Re: A Preview - Iperdomes Response to the NOI

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jay,

  Very well put here.  There is a couple of things that I would add
and some thoughts on your solution perposal here.  

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.

  An additional problem is the contract that is required for anyone
or company to become a registrar.  The $10k fee and the fact that 
the fee is not refundable should the applicant not be qualified under
the gTLD-MoU authority.  Whomever that is.  This is not well defined
in the gTLD-MoU agreement.  Not to mention that the contract, is a
virtual opertunity for a rip off.
> 
>    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"

  How do you plan to handle domains in the.com, .org, ,net that are
not US centric.  Would it not be useful to move those to under their
country codes.
> 
>      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).

  So would those domains that are not within the US be listed as
.com.int, .com.arpa, and/or .net.int, .net.arpa, and/or .org.int,
.org.arpa?  Is this not consistant and helping to solve the current
concern?  Just a suggestion.
> 
> 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.

  How do you perpose to handle those exiating registrars that have
additional TLD's in service?  Cannot those also be included under the
.????.us, ect as well?  This would go a long way in solving some of
the TLD resolution problems i think, under this perposal.  COmments?
> 
> ============================
> 
> 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

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com