###
Number: 1
From: Brian Kitchen mr_b@cyberdude.com
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/1/97 1:06am
Subject: internet domain registration
In my Humble opinion, we( internet users) as a group must somehow solve
this dilemma. I would like to see ALL x-rated stuff in it's own domain,
thank you very much. The internet does now and should reflect real
society. We know where the "red light districts" are and we can choose
to go or not. Thanks to the first amendment, we are free to speak our
minds. But lets do something about the domains and access. Would it not
seem easy to somehow classify areas without restricting free speech. As
the internet grows, more domains are needed so why not have .xxx ? There
has to be a way to control this. I don't mind xxx when I WANT xxx. I
really mind searching on hotbot for free and getting a xxx reference in
the 31st position. This is bullshit. Regulation of one sort is
inevitable. Let's hope for the sake of us all that for the first time in
history we the people...on a global scale...can regulate ourselves
without a governing body screwing it up. Some independent organization
should be set-up, voted on over the internet, (digital certificates)to
deal with domains and new domains. This will be a very powerful
organization and I.M.H.O. the best way to protect the public would be a
democratic body based on the American Bill of Rights, accountable to
internet users and the general public.
Thanks for the soapbox Brian Kitchen a.k.a. mr_b@cyberdude
--
mr_b's CyberWorld
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/mr_b
http://www.adgrafix.com/info/bkitchen/
http://www.beevy.com/card_search/usa?89-1314
###
Number: 2
From: christopher post cp15@cornell.edu
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/1/97 1:07am
Subject: Internet Domains
Hi!,
I am resonding to the request for comment on the internet naming
debate. I feel that the adhoc committee has done an excellent job of
designing a system to increase the number of top level domains
available. Although the new naming system was not developed by a
government entity, it was developed with the future of the internet in
mind.
Sincerely,
Christopher Post
Graduate Student, Cornell Unversity, 503 Bradfield Hall, Ithaca NY 14853
cp15@cornell.edu
###
Number: 3
From: Victor Gavin Victor.Gavin@unilever.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/1/97 8:12am
Subject: My suggestions for resolving the DNS issues.
Hi.
Comment #1
-------------
I believe that there should be no special Top Level Domains (as there
are at the moment e.g. .com or .uk) handled by a special agency.
Instead, I suggest is that anybody should be able to register a Top
Level Domain and that the registration process should be handled
similarly to patents.
The registration would be handled by an international committee with
national sub-committes who would vet applications before authorising
their creation. There should be a legal obligation on registree's to
research ownership of a name before it can be used.
Once registered, the owner would/should not be held liable for trademark
infringements within the domain. What I mean by that is that sub-domains
should be able to incorporate trademarks (accidental or deliberately)
without fear of legal proceedings. The rationale behind this is that a
domain name is to all intents and purpose an address, and corporations
can't sue for damages just because their trademark is used in a street
address in another country - e.g. 128 McDonalds Drive, Kirkintillock,
Scotland.
vic
###
Number: 4
From: STriker RedWolf/Kelly Price kprice@physics.umd.edu>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/1/97 10:07am
Subject: Input on new domain names
At this time, the use of domain names is proliferating wildly, becoming
a kaos into itself. I propose the logical organization of those domain
names.
To illustrate my point, I will theoretically "create" a few names in
this mail alone:
strlabs.com - a standard company
amazonpark.org - for Amazon International Park (saving the Amazon. "We
breath for the world")
amongus.com - ISP
umd.edu - yes, University of Maryland, College Park.
Now for the organization of .edu, .org, .com, .net, et al.
.edu will always be for educational associations. (umd.edu stays)
.net will be reserved to, and should be exlusive for, ISPs. No ISP
should have a .com unless it provides another function (strlabs.com
would still be stlabs.com, as it's a standard company, but amongus.com
would have to be named amongus.net)
.org will be for non-profit organizations. amazonpark.org stays the
same. Companies would be moved out. In the event that this continues
to be "a mess," the below organization may be enacted (so amazonpark.org
would become amazon.park.org)
.com will be reorganized:
News organizations would be moved from .com to .news.com. Therefore,
abcnews.com and msnbc.com would become abcnews.news.com (or maybe
abc.news.com) while msnbc.com would be stuck with msnbc.news.com.
C|Net's news.com would have to be renamed cnet.news.com.
Television stations, networks, and shows would be moved to .tv.com.
Therefore, cbs.com and local wjz.com would be moved to cbs.tv.com and
wjz.tv.com (or wjz.md.tv.com, since it is local).
Movies should be moved to .movies.com in similar fashion.
batman.com would be batman.movies.com.
Similar organizations can be made, like that of the popular web page
index "Yahoo".
Therefore...
strlabs.com may become strlabs.sci.com, depending on it's goals.
amazonpark.org may stay the same or use amazon.park.org
amongus.com would be forced to become amongus.net
umd.edu will always be umd.edu
Hopefully, some logical, sensible reorganization of names would only be
required for to fix, or delay, this problem.
--
p |\ _,,,---,,_ Kelly "STriker" Price -Spiritual Polymorph
u /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://www.furnation.com/striker
r |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Not offical word of AITS/UMCP. Junk Mail
r '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL fined. Never wake sleeping physics majors.
###
Number: 5
From: Edwin Hayward info@igoldrush.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/1/97 10:08am
Subject: Response to Request for Comments on new gTLDs
Sirs,
Please find attached my response to your RFC on the proposal to extend
the current gTLD administration system. The response is in Word 97
format.
Edwin Hayward
Response to Request for Comments on the
Registration and Administration of Internet Domain
Names
Basis for response: Owner and operator of Internet
Gold-Rush [www.igoldrush.com], the Internetfs #1
collection of domain name news and information.
Author: Edwin Hayward
Date: July 1st, 1997
A. Appropriate Principles
The Government seeks comment on the principles by
which it should evaluate proposals for the
registration and administration of Internet domain
names. Are the following principles appropriate?
Are they complete? If not, how should they be
revised? How might such principles best be
fostered?
a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name
registration system should be encouraged.
Conflicting domains, systems, and registries
should not be permitted to jeopardize the
interoperation of the Internet, however. The
addressing scheme should not prevent any user from
connecting to any other site.
It is important to define what exactly the term
gcompetitionh refers to in this context.
gCompetitionh could be considered as market forces
that combine to bring about conditions in which
the cost of administering domain names decreases.
gCompetitionh could also be considered in terms of
groups and individuals competing for a limited
number of domain names.
It is essential that the proposal that is adopted
is accepted by 100% of the Internet community
worldwide. In essence, the .com, .net and .org
domains are excellent examples of such acceptance.
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.
The problem here is that different elements of the
private sector have conflicting interests. For
instance, companies that have invested heavily in
their domain name [such as Mecklermediafs recent
purchase of internet.com for a sum reported to be
in excess of $100,000] and companies that have
invested a lot of time and money in promoting
their domain name [such as the major search
engines and companies such as Microsoft and
Netscape] have no interest in expanding the domain
name system, as this would dilute the value and
perception of their domain names.
Similarly, companies that make a living from
domain names, such as domain name registries
[several hundred companies], vanity mail services
and domain name brokers have no interest in
changing the existing status quo.
Individuals and organizations who have invested in
domain names, either for current use or future
deployment, will not wish the existing domain name
system to be expanded.
For all the above reasons, reaching a full
consensus may prove impossible.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should
recognize the inherently global nature of the
Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over
time
Correct. I am concerned about the repeated mention
of the role of the US Government in this process
of revising the domain name system. The US
represents an ever-shrinking portion of the global
Internet, and any agreement reached in defiance of
the will of the international community will be
bitterly opposed at best and unenforcible at
worst.
d. The overall framework for accommodating
competition should be open, robust, efficient, and
fair
These four conditions are irreconcilable. Any
truly fair proposal that takes full account of the
intellectual rights of trademark holders will not
be efficient. Any proposal that does not take full
account of such rights will not be fair. This
should be redrafted to reflect a best case balance
between the four conditions outlined above.
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.
Yes. Such conflicts must be resolved on a global,
rather than national scale.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as
prudent consideration of these issues permits.
There is no hurry to modify the current system.
Domain names are only running out because of a
combination of two things: market forces in the
secondary market for domain names, and a failure
of the imagination on the part of companies and
individuals involved. As I recently explained to
Inter@ctive Week, there are an astonishing number
of domain names still available in the .net and
.org hierarchies. The rules surrounding these
domains have recently been relaxed and effectively
anyone can register domain names under .org and
.net.
A further tightening of the rules surrounding
speculative domain name purchases, together with a
more robust system for looking up domain names
will prove perfectly adequate to meet the current
demand for domain names.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of
current domain name registration systems?
The advantage of the current system of domain name
registration is that it is relatively inexpensive
and open to anyone at an individual or corporate
level.
The disadvantage of the current system of domain
name registration is that it is shrouded in too
much mystique for the average Internet user to
fully understand the process behind such a
registration. This enables unscrupulous companies
to charge usurious fees [$250 to $1000+] for very
limited services provided when registering domain
names on behalf of clients.
2. How might current domain name systems be
improved?
The process of domain name registration should be
fully documented in less technical terms. The
central domain name registry should provide name
server services for all domain names it issues.
This removes the onus on domain name registries
and web hosting companies to provide DNS services,
and protects the rights of the domain name holder
[There have been numerous cases of DNS abuse;
either the company providing the DNS services has
refused to change the IP address that a domain
name points to, or it has pointed the domain name
at its own site]
Ideally, the central registry or registries should
provide the following minimum services:-
A) Simple form-based registration process
B) DNS services for the domain name included in
the maintenance price for the name
C) A mechanism for automating or partially
automating the process of submitting intellectual
property information in support of a domain name
claim
The way to solve the shortage of domain names is
very simple. Implementation of the following
procedures will free up needed domain names and
ensure that an adequate supply will be available
for the future:-
A) Increase the fee for retaining domain names
from $50 to $100 per year, effective from the
renewal date for current domain names. This serves
to discourage speculators.
B) Implement a system in which money is demanded
up front, rather than the current system in which
a grace period of up to 90 days makes it easy for
speculation to take place. This has a number of
advantages: a guaranteed cash-flow in exchange for
the provision of domain names; reduced
administration costs [no longer any requirement to
send out reminders for individuals and
organizations that have failed to meet the
deadline for invoice payment]; reduction in domain
name speculation [speculation is less attractive
when the money must be paid up front]
C) Rolling renewal system in which a reminder is
sent 8 weeks before the current term of domain
name ownership expires. If payment has not been
received by the expiry date [a second reminder is
issued at 4 weeks] then the domain name
immediately defaults and is put back into the pool
of available names.
D) A more comprehensive method of dealing with
domain name disputes, and one which does not
penalize the owner of the name from the start, but
only removes the right to the given name at the
end of the process.
E) A clearer explanation of where funds raised by
the domain name process will be distributed and
used. Mechanisms to ensure that this money is
actually used in practice for the stated purpose
[more public accountability]
F) Open up the .org and .net domain names fully,
so that they have the same status as .com
G) In conjunction with F), give control of .org
and .net to two separate organizations, forming a
triumvirate of registrars with the organization
chosen to continue the administration of the .com
domain name.
The above 7 steps will be adequate to solve the
problem of the shortage of domain names. They will
also be less costly and less difficult to
administer than any proposal that involves
expanding the number of top level domains.
5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs),
(e.g., .com), be retired from circulation? Should
geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) be
required? If so, what should happen to the .com
registry? Are gTLD management issues separable
from questions about International Standards
Organization (ISO) country code domains?
Quite frankly, that is the most preposterous
suggestion I have read for a very long time. There
are over 1,000,000 .com domain names in
circulation, most of them paid for. This means
that there are as many as 1,000,000 potential
lawsuits over the loss of .com names. In addition,
.com has become firmly ingrained in the publicfs
consciousness as the gconventionalh form of an
Internet site address. Domain names appear as part
of site addresses in a wide range of situations,
from advertisements in trade magazines to
indications at the foot of posters and even in
television advertisements.
.us is a good idea. The US is one of the few
countries that does not fully regulate its domain
name system.
The .com registry can remain in its present form,
a completely global registry not subject to
localized rules and regulations. The .net and .org
domains should be further promoted and opened up,
potentially nearly tripling the number of domain
names available.
In addition, a process should be instigated to
regulate the .us domain, or a new alternative to
the .us domain, along the lines of the .uk domain
in the UK. There, the central registry demands
various forms of proof that the registrar is a
genuine company, including the companyfs
deposition at Companies House in London. A similar
system for the .us top domain would ensure that
its use be limited to companies. This will easily
solve much of the congestion around existing
domain names, which are mainly being bought up by
speculators and investors.
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?
Yes. They should be one and the same. The
registrars should be sub-contracted by the
organization running the root servers. Only one
set of root servers should be sanctioned at the
international level, and the money to pay for the
upkeep of these root servers should come from part
of the funds collected to pay for the domain
names.
This prevents the ludicrous farce that has been
perpetrated recently around the attempts of the
eDNS coalition and AlterNIC to form their own
alternate domain name system. AlterNIC pulled its
support for eDNS, and its name servers, meaning
that the eDNS domain names were effectively
rendered worthless. No company or organization
should be allowed to exert that kind of control
over another.
8. How should the transition to any new systems be
accomplished?
In two stages. First, disseminate clear, simple
details about the new system after it has been
finalized. Ensure that members of the Internet
public have a chance to consider and understand
the implications of the new system before it is
put into practice. Second, refuse all applications
for new domain names until a random interval of
several days or weeks has elapsed. This eliminates
much of the stress that would be put on the new
system by domain registration companies queuing up
gpre-registrationsh ready to fire at the central
registryfs computers as soon as the new domain
names become available. Also, implement a system
to restrict the number of domain name purchases
through any one organization to a low number, say
100 a week, for an initial gteethingh period of a
few weeks or months to effectively curb any
potential for a wave of speculation in the new
domain names.
C. Creation of New gTLDs
10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy
considerations that constrain the total number of
different gTLDs that can be created?
Yes. The intellectual property disputes
surrounding a case such as parallel registration
of gibm.comh and gibm.neth by two different
organizations pale into insignificance next to the
problems that might arise if a single company can
purchase a g.ibmh address. Thus, any proposals
that effectively allow an unlimited number of top
domains, such as PGPMediafs name.space plan,
should be blocked immediately.
There is also the problem of perception. Domain
names are only useful as long as they are
memorable. They serve as mnemonics in place of IP
addresses. If the domain naming system is unduly
complicated to the point of having several dozen
possible top domains, it will be extremely
difficult for individuals to easily remember
internet addresses. Some people already get
confused between XYZ.com and XYZ.org; the
situation becomes unimaginably worse if they also
have to choose between XYZ.ABC, XYZ.CDE, XYZ.EFG
etc.
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
No. There is absolutely no need for any new gTLDs.
All that needs to happen is a gradual but firm
tightening of the rules surrounding the existing
gTLDs, coupled with a better exploitation of a
country domain for the US.
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?
Yes, but the costs and profit level should be
regulated by an international body. A good example
of such a system in the offline world is the
running of the UK National Lottery. The lottery is
run by a private organization, Camelot, but with
government-specified levels of profit.
By exercising this type of partial control over
the domain name registrar, any possible abuse of
the monopoly over a given gTLD can be avoided.
16. Should there be threshold requirements for
domain name registrars, and what responsibilities
should such registrars have? Who will determine
these and how?
Yes. They should have sizeable assets and the
technical know-how to guarantee that they can
maintain their systems in full working order at
all times. They should be responsible for
providing DNS services for domain names under
their control. They should be able to INSTANTLY
issue domain names [even though the update could
be reflected periodically in the central DNS
databases, such as once a day as per the current
InterNIC system]
17. Are there technical limitations on the
possible number of domain name registrars?
Yes. The InterNIC database is already extremely
slow due to the number of queries being sent to
it. If registrars need to query the databases held
by all other registrars, or alternatively need to
all share a centralized domain name registry
database, the system will slow to a crawl. One
domain name, one registrar, one database.
18. Are there technical, business and/or policy
issues about the name space raised by increasing
the number of domain name registrars?
Yes. Increasing the number of registrars increases
the possibility of conflicts between different
groups seeking to register a single domain name.
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?
Yes. 1. All rights should always be exclusive.
20. Are there any other issues that should be
addressed in this area?
No.
E. Trademark Issues
21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered
trademarks, common law trademarks, geographic
indications, etc.), if any, should be protected on
the Internet vis-a-vis domain names?
All trademarks should be given weighting when
considering domain name disputes, IRRESPECTIVE of
the country of origin of the domain name. This is
vitally important: US trademarks should not be
given any kind of precedence over trademarks
issued by other countries.
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?
Yes, for the new .us or similar country domain
that I outlined earlier. In this case, the
trademark should be a US trademark only. An
independent body should be set up to monitor such
disputes. A cost could be levied on the disputee
and on the disputer; the successful party in the
dispute would have the cost refunded, and the
losing partyfs cost would pay for the review
process.
NO ACTION should be taken until the process has
completed and a decision is reached. The current
system that DNS services are suspended to the
domain name holder UNTIL a settlement is reached
is completely unacceptable, and is not conducive
to promoting the use of the Internet as a tool for
global business.
.com, .org and .net names should be allocated on a
first come, first served basis. Any resultant
disputes should be handled by a similar,
independent body. Because of their global nature,
any pre-review process would be unsuitable for
such domain names.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how
should trademark rights be protected on the
Internet vis-a-vis domain names? What entity(ies),
if any, should resolve disputes? Are national
courts the only appropriate forum for such
disputes? Specifically, is there a role for
national/international
governmental/nongovernmental organizations?
An international organization should be formed
with the specific aim of resolving such disputes.
A framework of rules should be laid down to make
all but the most complicated of cases a mere
formality.
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be
prevented? What information resources (e.g.
databases of registered domain names, registered
trademarks, trade names) could help reduce
potential conflicts? If there should be a
database(s), who should create the database(s)?
How should such a database(s) be used?
Trademark databases already exist. Patent
databases can also be considered when resolving
such disputes. An organization could be set up to
integrate these databases in some form, possibly
via a unified query mechanism to provide a front-
end interface to these various databases.
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?
Yes, for the new .us domain name reserved for
companies. Proof of company ownership should be
required. Small businesses and self-employed
people, and individual domain name applicants
should content themselves with other domain names
such as .com, .net and .org.
If this new top domain becomes widely used as THE
domain for US companies, then problems such as
conflicts between IBM.com and IBM.org [for
example] will be of much lesser significance.
26. How would the number of different gTLDs and
the number of registrars affect the number and
cost of resolving trademark disputes?
Every time you add a gTLD, you add another
potential battleground for companies to fight over
the rights to a domain name, and another potential
domain name that can be hijacked away from its
rightful owner.
27. Where there are valid, but conflicting
trademark rights for a single domain name, are
there any technological solutions?
No. First come first served is the fairest system
if both claims are valid.
One additional partial solution would be to have a
standardized glinking systemh that sites would be
required to display on their top page to dispel
confusion. So for example, IBM.com would be
required to display the information: gIf you are
looking for International Bowling Members, please
go to IBM.net. If you are looking for Interior
Bazaar Malls, please go to IBM.org.h at the foot
of its main page [standardized font size and a
high-contrast colour]
In the above example, the site belonging to
IBM.net would have to display the following: gIf
you are looking for International Business
Machines, please go to IBM.com. If you are looking
for Interior Bazaar Malls, please go to IBM.org.h
Finally, in the same example, the site belonging
to IBM.org would have to display: gIf you are
looking for International Business Machines,
please go to IBM.com. If you are looking for
International Bowling Members, please go to
IBM.net.h
28. Are there any other issues that should be
addressed in this area?
No.
--
Edwin Hayward, Tokyo, Japan info@igoldrush.com
Internet Gold-Rush [ http://www.igoldrush.com ]
The premier source of free domain name news and info
*** LIST A DOMAIN NAME FOR SALE FREE / BROWSE NAMES ***
###
Number: 6
From: Christopher Quinn
To: "Paula Bruening, NTIA"
Date: 7/1/97 11:20am
Subject: gTLD: UTI - no! NSF - yes!
I utterly mistrust and object to Secretary General Pekka
Tarjanne's and the International Telecommunication Union's (UTI's)
attempt to hijack the Internet.
The proposed plan to transfer control of the Internet from the
U.S. government to an intergovernmental organization in Switzerland is
not in the best interests of Americans (like me) or the Internet.
The ITU, the United Nations agency responsible for
coordinating telecommunications policies of governments, not the U.S.
government's National Science Foundation (NSF), would become the
worldwide central depository for new Internet domain names, and the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) would administer the
arbitration and appeals mechanisms. Utter folly! Americans paid for and
developed the Internet; and only Americans, due to our Constitution, our
economic and military strength, are in a position to safeguard the
privacy of American citizens and free flow of information and commerce on
the Internet. Not some selfordained United Nations bureacracy and a
fragile balkanized coalition of vested international interests.
You don't see Apple, IBM, Microsoft and Netscape Communications
rushing to endorse the Geneva plan; and even if those major players got
stupid, an increasing number of smaller organizations are actively
campaigning against the proposals, afraid that the UTI takeover could
lead to the splintering of the Internet into rival domain-name groupings.
The proposal has, in fact, already provoked legal action from Internet
services companies in the United States. These companies are justifiably
angry at what they see as the hijacking of the Internet by an unelected
international body; Richard Beaird, the U.S. government representative,
would thus be best advised to make sure the absurd proposal is vetoed.
A protest meeting on the domain-name issue organized by the
Association for Interactive Media will take place in Washington, D.C. on
July 9; so the American protest against the Geneva plan should be in full
roar by August.
Having Vint Cerf, known as the "father of the Internet", MCI
and 80 other organizations with less than sterling motives endorsing such
a anti-American plot will not sway the majority of Americans, once they
find out what is really being proposed. Not so much the idea of adding
seven new generic top-level domains to the five established domains,
which include .com, .edu and. gov, or even the complex registration,
payment and appeal process, but the idea of the world dictating what
Americans can and cannot do with an American technology and architecture
is galling.
Pekka Tarjanne's defense of rushing this through, by saying his
organization had to act quickly so as not to miss the opportunity to
reform the Internet, is specious at best. The UTI is secretly salivating
over future tariffs (taxes) on American Internet commerce and being able
to acquire covert data on American interests.
Americans will no longer stand for our own government
overtaxing us and methodically diminishing our freedoms; so we sure as
heck aren't going to take it from beyond our borders. I know I won't!
Tarjanne and Cerf can stuff it; and so can any American administration
that plays into their hands.
Christopher Quinn
###
Number: 7
From: Tommy Lakofski
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/1/97 12:35pm
Subject: Possible solutions to gTLD clutter.
Sir,
The document at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dn5notic.htm
raises many valid questions. I'm not in a position to comment on most of
them, but it would seem that a fairly obvious solution to the overwhelming
growth of gTLD domains would be to restrict the allocation of such domains
to one per company, organization, body, or individual. This, I believe,
was the original intent of the hierarchical nature of DNS zones -- any
organization could subdivide its namespace as it saw fit in a hierarchical
manner. This indeed is the manner in which most reputable companies on the
Internet manage their DNS -- cf. Digital, IBM, Apple, Microsoft et al. In
my (humble) experience, it is only those less 'worthwhile' companies which
undertake domain registration en masse, for the purposes of speculation,
vanity DNS naming, etc. I believe that these activities must be the chief
factor in the cluttering of the generic namespace, and its eventual
non-operability -- and it would sem that these activities would be the
easiest to eliminate, via a change in the registration process for generic
domains which would require proof of identity -- corporate or individual.
I'd also like to throw in a brief word on the retirement of the gTLDs:
This would seem to be perfectly justified, and by reducing the 'glamor' of
the gTLDs, would eliminate the registration of gTLDs by organizations
outside the US, further reducing pressure on the namespace. As the
Internet seems to be becoming a more global than exclusively US-centric
domain, the incorporation of the gTLDs into the .us namespace seems
entirely appropriate. It would also make room for the possibility of
global gTLDs for multinational organizations (although this is provided
for currently by .int).
In any reorganization of the DNS, there should be competition between the
registries of names (and with IPv6, numbers) on the Internet, as well as
the continuing minimal interference of governmental organizations, which
will never be able to keep pace with the dynamic evolution of this global
network.
I hope these comments prove useful. Thank you for your time.
Thomas Lakofski.
###
Number: 8
From:
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 6/30/97 8:28pm
Subject: New domain naming system
My main concern on domain naming is that the owners of domain names be
required to submit real contact information, that the registries be
required to verify the contact information and that there be substantial
penalties for providing incorrect or nonfunctional contacts, e.g.,
telephones that are never answered, E-mail routed to /dev/null.
The reason for this is that currently the major spam domain have bogus
contact information in order to avoid having to listen to complaints.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
shmuel@os2bbs.com
###
Number: 9
From: Daniel Prather <10ebm3s3ipcm@mci2000.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 6/30/97 8:44pm
Subject: Internet Domain Registry Structure
Hello. My name is Daniel Prather, and I'd like to share a few of my
ideas on the future Internet Domain Registry Structure and workings.
I have tried to structure this in a sense that I feel will best
benefit you, the reviewer, and answer any questions that you may
have. Also, if something in this document is not thoroughly
explained, and you'd like a more detailed explanation, feel free to
e-mail me at the address at the end of this letter below. Thanks!
Daniel Prather
Panama City, Florida
(850)784-1253
mystic.one@mci2000.com
The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
---- File information -----------
File: internet.txt
Date: 1 Jul 1997, 0:43
Size: 4716 bytes.
Type: Text
-- Internet Domain Registry Infrastructure and Workings ---
Introduction:
First hand, I would like to say that this request is not organized in
the way that comments were expected. Mainly, I feel that the preconceived
format is not adequate to describe the ideas and thoughts which I will
soon depict in this document. I have organized it in a way that I feel
will make it easy to read, and easy to understand. If you have any
questions, please refer to the e-mail address towards the end of this
document.
Overview:
Due to the sudden growth of the Internet, many of the previously
conceived systems which control Internet traffic have become greatly
overworked. Not to mention, many things have become disorganized,
creating a very difficult to navigate network. The text that follows are
my ideas on it's solution. In writing this, I have primarily addressed
the main problem of domain registration. I shall begin by giving a
somewhat general overview of what I think may solve several problems in
the current system, and further along, I shall go into more specific
detail.
New Internet Domain Infrastructure:
First of all, the domain registration should be administrated by one
organization. It would be preferably a federally funded operation, which
is also supported by the fees of domain registration. This organization
would also be the home of the few domain nameservers. New protcols would
need to be enacted to allow for the use of 128-bit IP addresses as well.
These few nameservers would be the only ones operational. I say this
because most of the Internet clutter is created by the popular "static IP"
which usually includes a domain such as "username.domain.ext" ... although
this 3 field URL is not particularly disorganized, sometimes they grow to
take up 5 or 6 fields. This is completely ridiculous, and wasteful. In
keeping with a few nameservers, running on high-speed connections
(multiple OC-3s or OC-12s) we could provide domain lookups for the world's
Internet community, and manage it easily.
The servers would be linked so that if one goes offline, another may
take on its load, as well as its own. This would created a continious
domain service. It would be advisable, though, that a few of these
nameservers be located in different locations as to minimize the chance of
a failure. Caching servers may be setup as they are now, but may only be
modified by the main servers. This would allow them to still recieve
queries, and still direct users to desired sites, but not allow useless
data to be entered by a user.
When a company or individual registers a domain name, there should be
a set cost. This cost would include a block of rougly 5 IPs, instead of
the blocks of 256 given now. Extra IPs may be purchased at a set cost,
and all DNS entries and "static IP" domains would need to be approved by
the new registry. To be approved, they would have to submit a form
detailing the intended use of the domain, as well as information regarding
the user. This would minimize the amount of "nonsense" domains currently
residing on the network nameservers. Only domain administrators (working
for the new domain organization) will be able to make changes to the
registry.
Domains would need to have longer extensions. .com, .edu. .gov, etc,
usually are sufficient, but with more and more sites appearing with
different social orientations, these extensions will eventually become
unusable. In place, I'd suggest something a little more descriptive and
restricted, .com domains would only be given to commercial sites, and they
would have to show proof of their business stance. .edu isn't sufficient
for all of the educational resources available. Possibly creating a
.highschool, .college, .university, etc would be more sufficient.
Government organizations could be categorized in a similar way.
.localgov, .federalgov, etc.
Locations need not be required in domain names. These tend to be
pointless, in my opinion. But geographic information SHOULD be stored, so
that if a query is performed (by dnslookup or finger) on a site,
geographic information can be obtained, as well as other information
submitted to the primary registry.
Essentially this is most of my suggestions. If you have any
questions, please e-mail me or call me at 1-850-784-1253. This new
organization should be called something such as "Worldwide Domain
Services" (www.worldwide-domain-services.system) ... the .system extension
referring to a critical component of the Internet. Please send me your
comments on the above documents. Thank you.
written by Daniel Prather
e-mail: mystic.one@mci2000.com
###
Number: 10
From:
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/1/97 1:47pm
Subject: Trademarks
Network Solutions apparently with the blessing of the NSF has an absolutely
reckless policy as it pertains to registration of trademarked names by third-
party registrants. Their "dispute policy" is so irresponsible that it appears
to
encourage lawsuits for the enrichment of their attorneys.
I have a valid subsisting, unique and famous federal trademark that has been
used in commerce since 1983. Now, because of Network Solutions policy I will
have to spend a $150.00 filing fee, spend a day writing the complaint, and
wait
two years for a federal court to order the transfer of the .com registration
back to
the trademark owner.
The system is in need of change.
Sincerely, Darrell J. Bird, 3070 Southdale #D, Dayton, OH 45409
Financia@aol.com
###
Number: 11
From: Lori Henk
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/1/97 4:16pm
Subject: Creation of New gTLDs #11
11. Should additional gTLDs be created?
Definitely. The following ideas were proposed at an international level
more than a month ago regarding new gTLDs and the U.S. should remain
consistant with that proposal where possible. There is only one gTLD
proposed that I question and that is .store for retail sites. A more
appropriate gTLD, keeping with 3-4 letters would be .shop.
The following gTLDs were proposed:
.firm - business
.store - retail (alternative .shop)
.web - web related services
.rec - recreation
.info - resource/information
.nom - personal sites
.arts - art related sites
thank you for your time,
Lori Henk
Web Designer
lori@acton.com
###
Number: 12
From: Nickolai Zeldovich
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/1/97 5:09pm
Subject: Comments on Policies for Registries
See the attached file.
--
Policies for Registries
Domain name registries should not charge excessive amounts of money from
individuals and/or companies and/or organizations registering domain
names, except for what's absolutely needed for the operation of the
servers. Obviously the current $50/year fee generates much more money for
InterNIC than they need for normal operation of the nameservers and other
registrations.
--
+--------------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Nickolai Zeldovich | ZEPANET | UCF Math Department |
| http://www.kolya.ml.org/ | http://www.zepa.net/ | http://www.math.ucf.edu/ |
| nickolai@kolya.ml.org | nickolai@zepa.net | nickolai@math.ucf.edu |
+--------------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
###
Number: 13
From: Jim Cerny
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/1/97 5:22pm
Subject: comment on adding DNS top-level domains.
Dear NTIA:
In following the attempts by Internet groups to expand the
number of top-level domains in the last six months, I
think the following clearly emerges regardless of who runs
the registries and regardless of just how many new domains
are added and what they are called:
Legal counsel for companies will regard it as
their duty to recommend, for any corporate
names that have trademark or copyright status,
the registration of these names in EACH new
domain.
That will, of course, tend to undo many of the benefits of
expanding the namespace. The solution, at least from the
point of U.S. law, would seem to be national legislation
that prohibited that kind of multiple registration. I have
no idea if it is possible to argue for this from some
parallel situation that has already been legislated. Some
would suggest a pricing mechanism as an alternative to
legislation, with sharply escalated fees for extra
registrations. If it were just a matter of charging $100
(say) for the first registration and $10,000 (say) for each
additional one, that would be hard to administer with
competing registries and would discriminate strongly against
small companies (for a large corporation the $10K would be
a trivial cost of business).
Jim Cerny
Web manager, University of New Hampshire
jim.cerny@unh.edu
###
Number: 14
From: Dennis Fazio
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/1/97 7:26pm
Subject: On the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names
Comments in response attached as ASCII text.
My full contact info:
Dennis Fazio
Executive Director
Minnesota Regional Network
2829 University Ave SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
dfazio@mr.net
(612) 362-5850
--
Dennis Fazio
Minnesota Regional Network -- Gabnet: (612) 362-5850
Comments in response to a Request for Comments on the Registration and
Administration of Internet Domain Names, Docket No. 970613137-7137-01.
Section A. Appropriate Principles
I agree with all six principles
Section B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
Questions 1-9: The current domain name system has been overrun by the
growth of the Internet; it no longer scales with the need. Generic Top
Level Domains should be retired and the use of the US Domain, as currently
defined in RFC 1480, should be mandated for the United States in its
place. Detailed explanation and justification follows:
I believe any scheme predicated on an extension of the current,
essentially flat naming system is doomed to failure. The recent proposal
by the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) to add a limited number of
new Top Level Domains does not seem to be a scaleable solution and will
not likely ameliorate the major issues of trademark infringement.
It seems the key problems are:
a. Demand by several parties for the same name
b. Use of the domain name system as a directory service
c. Technical and operational management of the growing Domain Name System
Most all of the rest of the issues and problems are a result of these three.
It would be easiest of these had apparent technical solutions.
Unfortunately, they all don't. The second problem could be solved with a
mix of policy (adhere to a standard) and technical (implement a separate,
easy-to-use directory service). The third is partly policy (agree on some
practices; again, standards) and implement them (mostly
technical/operational.)
It's that first one that is the real source of all the ruckus. One path to
a possibly easier solution would be to look at the world we had
pre-Internet and see how we dealt with those issues of similar naming and
trademarks.
We deal with them now by allowing the use of the same name as long as they
are in different areas of activity or in different states. This leads us
to a solution that doesn't perturb the current setup all that much:
mandate the use of the US domain.
First, it's heirarchical and does not suffer the scaling problem of the
current proposals, even as they are themselves increased with more
top-level domains. There are 50 states and thousands of localities in
which to fit your organization's name.
Second, it allows for either a single registration authority or the
logical division to any number of registration authorities, each of
different size and scope of operation according to their capabilities.
Third, it permits multiple organizations to have the same name.
Acme.Minneapolis.MN.US and Acme.Los-Angeles.CA.US can both exist and keep
their names if they are in different business lines. In those cases where
the same name is to be used in the same community, categorical names could
be slipped in: Acme.Paints.Minneapolis.MN.US,
Acme.Towing.Minneapolis.MN.US.
Fourth, it provides some semblence of a limited directory service. Right
now, if we know the name of a prominent company and add .com, we can go to
its web server. However, that only works for one company with that name.
With an heirarchical US domain, we only need know the company name and
where it is to find their web site. Note that we will still have need of a
good directory service to really make the system work, but it's always
nice to have some shortcuts.
Fifth, and most important, it helps leverage the existing practice we now
use to keep trademarks manageable because it provides a system very much
like the real world we now are familiar with. It's not a perfect match,
and some new policies, procedures and perhaps new law will have to be
created to make it really work well, but nowhere near the mess and
seemingly insurmountable task we now see before us with the current
system.
There have been many objections to the use of the US domain, some
specious, the rest, nonconsequential.
1. The names are too damn long: This is just a fact of life when so many
are now involved. You need more characters to differentiate organizations
when you get into the thousands and millions. The best solution is to use
already familiar names that are easy to remember. There are plenty of
features in email (aliases) and web programs (bookmarks) that make it
unnecessary to type in the actual name very often. Most email is a
response to another email; the address is never entered in those cases,
but automatically entered by the email client. We deal with long names in
our lives all the time anyway. Many of us use long street addresses or
long town names that we have to write time after time on our applications,
documents, forms, etc. or US Mail letters. We deal with it. This objection
is specious.
2. People and organizations move and would have to change their domain
names: What happens when a person or organization moves now? First you
have to get a new telephone number (though this necessity may change in
the future). You perhaps need a new driver's license as an individual. You
need to print tons of new stationary. You need to send out large
quantities of "change of address" postcards. On the Internet, it's a 5
minute job to send "change of address" messages to all your correspondents
(all of whom are conveniently cataloged with nice short aliases in your
mail client) and mailing lists. I hardly think that sending out some email
change notices adds all that much to the overhead necessary when you move
your household or your business. What if you graduate and get a job? What
if you get a new job? Your email address will change. It happens all the
time to lots of us now anyway.
Life means change. We change schools, homes, workplaces, favorite foods,
spouses, family size. A major portion of the population still changes
their names at some time in their lives. Businesses move, change products,
change their corporate names. What can be so difficult about changing an
email address or corporate domain name once in a while. Change is good for
us. We should all seek any opportunity to change something about ourselves
often. This objection is also specious.
3. In Cyberspace, names shouldn't be tied to physical location: Most of
those arguing for the abstraction of a "Cyberspace" as a new "lifespace"
seem to be denying or attempting to put aside the real world. I think it
is more important for us to encompass the real world in this new virtual
world.
Seeing that someone is associated with a particular university or
corporation, or is located in a particular place humanizes the message or
the information. All I have in front of me is a screen full of words or
images. The organizational or geographic mapping in their return address
or the web site gives a small amount of identity to the person who wrote
those words or placed those pictures. The tendency to respond rudely and
viciously is amplified when there is no real person looking you in the
eye. We've all seen evidence of that on the Internet. If there was no
shred of identity association at all, the messenger becomes even more
abstract and dehumanized. Discourse can degenerate quickly when all you
debate with are disembodied words.
Cyberspace is floating too freely as it is. It needs some anchors in
something now existing so that newcomers feel welcome and not just lost in
a strange new world with absolutely no familiar touchstones.
If we want this new and growing facility to be used by the greater
population, then we have to make it accessible, we have to build it having
an association with the familiar REAL WORLD that we all live in. We are
all real people in real physical places. With few exceptions, almost all
of our sense of community comes from our geography: school, church,
neighborhood, social organizations, civic organizations, government
participation, etc. It is what helps make us human and social beings. We
don't need the concept of an abstract "cyberspace" to bring new people
together on the Internet. The concept of a diverse set of people
geographically dispersed over great distances, yet brought together by
electronic communications can be a powerful draw. A
locality/geographical-based naming system helps us to build that concept.
This objection is inconsequential.
Let us think about what we are trying to accomplish and the best way to
encourage that. The best new things are those that have some sort of
usefulness or tie that people can tie to something already familiar to
them. It is what helps new things grow and flourish most rapidly.
In summary, we can probably futily attempt to pull and stretch and warp a
current system that was never intended to scale to this size and scope, or
give up and adapt something entirely different, very familiar, and staring
us in the face all along.
Section C, D, E: I have no supplementary comments on these sections
beyond what has been already covered above.
--
Dennis Fazio, Minnesota Regional Network --|||-- Gabnet: (612) 362-5850
###
Number:15
From: Ringmaster
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/1/97 7:46pm
Subject: About InterNIC...
Well I just have a little comment, the system InterNIC is using right
now is way to stoneage. For ex. if you wanna update your profiles it
takes days to get it done and e-mails has to be sent back and forward to
the hostmaster (or whatever), wouldn't it be easyer if they just could
get a real system up and running where you can update your info on-line,
internet is commercial and not only the "old" computer nerds are using
it anymore...
My two cents...(or is it one cent?)
[minimjuk] Ringmaster
- http://www.geocities.com/~gcring/
- minimjuk@geocities.com
###
Number: 16
From: Charles
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/1/97 10:15pm
Subject: REGISTRATION OF INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES
To whom it may concern,
I am inclined to aggree with the executive summary on almost all
aspects of included content. I am strongly in favor of the internet
being regulated by the public sector, leaving legal enforcement matters
to the government agencies. As far as domain names are concerned they
should open more domains for the use of public as well as business
concerns, cost of which should be absorbed by the users. Business should
pay their part as well as the private sector. As a private user of the
internet I have found it increasingly difficult to log on to my service
due to the rising amount of usage, as well as the many larger servers
being brought down due to the massive hits to their systems. These facts
alone are proof something need be done and very soon. I can see a major
failure happening within the next few years due to the steady rise in
traffic and stress on an already taxed system. Regards Charles Leffler
--
For quik contact= Mailto:leffler@okeechobee.com
Home Page= http://www.okeechobee.com/~leffler/index.html
Truckers Page=
http://www.okeechobee.com/~leffler/index.html/bookmark3.htm
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("jerry@southeast.net")
###
Number: 17
From: Jesse Kornblum
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/1/97 11:40pm
Subject: Comments on DNS issues
B.
1. Problems with current DNS system:
Under the current system, if a person registers for a DNS entry, but
later another company that holds a trademark to that name (e.g.
www.superbowl.com) wants that domain name, the first person is stripped,
without compensation, of the name. I believe that trademark holders should
be able to purchase the domain names of trademarks they hold, but at a
fair market value. (Perhaps the cost of the registration fee for as long
as the person held the name...)
5. The existing gTLDs should not be retired, but new ones should be
created. It might be a good idea to have a .us domain, and then the US
could administrate everything in that domain, but who would decide other
country codes? And how would those debates be decided? I like the idea of
InterNIC, a semi-autonomous organization that runs the whole deal. Like
the UN, only for the Internet. (Please note that the Internet should NOT
be under control of the UN.) :)
7. Well, I'm going to get a little technical here. Remember that DNS names
(e.g. www.whitehouse.gov) are only nicknames for the *real* addresses,
which are IP addresses that look like this: 18.233.0.21, etc. It may very
well be necessary to expand IP addresses to five blocks. (Each block can
range from 0-255) Having existing systems work with these new systems
would require updating the Internet, a daunting task, but nonetheless
necessary...
C. New gTLDs
1. Yeah. Nothing should be banned. If you want a site
www.profanity.#!@#??, then you should be able to get it.
2. YES! The current system is too restrictive. For example, .isp for
service providers, .store for well, stores, .adult, for sites with adult
content (great for filtering software!)
Thanks for listening,
Jesse D. Kornblum | Even if the voices aren't real,
403 Memorial Drive - DKE | they have some good ideas
Cambridge, MA 02139-4397 USA
617-494-8250, ext. 114 http://mit.edu/jessek/www/
###
Number: 18
From: David Shaw dshaw@nin.skiles.gatech.edu>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/2/97 10:02am
Subject: Internet Domain Naming
I think that the naming system should remain as it is today. If it it
turned over to an international body it will become increasingly
difficult (if not impossible) and prohibitively expensive to register
domain names. I have personally set up several domains for clients and
it is not a difficult process. If we have control over it, we should
maintain that control.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Shaw SGI/HP Platform Manager, Erdas Inc.
"Endian Little Hate We"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
###
Number:19
From: Stephen Burley stephenb@uunet.pipex.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/2/97 11:50am
Subject: Request for coments
The .com as an international domain is a good idea but it does not work
in practice. The biggest problem is that there is no one global legal body to
enforce the trademark law. What maybe a trademark for one product in one
country could be an different product in another. i.e. Durex is a well known
brand of condom in this country but in Australia it is a brand of sticky tape.
What i would like is to see the .com domain put on hold and as NSI are
losing the registration contract that would be an ideal time to do this. I do
not mean kill it off just allow the domains to continue and eventually fade it
out. If a company wants an international presence then they would register in
each country they want to. Trademark laws within the country could then be
applied and enforced. This would also have the effect of spreading the name
space globally rather than concentrating it in the US. If a international
domain was seen to be essential then this could be done by iana, but only if
the company matched a list of certain criteria which made them truly
international.
These are my own personal thoughts.
###
Number: 20
From: thoth@purplefrog.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/2/97 12:33pm
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dn5notic.htm
A.e "conflicts over proprietary rights"
Some of the domain-name disputes are over a DNS name that corresponds
to a trademark (mcdonalds.com). Someone convinced me that rather than
extend trademark law into the internet, there should be a separate layer
that maps from a corporate identity into a domain name.
B.1 "What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems"
Recent experiences with the Internic has convinced me that they are
having difficulty telling their ass from a hole in the ground. What I
want from a registrar is competence, economy, and stability. If a
monopoly registrar can do it, I have no objections. If we need
competition to accomplish this, then I hope it doesn't cause more
problems than it solves.
C.11 "Should additional gTLDs be created?"
I seriously doubt it. If you have .inc and .com name spaces, then the
CocaCola corporation is going to want both coke.inc and coke.com. I
think this will merely increase citizen confusion and the cost of doing
business.
My straw man above can be burned if you distance corporate identity
from the domain name space. Keep reading.
D.16. "Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars,
and what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine
these and how?"
The "failure" of a registrar would be a devastating event. There
should be requirements in place that make this extremely unlikely (bonds?
gvmt crisis management teams?)
D.19. "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? "
I deplore name-grabbing for profit. It is currently an issue under the
.us domain space. If a registrar has monopoly control over a domain,
then there is no opportunity for a more efficient registrar to compete.
E.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? "
also see A.e
Absolutely none. The mapping from a company identity to a domain name
is rarely obvious and different people will try different domain names to
find a certain company. There should be a separate and widely deployed
mechanism for mapping from corporate/product identity into internet
resources (whether web sites or email addresses).
E.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? "
Waste of time and money to solve an unsolveable problem.
E.24. "How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented? What
information resources (e.g. databases of registered domain names,
registered trademarks, trade names) could help reduce potential
conflicts? If there should be a database(s), who should create the
database(s)? How should such a database(s) be used? "
When you incorporate in a state, you should also provide information
about internet resources you provide. The state should administer the
database. These registries should be heirarchically grouped under a
national registry, and then the national registries should be grouped
under an international registry.
This registry should not be confused with the domain name registry.
This is a corporate identity registry.
27. "Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single
domain name, are there any technological solutions?
When you invalidate the idea of trademark rights for a domain name, the
issue becomes moot.
--
Bob Forsman thoth@gainesville.fl.us
http://www.gainesville.fl.us/~thoth/
###
Number: 21
From: "Shasta Willson" shasta@1soft.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/2/97 12:57pm
Subject: DNS comments
Please find attached a Word document with the input of Greg Thorne,
president of 1Soft Corp., concerning:
Billing Code 3510-60
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Docket No. 970613137-7137-01]
Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet
Domain Names
If you have any difficulties, please contact me directly at:
shasta@1soft.com
Shasta Willson
Web Maven
shasta@1soft.com
541.822.6000 ext.103
1Soft Corp.
www.1soft.com
----------
A. Appropriate Principles
The Government seeks comment on the principles by which it should evaluate
proposals for the registration and administration of Internet domain names.
Are the following principles appropriate? Are they complete? If not, how
should they be revised? How might such principles best be fostered?
a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name registration system
should be encouraged. Conflicting domains, systems, and registries should
not be permitted to jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet, however.
The addressing scheme should not prevent any user from connecting to any
other site.
b. The private sector, with input from governments, should develop stable,
consensus-based self-governing mechanisms for domain name registration and
management that adequately defines responsibilities and maintains
accountability.
c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently global
nature of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over time.
d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open,
robust, efficient, and fair.
e. The overall policy framework as well as name allocation and management
mechanisms should promote prompt, fair, and efficient resolution of
conflicts, including conflicts over proprietary rights.
f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of
these issues permits.
B. General/Organizational Framework Issues
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name
registration systems?
I think it works quite well. Since domain names cost $100, it dissuades
persons from hoarding them. I personally am very involved in the InterNet
and have reserved approximately 300 domain names at a cost of $30,000 fee
to Internic. As I set up web sites on each one, there will be additinal
costs, but I hope to do a great deal of business in many different forms on
the internet in the coming decades. I see this as an investment.
2. How might current domain name systems be improved?
It's really quite good. You might allow a few other companies to administer
the reservation of names. If the database were open it would be far easier
to search and see what names were available.
I would not increase the number of TLDs. More TLDs would only increase
confusion. It's perfect the way it is. There are plenty of good .COM names.
Witness that a reported 70,000 new domains are being reserved every month.
Websites can easily "piggy-back" off other .com names, e.g.
www.meyers.store.com or www.pacific-retailers.com/meyers.
If there were additional TLDs, where would it end? I think there would be
thousands and it would be very confusing. Suppose Meyer's is a fishing
tackle store, do you go to meyers.rec, meyers.store, meyers.fishing,
meyers.outdoors or meyers.com? If instead there was only .com, you'd know
that part. The rest could be up to Meyers to develop in their catchy
jingle, slogan or whatever. Then you could just type in "myers fishing
tackle". Your browser might even condense the spaces and default to .com
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?
4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as models for
deciding on domain name registration systems (e.g., network numbering plan,
standard-setting processes, spectrum allocation)? Are there private/public
sector administered models or regimes that can be used for domain name
registration (e.g., network numbering plan, standard setting processes, or
spectrum allocation processes)? What is the proper role of national or
international governmental/non-governmental organizations, if any, in
national and international domain name registration systems?
5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be retired from
circulation? Should geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) be required? If
so, what should happen to the .com registry? Are gTLD management issues
separable from questions about International Standards Organization (ISO)
country code domains?
I think geographically coded TLDs should be retired. Three letter TLDs
should be used for governments however., e.g. .USA, .FRA, .GER
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?
9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
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?
No, except very sparingly.
12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing
the scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of
gTLDs?
13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
code domains?
14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
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?
20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
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?
Trademarks and TLDs are different things. This whole concept of a TLD
infringin on a trademark was something that started with big business
(McDonalds, e.g.). There was someone with the last name of McDonald. It
seems to me they had the perfect right to reserve mcdonald.com and set up a
family web site. If McDonalds really wants a web site with their name, they
should pay for it. I'm sure they can negotiate a price to buy it from the
holder. Anyone with a trademark who wants to be on the web, ought to have
reserved their name yesterday, not be whining about it later. First come,
first serve. Let the free market place moderate. Good names should be
traded freely.
A holder of a TLD does not own a trademark and a trademark owner does not
automatically hold rights to a permutation into a TLD. TLD owners are
protected by having reserved their TLD. Trademark holders overlap by
industry. It is not possible to arbitrate. And there's no need. It should
be first come first serve. If I hold a trademark for "apple" records, and
Apple computer has reserved www.apple.com, then I should have to come up
with something different, e.g. www.apple-records.com. If I invent a new
word, e.g. ChiZen, and I reserve a site www.CHIZEN.com then I have been
protected. I may not even need to bother registering a trademark, easing
the burden on the PTO and everyone else worldwide.
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?
No.
23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark rights be
protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names? What entity(ies), if any,
should resolve disputes? Are national courts the only appropriate forum for
such disputes? Specifically, is there a role for national/international
governmental/nongovernmental organizations?
Domain names may include trademarked words surrounded by other words, e.g.
www.apple.com, www.apple-walnut.com The holder of the trademark "apple" has
the option of buying the domain name, but should not automatically be given
a right to it. Afterall, the word apple is not itself a trademark. Use of
the word only infringes on registered trademarks if it used in a confusing
way, e.g. if the site were to sell "Apple" computers. That would be an
infringement. Selling Washington apples on the site would not be an
infringement.
If I think Photogenics would be a great name for a modeling agency and I
create a website called www.photogenics.com, it wouldn't be fair for
someone in Georgia who owns a 24 hour photo processing store called
Photogenics with a registered trademark to have rights to the site
(www.photogenics.com) if I have already paid for it.
24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented? What information
resources (e.g. databases of registered domain names, registered
trademarks, trade names) could help reduce potential conflicts? If there
should be a database(s), who should create the database(s)? How should such
a database(s) be used?
There should be no conflicts. Ignore any bogus claims. These are imaginary.
A domain names is not a trademark. It's a domain name.
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?
No.
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?
First come first serve.
28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?
____
###
Number: 22
From: Total Web Solutions support@totalweb.co.uk>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/2/97 2:14pm
Subject: DOMAIN NAMES
To whom it may concern:-
First of all let me introduce myself. I am the Sales Director for Total
Web Solutions in the United Kingdom. I along with my colleagues set up
this organisation two years ago with a reasonable understanding of what the
internet was and how it operated due to our techincal backgrounds (software
engineers). It has become aparent though that the Internet and its
resourcs are expanding at an ever increasing rate, thus meaning that it is
incredibly difficult to stay on top of the latest fad or technologies with
limited resources. Customers often ring up and ask for certain tools, or
do you support this or can you do that. It is very customer driven. It is
with this in mind that i say why not let the Internet decide, not some
company such as my own or organisation too big to realise what the people
of the planet really want.
What I propose is to have a web site hosted say by Internic which allowed
internet users to register there thoughts on which top level domains should
be introduced and whom shall have authority, giving the user some pointers
of course. This site shall be the recognised place for registering your
views as an individual. There are far to many sites relating to this issue
and to be frank its a huge pool of bullshit.
People also need to be made aware of this web site by banner advertising
and newsgroup postings along with anything else that might attract the
users attention.
The internet is for the people and not the pot bellied money lovers who see
it as a license to print money at the tax payers expense.
So, back to the web site. The web site might exist for several months but
it will be a central point to register your beliefs. It should not be a
discussion forum because in my experience these forums end up going no
where fast. It needs to be a concise and easy to navigate site with not an
information overload but with a taster of what is expected of their response.
The phrase "keep it simple, stupid" springs to mind. Once several months
worth of information is gathered and collated then and only then can this
problem be resolved once and for all. Because at this moment in time I get
around 3-5 calls a day asking about these domains and I cannot supply any
of these enquirers with a definitive answer.
Hope you read this, if not I have cleared one thing up for myself and that
is I hate long e-mails.
regards,
Miesha Vukasinovic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales: +44 (0)161 485 5586 Freephone Sales: (UK) 0800 435715
Tech Support: +44 (0)161 485 5548
Total Web Solutions Fascimile : +44 (0)161 485 2226
Providing the UK's best Web space http://www.totalweb.co.uk
e-mail: enquiry@totalweb.co.uk
###
Number: 23
From: Robert Friedman friedman@iname.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/2/97 8:15pm
Subject: Internet Domain Name Allocation...
Dear NTIA--
1) The current domain name allocation system doesn't work:
Too many people are holding domain names with the sole intent of selling
"their" domain names. There needs to be fewer "entry bariers" to getting
names (e.g. lower costs) BUT more stringent requirements for i) maintaining
domain access and ii) maintaining content that pertains to a particular
domain name. Anything less is insufficient relative to domain registration
costs and the revenues collected by INTERNIC.
2) .COM, .GOV, .NET, etc. should not be proprietarily owned:
There is no excuse for maintenance and allocation of these domains to be
given to a single company (INTERNIC). That is what one calls a MONOPOLY,
and the system should be opened to the free market.
3) the system should be internationally maintained:
We are not living in a vacuum. The U.S. may have originated the Internet,
but it certainly doesn't OWN the Internet. It would be an intelligent act
of diplomacy (a la Tax Free Web Commerce as proposed by President Clinton)
to allow an international organization to maintain fairness and assign
domains on the Web.
-- Robert Friedman
Princeton University '97
______________________________________________________________________
Robert Friedman friedman@postguard.com
Post Communications (415) 551-9994
1550 Bryant Street, Suite 500 fax: (415) 431-3007
San Francisco, CA 94103
###
Number: 24
From: "Claudio Allocchio, +39 40 3758523" Claudio.Allocchio@elettra.trieste.it>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/3/97 4:05am
Subject: Re: U.S. COMMERCE DEPT. NOI ON DOMAIN NAME REG. ISSUES
Hallo,
Just a few comments to help you in your survey.
My name is Claudio Allocchio, and I'm the chairman of the Italian Naming
Authority, i.e. the official body who is entitled to establish rules for
domain names definition within the country code "it" (both Internet and
ISO systems).
The problem of setting rules for domain name definition was raised in Italy
since mid 1993, and finally the final set of rules went into operation one
year ago: July 1st 1996.
Among the fundamental statements in the set of rules, I can summarise the
following:
- a domain name is an identifier to assign a name to a "generic object"
esisting on the network.
- a domain name has no relationship whatsoever with anything else: trademarks,
registered names, company names, personal names, ... are indipendent
different objects, and correlation with domain names does not exist.
- domain names are only "assigned in use" by the Italian Registration
Authority (a separate indipendent body) to the entity requesting them:
domain names remain a property of the Italian Registration Authority.
- an entity requesting a domain name must declare its right to use such a name
in written. If any dispute arises due to other entities claiming any kind
of "xxx"rights on the name, the domain name holder and the other entities
must solve the issue themselves or via a civil court. The Italian Registra-
tion Authority just accepts the conclusins of the issue and acts consequently.
- an entity can request a single domain name only, within the "it" country code.
- official telecomunication and value added service providers (holding an
official license from the Ministry of Telecomminications) can request
a separate domain name for these specific services offered to their
customers:
e-mail mailbox service
X.400 ADMD service
X.500 directory service
on-line services (like America-on-line)
gopher pages service
web pages service
ftp area service
The complete set of rules and procedures are available (in Italian Language)
at:
http://www.nis.garr.it/netdoc/ITA-PE/Documenti/regole-naming.txt
As a further comment, the Italian Naming Authority and the Italian Registration
Authority are jointly operating with the other European Top Level Domain
registration authorities about the current issue of the IAHC new top levels.
The official position of the Italian Naming and Registration Authorities is
that the IAHC proposal does not solve any of the issues, and just creates
more confusion and unneeded complexity to domain name structure. The proposed
new "categories" are just new large places where the same confusion existing
now in the ".net" and ".com" domains will spread out. Regulations about
domain names use can be established only at national levels, due to differences
in existing legislation. International domains should be used only for specific
cases of international entities, and anything else should be registered within
the national country code: for USA this is "us". Thus the IAHC proposal
should not be implemented, but effective regulations and international
agreements should be established.
More over a set of compulsory netiquette rules are effective for all entities
requesting a domain name under "it" country code. I enclose them hereunder.
Whoever violates such rules can be taken to court and prosecuted. As you will
notice, commercial advertisement via e-mail is explicitly forbidden.
If you have further questions, just let us know
Regards
Claudio Allocchio
chairman of the Italian Naming Authority
(and Internet Engineering Task Force - Application Area)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N E T I Q U E T T E
Ethics and rules for the correct use of network services
Within the community of network service users, especially Internet users
and, in particular, inside the "news" service Usenet, a number of
"traditions" and "principles of correct behaviour" have been developed
with time: all these rules are generally known as "netiquette". Keeping
in mind that whoever provides your network access (provider, public
institution or agency, employer, etc.) can also control even more
precisely the users' duties, we summarise in this document the
fundamental principles of "netiquette", reminding everybody that these
rules are mandatory.
1 When you join a new newsgroup or a new electronic mail distribution
list, read the messages posted there for at least two weeks before
starting to send your own around the world: in this way you will
understand the topics of the discussion and the methods to be used in
such an environment.
2 If you send a message, be brief and concise, both in the subject field
as well as in the message itself. Always use the "subject" field to
specify the topic. If using the "signature" file, please keep it short.
3 Do not post or send messages to the target newsgroup or distribution
list which deviate from the topic in question.
4 Whenever possible, avoid broadcasting your message to many mailing
lists (or newsgroups) at a time. There is usually only one specific
mailing list representing the correct target of your message and which
contains all interested users in that particular topic.
5 If you answer a message, quote only the relevant sections of the
original message in order to facilitate understanding by users who did
not read it, and avoid systematically reposting the entire original
text.
6 Do not engage in "opinion wars" on the network through the sending of
messages and replies: if you have personal discussions, solve them
via private electronic mail correspondence with the interested parties.
7 Never publish the content of electronic mail messages without the
explicit permission of the author.
8 Do not post stupid messages or take sides to support somebody's
opinion within an ongoing discussion. Always read the Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQ) relating to the discussion topic before sending
new questions.
9 Never send advertising or commercial promotion messages or any other
unsolicited message via electronic mail, unless explicitly requested
by the recipient.
10 Be tolerant with users who makes syntactical or grammar errors when
posting messages. Users posting messages must in any case improve
their knowledge of the language, in order to be understood by the
whole community.
Furthermore, to the previously mentioned rules we must add the following
criteria based on common sense logic:
A The network is used as a major work tool by many users. They do not
have time to read jokes, useless or personal messages which are not
of general interest.
B Any activity which heavily affects network traffic, such as bulk data
transfers, reduces the overall network performance. Users should thus
perform these operations outside peak network time (at night for
example), taking into account the different time zones.
C On the network a number of file server sites exists, containing
up-to-date copies of relevant documentation, software and other
objects made available via network. Users must ask in advance which
is the most convenient accessible server node for their use. If a
file is made available on this server, or locally, there is no reason
to load it again via the network, wasting network bandwidth and
waiting much longer for the file transfer to be effected.
D The software made available on network servers can be protected by
copyrights and/or other restrictions on its use. Users must always
read carefully any accompanying documentation before using, modifying
or redistributing this software in any shape or form.
E Incorrect behaviour of an explicit illegal nature by users, such as:
- violating the security of network databases and hosts;
- violating other users' privacy, reading or intercepting their
electronic mail messages;
- compromising the correct performance of the network and of any
equipment which constitutes its service with programmes (virus,
trojan horses, etc.) and other hacking tools;
are explicit criminal violations and, as such, are punishable by
current laws.
For more detailed information on the principles stated above, please
refer to the document RFC1855 "Netiquette Guidelines", available
on-line at the following URL:
http://www.nis.garr.it/netdoc/rfc/rfc1855.txt
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("ALLOCCHIO@elettra.trieste.it")
###
Number: 25
From: Martin Volesky M.Volesky@IEMINC.NET>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/3/97 9:31am
Subject: Domain Names
Hello.
I have read thr story reported by the MSNBC Internet News Service
regarding the RFC regarding domain names. One issue that I feel is quite
inportant when setting up new top-level domain names is the length of these
names. Working as a systems administrator of ran interactive internet media
company IO have written many scripts and utilities that have been built on
the concept that all top-level domain named have three characters. I do not
think that it would be to dificult to maintain this standard with any new
top level domains. I belive this issue has not been sufficiently addresses.
Thank you for your time.
Martin Volesky.
###
Number: 26
From: Bruce Paul birdcat@admin.con2.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/3/97 9:50am
Subject: In my humble opinion
I know that one voice does not count for much but since you asked...
I think the entire naming and numbering scheme of the internet should be
handled by a world wide organization - a for profit organization - that
should have accountability to the United Nations (they've got to be good
for something). By making this new company a for profit organization,
they can fund themselves and by making it accountable to the UN, they
would be regulated on their prices (like the old AT&T before Judge
Green). Since Network Solutions is already in this business, why not
let them continue but under the auspices of the world community's chosen
representatives?
Like I said, you asked.
Bruce Paul
birdcat@con2.com
webmaster@birdcat.com
bruce.paul@bowne.com
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("webmaster@birdcat.com")
###
Number: 27
From: Tom and Judy Devaney <1345deva@inet.westshore.cc.mi.us>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/3/97 2:22pm
Subject: Domain Names
Hello....
I want to comment on the "Domain Name" issue:
I want to be starting a business out of my home within the next year or
so. My wife is going to school so putting all of my effort towards it is
impossible at present.
My biggest fear is that big business and the people who are able to able
to do something NOW will have a better chance of getting a domain name
than I will one or two years from now. Or , that the price
will be out of reach for anyone with a low income. Or , I
don't know the RIGHT people.
I want EVERYONE to be able to have an equal chance to get a domain
name for ALL time to come.
Please consider this when you make your decision as it will affect my
children as well.
Thank You...
Tom Devaney
1345deva@inet.westshore.cc.mi.us
###
Number: 28
From: "Fontenla"
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/3/97 9:53pm
Subject: Domain names, comment
To whom it may concern,
I think it was a very bad policy to give up full control of domain names to
a private company. Ethics considerations that say that the government
investment should not be given up unconditionally to any for profit
company. Much less with such long term contract and without direct
government supervision. The Internet was funded by our tax money, as a
technological and educational enterprise, and nobody likes giving it as a
gift to any company.
Moreover, this company now is blocking and difficulting the normal
functioning of the Internet, and should be stopped now. The administration
of the Internet should be closely supervised by the govrnment, and any
resolution should be contingent of NSF not opposing it. Besides,
international agreements should be put forward, and enforced by some
government institution.
Dr. Juan Fontenla
###
Number: 29
From:
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/3/97 7:19pm
Subject: Domain Names Comments
I do have a few comments on the Domain Name issue...The Idea that a solo
company should be allowed to monopolize on internet domain names is
ridiculous....one of the greatest things holding up the Internet today is
the organization of domain names. Domain Names need to be geographic...if
I want to visit the web site of John K Paul in Burlington Vermont, I should
be able to visit him at www.johnkpaul.burlington.vermont. Private
companies could compete for the business of registering the millions (or
billions) of domain names that would become availible (creating more
competition and driving the price down) and an advertising funded yellow
pages would make it easy for me to determine WHICH John Paul in Burlington
Vermont I was talking to....
Jason M Page
jpage@lucent.com
###
Number: 30
From: "Bob Jordan"
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/3/97 6:22pm
Subject: Domain names
I think the government should step in and legislate that the polices in
place for the existing domains shall remain unaltered and that companies
have no claims to copyrighted domain names in those existing domains. In my
opinion, it is unfair to establish new standards and rules and make them
retro-active.
In addition, the government should legislate the establishment of new
domains, such as .firm or .inc (whatever) that do provide for copyright
protection.
###
Number: 31
From: White
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/3/97 4:58pm
Subject: XXX domain
the NTIA's first step - just from a public affairs/pragmatic angle - should
be to create
".XXX"
as top level domain for all US adult sites. this solution would instantly,
easily, and with few complications clear up the snafus attendent to the
just-killed CDA and the greater issues that surrounded it. Better still,
it would be a solution internal to the Internet community, rather than some
sort of content regulation.
The only step left would be to distribute client-side web software
that would not load .xxx domains.
A mandatory ".XXX" domain would immediatly create a well-cordoned
Internet red light district - a solution that American courts and
communities have long held to be a viable one in the real world.
DRAWBACKS.
1. A private citizen not in the business of selling adult content
could post adult content to a private site.
Solution: There is none. The first amendment protects such
things. However, a volunatry internet standard could be pushed by ISPs
(which are "bandwidth providers" of the vast number of personal webpages)
that anyone posting adult stuff should put it within an "xxx" directory on
their private site. Not everybody would do it, but enough would that,
combined with the .xxx solution, internet adult content would be tough to
come by "by accident."
2. Foriegn sites.
Solution: With the US's massive percentage of the world's internet
sites, it is reasonable to expect many foriegn based adult sites to come
onboard such a plan, adopting a "xxx" based domain name.
Those that don't - well, NO American-based solution will change
their minds anyway.
matt white
###
Number: 32
From: "Wm. MacDonald"
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/3/97 4:17pm
Subject: Domain Names
Domanin names should continue to be reasonable and free from having
commercial intrests run them.
W. MacDonald
###
Number: 33
From: "John Alexander"
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/3/97 12:59pm
Subject: Comments on DNS proposal
Hi:
I believe that the current handling of the InterNIC is sub-standard, and
anything that is done should at least fix current problems, without
creating additional ones.
Network Solutions is incapable of handling the volume they currently
handle, so they do not get involved in any issues. For example, there is a
domain, "congress.org", that has nothing to do with Congress, and is not a
non-profit organization. There are also several ".net" domains which have
nothing to do with being Internet Service Providers.
When I brought this to the attention of the InterNIC, they sent back a form
letter asking why I thought that I had the rights to these domain names. I
don't. I just don't want to see other companies abusing the current
Internet domain naming system.
If you allow additional companies to create root-level domain names, here
are the things I think are important:
* Competition will hopefully increase quality while keeping costs in
check.
* The various root-level domain name providers MUST reference one another,
or each company connected to the Internet will be required to manually
modify their DNS machines to reflect the new root servers. This would be
impossible for many Internet users.
* A cross-domain board should be established to regulate names. The rules
need to be enforced by an independent organization, rather than a company
who has a vested interest in selling domain names for money.
You may wish to work with the various tier-1 Internet Service Providers,
including UUNET, MCI, Sprint, PSINet, Digex, ANS, AGIS, etc. They may be
able to offer a solution which involve using the ISPs as the root-level
DNS, then having the management of the domains handled by separate
companies.
My 2 cents, for what it's worth (if it's even worth 2 cents ).
/John Alexander
Consulting Engineer
IKON Technology Services
###
Number: 34
From: Chris Ehrhardt
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/20/96 6:30pm
Subject: input on domain names...
the system we are using now work. there is no reason to change it. its
bad enough when i get pissed off when i can't find an address because
its .net and i am trying .com ... if its working, why try and change it?
chrisehrhardt
hard2overcome
###
Number: 35
From: <FoxxMulder@aol.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/4/97 5:04pm
Subject: Domain Name Discussion
It is my opinion that any future domain name registration and database
service should be a non-profit corporation with it's controlling board made
up by appointees of the backbone owners and any online service, ISP, or
internet software developer over a pre-determined size. There should also be
several seats representing the universities, secondary schools and general
internet using public. Giving control of such a lucrative business to a
for-profit company will make the system even more political and the end-user
will not be served.
The NSF should take the ball on this to make sure the organization is above
board and fair to everyone involved.
Jerry Jones
263 Dempsey Way
Orlando, Florida 32835
###
Number: 36
From: J Richard Daub <oldfolks@mail.oldfolks.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/4/97 3:06pm
Subject: Domain names
>Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 10:19:04 -0500
>From: Enter Your Name Here user@nantucket.net>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: dns@ntia.doc.gov
>CC: jrdaub@oldfolks.com
>Subject: Domain names
>X-URL: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dn5add.htm
>
>Briefly,
> Any change, alteration or abandonment of a security
>of domain
>names such as InterNic will render ALL domain names USELESS.
> Registered domain names are as the trademark or copyright of the
>holder of that particular domain name.
>
>
>J Richard Daub
>
>
>jrdaub@oldfolks.com
>
###
Number: 37
From: Thomas Cameron <tcameron@three-sixteen.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/4/97 2:08pm
Subject: DNS Naming after InterNIC
Why not have a random slection between say, the 10 best suited ISP's (in
technical capabilities) of registration duties?
For instance, every year or two years, an independant council made up of
industry professionals (from perhaps IEEE and maybe educational
facilities, consumer groups, etc.) would evaluate the ISP's that were
interested in the domain registration business. They would come up with
a list of the top 10 or 20. Those would go into a lottery style
drawing.
That way, there is no way to cry "favoritism." No one company gets all
the profits from registration fees. It would involve changing the
top-level DNS servers once every one or two years, but that is a
relatively straight-forward task.
Just a thought.
Thomas Cameron, CNE, MCP
Three-Sixteen Technical Services, Inc.
512-891-9202
###
Number: 38
From: Theuer, Scott <scotttheuer@pathway.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/4/97 11:40am
Subject: Domain name system
Please consider these comments when deciding the future of the domain name
system:
1) Regardless of the system in place, it is imperative that hoarding and
hawking domain names be made illegal. Names already hoarded should be
released at cost back to whatever authority ends up with responsibility for
domain issuance.
2) No additions should be made to the current number of top level domains.
The confusion that will result from multiple companies with the same name
(i.e.: acme.com, acme.web, acme.bus, etc) will effectively render domains
unusable when a user is attempting to find a company online
Thanks you,
Scott Theuer
###
Number: 39
From: Enter Your Name Here <user@nantucket.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/4/97 11:19am
Subject: Domain names
Briefly,
Any change, alteration or abandonment of a security of domain
names such as InterNic will render ALL domain names USELESS.
Registered domain names are as the trademark or copyright of the
holder of that particular domain name.
JRichard Daub
jrdaub@oldfolks.com
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("jrdaub@oldfolks.com")
###
Number: 40
From: "Starr L. Pierce" <starr77@primenet.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/4/97 11:05am
Subject: Electronic Filing of Comments on Internet Domain Names
Appropriate Principles, a: I agree. b: I disagree. c: Absolutely. d:
Yes. e: It should be what it is. We should not try and control it.
The internet will evolve on it's own. f: A framework 'will' develop on
it's own.
General/Organizational Framework Issues, Point #5: No, I do not think
that .com should be retired. As for the rest, a little to technical for
me.
Creation of New gTLDs, No comment.
Policies for Registries, #15: Absolutely, a gTLD registrar have
exclusive control over a particular gTLD.
Trademark Issues, Ok, your not going to like this, but trademark names
have no place on the internet. most ppl will not violate trademark
names. only a select few. those that do are usually out for a buck.
that's life. there can be NO control over trademarks on the internet.
let it be self governing. thank you.
I know that I didn't fully answer all of your questions, but I hope
that this reply will assist in some way. Many of the topics are to
technical for me. I am just a average 'puter user that's been ion the
internet for a few yr.. I don't have a technical or computer
background. I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Starr L. Pierce
###
Number: 41
From: Jack Scheinuk <scheinuk@ix.netcom.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/4/97 10:41am
Subject: Comments re E28
--
Jack Scheinuk, P.E.
7927 Maple St., New Orleans LA 70118
Tel: 504-866-1221 - Fax: 504-866-1258
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("tmc@ix.netcom.com")
Owners of existing second-level names may have substantial investment in
such names.
Therefore, I recommend that there be a provision for name reservation or
"pre-registration", prior to the time new gTLDs are functional, to allow
second-level name owners the opportunity to register their existing
second-level names under new gTLDs.
For example, there could be a window of time of 120 days from the time
each new gTLD become functional to allow present name owners to register
existing second-level names under such new gTLD.
As second-level owners can be considered to have knowledge about this
subject generally, I also propose that it be the responsibility of the
existing name owners to be aware of the time of availability of each new
gTLD and, if desired, to register within the reserved period.
###
Number:42
From: Jill Ferguson <jillferg@home.cynet.net>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 7/4/97 10:08am
Subject: domain names
There is definitely a need for more domain suffixes, as that would better
help to describe the category of the domain. As far as the domain names
themselves, it should be done the same way that a business name is chosen.
You submit the name, and if nobody else is using it, then it's yours. An
organization would be necessary to govern that aspect, but any type of
government control or monopoly type control beyond that would be
ludicrous. The internet belongs to the people of the world. It's
probably the only thing left that does! I believe that's why the
government fears it.
------------------------------------------------
Visit my website, "Crazylady's Lair", at http://www.cynet.net/crazylady/
and sign my guestbook!
###
Number:43
From: Elizabeth Agawa <miko@wenet.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/4/97 10:00am
Subject: future of domain names
A suggestion regarding structure of domain names is to get rid of
personal home pages ending with ".com." Most are literally personal,
mostly nonsensical and with no redeeming value to the general 'net
community. Take all of these and rename them something like .duh or .per
I have been on line for about 2 years now. I am the webmaster for my
company's web site (http://www.infointf.com) and I use the Internet
daily for information that helps run our business. Using the Internet as
a business tool I book travel, look up reference info, do research, buy
product and use e-mail.
Perhaps if some of the junk on the 'Net was cleaned up and put in its
own area it would become less congested and easier to access.
Best,
Elizabeth Agawa
###
Number:44
From: Gerry Owen <gowen@sundial.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/4/97 5:51am
Subject: Domain Names
Keep all facets of government completely OUT of trying to "help"
internet. If government has a burning need to help any worse than they
are now, they could explore moving to Russia and leaving us alone..
Sign me Sick of government meddling
###
Number:45
From: "John Driscoll" <jfd@prime-x.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/4/97 3:07am
Subject: Internet Domain Registration
Dear NTIA;
As the owner of a small Internet Service Provider business in Wakefield,
MA, I'd like to express my opinion on the future of domain name
registrations in th U.S.A.
I am strongly against giving control of this vital interest to an
unelected, non-representative organization from another country. While I
agree that the domain name system needs some improvement, I believe it is
better addressed by American interests, at least as far as American
businesses are concerned.
My two cents...
John Driscoll
President
Prime Connections, Inc.
www.prime-x.net
###
Number:46
From: "Tim S." <tims@oneimage.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/4/97 2:45am
Subject: Request for comment on admin of domain name regist
Comments for:
Request for comments on administration of the Domian Name Services
It is my opinion that the U.S. government should completely and
permanently withdraw any participation or influence over any and all
aspects of the Internet.
The administration of the Internet should be solely managed by the private
sector.
Tim Soos
tims@oneimage.com
###
Number: 47
From: "T.J. Smith" <twolf@cp.duluth.mn.us>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/4/97 12:17am
Subject: Comments
I think that the only people that should have to pay for domain names
should be the businesses or people trying to sell stuff. I am trying to
start a non-profit org on the net, but we can't get a domain name because
WE DON"T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY FOR THAT. I REALLY think .org domain names
should be free. Non-profit orgs offer stuff for free, why can't we get some
stuff to help better serve the people for free?
______
n, ( / ) ___
_ / |_ / _ | |_
/ ' `'/ T.J. Smith / \_/\_/ (_) |_ |
<~ .' 3123 Restormel St.
.' | Duluth, MN 55806 USA
_/ i (218) 628-3517
_/ :
_____/___/ /__\ \ \ \ http://computerpro.com/~twolf/
/ (__.'\________)\__i_i \ http://www.ABCtec.com/~HV/
###
Number: 48
From: "Steve & Kelly Longsworth" longswos@mashell.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 11:03pm
Subject: Control of DNS
As an Active duty Army SYSADMIN with my own Domain Controller I have no
problems what-so-ever with the current Naming Conventions. They allow for
standardized naming conventions and are easily understandable. The .mil /
.gov / .com / .edu /........ is an intuitive convention, However if the
.com crowd want to fight over who gets the "really HOT" names let them and
let them control (i.e. sell or lease) them with a percentage of the
proceeds being returned to those who built the original backbone of the
entire system. A mandated pricing schedule would prevent gouging and or
exorbitant prices (i.e. first come first served for $X.xx per name)
/S/
Steven W. Longsworth
SFC, USA
Systems Administrator
504th Military Police Bn.
###
Number:49
From: "TERRENCE FITZPATRICK" TLFP@msn.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 10:17pm
Subject: Internet domain names
Please people, listen carefully.
Neither the Internet nor the World Wide Web is broken so please DON'T TRY TO
FIX IT. Stay on it, if you like, but stay out of it. It's not yours to mess
with. It belongs to the people of the world.
Terrence FitzPatrick
TLFP@msn.com
###
Number:50
From: "Alex M. Hochberger" ahochber@iname.com>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'"
Date: 7/5/97 2:30pm
Subject: Domain Names
Allow competition for the top level domains. Require the root registers
to point to one another, and allow multiple organizations to support TLDs.
There may be a way to only allow one company to use one TLD (for technical
reasons), but even that could be avoided. Lets bring the costs down and
increase competition to allow more TLDs and easier names to remember.
Alex Hochberger
Citrix Systems, Inc.
Pine Crest School '97
M.I.T. '01
###
Number:51
From: "Andrew B. Cencini" andrew@cencini.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 1:24pm
Subject: Request for Comments
Hello,
I am responding regarding the recent request for comments regarding domain
name administration. In my humble opinion, I feel that the methods,
standards and practices of assigning TLD's, as well as the overall
administration of domain names, is far behind the current paradigm of
technology on the Internet.
I will focus my opinions solely on the current administration of domain
names in the United States - more specifically, the ".com, .net, .org,
.edu, and .us" domains. Also, my comments will reflect my feelings towards
how the registries have handled the management of public domain records.
First, I feel most strongly about how poor a job that NSI (The InterNIC)
has done in their administration of domains, as well as how arcane the
standards and policies are that they use as "guidelines."
The InterNIC, being a private commercial organization, under government
contract, has a threefold obligation. First and foremost, they have a
commitment to their customers, without whom they would be nonexistant.
Secondly, they have a commitment to helping manage the Internet in a way
which would most benefit the organizations and users of it. Lastly, they
have a responsibility to satisfactorily complete the above requirements, as
well as meet the conditions put forth by the NSF in their cooperative
agreement. Note, that clearly there is no single body of interest that
must be satisfied here, but rather a commitment to many groups of people.
CLearly, in my many experiences with the InterNIC, I have found my dealings
to be frustrating, maddening, and, quite frankly, to be excessively slow.
One could compare the service of the InterNIC to the judicial system - it's
slow and it rarely works. If the InterNIC was in the business of
registering domains for free, then one could not complain. As was said in
Shakespeare's great play, Hamlet, "Ay, therein lies the rub."
The InterNIC charges a fairly outrageous fee of $100US per domain for 2
years of "service." As a consumer, and as a member of the Internet
community, I feel more than justified in receiving service, promptly and
courteously, in return for my compensation of $100.
I have received no such "service" or courteous treatment in my experience
with InterNIC.
The solution? Well, that is difficult to determine. Clearly, the InterNIC
should be used as an example of what "not to do" when managing a domain
registry. Their database services, customer services, and
assignment/dispute services are not really services, but more a haphazard
"system" by which more energy is spent "maintaining" the system, than
actually serving customers. A new domain registry would have the following
properties, and their contract should require, amongst many other things,
that these stipulations are met:
1) A clear, current policy for the assignment of domains is established,
in plain English, and an appeal policy that is swift yet thorough is in
place for the rare case in which two parties wish for the same domain.
2) A fee structure consistent with the level of service is in place.
3) An online registration system that is user-friendly, simple to use, and
much more thorough "where it counts" so far as validation is concerned
regarding the usage requirements of the domain.
4) Said registration system is available on a high-speed connection to the
Internet, and is publicly accessible through many means 24x7. The site,
even during peak hours should not be excessively slow or down.
5) The database administration and design should be done logically and
thoughtfully, keeping in mind the considerations of the customer while
allowing easy administration.
6) Simple and intuitive tools through which the database may be searched
by many criteria while maintaining the highest of confidenatiality
7) Courteous and prmpt service by phone, email or other means of
communication
8) A wide variety of easy, common payment options, including check, credit
card and digital cash ONLINE.
One of the above stipluations raises one other issue regarding the
InterNIC's operation which I must personally comment on. The current
system of assigning universities only to the "edu" domain is stupid and
inconsiderate. Also, the policy of allowing "free" domains in the edu TLD
is quite silly. Recently, I applied for an "edu" domain for a high school
with which I now am doing some Internet work. All of the schools in the
area of equal merit have an "edu" domain, and we assumed we would be given
the same. To make an extremely long and angering story short, after 6
months of form-letters and, quite frankly, rude and demeaning
correspondence from various InterNIC representatives, we appealed to the
IANA, who rendered a decision in virtually 48 hours following our final
submission to them.
In the end, the IANA, whom I feel have done an excellent job managing and
overseeing many aspects of the Internet, overturned one of their own RFC's
in favor of our case. That RFC, which was written 3 years ago, is what the
InterNIC uses as a "guideline" as ***** (name witheld) from the InterNIC
repeatedly told us as we were repeatedly turned away, despite the large
case in which such a "guideline" must be reconsidered.
By not allowing schools in general to be registered in the edu domain
(currently, less than 5000 are in the edu domain, last time I checked), it
somehow reduces the integrity of the institution by considering it as an
"organization." It would be much like requiring an ISP to register in the
"com" domain since they also sell T-shirts touting their services.
Given that also all of the adjacent "org, com and net" domains were taken
by "domain pirates" selling those domains, we had no other domains. It
seemed that the InterNIC did no such research to verify that information,
but rather suggested an alternate "org" domain name which also was in use
(and was quite ugly, to boot). In short, that policy should be seriously
re-evaluated given the current trend of Internet affairs.
All in all, had I a choice of domain registries, I would never have dealt
with the InterNIC. Enough said. Be my comments registered above. One
final parting comment would be about the management of the US domain.
While the management of the US domain is a bit arcane, and could use a
touch-up so far as policy administration goes, I found the people I worked
with to be some of the nicest most generous, conscientious people who were
knowledgeable about their work, and made every possible effort to
assist in my requests. I found I even learned from some of my
correspondences! I feel that the registrars of the US domain, (doing the
job for FREE, nonetheless) are doing a superb job, and deserve more funding
and a policy upgrade.
I apoligize for the long-winded and rambling note, but thank you for
registering my comments.
Cheers,
Andrew Cencini
Cencini Computer Services
andrew@cencini.com
###
Number:52
From: Frank fb@badamitv.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 12:38pm
Subject: Domain Names.
Open bidding in each state of the U.S. and have multi companies involved
in the Domain process. The cost of a Domain Name should not be more
than $10. per person or business.
###
Number: 53
From: "David E. Johnson" djohnson@goldrush.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 11:43am
Subject: comment on upcoming internet changes
The internet began with scientists and government entities and
consequently is incredibly secular. It now seems to be fueled by business
interests. It would be refreshing if the powers that be could create a
domain name or category that is exclusively for the religious community.
David E. Johnson
###
Number: 54
From: "David_H" david_h@webworldinc.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 11:06am
Subject: Domain Names
Yes you should add more names.
And add something like .PER for personal names (private individuals)
And all Domain names should be """"FREE""""" - or at most a one time
processing fee of 'not' more that $10.00. - Somebody is making millions off
of us, and is not really
fair, partly because there is no compition.
Any name that is a registered trademark with the US or other country's
trademark
office should automatically have the right to that name. (maybe with the
extention,
'.REG' , for registered.
Thank you
###
Number: 55
From: mark2 mark2@yourgallery.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 11:02am
Subject: domain names
Stay out of it. The Government has NO place being involved in this and
many more issues.
STAY OUT. STAY IN BUGET. LEAVE AMERICA ALONE, WE ARE FINE
WITHOUT YOU.
MARK GIERT
407 ABNER CRUZE RD
KNOXVILLE TN
37920
###
Number: 56
From: Mark Lautenschlager MarkL@pobox.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 8:54am
Subject: Domain name issue
Gentlemen,
My input on this matter is simple. I am a consumer of Internet services,
not a supplier. I am only interested in one matter--how easy is it to find
the site you're looking for on the Net?
Right now, if I am looking for a company's web site, it's a safe bet that
"www.company name goes here.com" will yield positive results. When these
new top-level domain names are introduced, will I have to try .web and
.info, also?
If you make the Internet more difficult to navigate, you will stifle its
growth. Adding more top-level domains is fine, but you MUST PROVIDE SOME
EASY WAY FOR USERS OF THE INTERNET TO FIND THE SITE THEY ARE SEEKING.
If such a mechanism cannot be devised, then leave the present system alone.
Thank you.
###
Number: 57
From: Matt mattgr@geocities.com>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 7/5/97 4:38am
Subject: Internet Domain Name Comments
To Whom it May Concern:
I am a 27 year old Software Test Lead at Microsoft in Redmond, Washington.
I first started messing with the net on a Linux box 4 years ago.
Here are my recommendations:
Don't be US centric. Make all URLs have a country specifier. Let companies
choose their designator. Maybe Australia wants to be OZ and not AU
http://company.com.us
ftp://company.com.oz
URLs should not contain protocol specfic information. Take out the www/ftp
etc. Let the server look at the protocol and redirect as necessary.
http://www.company.com.us really says it twice doesn't it?
Figure out more nets. net, com, edu, mil, why not lib (for library), lab
(for research lab). Com really needs to be broken out.
GET ISPs OUT OF COM and put them into NET. COM is for COMpanies. NET is for
companies that provide NET access.
If you need any major problems solved, just let me know. I have a pretty
darn good sense of the right way to do things ;)
-Matt
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/5444/
###
Number: 58
From: Ian Ellis ian@iglou.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 3:39am
Subject: Domain name registration cost.
$50 per year seems exorbitant - especially for a monopoly. Who chose
that amount?
Although $50 may be a sneeze in a bucket to McDonalds, small companies
and groups are hit much harder.
###
Number: 59
From: "Michael McLeod" alie4251@email.msn.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 1:18am
Subject: domain names
the federal government should help set laws regarding the internet however
with reguard to who handles a cental regestry of names
i would like to see a commission funded strictly from registrations
made up of members of various countries kind of like the UN but for the
internet
domain names would be purchased and renewed thru this agency and laws and
regulations and other areas of interest to the web would be placed as there
role also
though there recomendations would not be law the should be able to provide
Congress
and other fed agencies with recomendations that might become law and in
that process
also request responses at a central regestry where by votes could be
tallied from the
internet public as to yea/nay votes on any recommendations they will pass
along to congress via the agency their by allowing a public vote and only
one vote per regestered domain name. as well as a general vote at large to
get a response from the internet communit(users)
###
Number: 60
From: Joyce jbulwinkle@geocities.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 12:18am
Subject: Domain Names and IP's
I was reading someone's entry that said to make all XXX pages with the
extension .xxx That is a great idea, and could be less cumbersome to
make Programs to cut out the site, by simply telling it to block all
sites marked .xxx It would also be easier to have more Internet
Protocols other than zzz.zzz.zzz.zzz where zzz is a number in the range
of 0 to 255. As we know, A lot of people (mostly ISP's) purchase a Full
C. So they have say 199.73.4.zzz. They take up 256 of the IP's and
probably do not even use them all. There has to be an easier way of
managing IP's. Possibly to increase zzz from 255 to 999? If that is in
any way possible than it would be helpful.
###
Number: 61
From: wallace koehler wkoehle@ibm.net>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/6/97 6:08am
Subject: Request for TLD Comments
Attached in Word 6 are comments on your request for gTLD comments
I appreciate the opportunity
wallace koehler (willing@usit.net)
--
Response to Department of Commerce Request for Comments on Internet Domain Names
Wallace Koehler (willing@usit.net)
A. Responses to General/Organization Framework Issues:
A. Comment: There has been much interest expressed about and interest in
modifications to the
domain naming structure, particularly to the gTLD .com domain. This concern resulted in a set of
recommendations by the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) of the Internet Society (ISOC)
as well as a continuing commentary and criticism of the process and its recommendations. For
example, the IAHC maintained a listserv (archived at the ISOC site (www.isoc.org)) and the issue
was the subject of some debate at the INET'97 Meeting (ISOC Annual Meeting) in Kuala Lumpur
in June 1997.
A.1. Argument Foci. The argument as presently constituted revolves around two related issues: (1) domain naming space has become congested, and (2) domain names may represent a threat to the trademarks of established corporations. Arguments and proposed solutions include recognition that the current gTLD structure is inadequate to manage the naming requirements of commercial entities worldwide and that trademark issues are important. The IAHC solution, meritorious as it is, fails in one key aspect. It seeks to impose a