules and dispute-resolution
procedures is needed to deal with this problem on a global basis. 

     2. There are many other issues relating to domain name registrations
as to which there is no purely technological solution. Questions regarding
how to set applicable fees, whether and when registrations must be renewed
or may be revoked, and issues regarding any terms and conditions imposed
as a prerequisite to issuance and use of a Net identifier all raise
"policy" questions.  Such questions must be dealt with by means of (1)
unilateral choices made by participants on the net, (2) agreements reached
among such participants (and their agents and service providers), and, as
a last resort, (3) laws imposed by local sovereigns (via application to
particular actors within their jurisdictions or, in concert with other
nations, by treaty). 

     3. Insofar as operators of root servers provide a service that is
needed to allow decentralized name server software to locate the databases
containing definitive information regarding particular top-level domains,
both domain name holders and registrars have a vital stake in the reliable
operation of such root servers (under policies that serve the interests of
ISPs and end users).  Accordingly, it may be advisable to transition to
operation of root servers by actors who serve as contractually obligated
agents of groups of registrars. 
    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?
       1. Root servers can continue to interoperate and coordinate, either
by means of reaching agreements among themselves or by means of agreeing
to operate on behalf of, and under directions from, a set of registrars
that have agreed to coordinate their own actions.  It may not be feasible
or necessary to attempt to require that the operator of any computer that
resolves inquiries regarding the location of domain name databases must
operate under one uniform set of operational terms.  As long as separate
operation of supplemental root servers does not "break" the generally
acceptable system, the worst impact of such "supplemental" root servers
may be simply that the Net will have failed to that extent to achieve
consensus around a single, universal standard.  Some experimentation
around the edges of any given system seems highly desirable. If
experimental systems "break the Net" or interfere with the reliable
operation of existing domain name systems, then the operators of the
mainstream domain name (and IP address) allocation systems could take
effective action to disable the "interfering" source (or those knowingly
hosting it).  8. How should the transition to any new systems be
accomplished? 
     1. Assuming general agreement among participants upon a standardized
set of interlocked contracts, the U.S. government could greatly facilitate
an orderly transition by: (1) directing the root servers under its control
to point to domains that are operated in conformance with such mainstream
standard agreements; (2) directing any agencies or contractors that it
controls or subsidizes (IANA, InterNIC) to transfer any assets or
prerogatives under their control to those operating the new system (in
conformance with the generally agreed upon contractual terms);  and (3)
entering into such standard contracts, in its capacities as a regular user
of the net, as a holder of various second-level and top-level domain
names, as an operator of a registry/registrar (e.g., .mil), and as an
operator of root servers. 
    9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area? 
       1. Most people want a system in which each node on the network can
locate and address every other public node, by means of mnemonic domain
name lookup.  Local domain name server software must have a way to locate
the databases associated with every commonly recognized domain name. This
implies pointing to a "root"  server, and a set of multiple root servers
that are kept "in sync" by common agreement. Only those domains that are
recognized by the central, synchronized, mainstream root servers will
appear to most users of the net. Accordingly, the key question may be for
whose benefit the mainstream root servers agree to operate. 

     2. No one government has complete control over the establishment and
regulation of root servers. While the U.S. Government subsidizes many root
servers, others could be cheaply established.  Ultimately, ISPs who run
domain name servers have control over which root servers their server
software targets. Therefore, large ISPs, who could subsidize the creation
of root servers, and the updating of name server software, will select the
root server operators and control the agreements among root servers
regarding what domain names to recognize. 

     3. Large ISPs must compete for customers. Insofar as large numbers of
customers, particularly those who seek to register second-level domains,
insist on some specific practices by ISPs with regard to relationships
with the domain name registration and lookup system, such practices will
likely prevail. 

     4. Anyone seeking to establish a new top-level domain must obtain the
agreement of the dominant root servers to point to the database that
represents the domain. Anyone seeking to establish a second-level domain
name must find some way to register it in a database that allocates unique
second-level domains to particular parties. 

     5. There are thus four distinct and important types of contracts that
must be entered into (explicitly or implicitly) to make the domain name
system work: (1) an agreement among root servers to point to particular
sets of domains and to update data consistently, (2) an agreement among
registrars/registries not to take actions that cause conflicts and to take
actions to protect the integrity of the domain name system, (3) an
agreement between the party registering a second level domain to abide by
the terms and conditions made applicable to such registration by the
registrar/registry, and (4) an agreement between an end user and an ISP
with regard to the terms and conditions for use of a net identifier (such
as an email address or subsidiary web page address), which carries with it
some terms regarding access to domain name lookup software and stability
of the higher level domain registrations. 

     6. There is no necessary relationship between the system used to
allocate domain names and the system used to allocate IP numbers. But many
of the same questions regarding fairness, open systems for formulating
policy, protection of reliance interests, and relationships to national
laws are similar for both systems. 

     7. Any given registrar (or group of registrars, or, derivatively,
group of root servers or ISPs with an interest in the subject matter) may
have reasons to want to preclude or revoke registrations of particular
domain names (on the ground that they infringe third party rights, offend
others, have been used to facilitate violation of some core net "public
policy" or local law, etc.). Registrants of particular second level domain
names may have reasons (such as substantial investments in reliance upon
such registrations) to want to be sure that their registrations cannot be
revoked without just cause and due process. 

     8. Local courts and local laws must be relied upon to force the
parties to contracts relating to the use, registration and revocation of
domain names, and the operation of the domain name system, to abide by
such contracts. But local laws need not be the source of any special rules
applicable to the domain name system. Insofar as submission to
international specialized online arbitration is made a mandatory condition
of participation in the domain name system, that arbitration process can
become the sole source of decisions regarding interpretation of the
contracts. 

     9. Insofar as third parties (who have not entered into the relevant
contracts) advance claims in local courts regarding alleged harms from the
operation of the domain name system, and insofar as some parties who have
entered into such contracts seek to avoid their obligations by claiming
that such contracts are unconscionable or violate "public policy," local
courts and local laws can and should defer to "trade practice" among those
participating in electronic commerce to determine what is reasonable.
Accordingly, the domain name system can and should be supplemented with a
mechanism for determining what contract terms participants on the Net
consider to be unenforceable. Local laws should override such Net-based
"public policy" determinations only when local authorities have clear
jurisdiction over all the parties and when the interests of the local
jurisdiction in the resolution of the matter clearly exceed the interests
of participants in global electronic commerce. 

     10. The mechanism for development of "Net public policy" can take the
form of (1) decisions in the course of the arbitration process, if these
are published; and (2) deliberations online among parties with appropriate
levels of interest and expertise. There is no need for codification of
such deliberations into a "statutory" code -- and any effort to reduce
such policies to authoritative texts would risk rapid obsolescence. To the
contrary, the substance of online discussions of such questions should be
made available to decisionmakers (both the arbitrators with jurisdiction
over Net participants and the local courts hearing claims from those who
do not participate on the net and who are therefore not bound to engage in
arbitration of their claims) who are faced with concrete questions
regarding how to interpret and whether to enforce particular contract
terms. 

     11. Various domains and subdomains should be free to adopt differing
terms and conditions for registration, use and revocation of net
identifiers, subject to the public policy override and the terms of
particular contracts into which they have entered voluntarily. 

     12. Local governments should decide that the system of contracts
governing the domain name system is not a violation of any antitrust laws,
provided that the contracts (1) do not exclude participation by would-be
entrants other than on substantively reasonable grounds (involving a valid
business purpose) and (2) do not leverage any claim to intellectual
property rights (or any monopoly over any resource required for
participation in the domain name system) into a special competitive
advantage for one party (or closed group) with respect to any aspect of
the domain name system that would otherwise be open to competition. 

     13. It will be useful for all participants in the domain name system
to have ample notice of the likely terms and conditions under which
additional top-level domains may be added and administered. The root
servers, and the existing registries, and key ISPs, should, therefore
promptly enter into an agreement setting forth the mechanisms to be used
to create new domains and the key terms and conditions all agree should be
applicable to all registrars/registries. 

     14. It is unclear whether particular local laws will be found to
apply to the registration and use of country code domains. Each registrar
for each country code domain should promptly make clear its policies with
regard to the application of local laws, the required submission of claims
to particular local or international arbitral dispute resolution, and any
other terms and conditions applicable to registration and use of country
code domains. Insofar as any such terms and conditions are inconsistent
with general "Net public policy," and not justified by vital local
interests that outweigh the general interest of all participants in global
electronic commerce in establishing the contrary rule, then the contracts
among registrars and root servers may provide for cancellation of the
delegations of responsibility for registration under such country code
domains. 

     15. The contracts among root servers and registrars may provide for
rules of various types designed to prevent or punish (1) failure to pay
reasonable fees supporting operation of the domain name system and
particular registrars/registries; (2) creation of confusion regarding the
identity or nature of particular parties or online addresses; (3) failure
to provide appropriate operational security and reliability; (4) actions,
such as fraud, theft or vandalism, that inflict unjustifiable harm on
third parties; or (5) failure to abide by the terms of applicable
contracts, including obligations imposed as a fully disclosed condition of
entry into a particular online space (unless such contracts violate Net
public policy). 



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? 
       1. Insofar as gTLDs serve as mnemonic devices, which help people
remember locations on the net (and, to a much lesser extent, to "guess"
locations corresponding to existing commercial and noncommercial
institutions), expansion of the number of gTLDs could somewhat impair that
function. On the other hand, a finite number of new gTLDs with easy to
recognize and meaningfully distinct names might enhance that function. 

     2. The root server system probably cannot deal with an arbitrarily
large number of gTLDs, because it represents a centralized resource that
must address and update multiple copies of a single database. 
    11. Should additional gTLDs be created? 
       1. There is no clearly right or wrong answer to this question. The
best way to evaluate it is to allow the creation of new gTLDs by
responsible actors, in the context of an overall governance system that
responds to the needs of those participating in global electronic
commerce, and then see whether potential registrants sign up. If users
demand the new gTLD registrations and other registrars can coordinate
successfully with the new entrants, the answer is "Yes." If no one signs
up, or the new gTLDs cannot be successfully integrated operationally (and
by contract) with the existing system, the answer is "No." 

    12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about
guaranteeing the
    scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of
gTLDs?
       1. It is increasingly difficult for particular registrants who want
a non-country-code domain name to find satisfying second-level domain
names in the most popular ".com" top level domain. Creation of some
alternative gTLDs could help to alleviate these problems and, helpfully,
enhance the growth of global domain names that can operate under diverse
rules responsive to various constituencies. 
    13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO
country code
    domains? 
       1. Insofar as gTLDs use distinct registrars and establish separate
policies, their administration is separable. But the same root servers are
used for looking up both gTLDs and ISO country code domain databases -- so
any set of agreements or systematic means for administration of the most
widely used root servers must deal with both types of domains. Moreover,
insofar as trademark protection or other policy questions potentially
relate to all domain names, it is impossible to resolve such policy
questions by means of management structures or agreements that relate only
to one portion of the domain space. 

    14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area? 
       1. One key issue in this area is whether only one person or entitye
will have the power to decide as to whether or not to create new gTLDs. 
If so, then numerous subsidiary questions arise concerning how to make
that person or entity accountable to the full range of participants in
online commerce, all of whom are impacted by such decisions. If not (i.e.,
if it is possible that the decision to create new gTLDs might be made by
multiple parties, in a decentralized fashion), then the question is
instead how the decisions of such parties might be coordinated or
constrained to avoid unnecessary and counterproductive conflicts (or other
vices). It appears that decisions to create new gTLDs might be made by
many people, in a decentralized fashion, and yet still result in a
responsible and responsive system, insofar as the widespread use of a
particular new gTLD would require willingness on the part of mainstream
root servers, acting as agents of mainstream registrars, to point to the
new gTLD. A community of responsible actors, coordinating their activities
by contract, can serve as a mechanism that tests and accepts new proposed
operating procedures that originate from decentralized sources. This is
the standard mechanism of open standards processes. Its feasibility
suggests that there is no need to centralize power in any one "political"
body in order to preserve the reliability of the mainstream Net. 

     2. Insofar as an important determinant of the value of a new gTLD is
its presence in the database used by the predominant root servers, and
insofar as the U.S. Government administers or supports many if not all of
the root servers at present, another issue is what constituencies the U.S.
Government should seek to serve in the course of deciding whether and how
to open up such root servers to point to new gTLDs or to transfer its
prerogatives in that regard to private parties.  A related, perhaps
subsidiary, question is who will make and implement those decisions on
behalf of the government.  Having helped to launch the Internet, the U.S.
Government should now serve the long-term health and growth of Net
self-regulation by acting through a single policy arm to empower (and
contract with) the parties who appear to be engaged in constructing the
most responsible and responsive web of contracts dealing with these
issues. 

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? 
       1. While shared gTLDs have not been widely demonstrated in
practice, with some limited exceptions (such as the delegation of
registration role by Nominet to third parties), there does not appear to
be any theoretical limit on the use of a single domain name registration
database by multiple parties, each of whom offers to enter into a
registration agreement. 

     2. On the other hand, there is no reason why some gTLDs might not be
served by a single registrar on an exclusive basis while other gTLDs were
administered on a shared basis. An exclusive registrar may make it more
difficult to transfer a registration to another registrar, within the same
domain, for purposes, for example, of seeking the lowest registration fee.
But an exclusive registrar might also be able more effectively to promote
the value of a particular gTLD and might, therefore, be able create more
value for consumers. The market ought to be able to choose effectively
between the two models. 

     3. One problem with shared registries could arise if the registries
are allowed or encouraged to established widely varying terms and
conditions. Insofar as domain names serve as concise means of signaling
that a particular registrant has entered into a specific contract
applicable to that domain (and required as a condition of registration by
the registry), the sharing of registry duties among unrelated third
parties could operate to make it less clear whether the holder of any
given domain name has agreed to any particular set of obligations
(including, e.g., the obligation to provide accurate name and address
information, or to comply with requirements that only certain types of
entities use particular domains, etc.) 

     4. If domain names cannot really be made portable, in the sense that
the full terms and conditions initially agreed to by a registrant cannot
be transferred by that registrant at will to assure continued operation of
the domain name under such terms and conditions, regardless who performs
the registration function, then there will be more pressure to assure that
registries are substantial, responsible parties and that such registries
are not subject to arbitrary revocation or alteration of their rights by
means of actions of other groups (such as a council of other registrars).
This will lead thoughtful and careful registrants to insist on the
creation of a web of contracts that establishes, in effect, enforceable
property rights with regard to domain name registrations. 
    16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars,
and what
    responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these
and how?
       1. The marketplace should determine this, insofar as registrants
can decide unilaterally whether to deal with a particular registry and
insofar as other registrars can decide whether and on what terms to agree
to work together to create a shared domain registration database, or to
coordinate their activities as a council of registries.  The mainstream
group of registrars need not reserve the right to prohibit formation of a
new registrar -- because they can simply decide not to allow an
irresponsible registrar (or one not otherwise willing to adopt generally
agreed upon standards for operations or policy) to join the core group
(and they can direct root servers operating as their agents not to point
to an irresponsible domain). 

     2. A more serious question is posed by the likely decision of any
would-be registrar to challenge in court or before some local authority
the decision of a mainstream group (which by its actions is defining and
enforcing generally accepted standards) to exclude it. A decision by a
local authority that the mainstream group must admit a member that the
group does not deem qualified would be tantamount to a finding that the
mainstream group may not develop and apply such a standard.  If the
private group applies criteria that have a valid purpose connected with
the improvement of the Net, rather than being designed solely to place the
interests of a small identifiable group of participants ahead of those of
their competitors, then the decisions of the private group should receive
deference. If the private group conducts its affairs in the open, and
regularly welcomes input from third parties, and appears genuinely willing
to enter into applicable contractual agreements with anyone meeting its
publicly articulated criteria, and applies its criteria to concrete cases
by means of processes that afford notice and a reasonable opportunity to
be heard by a neutral decision-maker, then its decisions also deserve
deference on that account. Governments should support these principles in
applying their antitrust laws and in ruling on (and precluding) tort
claims made by those who challenge self-regulatory systems.
    17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain
name
    registrars? 
       1. Insofar as a registrar can serve merely as an agent for purposes
of finding registrants and entering into agreements with such registrants
on terms and conditions specified in advance, and subject to confirmation
by a central database that the domain name for which registration is
sought is available, there do not appear to be any such limits. 

     2. Insofar as each registrar might have exclusive duties with regard
to a particular domain, then the limitations on the number of registrars
would stem from limitations on the ability of root servers to store and
update information about multiple domains. 
    18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name
space raised by
    increasing the number of domain name registrars? 
       1. There are already approximately 200 distinct top-level domains
and even more registrars. As their numbers increased substantially, there
might be some added expense or difficulty in coordinating their
activities.  But, in general, there are substantial reasons to want to
have a large number of registrars, with various diverse policies regarding
registration and with a presence in and responsiveness to a very large
number of differing communities of potential registrants. 
    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? 
       1. The marketplace can provide an answer to this question. Insofar
as operation of registries for multiple domains makes a registrar more
efficient and effective, then domains under the control of such a
multi-domain registrar should prosper. Insofar as such operations detract
from the registrar's ability to serve each separate community of
registrants, potential registrants will seek out alternatives. 
    20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area? 
       1. One major question that has not been fully enough explored is
the extent to which registrars are or should be constrained in terms of
their right to revoke registrations on particular grounds. Any widely
accepted system will need to provide, by means of enforceable contracts or
other means, adequate protection against "hold up" fees and security
sufficient to allow registrants to invest in reliance on the continued
availability of the domain names they have registered. 

     2. Another key question that has not yet been fully discussed is the
extent, if any, to which a domain name registrar may claim intellectual
property rights in the database(s) resulting from registrations, or,
indeed, may make any use of such information other than as required to
further the goals of the registration system. Such rights might
appropriately be established and defined by means of contracts between
registries and registrants -- and constrained overall by the standards to
which registries must agree as a condition for entry into a mainstream
coalition that prevents conflicts and oversees the operation of root
servers. But it appears that most registrants and registries have not yet
paid adequate attention to these issues.  

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? 
       1. Uses of domain names on the Internet to indicate a source of
goods or services can be infringing or diluting of traditional marks. But
trademark law now relies heavily on the geographic separation of
marketplaces (most marks are valid only within particular geographic
territories) and on the applicability of marks to particular lines of
business (often facilitated by the attachment of marks to physical goods). 
Insofar as domain names are global and do not necessarily and clearly
relate to any particular line of business, they present a new set of
problems.  Moreover, insofar as they may include generic terms (e.g.,
"sneakers.com") and are widely used for noncommercial purposes, domain
names present certain distinct questions relating to confusion, dilution,
and fraud that are not solved by any existing trademark laws. 

     2. If we were addressing these questions ab initio, we would want to
create a system that (1) provides unique, reliable resolution of domain
names to particular IP numbers, (2) prohibits the use of confusingly
similar or identical domain names under circumstances in which such uses
will lead to confusion on the part of users (or fraud, passing off, or
other well-recognized forms of unfair competition), (3) provides clear and
prompt notice to all concerned regarding which domain names are already
"taken" and which proposed new names will create unjustified harms to
users of existing names, (4) allows full use of the domain name space for
noncommercial as well as commercial purposes, (5) avoids unnecessarily
destroying any values associated with substantial investments in brand
names, (6) avoids rewarding those who reserve names for the purpose of
"hold ups" or otherwise take opportunistic actions without substantial
economic or social justifications, and (7) applies and is enforceable,
with prompt and efficient dispute resolution, on a global basis. 

     3. The best way to serve these goals is to recognize that, while
domain names can infringe trademarks, they represent a distinct form of
identifier that differs in material respects from traditional marks. We
should develop, by contract, a global regime that is based on and respects
the unique characteristics of these identifiers.  That regime can and
should respect the interests of parties with established, globally famous
marks -- as it respects the interests of established, globally accessible
domain names that may or may not be used for commercial purposes. Insofar
as most of the owners of globally famous marks will want to participate in
the Internet, and will therefore want to become signatories of the
registration contracts that form a key component of the domain name
system, it should be possible to resolve the conflicts between domain name
holders and trademark owners, pursuant to such contracts, whether these
conflicts relate to substantive rules regarding rights or to procedures
used to resolve particular cases. Any trademark owner who did not agree to
reasonable and commonly accepted terms applicable to protection of both
domain names and trademarks could be denied a registration. Any domain
name at risk of infringement liability claims from such a rare hold-out
could be reserved or perhaps issued only at the risk of the registrant. In
most cases, both trademark owners and domain name registrants will
recognize the novel character of these new identifiers and will agree to
be bound by rules and dispute resolution procedures that give all
concerned adequate notice of both their rights and any limitations on
those rights. 
    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? 
       1. Because many trademark rights are established by use, rather
than registration, it will be very difficult to be sure in advance (or
even shortly after registration) that any particular domain name does not
conflict with any and all marks in use on tangible products.

     2. Preliminary review processes run the risk of imposing substantial
and costly delays on many parties, while providing meaningful guidance or
conflict prevention for very few. 

     3. The private sector will likely provide databases and lookup
services that do help potential registrants evaluate the likelihood of
conflicts. 

     4. As discussed below, a mandatory alternative dispute resolution
process, reference to which is required as a condition for registration of
a domain name, would be most likely to produce efficient, informed
decisions and to yield results that are enforceable on a global basis. 
    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? 
       1. While many owners of strong marks may prefer to turn to national
and local courts to protect their marks, that preference is
inappropriately based on their ability to expend far greater resources on
litigation than can their typical adversaries. A better informed view of
their own self-interest would suggest that it will be easier for owners of
strong, globally famous marks to protect their legitimate interests if
their disputes are resolved by means of an arbitration process. Accepted
as part of the registration contract, arbitration would produce fair and
expert results and the resulting decisions would be easier to enforce on a
global basis than the judgments of local courts. Insofar as such awards
deal only with the issuance or revocation of domain names (as distinct
from injunctions against persons or the award of damages), such "in rem"
decisions should not be seen to raise serious questions regarding the
jurisdiction of local courts or governments. In contrast, remitting
decisions regarding domain names to local courts could well lead to many
conflicting decisions and, while unfairly favoring the interests of
parties with superior resources, would also impose substantial costs on
all participants in global electronic commerce. 
    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? 
       1. The domain name system is itself a distributed database that
contains extensive information regarding the use of such identifiers. 

     2. The private sector already does supply products and services
designed to assist those who want to spot and avoid conflicts and
disputes. It can be expected to develop new offerings. Any attempt to
develop a definitive central database would artificially constrain the
growth and flexibility of the domain name system itself -- and probably
fail in attempting to prevent disputes. 
    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?
       1. The requirements imposed as a condition of registering a domain
name should be established as a matter of contract between the registrant
and the registrar. Insofar as a number of registrars agree among
themselves to require a particular item of information, or a particular
contractual undertaking on the part of the registrant, that requirement
should stem from an agreement among registrars who must at least
potentially compete with other registrars who might not agree to impose
such terms and conditions. 

     2. It seems reasonable to require a registrant to warrant that it
does not know that its use of a domain name will infringe the rights of
third parties. It seems much less reasonable to demand a demonstration
that there cannot be any such disputes -- much less that the registrant
establish some affirmative right or "basis" on which to claim the use of a
particular second level domain name. If the name is not in use, and is not
known to be likely to infringe a third party's rights, then it should be
available to be issued. The number and diversity of theoretically possible
infringement claims is such that no one could reasonably certify that
their use will not create any difficulties. Moreover, the many
noncommercial and personal uses of domain names makes it highly
inappropriate and unjustified to require that all registrations be
conditioned on demonstrated possession of any specified forms of
intellectual property rights. Indeed, because of the many legitimate uses
of anonymity and pseudonymity, and the rapidity of change in the uses to
which domain names are put, it might well be unreasonable to ask for
specific real world identifying information as a condition to
registration, where this is not needed to assure payment of registration
fees, and it may also be unreasonable to require statement of any fixed or
specific purpose for use of a particular domain name. As noted, the
market, in the form of registrants deciding where to register, and
registrars deciding what terms to impose (on registrants and on
cooperating registrars), will best decide these types of questions. 
    26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of
registrars affect
    the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes? 
       1. Some large companies apparently fear that proliferation of
numerous gTLDs will make it harder and more costly for them to protect
their marks. This concern seems overstated, in light of the fact that the
Internet provides many opportunities to automate the process of searching
for infringements. Insofar as the concern represents a view that it will
be hard to protect non-globally-famous marks in many gTLDs, because
holders of conflicting marks that are now used in other territories or
lines of business will be able to establish prior registrations of
particular domain names, the objections prove too much. Non-famous marks
should not be made easier to protect, as against other non-famous marks,
just because the owner of such marks is a large company that wants to
establish its brand globally. To the contrary, one reason to expand the
number of gTLDs is to create more space in which non-globally-famous marks
can co-exist. 
    27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a
single domain
    name, are there any technological solutions? 
       1. By agreement, the owners of conflicting marks could establish an
intermediate page, at the domain name in question, pointing in multiple
directions. Such agreements are unlikely, however, unless the trademark
owners have roughly equally valuable (and otherwise "compatible") brands
and neither one of them establishes a prior right to the domain name. 

     2. In the vast majority of cases, this is simply not a problem that
is so serious that it ought to drive the design of the domain name system.
There are many alternative satisfactory domain names that might be
associated with any given trademark. Seriously and intentionally confusing
or infringing uses can be prevented or punished.  Expansion of the gTLD
name space can also relieve this problem, insofar as it stems from
scarcity. 
    28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area? 
       1. The challenge to the trademark system posed by the net does not
relate only to top-level domains.  Confusing or infringing uses of marks
may be made in the context of any Net identifier, including third and
fourth level domains and even email addresses (and, indeed, direct use of
marks on web pages). Thus, any effort to deal with trademark protection
must take into account the fact that all Net identifiers, generally, can
be used to cause confusion and can be accessed globally. It may be that
the best way to deal with this problem is to encourage the adoption by
mainstream registrars and system administrators of contracts that include
among their provisions agreements to prohibit the use of Net identifiers
to cause unjustified harm to important property interests of third parties
and to revoke the registration or issuance of such identifiers by those
found by fair processes to have committed such wrongs. 

     2. Net identifiers may be used in various ways that create confusion
or mislead users but that have no connection to trademarks. We should
encourage the development of clear rules against such wrongful actions --
and foster private institutions that can apply such rules in a fair and
efficient manner. 


###
Number: 288
From:      "bobb@es.co.nz" <Bob.Berryman@panix.com>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/15/97 6:49am
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 Bob Berryman 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.

-------------------------------
Friday, August 15, 1997 06:48:06 EDT
Bob Berryman


------------------------
http://zero.tolerance.org
at@zero.tolerance.org



###
Number: 289
From:      "editec@agate.net" <Guy.Chocensky@panix.com>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/15/97 2:21pm
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 Guy Chocensky 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.

-------------------------------
Friday, August 15, 1997 14:19:51 EDT
Guy Chocensky


------------------------
http://zero.tolerance.org
at@zero.tolerance.org

###
Number: 290
From:      "cvision@leroy.cc.uregina.ca" <Ahasiw.Maskegon-Iskwew@violet.xs2.net>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/15/97 4:25pm
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 Ahasiw Maskegon-Iskwew 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.

-------------------------------
Friday, August 15, 1997 16:24:02 EDT
Ahasiw Maskegon-Iskwew


###
Number: 291
From:      "janis@kkh.se" <Jaanis.Garancs@violet.xs2.net>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/15/97 6:21pm
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 Jaanis Garancs 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.

-------------------------------
Friday, August 15, 1997 18:20:05 EDT
Jaanis Garancs




###
Number: 292
From:      "registration@g3.org" <George.Morris@violet.xs2.net>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/8/97 12:50am
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 George Morris 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.

-------------------------------
Friday, August 8, 1997 00:47:46 EDT
George Morris



###
Number: 293
From:      "pit@icf.de" <Pit.Schultz@violet.xs2.net>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/15/97 9:14pm
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 Pit Schultz 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.

-------------------------------
Friday, August 15, 1997 21:13:27 EDT
Pit Schultz

Berlin, Germany




###
Number: 294
From:      "DRPRODS@AOL.COM" <Louise.Diamond@violet.xs2.net>
To:        NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date:      8/15/97 10:03pm
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 Louise Diamond 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.

-------------------------------
Friday, August 15, 1997 22:02:23 EDT
Louise Diamond