Number: 402

Before the

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Washington, D.C. 20230

                             )
Request for Comments         )
                             )
on the Registration and      )       Dkt. No. 970613137-7137-01
Administration of Internet   )
Domain Names                 ) 
                             )
                             )

COMMENTS OF

PSINET

Respectfully submitted,

William J. Schrader
Chairman, President, and CEO
PSINet
510 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 22070
703-904-4100

August 18, 1997

COMMENTS ON THE REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION

OF INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

PSINet is happy to respond to the Department's Request for Comments regarding reform of the Internet domain name system,⁽¹⁾

and is pleased that the Department has responded to the calls of PSINet and others to examine this important issue. PSINet is the first commercial Internet Service Provider, and has taken a leading position in the formation and development of the commercial Internet. Throughout its history, PSINet has championed the consultative processes that have guided the Internet's successful self-regulation through nearly a decade of rapid growth. PSINet is a leading provider of turn-key corporate Internet and intranet access. It manages one of the world's largest and most advanced fast-packet networks, which provides state-of-the-art, high speed Internet access ranging from dedicated high-speed circuits to ISDN to high-speed modem dial-up. In addition, PSINet provides Domain Name Service to over 19,000 customers, as well as to other Internet users.

PSINet's comments address the process and principles by which reform of the Internet domain name system should occur, and respond to questions a-d, f, 1-4, 8, 10, 15, 20, and 26 of the Request for Comments. It is essential that the U.S. Government endorse a consensus process open to a broad range of stakeholders from the Internet community to ensure that the reform has legitimacy. Accordingly, at this stage, PSINet focuses its comments on the proper process for reforming the domain name system, and principles that should govern such reform, instead of setting forth its views regarding how the system of gTLDs and country codes should be configured.

PSINet strongly support the goals set forth in the White House "Framework for Global Electronic Commerce" of solving the domain name question through "the development of a global competitive, market-based system to register Internet domain names" and of arriving at a solution through a process that "foster[s] bottom-up governance of the Internet."⁽²⁾

Consistent with these overarching policy goals, we believe that the reform of the Internet domain name system should be guided by the following principles:

(1) the Internet domain name system is an important policy question, not a technology or financial question, because existing technology will be more than adequate to manage domain name demands for the foreseeable future;

(2) reforming the system is of critical importance to the future of electronic commerce, and therefore should be based upon a consensus process open to stakeholders who use the Internet, with continued input from Internet experts;

(3) the Internet domain name system should be based upon minimal domestic and international government involvement, while bringing the benefits of free market competition to the domain name registration process;

(4) the system should avoid monopoly and special interest control; and

(5) reform of the configuration and administration of the Internet domain name system is not a trademark issue, and will not solve trademark problems relating to Internet name assignments.

Consistent with the "Framework For Global Electronic Commerce" and with these principles, PSINet urges the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Government to end the current monopolistic Internet domain name registration system, and to implement a new system prior to the expiration of Network Solutions' contract in April of 1998.

To achieve such reform, PSINet urges the U.S. Government to endorse an open international online conference to be held this fall in which stakeholders can meet to develop a consensus solution to the future of the Internet domain name system. This conference would provide both policy direction for the ensuing reform and legitimacy with the Internet community as well as international organizations and foreign governments that have expressed interest in the issue.

PSINet further urges the U.S. Government to create space both domestically and internationally for a solution which maximizes the benefits of the free market by separating the registration function -- which should be open to competition -- from the operation of a centralized database of Internet addresses by a neutral party.

II. THE PRINCIPLES AND PROCESS THAT SHOULD GUIDE REFORM

A. The Internet domain name system is an important policy question, not a technology or financial question.

[Questions b, d, 4, 10]

The Internet domain name question is primarily a public policy issue. It is neither a technical nor a financial challenge, and will not become one in the near term. Existing capacity readily available in the private sector is more than adequate to handle Internet domain name addressing needs for the foreseeable future, including in the event of a significant expansion in the number of gTLDs. In fact, industry could step in right now to handle both maintenance of the domain name database and the registration of domain names. Moreover, whatever system is in place can support itself financially because entities that make use of the database and of registration service will readily pay cost-based fees for use of the system.

While reform of the Internet domain name system of course requires extensive input from those knowledgeable about the Internet to ensure that the new system will function and scale, the issue is not a predominantly technical one to be reserved for technical experts.

B. Because of its importance to the future of economic commerce, decisions on the basic direction for reform of the domain name system should be established through a consensus process open to stakeholders throughout the world.

[Questions b, c, f, 2, 4, 8]

The configuration of the Internet domain name system will play a critical role in the development of electronic commerce. It literally will shape how businesses and customers find each other on the Internet. The configuration of the system is equally important to the Internet service providers, universities and others who make the Internet function and must use the Internet address system. The Internet domain name system therefore raises important public policy questions affecting a great number of Internet service providers, business end users and consumer end users.

The Request for Comments is entirely correct that "[t]he Internet has operated by consensus rather than by government regulation."⁽³⁾

As the Background section suggests, the Internet has achieved remarkable success through consensus decision making among private sector stakeholders. The direction of reform of the domain name question should be generated in the same fashion. However, in light of the importance of this issue for Internet service providers and users who register domain names, a wide range of private sector stakeholders within and outside the United States should have an opportunity to contribute to resolution of this issue.

PSINet recommends that consensus be developed through an open, international online conference of stakeholders on this issue to be held early in the fall, mediated by a high-profile Internet advocate, such as the Vice President of the United States. Internet service providers, commercial users, academic, and consumer users from throughout the world, as well as government representatives, would all be welcome to participate. The conference would encourage a full discourse on the issues, and would provide a forum for representation of the whole Internet community.

C. The Internet domain name system should be based upon minimal domestic and international government involvement.

[Questions b, c, 2, 4]

The private sector and other non-governmental organizations should play the central role with input from government in making the policy choice of how the domain name system should be configured, and who should operate the new system.

With regard to developing the domain name policy, the role of the United States Government should be to create space both domestically and internationally for a private sector consensus decision with input from governmental officials. It is important that the U.S. Government, consistent with the "Framework for Global Electronic Commerce," support private sector consensus resolution of the issue, and resist efforts of other governments and international regulatory bodies to short cut development of such consensus. Indeed, it is no more appropriate for WIPO, the ITU, or another international body to determine the resolution of this issue than for the United States Government to prescribe a top-down solution.

PSINet believes that a global online conference among stakeholders in the Internet service provider, commercial user, academic, consumer user, and government sectors from throughout the world offers the best avenue for achieving consensus and legitimacy regarding domain name policy. By adhering to the strong and healthy tradition of private consensus decision-making guiding development of the Internet, and by offering an opportunity for user and international input, this process would provide much needed legitimacy to the policy direction on this important issue. It would also fulfill the goal of the "Framework for Global Electronic Commerce" to "foster[ing] bottom-up governance of the Internet"⁽⁴⁾

in resolving the issue.

With regard to the eventual operation of the system, the government should rely upon the private sector. As noted above on p.3, the private sector has more than enough technical capacity to implement the domain name system that the Internet community chooses to adopt. Government's role should be limited to contracting out operation of the Internet domain name database -- but not the registration process -- and establishing minimal background rules that allow the system to operate under a free market system that will maximize efficiency. This approach is entirely consistent with the "Framework for Global Electronic Commerce," which correctly suggests that the goal in reforming Internet domain name is "a global competitive, market-based system to register Internet domain names."⁽⁵⁾

Emphasis added.

D. The system should avoid monopoly and special interest control.

[Questions a, d, 1, 2, 3, 15, 20]

The present Domain Name Service must reformed because it is a monopoly, and like other monopolies produces market inefficiencies and non-cost-based pricing. The present system is particularly objectionable because the monopoly is government-sanctioned, and therefore implicates the government in unfairly stifling competition. Accordingly, the U.S. Government should take an affirmative role in ending Network Solutions' monopoly and in promoting free market competition by separating the registration process from the operation of the Internet address database.

A reformed Internet domain name system should maximize competition by opening the domain name registration function to market competition. Registrars would compete with one another for customers, and would forward registration requests from customers to a centralized database of Internet addresses. The operator of the Internet address database -- who would ideally be a non-profit entity chosen by the Internet community -- must be unaffiliated with entities that conduct domain name registrations.

The Government's role would follow the principles of the "Framework for Global Electronic Commerce" -- establishing background rules that promote a free market solution to the domain name system. Toward this end, the Government must decouple the registration function from the Internet database function, and must take precautions to ensure that the operator of the centralized database performs a narrow range of functions and is a neutral party. The database operator should be chosen by the Internet community, and its activities would be supported through charging registrars for use of the database. However, background rules should ensure that the database operator does not discriminate among registration requests, does not perform registrations, and is unaffiliated with any entity performing registrations.

E. Reform of the Internet domain name system is not a trademark issue, and will not solve trademark problems relating to Internet name assignments. [Question 26]

The issue of the configuration and management of the Internet domain name system should not be confused with trademark issues surrounding domain name registrations.

Question #26 of the Request for Comments asks how the number of gTLDs and the number of registrars would affect trademark disputes. PSINet believes that changes in either system will have little effect on such disputes. Increasing the number of gTLDs will not stop entities from registering domain names in numerous gTLDs, just as entities currently register in numerous country codes today. With regard to registrars, separation of the database management function from the registration function should avoid any effect on trademark disputes. Provided that there is a central Internet address database, the number of registrars should have no effect on the frequency or cost of trademark disputes.

Trademark issues are important of course, and a trademark dispute resolution system should operate alongside the domain name assignment system. However, trademark considerations should not alter the structure and management of the Internet domain name system because the domain name system will not solve trademark problems relating to Internet name assignments.

1. Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names, Dkt. No. 970613137-7137-01, 62 Fed. Reg. 35896 (July 2, 1997) [hereafter "Request for Comments"].

2. "A Framework for Global Electronic Commerce," http://www.iitf.nist.gov/eleccomm/ecomm.htm, at 12.

3. Request for Comments, 62 Fed. Reg. at 35896.

4. "A Framework for Global Electronic Commerce," at 12 (emphasis added).

5. Id.