Number: 393
A. "Appropriate Principles"
Image Online Design, Inc., which has operated the ".web" registry, and has also operated an "alternative" root server submits the following responses concerning "appropriate principles" for the evaluation of proposals for the registration and administration of Internet domain names. All of the principles identified in "a" through "f" of the RFC are appropriate. Additional principles should be included in order to be more complete, as described below. These principles may be best fostered by:
(1) An open and ongoing public policy discussion which includes these principles;
(2) Incorporation of these principles into the administration of the Domain Name System; and
(3) Ensuring that none of these basic principles are violated through any "transitional" changes from the implementation of any new procedures for the administration of Internet domain names.
The additional "appropriate principles" which Image Online Design, Inc., suggests are basic principles of Internet self-governance:
"Three principles of Internet self-governance which have emerged involve (1) zones of exclusivity regarding the first/prior use of Internet Domain Names; (2) that while anyone might have bold ideas for the Internet, they must first be proven as workable and operational (with "running code") before they are accepted; and (3) that existing Internet users generally must not be displaced or damaged without a substantial and legitimate reason for do so."(1)
1. First/Prior Use
"The Internet self-governance principle of first use has given rise to an exclusive zone of use which has been long recognized, and arose from the simple necessity of making the Internet workable by avoiding any and all conflicting uses of domain names."(2) The IHAC's Memorandum of Understanding (Section 7(e), p. 8) recognizes this essential principle in allowing CORE gTLD registrars to assign second level domains based upon a "fair-use, first-come, first-served basis."
This principle should be implemented by providing for provisions for transitional relief which recognize and do not penalize existing users.
2. "Running Code"
"A second principle of Internet self-governance has been the requirement that
users of the Internet with particular ideas must first demonstrate that the idea actually works
("running code"). Once such an idea is working and operational, then the right of that Internet
user to continue using it is recognized by consensus of the Internet community."(3)
Image Online Design has demonstrated "running code" in the operation of the ".web" registry since August 1, 1996. In fact, the ".web" registry could easily be placed within the traditional root servers at this time with very little work and be completely accessible to the entire commercial Internet within days.
Existing Internet users who can demonstrate running code should be allowed immediate access to the traditional root servers.
3. Avoid Injuring Existing Internet Users
"A third principle of Internet self-governanceis that the management of the Internet through self-governance should be conducted in a way that does not injure existing users of the Internet. the reason for this is a cooperative spirit amojng the Internet users to encourgage and facilitate the full development of the Internet to its highest potential. As long as particular Internet users conduct themselves within traditional technical protocols, and in a manner which does ot hurt others or the overall Internet, then their fair use is recognized by consensus, and will not be interfered with or damaged through the process of Internet self-governance."(4)
Traditional economic theory reflects this principle of Internet self-governance through the concept of avoiding "demoralization costs" from the implementation of policies which will discourage investment, innovation, and efficiency.(5)
The issue of avoiding injury to existing Internet users is of particular concern to
Image Online Design, who has existing customers, and has received a total of 5,000
registrations (3,700 at the time of the litigation). The uncertainty regarding gTLD's has
severely hurt the business of Image Online Design. Complete displacement would be even
worse. For example, one of Image Online Design's customers have had 350 web sites on the
".web" registry operated by Image Online Design, including the design of mail hosting
services and web pages, all of which would become useless if existing users who have
demonstrated running code are not protected through appropriate forms of transitional relief.(6)
B. "General/Organizational Framework Issues" (Items 1-9)
C. "Creation of New gTLDs" (Items 10-14)
D. "Policies for Registries" (Items 15-20)
Many possible solutions to the domain name problem have been suggested, but only a few are truly workable.
It is apparent that a solution that includes the removal of existing generic top level domains is not workable. Too many individuals and companies have invested in their existing domain name, and to mandate that they will be removed for a solution that places all domains underneath country codes would cause not only serious loss, but massive dissent among Internet users.
The problem boils down to two items that must be resolved. The first is the existing monopoly enjoyed by Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), and the second is the perceived shortage of attractive domain names.
The second problem is the easiest to address while it is true that the combination of letters available to a domain name, considering a maximum length of 63 characters is functionally infinite, the combinations that spell recognizable names in English are limited. Additionally, with the existence of only three generic top level domains (.COM, .NET and .ORG), common words (like "acme") are quickly exhausted. Since there can obviously be hundreds of Acme Corporations, this poses a problem. One solution might be to mandate the full corporate name (e.g. "acmecorp.com", "acmeshoes.com", etc). This is unworkable due to the current nature of the domain system, as well has simple human nature. Currently, there are too many generic names in use to mandate a change. Regardless, when selecting a domain name, people will naturally want a short and easily memorable name.
The first problem, that of NSI's monopoly, can be simply solved by allowing competition. The main controversy, of course, is the model under which this competition should be governed. The International Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC) has proposed a system under which they are the sole arbiter of domain names, the final authority for disputes, and the "franchiser" of new registries. Furthermore, their proposal has them selecting the new domains, mandating that all new registries must share them, and that the existing registry, NSI, be forced to adopt this plan. On all counts, this plan is unworkable.
The IAHC solution introduces more problems than it solves, and puts in place regulation and costs that need not exist. The selection of new top level domain names could just as easily be done by the registries themselves. The IAHC solution would have all registries sharing the new top level domains, using a complicated replicated database that not only does not yet exist, but has not even been specified yet. On the other hand, Image Online Design has developed a registry system that has been in commercial use since August of 1996. One of the basic tenants of competition, brand development, could not occur under the sharing model, as development of a particular top level domain would benefit all registries. There would be no incentive for innovation in creating and developing new top level domains to fill niche markets (for example, .AUTO for automotive sites).
The clear solution is one of a hands-off, openly competitive marketplace for domains. There is no technical reason why there cannot be hundreds, of not thousands of top level domains and registries. As in all other market segments, those providing good service at a good price will thrive. Those that fail will be like any other business. The IAHC plan claims that it is superior since it protects the Internet domain name owner from the failure of a registry. If this is such a superior model, why isn't it in place for all other forms of services? Is there a mandated model like this for home insurance? For service stations? For supermarkets? If anything, the possibility of a registry going out of business will increase the reliability of the registries.
1. 1/ Declaration of Einar Stefferud, pp. 11-12, Case No. SC 046960, Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, West District (submitted herewith).
2. 2/ Ibid., p. 12.
3. 3/ Ibid., p. 12.
4. Ibid., pp. 12-13.
5. Michaelman, "Just Compensation," Harv. Law Review (1964).
6. Brittan Declaration.