8/18/97

Iperdome's Response to the NOI

   This response has been prepared by Jay Fenello, President
   of Iperdome, Inc.  Jay has a computer engineering degree
   from the University of Florida, and experience as a design
   engineer who has worked on communications projects at IBM. 
   Jay also has an MBA in Entreprenuership from the University
   of Arizona, through a program that consistently rates as
   one of the best in the country.  Jay has spent the last
   several years providing entreprenuerial consulting to
   assorted small businesses.

   Iperdome is a startup in the new registry industry.  It
   was formed exclusively to offer personal domain names under
   the .per TLD.

Background

   Contrary to appearances, the Domain Name Crisis is *not* about
   domain names.  It is about control.  It's about how the
   Internet will look 20 years from now, and who will make those
   decisions.

   The immediate challenge facing all Internet stakeholders is
   how to deal with the IAHC proposal.  It is the result of a
   process initiated by the IANA, and orchestrated by the ISOC,
   ITU and WIPO.  While we don't necessarily oppose these four
   groups' involvement in Global Internet Governance, we do
   oppose their unilaterally deciding to take over this
   governance, especially when it was done behind closed doors,
   without legitimate authority, and counter to Internet
   traditions.

   Other problems with the gTLD-MoU are:

   * It ignores the vast majority of Internet stakeholders who
     have not been and will not be represented in the proposed
     governance structure.

   * It creates a highly controlled, bureaucratically
     administered name space, instead of a free market approach
     that has fueled much of the Internet's world wide growth.

   * It attempts to implement new global Trademark and IP
     policies, without any authority delegated by the sovereign
     nations that are being asked to acquiesce to these policies.

   If the gTLD-MoU is accepted as the authority to determine what
   is and what is not appropriate for the name space, it will
   establish the first and only politically authoritative body
   for the Internet that is trans-national in influence.  Given
   the current power vacuum, it is very likely that whatever
   precedent is set for domain names will apply to other topics
   as well.

   Global Internet Governance is much too important to leave to
   the IANA, ISOC, ITU, and WIPO alone, no matter how honorable
   their intentions are. 

Iperdome's Approach

   Iperdome believes that the gTLD-MoU is the wrong solution for
   Global Internet Governance (GIG), and the wrong solution for
   the Domain Name Crisis.  It is our opinion that GIG must be
   postponed until the Internet has had a little time to mature,
   and all Internet stakeholders have had an opportunity to
   participate in the process that will profoundly affect them
   for many years to come.

   By the same token, the Domain Name Crisis must be addressed
   quickly.  Many companies have been harmed by the
   anti-competitive state that currently exists (i.e. PG Media,
   IO Designs, and other pending lawsuits), and the NSF has
   indicated that they are allowing their cooperative agreement
   with NSI to conclude when it expires in March of 1998.   IANA's
   current role has been questioned, and its future is uncertain.

   Iperdome believes that the best compromise will result if we
   separate the problem into its two separate components (GIG
   <===> fixing the Domain Name Space).  Then we can find a
   temporary solution to the latter, while diverse groups of
   Internet stakeholders formalize a solution to the former, and
   larger issue.

Goals

   As a point of reference, we have used the following goals to
   help us determine what is in the best interest of the Internet
   and the Internet Community.

     * To keep the Internet open to free and fair competition.

     * To limit regulation to the absolute minimum required to
       provide stability and fair play.

     * To honor the spirit and character that has made the
       Internet a world wide phenomenon.

Iperdome's Proposal

   In light of our stated goals, we believe that the following
   proposal is the best compromise currently available:

   "Move .com, .org, .net, .edu, .gov, and .mil under .us"

     When the DNS was established, the Internet was primarily a
     U.S. phenomenon.  The TLDs that were established were
     primarily for the U.S. name space.  As the Internet went
     global, however, these same TLDs became artificially
     valuable because they were the only ones that did not have a
     two digit country code suffix.  Although still primarily
     U.S. based, their existence resulted in global addressing
     and Trademark issues.

     This historical legacy has biased the potential solutions to
     the artificial problems that were introduced because U.S.
     TLDs did not require the .us suffix.

     Rather than rush the implementation of Global Internet
     Governance to address these artificial problems with global
     addressing and Trademark issues, it makes more sense to fix
     the name space before we grow the name space.  That means
     that .com, .org, .net, etc. should become .com.us, .org.us,
     .net.us, etc.  The resulting universal domain name space would
     then consist of all two character ISO country codes, .int,
     and .arpa (a reverse mapped TLD).

   Formalize and Provide Appropriate Funding for IANA

     To administer this new domain name space, an organization
     needs to be established.  Given the IANAs wide base of
     experience, support and respect, IANA is a logical choice to
     administer this process.  However, the current shortcomings
     of IANA must be addressed before this would be appropriate.

     Philosophically, IANA should be established as a non-profit
     organization, with a formal charter, board of directors, and
     clear lines of authority and responsibility.  It's funding
     should be directly related to its responsibilities, and the
     costs incurred for those responsibilities.

     The IANA Function should be restructured to provide (in
     conjuction with regional IP Registries) for management and
     coordination of assignment and allocation policies for IP
     numbers, and coordination and management (in conjunction
     with relevant registries) of two letter ISO Country Code
     TLDs, .int and .arpa, and coordination with IETF and other
     appropriate bodies of port assignments for applications.

     Funding should be directly tied to these functions.  IANA's
     recent arrangement with RIPE and APNIC work perfectly in this
     construct with regard to IP allocation management and coordination. 
     Some form of revenue should also be provided by the newly defined
     domain name industry to fund IANAs activities with regard to TLD
     supervision.

   Open .us to Free Market Competition

     This proposal will result in regionally distributed TLDs
     coexisting with the new legacy TLDs.  Other companies must
     also have an opportunity to compete with their own private
     and/or shared registries under .us.  This is not only consistent
     with the laws, traditions, and philosophy of the American spirit,
     but this competition will be the driving force that keeps .us
     at the forefront of technology in this new industry.

     To be fair to the companies that already have
     invested substantial risk capital in this new industry,
     existing operational registries should get preferential
     consideration* under whatever guidelines or policies are
     implemented to allocate private registries TLDs.  These
     decisions should be decided by U.S. Government policy.
     (*based on character, capacity, and credit)

   Begin Process to Establish GIG

     The Internet's world wide appeal requires that any decisions
     made on a global basis be made from a perspective consistent
     with all major stakeholders likely to be affected by said
     decisions.  This includes more than just the IANA, ISOC,
     ITU, and WIPO.  Other stakeholders include:

        * Sovereign Governments
        * ISPs and other Providers
        * Businesses and Vendors
        * Academia
        * Operators
        * Users

     While this list may or may not be inclusive, it does
     indicate the breadth of representation that must be
     accommodated.  This will require time, coordination, and
     some maturing of existing Internet policies and procedures.
    
     Now is the time to start planning for this eventuality.

Advantages

   Some of the advantages to this proposal are as follow:

   * Postpones GIG until the Internet matures and a consensus
     that involves the newly emerging stakeholder communities
     can be reached.

   * Allows each country to administer its own domain name space,
     using the historical laws and customs as accepted within their
     respective jurisdictions.  (i.e. Italy has decided that domain
     names and trademarks are two separate and independent issues). 

   * Allows U.S. IP, Trademark, and anti-trust Laws to redress
     existing grievances under the former .com, .org, etc. TLDs.

   * Increases Competition and Choice:

     Under .us, open competition would result in a diverse name space. 
     Classes of services would include, but not be limited to:
       -  Private registries (.com.us, .per.us)
       -  Regional registries (.city.state.us)
       -  Shared registries (.firm.us, .info.us)
       -  SIC Code registries (.7140.us)
       -  etc.

===============================

In light of this summary, here is our response to the NOI:

>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?

Yes, however, we would emphasis the following goals:

     * To keep the Internet open to free and fair competition.

     * To limit regulation to the absolute minimum required to
       provide stability and fair play.

     * To honor the spirit and character that has made the
       Internet a world wide phenomenon.

>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?

It limits competition, which in turn limits the products,
services, and value that would otherwise be available to
Internet users.

>2. How might current domain name systems be improved?

Encourage and promote additional competition under
various new TLDs.  These should not only be different
with regard to TLDs, but also business models, policies,
etc.  This diversity will enable the free hand of the
marketplace to provide the best allocation of names,
services, pricing, etc.

>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?

To administer this new domain name space, an organization
needs to be established.  Given the IANAs wide base of
experience, support and respect, IANA is a logical choice to
administer this process.  However, the current shortcomings
of IANA must be addressed before this would be appropriate.

Philosophically, IANA should be established as a non-profit
organization, with a formal charter, board of directors, and
clear lines of authority and responsibility.  It's funding
should be directly related to its responsibilities, and the
costs incurred for those responsibilities.

The IANA Function should be restructured to provide (in
conjuction with regional IP Registries) for management and
coordination of assignment and allocation policies for IP
numbers, and coordination and management (in conjunction
with relevant registries) of two letter ISO Country Code
TLDs, .int and .arpa, and coordination with IETF and other
appropriate bodies of port assignments for applications.

Funding should be directly tied to these functions.  IANA's
recent arrangement with RIPE and APNIC work perfectly in this
construct with regard to IP allocation management and coordination. 
Some form of revenue should also be provided by the newly defined
domain name industry to fund IANAs activities with regard to TLD
supervision.

>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)?

Not aware of any direct matches.

>What is the proper role of national or
>international governmental/non-governmental organizations, if any, in
>national and international domain name registration systems?

  * To keep the Internet open to free and fair competition.

  * To limit regulation to the absolute minimum required to
    provide stability and fair play.

  * To honor the spirit and character that has made the
    Internet a world wide phenomenon.

>5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be retired from
>circulation?

Yes - moved under .us.  This would be no more difficult
than assigning a new area code for the phone system.

>Should geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) be required? If
>so, what should happen to the .com registry?

Yes - it should become .com.us.

>Are gTLD management issues
>separable from questions about International Standards Organization (ISO)
>country code domains?

Yes - it would be beneficial, however, to use the two character
ISO country codes as the exclusive approved list of TLDs.

>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?

Technology can be used many ways to solve the current shortcomings
of the DNS system.  The proper question is:
  -  Do governments and/or organizations mandate a solution,
     or do they allow the free market to provide a solution?
We support the free market approach.

>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?

Move the existing TLDs under .us, then allow each country to
administer policies and procedures consistent with their local
laws and customs. 

Restructure IANA as described above to administer this "public,"
globally resolveable name space.

Support open competition and allow private
companies to provide a diverse name space. 

>8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished?

Just like it's currently done with area codes for the phone system.
First, all old .com SLDs will resolve both as .com and as .com.us.
All new SLDs only resolve as .com.us.  After some period of time, the
old .com's will be terminated.

>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?

No.

>11. Should additional gTLDs be created?

Yes.

>12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing
>the scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of
>gTLDs?

Technical - no.
Business - yes, see trademark comments below.
policy - no.

>13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country
>code domains?

Yes - it would be beneficial, however, to use the ISO country codes
as the exclusive approved list of TLDs.

>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?

Yes.

>Are there any technical limitations on using shared registries for some or
>all gTLDs?

No.

>Can exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs coexist?

Yes, and is the optimal solution.

>16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and
>what responsibilities should such registrars have?

Yes, let governments decide for their respective country code TLDs.

>Who will determine these
>and how?

Each country should determine its own policies and procedures
for its corresponding ISO country code TLD based on its local
laws and customs. 

>17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name
>registrars?

No.

>18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space
>raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars?

Technical - no.
Business - yes, see trademark comments below.
policy - no.

>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, normal tests for monopolistic practices should apply.

>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?

Each country should determine its own policies and procedures
for its corresponding ISO country code TLD based on its local
laws and customs. 

>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.?

Depends on the local laws and traditions of the country code TLD.

>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?

Depends on the local laws and traditions of the country code TLD.

>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?

Until a global trademark policy is implemented, trademarks must
be administerd under the local laws and customs as they apply
to all trademarks in that jurisdiction.

>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?

Because many different companies can have the same trademark,
(i.e. acme rubber, acme boots, acme explosives), and since the name
space only allows one reference to the trademark (i.e. acme.com,
acme.web), conflicts can only be avoided by acknowledging that
trademarks and domain names are un-related (as Italy has done).

>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?

See #24.

>26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars
>affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes?

As the number of TLDs increase, the less TLDs and domain names
will be considered equivalent.  Since they *are* different, it
is likely that disputes will decline as this fact becomes clear
to everyone.

>27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single
>domain name, are there any technological solutions? 

Yes, but these solutions must be allowed to evolve.  Free market
competition will enable these solutions to be implemented faster
and more effectively than any mandated solution.

>28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area?

=====================================