###
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 pri