From: "J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)" <bsemich@mail.nu>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(kkirchgasser,ksmith,usdomain),NTIADC40...

Date: 8/30/98 12:09pm

Subject: Docket No. 980212036-8172-03: U.S. Gov't Position on ccTLDs and national govern

August 30, 1998

MEMO

To: Kathy Smith, Acting Chief Counsel

National Telecommunications and Information Administration,

Dept. of Commerce

From: J. William Semich

President

Internet Users Society - Niue

P.O. Box 91

Alofi, Niue, via Auckland, NZ

The South Pacific

RE: Docket No. 980212036-8172-03

The U.S. Government's Position on ccTLDs and national governments

Dear Ms. Smith;

I would like to bring your attention to a potentially dangerous and erroneous assumption you appear to have made in question number 8 in the "Questions for Public Comment" in THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, Docket No.980212036-8172-03, "Request for Comments on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space."

In that question, you ask:

"8.How well has the system of delegating third-level domains (localities) to private registrars on an exclusive basis worked? How could it be improved? Should registrars be accountable to their delegated localities *(just as country-code registries are accountable to national governments)?*" [emphasis added]

The current ccTLD registries are not, either as a matter of law or of Internet standards (RFCs), explicitly "accountable to national governments". In RFC 1591, the current document that explains how country code registries should be delegated and what the delegated ccTLD registries' responsibilities should be, no mention of the word "government" is made.

Country-code registries are delegated, under RFC 1591, to set the policies for and manage domain name registration and sub-delegation for the ISO 3166 Country Code TLDs associated with some 240 countries, islands, sub-territories and scores of non-national locations (both

occupied and unoccupied, governed and not governed) throughout the world.

Antarctica, for example, has an ISO 3166 Country Code associated with it (AQ) and thus also an ISO 3166 ccTLD (.aq). That is not to say Antarctica has a "national government." And in those ISO 3166 Country Code areas which do have national or local governments, it is not a forgone conclusion by any stretch that either the national government or the local government is directly involved in the ccTLD delegation selection process or with the registration procedures of second level domain names for the ISO 3166 country-code TLD associated with the locality where it governs.

RFC 1591 clearly states that the IANA, the current entity with the responsibility for overseeing implementation of country code TLD delegation, "is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which entities should be and should not be on that list."

The NTIA and the U.S. Commerce Department could be construed as propagating misinformation to the public at large if, as you appear to be stating in the publicly posted Docket No. 980212036-8172-03, you are asserting that the U.S. government believes country-code registries are, either as a matter of law, or of Internet Standards rulings or of U.S. Government policy, "accountable to national governments."

I would hope that you either modify your RFC or you submit an addendum to Docket No. 980212036-8172-03 that clarifies to the general public that the NTIA, the U.S. Commerce Dept and the U.S. Government have no position on whether "country-code registries are accountable to national governments" or not.

There are more that 200 Country Code TLD Registries active on the internet today, and it is important that the U.S. Government continue to maintain a position of neutrality concerning how these registries are managed now and into the future.

Sincerely,

J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)

President

Internet Users Society - Niue

Box 91

Alofi, Niue, via Auckland, NZ, The South Pacific

bsemich@mail.nu

The .NU Domain

http://www.nunames.nu

Memberships: WWTLD, APTLD, APIA, ISP/C. ISOC, PAB (gTLD-MoU)

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("wwtld@ripe.net","apcctld-all@apng...

###

From: <william@tjns.tj>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(ksmith,kkirchgasser,usdomain)

Date: 8/30/98 4:18pm

Subject: Re: Docket No. 980212036-8172-03: U.S. Gov't Position on ccTLDs and national govern

> Ms Smith,

>

> In message <9808301209.AA721974@mail.nu>, "J. William Semich \(NIC JWS7\)"

> writes:

>

> > I would like to bring your attention to a potentially dangerous and erroneous assumption you > > appear to have made in question number 8 in the "Questions for Public Comment" in THE

> > DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND

> > INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, Docket No. 980212036-8172-03, "Request for

> > Comments on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space."

>

> The NA domain concurs (very strongly) with the position of the NU domain.

>

> >Further to the arguments advanced by Mr Semich this position might be counterproductive

> > with regards to freedom of speech, democratisation ond opening of markets.

The .TJ NIC and each of the Directors concur with Mr Semich and Dr Lisse in their arguments in the previous messages in the strongest way.

Throughout the process of the NTIA in regards to domain names, the US Government has been extremely fickle regarding ccTLDs. In the first release of the Green Paper, the USG took a stance of "hands off" in regards to ccTLD's and indicated that any solution to the Domain Name Industry should specifically exclude ccTLDs. Apparently some in or wanting in to the gTLD industry took exception to what they perceived as competition from ccTLDs, and in the White Paper you will note no such exclusion exists.

We take the position Mr Semich stated in this paragraph very seriously :

> > There are more that 200 Country Code TLD Registries active on the internet today, and it is

> > important that the U.S. Government continue to maintain a position of neutrality concerning > > how these registries are managed now and into the future.

The NTIA needs to specifically exclude ccTLDs from any and all governance issues currently under their purview.

At your service,

--William

William X. Walsh william@nic.tj Director, Network Operations

TJ Network Services / The TJ NIC http://www.nic.tj

The Global Domain Name Management Service

Opinions and Statements are my own unless specified otherwise.

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("wwtld@ripe.net","apcctld-all@apng...

###

From: "J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)" <bsemich@mail.nu>

To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("sam.taufao@ffa.int","wwtld@ripe.n...

Date: 8/30/98 8:52pm

Subject: Re: Docket No. 980212036-8172-03: U.S. Gov't Position on ccTLDs and national go

Hello Sam;

I agree with your point of view on the need by some Pacific nations, as well as other developing nations, for local government support in developing their Internet resources.

But my concern here is different from that. The issue at hand is that, if the U.S. Gov't decides it can set the future direction for ccTLD management policies (as it seems to think it is doing, what with its Green Paper, White paper, etc.), then that means the U.S. Gov't can decide that only governments *should* be involved in ccTLD domain name registration policies and delegations, and not the private companies, nonprofits, Universities or any of the other entities currently in place for ccTLD management that are doing just fine without local government involvement.

I object to that outright. It is not for the U.S. government or the NTIA or the Commerce Dept. of the U.S. Gov't to suddenly decide how the ccTLD system should work in the future.

That does not preclude accepting local government support, cooperation, etc. for ccTLD management activities, Internet development, etc, on the local level.

But that is a whole lot different from saying what the U.S. gov't appears to be saying right now - that national governments should be in total control of the ccTLD system in any particular locale - which is just not the current situation in many locales, in fact.

In the U.S. Government's last three drafts or policy statements about ccTLDs, it has said, first, "More than 200 national, or country-code, TLDs (ccTLDs) are administered by their corresponding governments,"(from the "Green Paper" of Jan. 30, 1998), second, "Of course, national governments now have, and will continue to have, authority to manage or establish policy for their own ccTLDs." (from the "White Paper", Docket Number: 980212036-8146-02, of June 5, 1998) and, third, "national governments would continue to have authority to manage or establish policy for their own ccTLDs" (the more recent "request for comments" on changes in the .us domain, Docket No. 980212036-8172-03).

It is interesting to note that as these U.S. Gov't mis-statements have progressed over time, they have more and more strongly asserted national governments' control over management of ccTLDs. There is just no basis either in U.S. or International law or treaty, or in the Internet's RFCs , for the U.S. Gov't to assume this, however.

In fact, the U.S. Government is not completely informed as to the current system of ccTLD management worldwide; ccTLDs were *not* delegated by national governments, many are *not* managed by national governments and their policies are *not* set by national governments, so it would be impossible the governments in these localities to "have, and continue to have, authority to manage or establish policy for [sic]their own ccTLDs", especially in ISO Country Codes where no government exists.

The problem is, because the U.S. government believes it has the "policy setting authority" for the Internet's domain name system, whatever it decides in these "dockets" could well have the effect of law and could determine how the ccTLD system is managed in the future. That would mean a major change in the various ways things currently work for many ccTLD managers and, again, I object to that as well.

What I am asking the U.S. Gov't to do is to "step out" of that part of the domain name policy process that effects ccTLDs, to retract the mis-statements it has already made (above), and not to make *any* direct policy-setting statements or any "assumptions" about current ccTLD policies, especially since the U.S. Gov't seems to have so little knowledge of the current extremely diverse system already in place for managing ccTLDs.

In Niue, the Internet Users Society has a very positive relationship with the local gov't but, like the .nz domain, we are an independent non-profit group with no direction from the government. That approach works best for our business model.

And like NZ, many other gov'ts are moving towards privatization of many public services, and have no desire to get involved in ccTLD management as well. If late starters would like to ask their local governments to get involved in supporting their activities, so much the better for

them. But many others are well ahead of their governments on the Internet and have no interest in being "directed" by politicians on how to do things.

At any rate, I'd say we don't need the U.S. Gov't telling us how to do it, that's for sure.

Hope that clarifies my position, and thanks for asking.

Best wishes,

Bill

J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)

President

Internet Users Society - Niue

Box 91

Alofi, Niue, via Auckland, NZ, The South Pacific

bsemich@mail.nu

The .NU Domain

http://www.nunames.nu

Memberships: WWTLD, APTLD, APIA, ISP/C. ISOC, PAB (gTLD-MoU)

CC: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain),NTIADC40.SMTP40("jhiggins@ne...

###

From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@linux.lisse.na>

To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("bsemich@mail.nu")

Date: 8/30/98 3:10pm

Subject: Re: Docket No. 980212036-8172-03: U.S. Gov't Position on ccTLDs and national govern

Ms Smith,

In message <9808301209.AA721974@mail.nu>, "J. William Semich \(NIC JWS7\)" writes:

> I would like to bring your attention to a potentially dangerous and erroneous assumption you

> appear to have made in question number 8 in the "Questions for Public Comment" in THE

> DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND

> INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, Docket No. 980212036-8172-03, "Request for

> Comments on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space."

The NA domain concurs (very strongly) with the position of the NU domain.

Further to the arguments advanced by Mr Semich this position might be counterproductive with regards to freedom of speech, democratization ond opening of markets.

el

--

Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse\ / Swakopmund State Hospital

<el@lisse.NA> * | Resident Medical Officer

Private Bag 5004 \ / +264 81 1246733 (c) 64 461005(h) 461004(f)

Swakopmund, Namibia ;____/ Domain Coordinator for NA-DOM (el108)

CC: NTIA.NTIAHQ(krose,ksmith,kkirchgasser,usdomain),NT...

###

From: "Kenneth Erickson" <erickskf@ticnet.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/30/98 2:07am

Subject: The Link

Attachment in Word97 format

www.ntia.doc.gov/efiling

The .us domain could be divided up into zip codes and each end post office could receive e-mail sent to their respective zip codes.

What could happen is: A person is at his computer. He wishes to send a letter to someone who does not have a computer or it's unknown if the recipient has a computer. He types a letter, sends it to www.enter zip code.gov.us . That post office handling the zip code receives the e-mail, prints it, along with the address that would be placed at the end of the e-mail message, deducts from the sender's postage account an amount sufficient to recover costs of printing and delivery, (whatever the postal commission decides the rate would be) And it is delivered same day in some cases or next day at the latest. Sender would receive verification that it has been delivered if the need is there or at least receive confirmation that the message has been received at the post office by merely setting the receiving station to acknowledge receipt. No cost there.

Cost efficient, fast, easy for the sender (They're at their computer most of the day anyway) An easy way for them to keep in touch without taking too much of their time and very little effort on their part. Also a great way for someone to send something that absolutely must be there that day. If the addressee has moved, the post office could forward it with very little trouble. (update addresses from database) Sender could even be notified of the address change at the same time by e-mail.

Kenneth F. Erickson

4308 Briarcrest Lane

Sachse, TX 75048-4634

USPS

Dallas Bulk Mail Center

2400 DFW Turnpike

Dallas, TX 75398-9998

Computer Operator, SR.

###

From: "Carol Smith" <Carol.Smith@ci.seattle.wa.us>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/30/98 2:33pm

Subject: Suggestions for us domain use

Please see attached file. It was created in Notepad and saved with a .txt extension.

My suggestions for the available space in the "us" domain.

1. Accent the positive! How about "Hero of the Day" This could could be determined nationwide, region-wide, or by using some other factor.

2. How about useful nationwide information? "Big pictures" using graphics (a very useful WEB feature) to give citizens the scoop on where to locate help, resources, etc., and how these are tied together throughout the United States.

Thanks for the opportunity to contribute my suggestions.

###