<nettime> Nettime TLD compilation [2/2]

[ted byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

[NETTIME MODERATOR NOTE: THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF PART I...]

This ITU bogeyman is getting tiresome, since it has no foundation in fact.
It has wonderful emotional appeal, given the ITU's unfortunate and
unpleasant history with respect to the Internet, but relies entirely on old
history. It is patently wrong with respect to current ITU history and it is
patently wrong with respect to the nature and degree of ITU "power" over the
gTLD MoU work. The ITU has been a highly constructive
participant-among-equals in the gTLD MoU work. They have been playing the
Internet game according to Internet rules. (And by the way, that's more than
NSI can claim.) Further, the claim of ITU dominance is quite simply an
insult to the many other people and organizations that have provided input,
leadership and support for the gTLD MoU work.

  Cook: Would it be too troublesome to ask EFF board members how they
  propose to replace the infrastructure built up by NSI and legitimately
  owned by NSI? Infrastructure capable of handling 50,000 help phone calls
  per month and registering 120000 new .com domains. EFF is proposing
  action here that if implemented would be disastrous for nearly 2 million
  current
  .com registrants. Action that someone would have to pay for while

This line of criticism suggests a deep misunderstanding of some fundamental
points:

First, let's again distinguish the sales/support registrar function from the
registry data-base service. The 50,000 phone calls pertains to the former.
The 120,000 registrations pertains to the latter. It turns out that the
registration data base transaction rate is about 12 per minute. Modern
transaction system can easily handle
100 per SECOND. In other words, the technology to perform the data base work
is trivial, when developed by someone knowledgeable in that technology. The
work done by Emergent, for CORE, is a prime example.

Replacing such work costs money, but not an outrageous amount. Further we
need to remember that NSI's investment was funded entirely by the US
government and by its users. It made no independent investments, no matter
how their bookkeeping might claim otherwise.

With respect to the 50,000 customer calls, NSI is fully expected to be
permitted to continue a as a registrar. If they are that good at customer
support, their investment and responsiveness will prove to their advantage.

  conveniently omitting to say who. Or has John Gilmore promised to foot
  the bill? Besides not only do you need to have someone pay for it, it
  needs to

CORE has already been footing the bill and has developed a system that is
more efficient and more flexible and more powerful than the NSI system. It
could fold in the com/net/org data base without breaking into a sweat. And
please note that the CORE data base really WAS developed with private,
speculative investment funds from the registrars, unlike NSI's source of
public funding.

  be up and working before one can claim it as an alternative. EFF could
  have done its home work. It chose not to. A shame.

Yes, not doing homework is indeed a shame...

  EFF: We were happy to see that the DoC proposal requires Network
  Solutions to give the U.S. government copies and documentation of all
  data, software
  ...
  Cook: Shame on any organization that ostensibly is dedicated to the
  preservation of civil liberties in cyberspace not recognizing the privacy
  implications of what they are proposing. The irrational hatred of NSI
  expressed by this document they remind me strongly of the views of John

This sort of ad hominem attack serve only to miss the point that this data
base is essential to the operation of the Internet infrastructure. The
information which some claim is a matter of privacy is for Internet
operations. The problems that ensue from misbehaving DNS servers, when there
is no way to contact those responsible for the servers, has been long and
well-documented.

  EFF: Network Solutions should be required to turn over all root servers
  ...
  Cook: Absurd. Also I believe that the assertion about the "difficulty of
  changing the set of globally known root server addresses," is technically

Well, let's see. First NSI has used their physical control over the A server
as a political bargaining chit, in many private discussions about the DNS
resolution. Second is a misunderstanding of the nature of the difficulty in
moving the set of root server IP addresses. The physical aspects of changing
the official list is easy. The operations aspects of instantiating that
change throughout the Internet is problematic. It can be done but takes
time.

  EFF: Domain name registration and the generic top level domains
  themselves
  ...
  Cook: Are you aware that you are asking for this to fall under ITU
  purview? Are you aware of the incalculable dollar value of this to
  traditional telcos which will be put out of business if they don't slow
  down the spread

"Purview". Whatever this is supposed to mean, the facts are that ITU has no
substantive control over this area. The concern over the telcos is even less
relevant.

  Cook: IANA's TSAR like implementation got us into this mess. It is not
  the way out. Traditional bottom up self regulation as expressed in the
  Open Root server coalition IS a solution compatible with Internet
  standards and culture.

Again, this suggests a basic lack of knowledge about the reality of IANA
operational style, in particular the consultative nature of its decision
processes. It further misunderstands the largely piratical methods of those
who have pursued alternative root systems, under a continuing and impressive
range of names, and with impressive organizational instability.

d/
________________________________________________________________________
Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
@brandenburg.com 675 Spruce Drive (f) +1 408 249 6205 www.brandenburg.com
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/03_23_98-5.htm]

Date: 3/23/98 3:41pm
From: Tony Rutkowski <@ngi.org>
Subject: Comments in Docket No. 980212036-8036-01

Karen Rose
NTIA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration Washington, DC
20230

Dear Ms. Rose,

Please find below my comments in the above captioned proceeding. They are
also attached as a Micosoft Word document.

respectfully,
/signed/
Anthony M. Rutkowski

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration Washington, DC
20230

In the Matter of )
)
IMPROVEMENT OF TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT ) Docket No.
980212036-8036-01
OF INTERNET NAMES AND ADDRESSES )

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Comments of Anthony M. Rutkowski

[signed]

Anthony M. Rutkowski
NGI Associates
13102 Weather Vane Way
Herndon VA 20171
USA
mailto: @ngi.org

Principal

23 Mar 1998

SUMMARY

In general, the U.S. government in this matter is taking precisely the right
course. It has instituted a lawful process domestically, sent the right
messages internationally, and constructed an enduring, stable, open,
industry-driven model and specifics for effecting these Internet-related
administrative responsibilities.

To the extent modifications are needed, it involves effecting a more diverse
representative structure - especially involving Internet Service Providers
and users - as well as avoiding the inclusion as of right by secondary
groups.

The proceeding and the associated "outreach" activities of U.S. government
officials are responsible and commendable actions in the face of predatory,
disinformative, and frequently abusive behavior on the part of parties that
attempt to assert themselves as representing the "Internet community," as
well as international organizations who seek inappropriately to assert their
jurisdiction and involvement in the management of the millions of private
networks, computer hosts and applications that share their resources through
the Internet protocols.

The steady reasoned course outlined in the NPRM will serve the Internet's
development and growth - indeed the world - for decades to come.

-------------------------------- break --------------------------------

Before the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration Washington, DC
20230

In the Matter of                    )
                                    )
IMPROVEMENT OF TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT ) Docket No.
OF INTERNET NAMES AND ADDRESSES     ) 980212036-8036-01

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Comments of Anthony M. Rutkowski

1. Anthony M. Rutkowski respectfully submits comments in this proceeding
published at 63 Fed.Reg. 8825 (No. 34, Feb. 20, 1998). His expertise is well
known to the agency - as an engineer-lawyer with more than 30 years
experience and leadership in industry, government, and academic
institutions, as well as author of scores of articles and numerous books. He
is currently the principle in the consulting firm of NGI Associates with
several Internet-related company clients
- none of whom are directly affected by the outcome of this proceeding
- and director of the Center for Next Generation Internet. He is also on the
boards of Internet-related organizations and publications, but not speaking
on their behalf. Full details are available at
<www.ngi.org/rutkowski/>.

---------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC TRUST MODELS ARE WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE AND
POTENTIALLY PERNICIOUS FOR INTERNET IDENTIFIERS
---------------------------------------------------

2. At the outset, the subject matter of this NPRM deserves focus for what it
is, and is not. The Internet by definition and in practice consists of
millions of networks, computer hosts, and applications overwhelmingly in
private hands that have autonomously provided for some degree of
interconnection and sharing of those resources. It is this self-organizing
agglomeration that we all casually refer to as the Internet.

3. There is a significant collective, general public interest in assuring
the continued operation and development of the Internet and its
applications. There is also a legacy role of the U.S. government that has
been well portrayed in the NPRM, and an array of intellectual property and
other legal issues. However, the identifiers associated with the Internet's
operation are not limited like radio spectrum, nor are they used for the
operation of public telecommunication networks. They are simply created,
administered, and published for those operating and using the Internet.

4. Internet identifiers are therefore not "public" resources nor should they
be part of a "public trust" model. Our systems of law domestically and
internationally ascribe special meaning and effect to those terms that bring
them under governmental and intergovernmental jurisdiction and made an
inextricable part of many normative provisions. This is wholly inapposite
here. Some parties - particularly intergovernmental ones - have sought to
ascribe public resource and trust status to these identifiers. As the agency
well knows, such a result has significant, far reaching, and uncontrollable
effects that it has wisely eschewed. If it is necessary to create any kind
of model, it should be a shared private trust. Explicit treatment of this
matter in the subsequent Report and Order in the proceeding, and in diverse
intergovernmental and bilateral forums will be necessary to effectively
implement these policies internationally.

I. The Proposal

A. The Coordinated Functions

---------------------------------------------------
THE PROPOSAL FOR AN INDUSTRY-ORIENTED CORPORATION TO
MANAGE IANA FUNCTIONS IS WELL-CRAFTED, LONG NEEDED,
AND PATENTLY APPROPRIATE
---------------------------------------------------

5. The creation of a new private-sector, industry-oriented corporation as
proposed in the NPRM is precisely on target. The existing Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) arrangements in which a DOD research contractor and
staff were tasked with these responsibilities has long been divorced from
the reality of a huge commercial Internet infrastructure and marketplace.

6. The existing institutional arrangements and processes have been closed,
with no due process or records, with significant conflicts of interest in
evidence - yet remaining to be legally protected and funded by the U.S.
government. This has unfortunately also contributed to an extensive period
in which contract personnel, various non-profit organizations, and the
intergovernmental organizations have sought to lay claim to these
responsibilities and craft their own self-serving arrangements.

---------------------------------------------------
SOME DETAILS OF SURROUNDING THE FORMATION OF THE
NEW CORPORATION CREATE INAPPROPRIATE CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST OR OTHERWISE NEED ATTENTION
---------------------------------------------------

7. The staff and staff arrangements for the new corporation should be free
from conflicts of interest that might give even the appearance of
impropriety. The IANA function is presently provided for the U.S. Government
under a significant sole-source contract to the University of California
Information Sciences Institute; and the employees involved have direct,
significant, and long-standing relationships with various of the parties
whose interests are very much involved in decision making matters before the
new corporation. Such a requirement is not only good policy for an industry
organization, it will be a material requisite in minimizing subsequent
litigation.

8. Although these ISI employees must necessarily be involved in any
transition to new arrangements, the actual secretariat of the new
corporation should either be outsourced by open, competitive bidding, or
staff hired as part of open hiring process. Any newly employed contractor or
staff should be not be affiliated in any way with present or future
organizations whose interests are affected by matters before the new
corporation.

9. Serious consideration should be given to creation of the new IANA
organization as a congressionally chartered corporation. Doing so could
provide additional stature and avoid any problems associated with the
authority of the Dept. of Commerce in directing the creation of a
corporation. Such action would need to be carefully described to make it
plain that such incorporation is simply a ministerial act necessary under
any jurisdiction, that the resulting corporation is a private international
organization, and is not intended to serve any special U.S interests.

10. Further to the issue of operating as a private international
organization, the established corporation in its charter should specify a
requirement that the number of directors from any one country cannot exceed
fifth percent. In addition, the organization should register with the Union
of International Associations, effect relationships with other international
organizations, maintain multilingual capabilities, and distribute the
physical location of secretariat components. It should maintain especially
strong, continuing communications with the national TLD registries world as
well as the Internet operational organizations.

11. The NPRM appropriately notes the extraordinary and growing diversity of
the "Internet community" so as to make the term essentially meaningless.
Almost every organization that exists can probably find some argument why it
should be represented in this IANA corporation. In addition, there is the
problem of dealing with fronts. For example, the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB) is by no means "representative" of any Internet technical community.
It is nothing more than an advisory committee of the small,
highly-conflicted party in this proceeding - the Internet Society - which
wholly maintains and controls the IAB to further the interests of the
Society and its Board members in this matter.

12. On the other hand, there are Internet stakeholders who are to a
significant degree affected by the NPRM and the ensuing activities of the
Corporation. In pursuit of a objectives of the NPRM, if not legal
sufficiency, the composition of the Board should be framed entirely in terms
of stakeholder groups rather than organizational representatives.

13. The individual Board members should serve as individuals chosen by
stakeholder groups, not as representatives of organizations per se. The NPRM
attempts to identify some of those groups, specifically
1) the existing IP number registries, 2) the IAB, 3) a name registry
association, 4) Internet users including non-commercial, not-for-profit use
of the Internet, individual end users, commercial users, including trademark
holders.

14. However, there are some glaring errors and omissions here. As noted
above, the IAB exists simply as an Internet Society advisory committee. The
existing IP number registries are administrative entities which are not
themselves stakeholders. Conversely, the most directly relevant stakeholders
are missing entirely, namely the several thousand Internet Service
Providers. They are a large, diverse, and rapidly growing community that
have little involvement or representation in older established Internet
groups. Reference, for example, the attendees at any recent ISP Conference
(ISPCON).

15. If the Board of the new corporation is to be truly representative of
stakeholders - and thus minimize its risk of litigation - it will need to
more effectively balanced. Annex 1 identifies these stakeholders, and is
offered as a means of achieving better identification of groups and a
balance in the composition of the board.

16. The NPRM objective of subjecting the new body to antitrust liability is
commendable and a very important precedent in establishing a general model
for future Internet-related industry activities.

B. The Competitive Functions

---------------------------------------------------
THE DIVERSIFIED REGISTRY-REGISTRAR MODEL IS
APPROPRIATE - FOR ALL TOP LEVEL DOMAINS
---------------------------------------------------

17. The NPRM's proffered Registry-Registar model that allows for diverse
imlementations is an approach that is both pragmatic and should balance the
needs for both stability and greater competition at several levels.

18. The NPRM fails, however, to apply the model broadly enough. It should
apply to all top level domains, not just the ones the so-called generic
ones. Not only is there no reason not to apply the model to all TLDs, but
failure to do so is patently discriminatory.

19. These policies established both through this proceeding, as well as the
subsequent activities of the Corporation apply to the many private networks,
host computers, and applications interoperating openly via the Internet
Protocol - falling largely outside the normal jurisdiction or exercise of
authority by national authorities. As noted above, these are private, not
public, identifiers used in conjunction with private systems. In addition,
these national TLDs can be readily conveyed by lease to anyone to be used
for other purposes - as has already occurred in the case of the .IO domain.
A private IANA corporation should not be exhibiting discriminatory treatment
among any TLD groups.

C. The Creation of New gTLDs

---------------------------------------------------
A PRUDENT, EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH IS APPROPRIATE
---------------------------------------------------

20. The expansion of gTLDs at a deliberate and controlled pace is
appropriate to allow for evaluation of the impact of the new gTLDs and
well-reasoned evolution of the domain space. Although many parties have
asserted there is a significant demand, it many in fact be minimal.
Continuing experience suggests that the preponderance of U.S. domestic users
prefer to find variants in the .COM or .ORG domains much more preferable
than any other domains. Thus the real demand may in fact be far smaller than
some have suggested.

21. On the other hand, given the self-organizing properties of the Internet,
it seems unfeasible to control in any kind of absolute way, the emergence
and use of new name systems. Parties of record such as Image OnLine,
Iperdome, AlterNIC, AURSC have long maintained operational systems. Others
such as InternetOne have leased national TLDs to provide new services. Still
others such as CORE and pgMedia seek also to initiate services. All of these
parties can provide useful, diverse testbeds, that hopefully can be managed
and studied by the new Corporation - relying also on interested groups of
experts such as the ORSC and any new bodies that will evolve.

22. Additionally, as the standards for new applications and systems begin to
be used - such as the object models of the Open Management Group (OMG), or
mobile autonomous agents of the Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents
(FIPA) - entirely new kinds of DNS approaches and ontologies will be
necessary. Proceeding with flexibility and rapid adaptability cannot be
underscored enough.

D. The Trademark Dilemma

---------------------------------------------------
THE TRADEMARK DILEMMA IS A MINOR FACTOR -
PRIMARILY IN THE U.S. - AND JUDICIAL PROCESSES
PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM
---------------------------------------------------

23. Domain names are used primarily for corporate identification and
branding in the United States. As the NPRM notes, remarkably few disputes
have arisen, and these have overwhelmingly been solved among the parties,
with litigation being very rarely necessary. Any new requirements or process
relating to trademark disputes should be minimalist, and not encumber in any
way the normal rapid issuance of domain names. Requiring registries to
resolve disputes seems inherently ill-suited to their orientation and skill
sets.

24. Because the vast preponderance of existing and future generic top level
domain use is in the U.S. - and is likely to remain so
- the construction of arrangements so as to maximize any resulting
litigation in the U.S., seems highly desirable. The remarks of some
commenting parties - particularly outside the U.S. - on this matter are
especially disingenuous. In fact, the so-called generic TLDs have long been
regarded as de facto U.S. domains, and eschewed in preference to national
domains on a large scale throughout the world.

25. To call for complex and unnecessary global processes outside the U.S. to
deal with what has primarily been a problem among U.S. parties, is little
more than a calculated attempt to impede the rapid pace of Internet use and
assimilation in the U.S. The general principles on these matters set forth
in the NPRM - including the minimal procedures in Appendix 2 and the
proposed study - are the right steps, and any new encumbrances should be
weighed carefully.

E. The Intellectual Infrastructure Fund

---------------------------------------------------
RECENT DECISIONS HAVE MADE THIS MATTER MOOT
---------------------------------------------------

26. The recent abolishment of the fund and the collection of monies by the
National Science Foundation has made this subject moot.

II. The Transition

A. The NSI Agreement

---------------------------------------------------
THE PROPOSED ARRANGEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO NSI
UNDER THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ARE EXCELLENT
---------------------------------------------------

27. The proposed transition arrangements with respect to NSI under the NSF
cooperative are equitable and serve the interests of all parties concerned.

B. Competitive Registries, Registrars, and the Addition of New gTLDs (ref.
App 1)

---------------------------------------------------
THE PROPOSED ARRANGEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO A
TRANSITION ARRANGEMENT OF FIVE NEW TLDS WITH
ONE PER REGISTRY PROVIDER ARE EXCELLENT, BUT
SHOULD ALSO BE APPLIED TO NATIONAL REGISTRIES
---------------------------------------------------

28. The proposals to introduce additional competition during the transition
period are measured and appropriate. However they should also be applied to
national registries for the reasons outlined in para. 19, above. Pioneer
preferences seem appropriate.

C. The Root Server System

---------------------------------------------------
THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM SHOULD REVIEWED AND
TRANSITIONED AMONG THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
RATHER THAN SECONDARY PARTIES
---------------------------------------------------

29. The root server system operation is properly a matter for the U.S.
government, its management contractors including ISI and NSI, existing root
server operators, and major Internet Service Providers. This should be
coordinated by all these parties cooperating together to assure a robust,
secure, and performant system. It should not involve outside interests such
as technical society advisory committees - which is wholly inappropriate.

D. The .us Domain

---------------------------------------------------
TRANSFERRING THE .US DOMAIN TO AN MOTIVATED
INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION UNDER APPROPRIATE
SAFEGUARDS IS HIGHLY BENEFICIAL AND LONG OVERDUE
---------------------------------------------------

30. The assignment of the .US domain by the government's IANA function
contractor - ISI - to itself to undertake other government specialty
contracts was an inappropriate and ill-advised action at best. It has long
been recognized that transferral of this function to an appropriate industry
body - either for-profit or non-profit - under appropriate safeguards would
be highly useful to an enormous number of U.S. users. As the NPRM notes,
however, the current administrative arrangements are far too cumbersome. The
matter deserves urgent attention, and could be easily effected during the
transition period.

31. There is no reason whatsoever to move .GOV and .MIL users under a
.US domain. This is a wholly unnecessary and costly undertaking. Those two
domains can simply be recognized and administered as de facto U.S. domains
as has long been the case.

E. The Process

---------------------------------------------------
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ARTICULATED PRINCIPLES AND
ROLE IN THE TRANSITION PROCESS ARE HIGHLY
BENEFICIAL AND COMMENDABLE
---------------------------------------------------

32. The U.S. government and the associated officials and staff have played a
highly positive and beneficial role with respect to these important Internet
administrative functions. The articulated principles serve the interest of
the public, industry, and the world. This is a unique time of transition
when important models are being set for years to come.

33. The administration of Internet-related identifiers is potentially
subject to significant anticompetitive abuse, as well as arbitrary behavior
and personal favoritism. It inherently arises no matter how well intentioned
the responsible staff or responsible officials. In addition, with respect
some of these identifiers such as domain names, there may be important
issues associated with freedom of expression. Making this activity subject
to antitrust, First Amendment, and tort law of the Unites States provides an
ideal check on wrongful behavior by those undertaking this activity. It is
also patently where the most intense usage is occurring, and the support is
likely to be efficient and the costs comparatively low. If significant
demand for these services arises in different global regions, it is very
easy to distribute them as has already been done for IP addresses.

------------------------------------- break
-------------------------------------

Annex 1
SIGNIFICANT PARTIES OF INTEREST
INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SERVICES AND USE

DIRECT PARTIES OF INTEREST

O Providers

Root Admin Services
Existing (1)
New entrants (TBD)
Root Server Services
Existing (13)
New entrants (TBD)
TLD Services
Existing gTLD (4)
Existing nTLD (~200)
New entrants (TBD)
Sub-TLD Services (~70,000)
Registration intermediaries (?)
BIND server software (~10)
Registration software (?)

O Users and Uses

Internet Service Providers
Web site builders
Trademark owners
End user
Business identity
Professional identity
Individual identity
Branding & marketing
Free expression
Object owners
places
mobile agents
Governments

INDIRECT PARTIES OF INTEREST

O Other Industry
O Service providers
O Software vendors
O Hardware vendors
O Telecom providers

O Public
O Ordinary people
(50 million +)

[Th-th-th-th-that's all, folks.]
---
#  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/  contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl