FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 7, 1998


Corporations, Governments, Agencies, Individuals From
All Over The World Find Major Flaws In U.S. Green Paper

Global Internet Community Sees "Black Hole in Cyberspace" with Potential
Government Takeover, Sweetheart Deal for Existing Monopoly


WASHINGTON - The U.S. Government proposal to regulate the Internet Domain
Name System has the potential to create the first black hole in cyberspace,
according to a review of more than 500 official responses to the Green Paper.

"If the proposal is enacted as written, Internet self-governance,
competition and international consensus will simply disappear into a
bottomless regulatory morass controlled by one government," said Alan
Hanson, chairman of the executive committee of the Internet Council of
Registrars (CORE).

The review of responses to the Green Paper found a majority of the
respondents are concerned about the U.S. Government sanctioning monopolies
and limiting individual freedom to choose when it comes to registering
names on the Internet.  There is general support for immediate transition
to self-governance, with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority continuing
to administer the Domain Name System (DNS) as it has for more than 15 years.
Other key concerns included the U.S. Government trying to take over the
Internet, inserting itself where it had never ventured before and ignoring
a process toward self-governance initiated by the Internet community.  Many
respondents voiced support for the concepts of competition and
self-governance covered in the generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of
Understanding (gTLD-MoU).  The gTLD-MoU was created after some 18 months of
public discussion and debate among the global Internet community and is now
ready to launch.  It includes provisions for consensus-oriented oversight,
a not-for-profit registry, competition among registrars, self-regulation,
no monopolies and a dispute resolution process on trademark issues.

The respondents asking for the U.S. Government to reconsider its takeover
attempt and indicating support for the CORE model, or similar approaches,
included: IBM, MCI, French Telecom, Tokyo Internet Corporation,
International Trademark Association, Disney Online, the Internet Society,
Electronic Frontier Foundation and government or regulatory bodies in
Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Italy, France, Spain and the European
Union.
Individuals from some 20 countries added their voices of protest to the
site via email.

"In reviewing hundreds of pages of responses, several concerns stood out,"
said Hanson, of CORE.  "People are upset about the sweetheart deal for the
existing monopoly, Network Solutions.  They are worried about protection of
individual rights.  They wonder why the U.S. Government hasn't considered
the use of existing processes and models.  Instead of opening the door to
deregulation, they see the Green Paper setting new hurdles with unnecessary
regulations and bureaucratic delays." 

Because of the length, complexity and technical detail of many of the
replies, the following excerpts represent just some of the ideas
communicated by respondents to the Green Paper.  For a complete
understanding of every viewpoint, it is recommended that the full texts of
responses be reviewed on the public U.S. Government web site at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htm

These excerpts summarize the common themes raised by concerned
organizations and individuals from around the world.


EDUCOM
-- Robert C. Heterick, Jr., President

"...the proposed registry system function for domain names should be
operated on a non-profit basis on behalf of the holders of the names in the
respective TLDs. The pairing of a non-profit registry function with a
private sector registrar function for the TLDs will best achieve the
principals set forth in the GP."

IBM
-- Roger Cochetti, Program Director-Policy &
Business Planning, IBM Internet Division

"IBM is pleased to provide comments in response to the above Docket
entitled "Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and
Addresses." The subject of managing the central administrative functions of
the Internet is of great importance to the future of the medium and has
been of great interest to IBM for some time. ...The very important work of
the International  Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC), the Policy Oversight Committee
(POC) and the Council of Registrars (CORE) should not be overlooked and
should be incorporated as much as possible into this plan. An enormous
international effort, for example, was undertaken under the auspices of the
United Nations' World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to develop
guidelines on how trademarks and domain names should co-exist. That work
has great value and should be explicitly recognized in this plan."

FRANCE TELECOM

"To conclude, France Telecom fully supports the gTLD-MoU and the creation
of CORE, a framework based on bottom-up consensus, self-governance and
international cooperation, key factors of the success of the Internet and
of its future development."

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
-- Shari Steele, Staff Attorney 

"The IANA is the best choice for overseeing the DNS system...The U.S.
government should not attempt to exercise oversight or a veto over a
transition of the IANA to a new corporation; such oversight will be carried
out by Internet users.  The Internet is international in scope, and its
administering body must be truly international is scope.  Network Solutions
cannot be trusted with any public resource...EFF is very concerned that
Network Solutions is attempting to convert its five-year contract into a
permanent monopoly.  EFF believes that the current management of Network
Solutions has shown a profound disregard for the public interest, which
should disqualify it and its  parent company, Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC), from having any benefit or privilege
extended to them in the future management of the domain name system. Domain
name registration and the generic top level domains themselves must not be
monopolized by a single for-profit registry, treated as any for-profit
entity's intellectual property, or controlled by or from within any single
governmental jurisdiction.  These domains have become international and
should not remain a U.S. monopoly.  They are a global public trust and
should not be exploited by profit-seeking companies or for regional
advantage."

INTERNET SOCIETY
-- Don Heath, President

"Fortunately, the USG is not looking for industry unanimity in how the
Internet should be governed, because unanimity is not likely to happen. If
it is willing to accept rough consensus, then it should look towards the
gTLD-MoU plan as the role model.  That plan, which created POC/CORE,
resulted from a robust process that was thoroughly vetted in multiple
public forums, and was more publicly scrutinized than any issue ever
introduced into the Internet."

TORU TAKAHASHI 
--Chairman, Internet Association of Japan (IAJ)/Tokyo Internet Corporation
(TokyoNet) 
Chair of Executive Committee, Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC) 

"We would like to propose to cease off the monopoly of Network Solutions,
Inc. (NSI) as soon as possible. NSI should be a member of CORE and release
gTLDs (.com, .net, and .org) for members of CORE under gTLD-MoU. We hope
CORE/POC or any organization of the Internet Community will work together
with U.S. Government to develop user benefit for better and efficient use
of the Internet apart from U.S.-centric Green Paper."

INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION

"The Administration leaves [domain name policy] to each of the five
proposed private registries to establish its own dispute resolution policy
to be effective at least during a transition period. This, from the point
of view of trademark owners and consumers, is unacceptable."

"New gTLDs should preferably be added, if at all, one-at-a-time and that
the appropriate safeguards, in the form of consistent, speedy and effective
processes for dispute resolution, must first be in place to protect
existing trademark rights."

"INTA supports the view, which is also a fundamental principle of the
gTLD-MoU, that the name space should continue to be managed as a public
resource...INTA favors the alternative single, shared registry model,
propounded under the gTLD-MoU, with the registry operating on a cost
recovery basis and with competition between registrars...INTA believes that
the consumers will benefit from competition among market-oriented
registrars and registries, provided that there is a uniform
non-discretionary approach to dispute resolution."

"INTA believes that a dispute resolution system similar to one proposed in
the gTLD should be implemented and given an opportunity to work. . . The
hard work of the IAHC and POC and the procedures outlined in the gTLD-MoU
are a step in the right direction."

SCOTT BRADNER,
-- Harvard, Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Society trustee, ARIN
trustee

"The Green Paper relegates a long and very good work done by the ISOC
initiated IAHC in proposing a structure, now referred to as POC/CORE, for
the introduction of additional gTLDs and the management of all gTLDs, to be
on par with the efforts of some individuals...The gTLD-MoU that the IAHC
drafted now has more than 200 signatories and close to 100 organizations
have signed up to be registrars under their plan. It has a great deal of
international support and should not be ignored or denigrated to be equal
to the efforts of a few people working mostly on their own and which have
garnered very little support. The POC/CORE plan is not the only reasonable
plan for creating a stable environment for the creation and management of
gTLDs, but it's far better than any other I have seen..."

"The broadly supported, ISOC initiated, IAHC process and the resulting
POC/CORE proposal should be part of the solution."

DISNEY ONLINE
-- Jake Winebaum, President, Disney Online

"We have serious concerns about the effect of creating new gTLDs and
multiple registries without providing for strong protection for trademark
holder and a quick and efficient dispute resolution mechanism."

"We support the CORE proposal that all gTLDs should be located in one
database which can be accessed through and by many different registrars."

"As the Internet is a global medium, it is essential that a consistent
mechanism for resolving trademark disputes over domain names be established
which insures consistent standards across all registrars and gTLDs."
"NSI should transfer control of the root server system to the IANA."

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES
-- David R. Pierce, President

"We support the proposal to transfer management of the DNS to a private,
non-profit corporation."

KENT CRISPIN 
-- chairman, gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body

"IV. The Green Paper ignores the gTLD-MoU. The Green Paper claims to be a
consensus building process, yet the IAHC plan is not mentioned at all. It
is inconceivable that any attempt to deal with the issue of top-level
domains would ignore an effort such as that embodied in the MoU. Support
for the MoU is not imaginary; it is real. In ignoring the MoU, the GP also
ignores:

-ISOC, IAB, IETF, and the recommendations of IANA; 

-An intense and ongoing public review process;  the commitment of over 200
signatories of all sizes and persuasions; 

-88 companies who were approved as registrars, and their commitment of
significant financial  resources; 

-Substantial technical work in the design and implementation of a shared
registry system; 

-The support of WIPO, INTA, the ITU and other international organizations; 

-A carefully designed and heavily reviewed dispute resolution process for
intellectual property disputes; 

-A private-sector governance process that is completely open to the
stake-holders in the DNS; 

-Widespread international and domestic support.

Therefore, the best course of action is for the GP to narrow its focus; to
concentrate on the problem of how NSI can best be transitioned from a
privileged government sanctioned monopoly to one player in a field of many;
to create a comprehensive plan for the US ccTLD; and to cooperate with POC,
CORE and IANA to evolve a true private solution to the gTLD governance
problem.

KATE LANCE 
-- vice president, Internet Society of Australia

"A good example of that model is the international cooperative effort that
resulted in the POC/PAB/CORE/WIPO agreements, which have already set up the
structures needed to transition the existing system. 

JON POSTEL
        -- Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

"We believe that the root server functions should be moved as soon as the
new organization is incorporated. We suggest that competitive domain name
registrations begin using the Council of Registrars (CORE) model
immediately thereafter."

ADRIAN STEWART 
-- The Edge Consultants Private Limited Singapore

"The competing CORE registrars, each striving to attract new customers,
will demand the lowest possible price from the shared registry system.
Because they are also the members of this non-profit registry, CORE
registrars will have both the incentive and the power to 'lower the prices'
charged by the registry. Oversight of CORE registry through the POC (Policy
Oversight Committee) and PAB (Public Advisory Body) provide additional
incentive for the CORE non-profit registry to lower prices. CORE is ready
now to demonstrate the ease of adding up to seven new TLDs to the Root
today, way ahead of the year 2000 timetable stated in the Green Paper."

DAVID KEEGEL 
-- Cybersource Pty Ltd, Australia. 

"Australian stake-holders have had a voice (as part of the international
Internet community) in the IAHC process which led to the gTLD-MoU, CORE,
POC and PAB. This process gave non-U.S. stakeholders a larger voice in
Internet co-ordination than is likely from an initiative run by the U.S.
Government."

MICHELE VOLPE 
-- Telecom Italia S.p.A. 

"...The IAHC/gTLD-MoU process has demonstrated the capability of
self-healing, showing flexibility and the ability to adapt to market
requests (for example accepting changes to the MoU after the first
signatures had already been made). The results of such a long, difficult
and successful process, including the selection of new registrars according
to CORE procedures, and the ongoing deployment of a platform for the
management of a shared repository of domain names, are important assets
that cannot be ignored, but should be used as a sound basis to achieve the
objectives set out in the Green Paper, including a fair solution to the
trademark issue." 

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION EUROPEAN COMMISSION INTERNET GOVERNANCE

"During 1997 a new system of gTLD Registries was proposed by the IAHC,
modified on the basis of international consultations including
recommendations from the Commission and implementation is now well
advanced. This new system involves a Policy Oversight Committee (POC) which
is the governing body; a Council of Registrars (CORE) which is a
not-for-profit association of member Registrars which manages a shared data
base for seven new gLTDs. Eighty-eight member Registrars have joined this
system, including 35 in the EU. Many thousands of new Domain Names have
already been applied for within this system.  The Draft U.S. Proposals make
no reference to this system."

THE ASOCIACIÓN DE USUARIOS DE INTERNET 
(Spanish Internet Users' Association) 
        -- Javier Solá , Executive Director 

"The CORE model is not just one more organizational model, it is the result
of two years of analysis by the Internet Community. The contract with
Network Solutions should be terminated and it should not be given any
advantage over other registrars. We assume that the U.S. government is not
interested on granting to them any more illegal privileges."

MELBOURNE IT COMMENTS ON INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM 

"The Green Paper fails to acknowledge or consider the significant progress
made by the truly internationalized CORE in which Australia took a leading
role. The US Government should be urged to negotiate with the CORE/POC/IANA
team to progress the evolution of the domain names environment."

JOHN R. HARGREAVES 
-- Jumpstart Network Services

"I would like to express my support for the Gtld-MoU proposal. This Draft
Paper leaves out too much that is an integral part of the gTLD-MoU.  Nobody
signed the Draft Paper. Nobody is interested in adding to Network
Solutions' monopoly except the U.S. Government and Network Solutions.
Nobody in the Internet community has contributed to the Draft Paper except
Ira Magaziner and his CIA cronies. Don't make such an Internet-damaging
mistake by enacting the Draft Paper."

VIACOM
-- Michelena Hallie, Vice President, Senior Counsel/Intellectual Property
-- Anne Lucey, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs

"Contrary to the conclusion in the Green Paper that trademark/domain
disputes arise 'very rarely' on the Internet today, the infringement
problems for owners of famous marks has been significant. 

"Viacom suggests that at least one representative of the trademark
community sit on the corporation's board and that any board actions require
a super-majority vote."

STEPHANIE BOWMAN
        -- responding as an individual

"If it wasn't a monopoly NSI would be in deep *!#! and wouldn't be going
public on NASDAQ as they recently did. I implore the Department of Commerce
to modify its position in terms of allowing NSI to be both a registry and a
registrar. No company should be allowed to perform both functions no matter
how pseudo-separated the government makes them. Do some good for the
Internet community and give us all the opportunity to have .com names with
no strings attached to Network Confusion."

MARK GOLL
        -- responding as an individual

"Having dealt with Network Solutions and their very poor service, I support
the IAHC proposal to open up the Internet addressing situation."

JOSEPH YEUNG
        -- responding as an individual

"CORE is not mentioned in the draft. This is disappointing because their
proposal makes the most sense, even over the draft.  Maybe it isn't
perfect, but at least it addresses all the points above.  What's more
important that talking is listening constructively.  Listen to the European
Union and Australia.  And to the rest of the Internet community.  Take the
majority view to heart because that is the foundation of democracy."

KURTH CLOUGH
        -- responding as an individual

"Is Network Solutions so well entrenched in Washington, D.C. that the
President's advisor on the Internet is so afraid of upsetting a company
with powerful allies that he is willing to sell the Internet short in order
to keep Network Solutions on the gravy train? If the answer is 'yes,' I'm
not surprised. If the answer is 'no,' then prove it by making the notes of
your meetings available for public scrutiny. Ashamed in the U.S. ..."

JOE ANGIOLILLO
        -- responding as an individual

"I suggest that the duties now performed by NSI be transitioned to the CORE
under their gTLD-MoU.  My understanding is that this MoU is already
supported by the IANA.  The gTLD-MoU has many points in common with the
Green Paper. Why create another procedure when the CORE has spent the last
two years developing an agreement that is ready to take effect?  By using
what the CORE has, the transition from the government to the private sector
should go smoothly and rapidly."

ANGELO GONZALES 
        -- Member of ISOC (Galician Chapter) 

"Your proposal... is very similar to what had been proposed (and partially
tested) by IAHC and CORE, but instead of improving on that, it introduces
changes that clearly benefit the interest of commercial parties, rather
that doing any good for the global Internet community."

BRIAN LONGSTEIN
        -- a very concerned citizen

"It is time for the government to let the Internet leave home. Everyone,
not just Americans have a stake in the future of the Internet. Let the
international private sector take control. Bring an end to the excessive
government intervention and legislation now."

DANIEL FLEMMING
        -- responding as an individual

"While your draft does recognize the importance of changes to the domain
name system, it unfortunately disregards trademark policies for dispute
resolution.  There are no ethical considerations in place if a registry or
registrar unethically charges customers or hoards domain names.  Since
there is no appeal process, and customers must chew what they are
force-fed, there is still a Network Solutions monopoly."

MR. CHARLES LIU
        -- responding as an individual

"I am firmly in support of the CORE proposal, however, because it is: 
1. an internationally agreed to non-profit group 
2. firmly entrenched in a code of ethics 
3. 87 registrars competing rather than 5 
4. opening up 7 domains rather than 5 
5. ready to start now rather than years from now 
6. open to appeals in conflicts 
7. ready for dispute resolution 

Please redraft your discussion draft to include these requirements or
endorse the CORE proposal. Business would like the 7 domains to be
available in the next few months instead of no time frame at all."

LAURA BLACK
        -- responding as an individual

"My name is Laura Black and I live in Columbus, Ohio. I am outraged that
this draft ever made it to the draft stage without having anything about
the CORE proposal in it. With CORE at least there is some sense of
INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS, something the draft ignores. There is also choice
for consumers beyond the .com and .net domains. Endorse CORE's proposal and
you'll see the Internet flourish even more than all these corporate bigwigs
imagined."

KURT RED
        -- responding as an individual

"Ludicrously, the U.S. government is playing right into NSI's greedy hands.
The monopoly continues as Magaziner sits around and wastes valuable
Internet time.  The contract with NSI is set to terminate in March 1998.
Please don't pad Gabe's (NSI president) salary anymore. The time has come
for the CORE registrars to implement the 7 new TLDs of .nom, .firm, .shop,
.rec, .arts, .info, and .web. Ignoring the CORE proposal in the Green Paper
is an insult to the  reputable organizations and citizens who have worked
very hard to establish it."

BRIAN JERICHO
        -- responding as an individual

"I think CORE has come up with a better domain name system than the one Ira
Magaziner envisions. I have read the many comments, and they all seem to be
pointing to the NSI monopoly as an example of what not to do. There is also
the concern about other countries in the world not being part of the
decision making.  This is not an Internet that the world will want to be
part of."

ALLAN W. CRANE
-- Netlimit Technology

"I will not stand for this. I will not stand idly by and wait for the U.S.
Government to set up a framework that does more damage than good. There are
other proposals that have a secure direction for the future of the domains,
and I will support them. Please don't make a serious mistake at the expense
of the Internet community by enacting the Green Paper solution. The
implications of such an action are staggering."

MARY PINCHET
        -- responding as an individual

"...The gTLD-MOU initiative is ignored. This project was initiated by ISOC
and IANA in 1996, and is supported by the Internet community including
WIPO, INTA, ITU, and many other stakeholders. To ignore this established
initiative is foolish, considering it has established a code of ethics and
dispute resolution, is international in scope, and offers a workable
solution."

ED FINNING
        -- responding as an individual

"The Green Paper proposal is completely unacceptable. The U.S. Government
should support the gTLD-MoU proposal, as it is the only realistic
alternative at this point in time.  The .net, .com, and .org Top Level
Domains have been under monopoly control for the past years and the
contract with InterNIC gave us the notoriously poor customer service and
uselessness of InterNIC. A shared registry with the new Top Level Domains,
with competing registrars, will almost definitely allow for improved
customer service. Don't ignore the proposals that are already in process.
The Council of Registrars' for instance."

MICHAEL WANG 
-- Partner of Nicer Technology

"Holding back the informed and respected implementation of the CORE gTLDs
will stifle a crucial international lifeline, continue the Network
Solutions monopoly under the guise of competition, and create further
trademark havoc. I urge Mr. Magaziner to revisit the CORE plan that is
ready to implement immediately."

E.  SANTOS
        -- responding as an individual

"Let the new top-level domains be active. There should not be so much
controversy over letting CORE continue their work with the new top-level
domains. CORE gets my vote. Your paper does not."

TODD NAYLOR 
-- Networks Specialist

"Obviously, the issues set out in the beginning of the draft are not
addressed in the draft itself. The CORE proposal is the only workable
solution to the issues. It is particularly inexcusable to offer concessions
to NSI, given their prior track record, and ignore CORE. The U.S.
government should help establish CORE as a solution to these issues."

DAVIDE MAGLIAVACCA
        -- responding as an individual

"Take the current CORE stand with regard to the Green Paper as a clear
signal of maturity. Should they continue on their already scheduled road
map ignoring your proposition, I suspect the majority of Internet users
outside the U.S. would go with them anyway. "

GARY CLARKE
        -- responding as an individual

"My name is Gary Clarke. I have studied your paper entitled the
'Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses,' and
find nothing that is worthy of my comment. The whole paper needs to be
scrapped. The gTLD-MOU has set up an adequate solution, and the Council of
Registrars has been working on it for years. Your paper was late, and left
nothing clearly defined. It also foolishly ignored the gTLD-MOU, which is
an unforgivable oversight. As you can see by the commentary on it, the
paper has failed miserably. Adopt the gTLD-MOU. It has had my support for
the last year, and I am sure it can only improve the Internet."

PHILIP TEAL 
-- President, Freehand Manufacturing

"Another proposal, called the CORE proposal, offers a process that will not
harm the Internet as it currently exists, and expand a thriving  business
community."

JEFFREY MASTERS
        -- responding as an individual

"The CORE solution is internationally recognized, is ready to begin now,
sets up a powerful body of representative stakeholders including
non-profits and individuals, and will put Network Solutions in the arena of
real competition."

GARTH KROCK 
-- Sole Owner GK's Hardware

"When I read the CORE plan to create seven new TLDs, each one intended for
a particular segment of the Internet community, I knew that was the answer.
The gTLD-MOU plan solved the problem of Network Solutions Inc.'s domination
of the TLDs, and was designed in a way to let competition grow."

STEPHEN LAW
-- Concerned U.S. Citizen

"The companies that register domain names should compete, but they should
all have access to the same database of addresses (.com, .org, .etc.) so
that no company owns an individual address. Otherwise there is no real
competition."

ALAN LEWIS
        -- responding as an individual

"...There is already an immediate solution in the form of the Council of
Registrars (CORE) which has no ties to the government or the U.S.. CORE has
thought through the process and established bodies, panels and guidelines,
including a framework for dispute resolution. The government's efforts are
redundant and time-consuming."

TONY LIM
        -- responding as an individual

"...The periodic addition of single top level domains is not practical. I
favor the proposal of the Generic Top Level Domain memorandum of
Understanding which sees the addition of new top level domains in
controlled groups, starting with seven new top level domains: .firm, .shop,
.web, .arts, .rec, .info, .and .nom. The new top level domains should be
released as soon as possible to keep up with demand. Commercial
opportunities are missed by delaying the process."

ROBIN SMITH
        -- responding as an individual

"Frankly, I find it strange that the government sought to create their own
plan for the domain name registration system, even after CORE's plan was
introduced. The CORE plan, as you must know, has been agreed upon by
hundreds of signatories representing thousands and thousands of Internet
users, and many of the most influential companies in the world."

STEWERT MCTAGGART
        -- responding as an individual

"As an international phenomenon, the Internet requires international
solutions to its problems, like those outlined in the gTLD-MoU."

ADRIENNE MADILL
        -- responding as an individual

"...The last thing the Net needs is a big government body pumping out rules
and regulations. What it needs is for those companies from around the world
with a vested interest in the success of the Net to implement their plan
for self-governance and competition. Give CORE a chance."

ALAN MAY
        -- responding as an individual

"Imagine private companies all over the globe planning, discussing,
coordinating and working together to ensure the smooth transition of power
- drafting self-imposed guidelines and rules to avoid and resolve
conflicts. This is the true spirit of the Internet and this is what happens
when there are no barriers to the exchange of information. Government
intervention is supposed to protect consumers from a monopoly, not protect
the monopoly at the expense of consumers. Please change your plan now,"

SAM CARMALT
-- SW Consulting

"The only existing, ground-up proposal for the domain-name issue address by
the proposed rule is the gTLD-MoU plan. This plan has been critiqued by all
of the technical experts and Internet policy commentators involved with
Internet operation and governance. There are no problems with stability in
it. The ability to be a registrar is equally open to all. The governing
mechanisms are as broad-based as can be constructed. Opponents seeking
their own selfish gain will play on fears such as 'instability' to achieve
their own ends. Care must be taken to listen to those with sufficient
technical expertise in such cases. On balance, the best course of action is
to move to implement the gTLD-MoU suggestions."

A. BREARLEY
        -- responding as an individual

"From what I can see, there are a few glaring discrepancies in the Draft.
One, that the gTLD-MOU is ignored. Two, that it isn't international in
scope (an issue addressed by the gTLD-MOU, ironically), and three, that it
continues the Network Solutions monopoly with the lame promise of
competition. Back to the drawing board. Or maybe the gTLD-MOU can save the
Draft from the garbage heap."

ADRIAN NICHOLS
        -- responding as an individual

"But then I realized, that if the government was sincerely interested in
the public's opinion on the subject, it would have consulted CORE, the
Council of Registrars and solicited the input and feedback of this major,
international, non-governmental organization. But it didn't. So if the
government doesn't care about what CORE has to say, it surely doesn't care
about the comments of a lowly citizen like myself."

JOHN O'DONNELL
        -- responding as an individual

"The government must be accountable and listen to the criticisms on the
draft and, more importantly, change the proposal to reflect the rough
consensus already in place! (The gTLD-MOU!)"

ANDREW PARKER
        -- responding as an individual

"...Keep the registry as a non-profit entity. Who is the government
responsible to? The shareholders of NSI or the hundreds of million Internet
users world wide?"

ABOUT CORE

Operating under a global constitution and set of standards, CORE currently
lists 87 registrars in 23 countries, including 24 in the United States with
a presence in more than 100 American cities.  Its Shared Registry System
and Domain Name Service are deployed on computer systems around the world.
The new names, or generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs), CORE proposes to
administer as a non-profit Registry include .firm, .shop, .web, .arts,
.rec, .info and .nom

###

For further information and a full text of the CORE response to the Green
Paper, see the CORE Web sites (www.core.gtld-mou.org or www.gtld-mou.org)
or call:

Greg Hurst (ghurst@link.freedom.com)
CORE communications representative
714-253-2357

Tom Gable (tomg@gablegroup.com)
Dianne Gleason (dianne@gablegroup.com)
The Gable Group
619.234.1300

Judy Whittlesey (judithhw@aol.com)
Clarkson Hine (cchine@aol.com)
Catharine Dickey
Sheila O'Neil
Susan Davis International
202.408.0808