From: "Reinke, Carsten" <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/16/98 9:45am
Subject: Global administration for a global net

Dear Sirs,

as someone who has contributed to the internet by creating internet
infrastructure (servers) and content in Berlin, Germany, for 3 years,
I'd like to comment on the US government's paper regarding registering
and administering generic top level domains (GTLDs).

I regard the internet as a global piece of infrastructure. People in
most of the world's countries are using it to communicate for private or
economical reasons.

Every country has it's own ISO-Code domains (such as .de, .uk, .us) and
I consider it right that national administrations decide on how country
code domains should be made accessible for the public.

A whole different thing are GTLDs (such as .com, .net, .org and the new
ones). They are created to be accessible for the public throughout the
world and should therefore not be administered by a single country or
organizations which decide on behalf of one certain country. The
internet should be as democratic and economically usable as possible.
The (old and new) GTLDs as global names should therefore be government
by representatives from around the world.

I think the US government's goal to end the existing monopoly on GTLDs
is absolutely right. But I disapprove the means which the US government
proposes to reach this goal.

I think the CORE plan to create and organize GTLDs as stated in the
GTLD-MoU is by far more appropriate. CORE now comprises 88 organizations
from around the world and is - as you should know - backed by ITU, ETSI
and several other relevant people and organizations from cyberspace and
"real life". It's members garantee the broadest representation of
country possible without neglecting the need for stability in the DNS.

Where the US plan talks only about 5 new GTLDs, the CORE has proposed
what they should be.
Where the US plan has no distinct time frame, CORE is ready to operate
the new GTLDs.

I strongly support the goals of CORE and as someone who works in
cyberspace I don't want an US based organization to decide on how my
business (and private life) in cyberspace should run. I want to have the
same representation as any US citizens when decisions about the internet
are made.

The internet needs new GTLDs now. It also needs to be governed

The current US plan leaves the internet and it's members around the
world in uncertainty.

I therefore strongy encourage the US government to revise it's draft and
adopt the GTLD-MoU of CORE, which offers the most proximate, reliable
and democratic solution.


--Carsten Reinke
--Berlin, Germany


From: Kevin Brown <Kevin.Brown@NetComm.IE>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/16/98 4:50pm
Subject: DNS Policy


I was heavily involved in the early days of this debate ( ie two years ago)
but dropped out in frustration.

I think that what Jon Postel was going to do before POC became an enity was
fine. He was accepting applications for new TLD's and in fact I applied on
behalf of a customer,

Strangely, this plan went awry, and POC was born. Why? We do not really know.

If you look at the history of the delegation of ISO TLD's ( ie .uk, .ae
etc) , you begin to see a pattern of where the policies started coming off
the rails. The relevent RFC ( 1591) was adequate at the time, except that
delegations were not adhered to . ( section 4 speaks of community
concensus re delegating a country TLD )

Basically, IANA and Postel failed to adhere to the informal "law" of the
RFC 1591. If we could step back and look at this again it might help. We
have many delegated ISO TLDs, that have plenty of space for new names. Why
not promote the use of the country ISO TLDs.

Why did .com grow? Because delegations was to the "biggest" org, not to a
consensual community, and the delegation policy was not followed in the
case of a dispute ( ie if teo parties wanted to run the ISO TLD, it seemed
to be in the hands of who Postel liked, NOT what the local community thought)

So, we ended up with people flocking for .com, because you paid, but you
got a domain name with very little restriction.

Fir example, the United Arab Emirates demand that you purchase a leased
line to be allowed into the .ae TLD. Restrictive ? Yes. This highlights why
every on flocked to .com and .net.

What to do? Make a common policy for the good of the Net, and force more
people into ISO TLDs, but not before you clean house. Remember, IANA -
DELEGATED - these and any Domains at the top. Delegation is akin to
lending, but the ownership still belongs to the "root" IANA or whomever.
Thus if it is "owned", then rules can be centrally inforced, a la GATT or WTO.

With POC, we got the Trademark frenzy. Nonsense, I say. There are laws to
protect Trademarks. Domain Names are and should be like Telephone or street
names. If I use the address ( street, telephone, net) I am at to infringe
upon a trademark, lets the courts deal with it, as they have done in the past.

So, clean up the ISO TLDs, and THEN allow first come first served ( like it
was supposed to be) into the root. After all, the root runs on US tax
dollars, so how can you allow a Goverment imposed restrictive monopoly?

Has anyone ever asked Postel what he is getting, if he is getting? ie IS
money, or has money changed hands?



From: Tim Rice <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/16/98 7:51pm
Subject: US Government Interfering in the Net

This Green Paper has the potential to have horrible ramifications.

I can not believe that the US Government is risking making the
Internet a political battlefield for the sake of one monopolistic
company, that nearly every ISP on the Internet has had complaints about.

Don't make the Internet into a political battlefield.

I cannot seriously believe that you think having a "2 year interim"
period is going to get the US Government out of Internet Governance.
Since when has the US government (the political side) been involved in
governing the net?

Funding yes, but the Internet was allowed to grow free of constraints.
That is why it is the remarkable entity that it is today. With this
paper, you are changing that.

Don't pretend otherwise; this sham of "getting out of Internet
governance" makes a mockery out of all netizens everywhere.

If you take this step, what do you think the EEC will do?

How about China? (Maybe not today, but in a few years..)

What country will be the next one to try and impose it's views of how
the net should be run on the whole Internet?

The Internet doesn't need you to "fix" it. Or to protect InterNIC's

PS I am not representing a powerful corporation, or some special
interest group, or a wanna-be domain name speculator.

I am a simple netizen, I've been using the Internet for more than 8
years now, and nothing has scared me more than the implications of
this paper.


Tim Rice

Get your free address at


From: Susan O'Donnell <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 2/16/98 8:14pm
Subject: US Green Paper

I am beside myself with grief over what you people are doing.

When my family immigrated to the United States, we stood alone, we
didn't need any government assistance, and we proud to do so.

I cannot believe that you're going to all this trouble just to help
that infernal monopoly. I quite literally ripped my hair out at the
service those insufferable bastards give.

If we didn't need help, why should they?

I have been billed 3 times, in one year, for my domain. Each time I
called, I had to wait at least 15 minutes on hold.

Maybe you like waiting on hold Mr. Magaziner, but let me tell you,
sitting on a wooden chair, tapping my fingers against a desk, counting
those pennies slipping away to AT&T isn't exactly my kettle of fish.

Let REAL competition begin, not this sorry assed attempt. We want to
end monopolies, not start new ones.

Thank you.

Get your free address at