Re: A Preview - Iperdomes Response to the NOI

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

All,

  Resending this in that the Domain-policy and gTLD-lists seem to be
bouncing today.  Also Jay, your address is bouncing as well.

Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
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