Something's Gone Missing (WAS Re: A Preview - Iperdomes Response to the NOI)

[Webmaster <webmaster@manhattan.com>]

Er, very intersting Jay, but... where does that leave ".per" and other
alternative TLDs? Waiting for a post GIG world?? 

And are you assuming that all the ISO-3166 countries use "xx.com.xx" and
"xx.org.xx", cause that just ain't so...many use a flat name space in
fact.... ".fr," ".cl," ".am" etc. But not the US under your proposal?

And are you assumming a kind of parallel ".us" universe, with the
coexistence of the current "<companyname>.<city>.<state>.us" that Jon
Postel developed? 

Bill Semich
Internet Users/nuNames Domain
bsemich@nunames.nu
"Working for an All.NU Interent"

Jay@Iperdome.com wrote:
> 
> What follows is a rough draft of Iperdome's response
> to the U.S. Government's Notice of Inquiry.  It is being
> posted so that your comments can be incorporated before
> our official submittal is made.
> 
> Many people, companies, organizations, and Government
> officials were consulted for their perspectives on these
> issues.  While many ideas were gathered from these
> stakeholders, none have approved this draft nor the
> suggestions outlined below.
> 
> We suspect that few if any of the stakeholders will view the
> suggestions outlined in this document to be their best
> alternative.  We do believe, however, that these suggestions
> are the best compromise available given the current situation.
> 
> Please feel free to post your comments publically, or if
> you prefer, you may send you comments privately.  If they
> are sent privately, we will honor your confidentiality,
> however, we may incorporate your suggestions in our
> final position paper.
> 
> ==================
> 
>                      Domain Name Compromise
> 
> 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 under 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 canceling their cooperative agreement
>    with NSI when it expires in March of 1998.
> 
>    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. phenomena.  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 historical reverse mapped TLD).
> 
> Advantages
> 
>    Some of the advantages to this proposal are as follow:
> 
>    * Postpones GIG until Internet matures and consensus can be
>      reached.
> 
>    * Allows each country to administer its own domain name space,
>      using the historical laws and traditions of their respective
>      countries (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.
> 
> ============================
> 
> Iperdome has prepared a much more extensive analysis of
> the advantages and challenges that this proposal entails.
> We will be posting it shortly.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jay Fenello
> President, Iperdome, Inc.
> 404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com