(Fwd) CWI article on IAHC

["Rick H. Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com>]

Thought you all might find this one interesting.

-Rick

--- Forwarded mail

The following story appears in the 20 January edition of CommunicationsWeek
International, available online at: www.emap.com/cwi

Internet row prompts major shake-up
RESTON, VIRGINIA

By Kenneth Cukier

Intense criticism of a plan to reform the Internet has led to a high level
shake-up of the body which devised the proposals.
Don Heath, chairman of the International Ad Hoc Committee, which was
charged with the task of guiding through reforms, revealed last week that
he intends to step down at the end of this month. He says his role is no
longer needed now that the reform process is underway, but denies the
decision is linked to any adverse reaction.
But in a move designed specifically to placate critics, the 10-person
committee is likely to expand with an Asian and a European networking
organization each contributing a member. Network Solutions Inc. (NSI),
which currently runs the Internet Network Information Center (InterNIC) on
behalf of the U.S. National Science Foundation, is also expected to take a
seat.

Heath, the high-profile president of the Internet Society, was one of the
original architects of the committee, which hopes to liberalize the
registration of Internet domain names. A draft proposal published last
month aimed to vastly increase the number of Internet domain names and make
it easier and cheaper to register them. But the committee has been buffeted
by international criticism both of its controversial plan and of its
consultative process. The broadening of the commitee's base is part of a
larger plan to garner support and defuse this criticism.
In another twist to the debate, it has emerged that the IAHC may have
overlooked a key legal constraint that will prevent it from fully
introducing market mechanisms - NSI says it owns all the intellectual
property rights to the database containing the domain names ending in .com.
In theory it says it could carry on issuing .com addresses irrespective of
any proposal of  from the IAHC.

However, last week NSI said it was "prepared to work with the commitee in
every aspect of its new initiatives." '.com' is the most famous of the
generic top level domains (gTLDs) that lie at the heart of the debate.
Currently, companies that want a Web or e-mail addresses ending in .com
have to deal with a monopoly supplier: NSI operating via the InterNIC.
The IAHC, which was set up by the Internet Society, has devised a proposal
that would create between 20 and 30 new registries to work alongside the
InterNIC. These would have joint control of seven newly-created gTLDs.
However, the InterNIC itself would retain  its monopoly control of  the
prestigious and lucrative '.com' domain for the time-being.
A new governing body, called the Council of Registrars (CORE),  is also
proposed to oversee the domain-creation process. The IAHC also proposed a
whole new domain space (.tm.int) just for companies holding international
trademarks.

Since the IAHC draft report was released in December, it has met with
strong reactions. Many of those who had long hoped to set up and run their
own domain registries are angry that the number will be initially limited
and that the lucky few applicants will be chosen by a lottery process.
Moreover, the fact that the new registries will have equal rights to sell
names in any of the new gTLDs disappoints those who hoped to propose, and
then win, exclusive rights to a much sought-after domain, such as '.sex'.
Christopher Ambler, president of San Luis Obispo, California-based Image
Online Design Inc., who sells the unofficial gTLD '.web' domain, said the
limit on the initial number of registrars was "simply unacceptable".
In addition, the proposals would force users to wait 60 days for a
requested domain name to allow for a trademark search: A temporary name
could be used in the interim. However, critics argue that the wait is
pointless, since such a move will not prevent trademark-related lawsuits.
Heath admitted that he is uncertain about the 60-day wait and the lottery
process for initial gTLD registrars. The committee has recognized and hopes
to overcome the problem of the lottery process missing the very people who
had long been lobbying to run a registrar, he said.

Indeed the first draft contained only "broad principles," said Robert Shaw
of the ITU and an IAHC member. Geoff Huston, of Telstra Internet in
Australia and another IAHC member, said "most of the real work hasn't
happened," and will not until the public comments are examined - a process
which is just beginning.

In order to stave off criticism, the IAHC is reaching out to more
organizations. Heath said that two additional members to the IAHC may come
from international organizations such as the Asian-Pacific Network
Information Center (APNIC), the Reseaux IP Europens (RIPE) or the European
Community. "I think it will pay-off in consensus-building," he said.
The IAHC is also taking the show on the road: A meeting is planned with the
EC's Directorate Generale XIII to lobby its support. And members of the
IAHC have been in contact with organizations not represented on the
committee, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the U.S.
Department of Commerce, and the Internet Service Providers' Consortium
based in Saint Peters, Missouri.

Jon Postel, the head of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and
the author of an earlier influential draft on TLDs, said he was "somewhat
disappointed" by the IAHC's recommendations.
Specifically, he dislikes shared registries and the small number of new
gTLDs created. He described the trademark second-level domain as
"irrelevant." However, Postel said the Council of Registrars was a
"creative and useful idea."

Many other respected Internet engineers and observers are in favor of the
IAHC's proposals. Scott Bradner of Harvard University calls it an "overall
good balance." But some critics, such as Rob Blokzijl, chairman of RIPE, which
allocates IP addresses in Europe, question the need for any new gTLDs, stating
that it is a uniquely U.S. problem.

IAHC members say that the implementation of the final proposal may take
longer than the March date originally set. And Heath said that he would
like to see a percentage of registration fees used to fund the IANA, which
allocates IP address blocks - something not mentioned in the IAHC draft.
If the IAHC proposal is accepted, it will be by "signatures to the CORE
Memorandum of Understanding that will give it its primary power," said Dave
Crocker, an IAHC member.

And if the process breaks down? "We start from scratch, I guess," stated
Albert Tramposch of the World Intellectual Property Organization and an
IAHC member.


end



---End of forwarded mail

-- 
Rick H. Wesson