The opening up of .com (WAS: PAB [Fwd: Ira speaks....])

["J. William Semich" <bsemich@users.org>]

Hello PABers et al;

You don't need a weatherman to tell which direction the wind is blowing.
But in case you can't see or feel the wind, here's what I read "between
the lines" below:

1. Magaziner will recommend the seven new TLDs be put on hold
indefinitely.

2. The .com, .net and .org TLDs will be opened up for competitive
Registrars to manage, including NSI/WorldNIC as well as the CORE members
and database manager.

3. NSI will be delegated as the Registry for .us or a newly created TLD.

Anybody want to make odds?? <smile>

Best regards,

Bill Semich
Technical Manager
The .NU Domain
bsemich@mail.nu
http://www.nunames.nu
".NU - The un.com(mon) domain"

Original-From: Robert Shaw <robert.shaw@itu.int>
Original-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:18:16 +0100


Taken from "Network World Fusion"

Clinton's Internet guy predicts peace in DNS overhaul

Ira Magaziner has a big job ahead of him. He has to reconcile vastly
different approaches to domain name
registration and infighting among the Internet Society (ISOC), which is
moving ahead on its plan, and the current
domain name registrar Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), while at the same
time ensuring the stability of the Internet.
But the Clinton administration's top Internet adviser isn't worried. He
says the plan that will be posted on the
Internet within the next week should satisfy everyone. Network World
Fusion Reporter Sandra Gittlen talked to
Magaziner yesterday about the future of the Domain Name System (DNS). 

Q. The administration's proposal for the Domain Name System changes is
due out next week. Are you going to
back the ISOC's Council of Registrars, a group of approved registrars
that will compete against one another to
assign .net, .org and .com domains as well as seven proposed generic
top-level domains?

A. No, we're not going to back any one or another group. I think we're
concerned with trying to create a system
that will preserve the stability of the Internet and move to a more
private competitive international system. And I'm
sure the CORE activities will be part of whatever occurs, but it's not
going to be that we're going to back one group
vs. another.

Q. Having spoken with NSI and ISOC, it seems that they're not really on
the same wavelength as to how things
are going to be managed.

A. Well, we think that there's a possibility for a compromised solution
that will allow them both to function in a
successful competitive environment.

Q. What is that environment looking like?

A. Well, I can't give you specifics because we're ... I'm not trying to
hide anything, but we're literally in the process of making decisions
about that over these next couple of days about what our proposal will
be anyway. It'll be a draft that we'll put up on the 'Net for
comment. But in our proposal we're trying to work on something that will
set up a competitive environment in which CORE groups and
others can compete.

Q. A concern is that CORE has gone ahead and spent the money to create
the central database that council members will access for
domain name approval. They're moving full-steam ahead. How can they do
this when the government is still out on the issue of what the
system's going to be?

A. That's a question you should discuss with them. But I think it's our
intention to try to create an environment in which numerous
competitors can participate both as registrars and also as registries.
Presumably the CORE group will be part of that, as will others.

Q. What about the domain names for .edu and .gov? Will .edu stay under
university management and .gov under government
management?

A. Not sure yet.

Q. So those might be put into the private sector to be managed?

A. It depends on what you mean by managed. Right now the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is managing the database for
.edu. And what will happen with that, I'm not sure. We're still trying
to think about it. But there's a difference between who sets policy
guidance and who actually does the physical data management.

 Q. And .gov will stay under government management?

A. Again we're not sure, but I would assume that would stay under
government management.

Q. Some of the proposals for a new DNS system that have been suggested
do not seem to jibe with one another. It doesn't seem as if
they could exist in the same environment.

A. We formed a group to look at all this about a year ago and began
consulting with people. Last summer, we did a solicitation for
opinions. We got 1,500 pages of submissions which we reviewed. Since
December, we've been in consultation with a wide variety of
groups and you're right, there were very diverse opinions on what ought
to happen [with the DNS system]. What we've been trying to do
is work our way through to propose something that can gain some
consensus, which means that it won't be exactly what any group wants,
but it will hopefully be something that can gain consensus and can stick
with the President's strategy of last July, which is to move the
system to a more private competitive international system while making
sure that we preserve the stability of the Internet. 

That's what we're trying to do and we're going to make a proposal which
comes from this consultation we've been doing. We'll see what
happens. If the proposal gets completely shot to pieces by everybody,
then we'll have to try again and rethink it. If the reaction we get is
that most people say there's some good elements in it and they suggest
improvements, then we'll go through a number of iterations until we
get to something that we can use.

Q. Now, one of the big things about you is that you're pretty gung-ho on
open market. Now, open market translated into DNS terms is
the addition of the seven gTLDs.

A. Well, not necessarily. Open market means you have more than two
competitors in something. Certainly the CORE group has
developed potential for competitive registrars and also registries. And
NSI is a competitor and there are others out there who may want to
be competitors. And there are others who have been operating registries
and have expressed interest in registrars. The most open
competition would be one where you allow multiple people to flourish
both as registrars and registries and that's the direction we want to
head in. 

Having said that, there are certain functions that need to be done in a
coordinated fashion. In the assignment of a box of numbers, there's
not really a competitive market in assigning blocks of numbers. It's
something that needs to be done in a coordinated fashion so that two
entities don't get the same numbers. So what we've tried to do is
distinguish some areas where there needs to be coordination and some
areas which should be market driven and then we want to try to move make
private all of it, including the coordinated areas to put that into
a private, nonprofit operation. And then the competitive areas to move
to a market-driven arena with a bunch of competition.

Q. I was talking to NSI and ISOC, and they're just attacking each other
vehemently.

A. Yeah, there's a lot of passion. Since early December I was getting
close to 1,000 pages of e-mail a week on this one topic. There's
literally hundreds of people that have been very passionate about this
and there's been a lot of attacking going on.

Q. NSI has said that the government has not allowed it to sanction
CORE's actions. ISOC has said this is not true.

A. Well, it's not inconsistent. Basically what we've been saying is that
we need to move to consensus around a plan for where all this is
headed and we want to do that soon. Changes to the system, like adding
new domain names and so on, should occur in the context of that
as opposed to one-off events.

Q. So that's where NSI is right?

A. I guess, but it's also where ... I don't want to speak for others. We
have supported the ISOC process to the extent that they have been
trying to create a new set of competitors, which we think is important.
They've been creating a group of registrars and registries for
top-level domains and we're supportive of the idea that there should be
more players here, more competitors. To the extent of which
they've been doing that, we're supportive. And the IANA has not yet
approved them doing this until we have a more general plan that it
fits into.

There are a lot of other groups out there that have been proposing
registries and registrars, as well.

What we haven't wanted to do is say yes to one and no to another without
having some plan, some objective basis, some sense of where
things are headed.

Q. But CORE has gone ahead and empowered 80 or so registrars who think
that at the end of February when the database is ready, they
will be able to go ahead and hand over domain names. If the database is
up, CORE's ready to go, can they go ahead with the
government's blessing?

A. I think we need to see what reaction the proposal we are going to
make gets. The proposal will speak to that issue. We need to see if
we can get consensus.

Q. Don Heath, ISOC president, said CORE still has the right to go ahead
with his plans, even if the government has not reached its
decision. What do you say to that?

A. We believe a compromise can be reached, which will preserve the
stability of the Internet and which will allow the various players in
this to compete with each other and we don't think there's going to be
any fragmentation or confrontation. We think it will reach
consensus.

Q. Has ISOC said to you that it will hold off on CORE until you've
gotten enough response on the proposal?

A. We haven't asked [ISOC] to do anything. We basically are moving ahead
on our schedule to try to produce a draft plan and we've not
asked anybody to do anything at this point.

Q. What if the time lines collide?

A. You're asking me to respond to other people's time lines, and what I
can tell you is what we're planning to do. We're going to put out
our paper at the end of next week in draft, see what kind of reaction it
gets. We'll treat it as a virtual document, revise it. And from there
forge a compromise that allows us to move ahead.

We have to make some decisions on how we're going to handle the NSI
contract's expiration at the end of March. And so somewhere in
that time frame, we're going to act on various issues and then we're
going to try to move toward a phasing in of a plan.

But I really don't believe it's going to come to a confrontation. Right
now, there's a lot of heat, a lot of people that are passionate in their
feelings. You're probably hearing a lot of that.

Q. Yes.

A. But my feeling is that it's going to work out, and down the road
they're going to be competing against each other.

Q. Will you try to exert some kind of influence over NSI regarding CORE?

A. We have to have a negotiation with NSI on a variety of topics so that
they move to become a competitor or maybe be two businesses:
one that competes as a registrar, one that competes as a registry. And
they'll need to take certain steps to devolve to competitive situation
from the situation they've been in, which is one where they've
essentially have a U.S. government-sanctioned control. So, yeah, we have
to come to some agreements and those agreements have to involve a way in
which they are going to change the way they do business.

Q. Will the government maintain some control over the DNS?

A. For a period of time. I think the goal is to transition to a system
that is private and internationally competitive. So at some date,
certainly, the U.S. government should be out of it. But, we've had
stewardship over this for historic reasons. And we want to end our
stewardship in a completely responsible manner that ensures the
stability of the Internet. So we're not going to all of sudden turn off
the lights one night and say it's not our problem anymore.

Q. What are the ramifications internationally?

A. The Internet was developed as a project of the U.S. government.

Q. Are you getting any noise from overseas?

A. We've been consulting with both international private sector and
government people pretty regularly for the past year on this now.

Q. And are they comfortable with the idea of it being U.S. run?

A. Again, I don't like to speak for other people. The general feedback
is, sure, they are more interested in a more international structure.
The sense we have from most governments is that they're not looking for
that to be a government structure, but they would like a structure
that is more international and we agree with that. While 80% of the
Internet users may be in the U.S. today, five or 10 years now, 80%
will be outside the U.S. So there ought to be a more international
structure.

Q. Let me change the subject to FBI Director Louis Freeh's push on
creating mandatory key recovery in importing and exporting
software. Does the government back Directory Freeh's stance that the
government should be involved in this process?

A. We have a position from the administration is to support voluntary
incentives that would support the development of key recovery
systems. We don't favor mandatory controls that would force such a
system. We favor incentives that would try to develop key recovery
products. Director Freeh ... there's a history that the director of the
FBI does have an independent platform and he has expressed his own
views and I won't speak for him. He is certainly part of the
administration deliberations, but he is also an independent player who
makes his own views known.

Right now there's a series of bills in Congress. The Congressional
situation on this is quite confused and I don't know what's going to
develop over the coming months. I know there's going to be a very heated
debate. What we've been trying to do is to see if we can forge
compromise among law enforcement, industry, members of Congress and so
on to try to get a balanced approach that will allow the
commercial development of the Internet, but at the same time meet some
of the legitimate law enforcement needs. Whether that kind of
compromise can be forged over the next couple of months, I don't know,
but that's what we're going to see.