NOTE:

The following document contains all submissions informally sent to the IAHC. Any submission that was not in the form of an Internet Draft was considered an informal submission. The layout of this document leaves much to be desired, but lack of time has made it impossible to put more effort into this document.

Date: 12/5/96 4:54:19 PM
From: gritton
Subject: Re: [Submission] Existing TLD Applications
To: iahc-submit

Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com> writes: 

> Should the existing TLD applications not be processed, and the public
> trust and confidence in the IETF/RFC authority structure be lost, the
> repercussions will irrevocably damage IANA, and IAHC and it's
> participating members ability to manage the namespace. As a result,
> government intervention and uneccessary regulation and taxation will be
> forced upon the internet community in order to resolve issues that
> could quite easily be avoided now with a little diplomacy. 

Allow me to clarify...

Should the existing TLD applications be given any preference, and the public trust and confidence in the IETF/RFC authority structure be lost, the repercussions will irrevocably damage IANA, and IAHC and it's participating members ability to manage the namespace. If, on the other hand, the IAHC treats all applications equally, baseless lawsuits by those claiming a prior use (that was never in fact used by the internet community) will be forced upon the internet community in order to profit from issues that could quite easily be avoided now with a little bribe.

- James Gritton
gritton@byu.edu

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 18:43:21 +0200 
From: tor <tor@wtv.net>
To: iahc-submit <iahc-submit@iahc.org>
Subject: Internet Commission (SUBMISSION) 

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o
o The Internet Commission o
o o

Non-sanctioned organizations have occupied the tasks of regulating Top Level Domain Names and IP number allocation. In days gone by small, informal groupa acting with the trust of a relatively small Internet community could handle most Domain and IP Address issues adequately. With the massive onrush of global interest and participation on the Internet this is no longer the case. These groups must be suplanted and dissolved into a public, democratic, UN Chartered organization:
The Internet Commission.

Within six months from the acceptance of this draft all non-sanctioned regulatory bodies will be superceded. Previous to that date a series of Internet Commission founding conventions will be called. A steering committee will facilitate the process of consensus building. The convention will meet monthly in various locations worldwide until the work is completed. The steering committee acting to accumulate, prioritize, organize and complete convention submissions.

The members of the steering committee will be drawn from UN member governments, Internet businesses, Internet User Groups, Civil and Human Rights organizations and interested and prominant individuals and organizations. All related and procedural meetings and will occur in public with full access by the press and interested observers. The convention will be held in public and will be open to everyone. 

- The Convention will:

a) Present ideas and concepts concerning the fair and orderly regulation, and preservation of the Internet as a free, global medium.

b) Deliberate on the constitution of the IC and it's bylaws pursuant to the the UN Declaration on Human Rights and similar documents, due process, regular elections, terms and duties of office, conditions for recall, impeachment etc.

c) Provide ideas and concrete proposals for IC funding. 

d) Discuss a central, global location for the central Regulating body in a nuetral, democratic nation and establish guidelines for a regular series of IC conventions worldwide.


- The Steering Committeee will:

a) Be disallowed from sitting as elected or appointed officials on the IC for a period of TEN (10) years after it's foundation. 

b) Organize and prioritize the materials presented at the founding conventions.

c) Write the IC Constitution and Bylaws.

d) Arrange IC funding.

e) Establish the IC location and the first formal convention where elections for the various positions will be held. 

f) Ensure an unbiassed and utterly impecable consensus building process is adhered to.

o o
o The Internet Commission o
o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Date: 1/4/97 1:22:11 PM
From: omedina
Subject: PROPOSAL OF NEW ABREVIATIONS
To: iahc-submit

Trademark issues concerning domain names must be limited to special names not contemplated in the Most common and official used dictionary of every language. 

Actually, companies that use words in their names that are ususally found in a dictionary of every language are tried to be claimed as "trademarks". Let's take the word "coke" ( a solid, carbonaceous fuel obtained by heating coal in ovens) or "water". Actually is used by a company(ies) in the United States and probably there is a lot of institutions that will want to use the same word in their names for drug prevention, water pollution, etc. But can they use it, are they allowed or it will be challenge by a company?. 

Then, is there really a trademark in the word COKE or WATER or it must be claimed as a common word by the registar of DNS, as in the Webster Dictionary, stealing a tardemark word, then having the same legal havocs as some other peoples on the net? As we said here...Who came first the chicken or the egg? 

And then take puertoricans who are spanish speaking people, being US citizens, under laws of the US and the Federal Trademak Office that don't care too much about english names but spanish names or names common to spanish. They must take the Diccionario Real de la Academia as their source.

What will happen with companies that use coke as part of their names or wanted to use it? Will they have some day a trademarked company name of their own or they will be out of business in the Net because coke.com, water.com, or similars are already given to a company who's name only use coke in their registered name? 

The trademark issues is something MORE IMPORTANT than adding name abbreviation extensions. The trademark issue pretend to not let common people register common names. I dont care if there is a million names abbreviation if all will be reclaimed by trademarked companies.

Also the proposed random alphanumeric assignment of DNS bring a legal issue because as soon as everyone knows how they are composed, companies will start registering trademarks so that they can claim DNS for them that will be assigned by the Registar.

So, a long number only assignment as in telephones can then be the only option for not breaking tardemark issues? 

Also the proposed abbreviations must be more international like actual ones, because an abbreviation must be understandable when pronouncing in the most common languages.

Date: 1/5/97 3:11:02 AM
From: William C.
Subject: Domain Naming? The Logic Paradox
To: iahc-submit

Hi Folks,

Maybe I am looking at this from a simple point of view.

Remove the silly coventions (.org, .com.edu....) .
Names should be anything the requestor deems it should be.

Logic on this issue is clear.
A logic box is a paradox.
Build it,
and you restrict the characteristics of what it can contain.
Do not build it,
identification, uniformity, and control will not be possible. 
The better action,
Develop a dynamic environment.

The Dynamic Environment ?: email me, we'll talk. 


William C.
The Technocr@t

Date: 1/5/97 5:16:41 PM
From: raphael
Subject: 60-day waiting period
To: iahc-submit

To whom it may concern:

I am against the idea of a 60-day waiting period for the activation of a new domain. Instead, I propose that everything be kept the same as in the proposal, but that the domains (as asked for) be provided *temporarily* for 60 days. That would mean that immediate use of the domain would be possible, but registration would only be finalized after 60 days. Registrants would be informed at registration time that their domain-name allocation may be reversed in the next 60 days, and would be asked to plan accordingly. 

Louis

Date: 1/6/97 6:21:41 AM
From: galderon
Subject: Domain naming
To: iahc-submit

I think there should be one named .web ... 

Thanx 
Stephen Stockman

Date: 1/6/97 8:39:07 AM
From: Marc Blanchet
Subject: proposal
To: iahc-submit
CC: Marc.Blanchet

Hi,

regarding the problems that you try to address (itld's,...), I would like to make a suggestion:
- no more registrations under international-no-policy domains: .com,.org
- registrations in any country (including US) go under the country code domain: i.e. us,ca,fr,...
- each country creates his own policy for the sub-domains. The country should established itself by an isoc-kind of organisation (country chapters?)
- iahc or isoc or ... specify a general policy for countries and registries, like:
- the maximum fee for a domain application should be no more than the actual cost of registering it.
- the maximum annual fee for a domain ... (only examples, actual policies should be discussed)

This way:
- trademarks are resolved at the country level (which is already what happened in the civil way).
- no planet-wide conflicts about names
- any legal issues is resolved in the country
- a country can decide to have multiple registries or just one, or shared registries, ...

This is a non-sense to try to create a flat namespace of every object in the world, and it is not by adding more tlds that will help.

Regards, Marc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Marc Blanchet | Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca
ViaGenie inc. |
3107 ave. des hotels | tel.: 418-656-9254
Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada | fax.: 418-656-0183
G1W 4W5 | radio: VA2-JAZ
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Date: 1/6/97 8:39:14 AM
From: jw
Subject: Proposal
To: iahc-discuss
To: iahc-submit

Three high level observations, a high level proposal, and some afterthoughts: 


Observations:

1. I suspect the overwhelming preference of the Internet user community would be to have their names be the TLD's. Noone would want names under <myname>.com. or <myname>.net. if they could have names under <myname>. In reading the various lists over the past few months, I have yet to see a substantial obstacle to meeting this objective, at least in the longer term. 

2. Internet names are a resource for which the basic cost of creation is near neglegible. However, the interesting names have a real, non-neglegible market value. It is inescapable then that somebody will make money. Right now NSI is making money and some domain name speculators may also be making money.

3. What makes an interesting name interesting is that it is a memorable and recognizable way to identify an information/communications resource. Such a resource corresponds only to a leaf node of the DNS tree (the designation of a hostname or a mail destination). It is for this reason that I think of names corresponding to DNS leaf nodes as having "natural" value. The value of an internal node (a domain name) is "manufactured", relatively speaking. The value we currently attribute to an internal node is purely a consequence of the existing implementation and administrative policies of the domain name system. In particular, the current environment allows that internal nodes can be effectively, if not actually, owned.


Proposal

A single for-profit corporation should be created for the sole purpose of administering the domain name system (relax! you'll be an owner). The corporation effectively owns all internal nodes. The only names that any individual or organization may acquire are the names of leaf nodes. A name is created when someone proposes it. A proposed name is acquired by the highest bidder in an Internet-based auction process subject to some minimum bid, say $25 US 1997-01-01. There is an annual renewal fee for each acquired name which is the same amount as the minimum bid adjusted for inflation. Each acquired name represents a share in the corporation with full voting rights (I think certain bylaws would need to be immutable though). There is no form of equity in the corporation other than the that of an acquired name. Acquired names may be freely traded. At any time an acquired name may sold back to the corporation for the minimum bid amount. At that moment the name becomes unacquired and therefore loses its equity characteristics. 

A TLD may be any string of 3 or more characters in the appropriate alphabet that is not one of the current IANA sanctioned TLD's. I realize that, for performance reasons, new software may be required to, for example, treat the TLD word as representing an implicit hierarchy along the lines of an AVL tree (eg., TLD is 1st character, 2LD is the next 2 or 3 characters, 3LD is the 5th and subsequent characters if present). 

The corporation would, of course, be responsible for providing a web-based interface through which authenticated owners of acquired names would be allowed to easily configure their names (IP numbers, mail exchangers, etc.; but not NS records). 


Afterthoughts

1. WRT trademarks, I too sing the refrain: "leave it to the courts to decide". However, as means of detering frivolous bullying by TMO's I am tempted by the following policy: 

The TLD space is a trademark free zone. If trademark rights to a word that is in use as a TLD are enforced,
any use of that TLD by the TMO is prohibited.

So, if IBM were to succeed in barring the Inland Boat Makers Co. from using the name boats.ibm., IBM would itself be barred from using any name under that TLD.

2. I would guess that the auction period for a proposed name should be about 30 days.

3. So that organizations that have large numbers of hosts can efficiently acquire names for them, the auction mechanism should allow that the proposal, bidding, and acquisition processes be applicable to blocks of names.


Well, flame away.


Jim Welch
Troy Research

Date: 1/6/97 8:39:51 AM
From: Evi Nemeth
Subject: shared top level domains
To: iahc-submit
CC: evi
CC: kc
CC: sob

subject: shared top level domains considered harmful... 

guys, please, reconsider. very bad idea. it is simply NOT possible to run a tidy domain if it's shared.
(`tidy': network-friendly, encourages responsible network administrative behavior.)

we have a draft tld proposal that critically relies on a tld being clean, and will extract from it to illustrate my concerns. forgive the lack of polish, but i cut it to the critical pieces to save your time. 

------------------------------------------------------------------ 
our TLD proposal has the specific goal of Strongly Encouraging good DNS-ettiquette. to that end, we 
prohibit registration/renewal without:

1. current and accurate contact information (two live human contacts) 
2. reachability of primary and secondary nameservers, 
both of which must be in remote domains
3. no lame delegations
4. conformance to hierarchy if the TLD has a hierarchical
nature (e.g., geographic)
5. provision of latitude and longitude values for physical location 
6. web cache for large sites with significant web traffic
7. sensible mbone tunnels, if any, e.g., no tunnels hidden from downstream

we intend to automate the processing of applications and renewals, although a (moderately technically clueful) human being will review each application in an attempt to avoid any "domain bogosity". 
We will in fact contribute to a publically available community blacklist of spammers for use in more recent versions of sendmail (i.e., that support an /etc/spammers configuration file), and immediately cancel domains we support if we find them in such a list.

assumptions that frame our registration policy:

1. A domain name is merely a string that identifies
a particular computer or group of computers and has no intrinsic value.

2. Capturing names by registering them as a trademark in a random 
state ("kidnapping") and then claiming their trademarked status is
contrary to the intended character of not only the DNS,
but of the Internet.

3. Resolution of name disputes and challenges is the 
responsibility of the challenger and challengee, not
the registry.

4. Registration of domain names should involve imminent use thereof, 
and not just holding on to them for future need. In particular, 
a company registering every product they make is wasteful 
of DNS resources and not a behavioral mode we will support.
Likewise the practice of registering names likely to be of
value to another company, for example, registering delta-airlines.com 
when you are not associated with Delta, just to reserve the
name will not be tolerated. We will try to recognize such
"cyber-squatting" and refuse registration. 

5. Domain names must not have deleterious effects 
on the semantics of global DNS operation (e.g., edu.com).

In line with this framework, our registry will not attempt to resolve trademark disputes, although we may at our discretion refuse to register obvious name kidnappers even if they win the associated dispute.

Indeed, the registry reserves the right to refuse registration to anyone, although we will never base refusal on the traditional discriminatory parameters: race, religion, sex, etc. Rather we will base domain name refusal on the impact we deem its active registration would impose on the health of domain service.

Example cases

1. clue.com: Hasboro, manufacturer of the game called "Clue" 
tried to wrest clue.com from Clue Consulting, a small computer 
firm. We would refuse Hasboro's request to register "clue". 

2. roadrunner: (see Shaw paper)

3. kleenex.com: Proctor and Gamble registered every <product>.com 
that they manufacture. We would refuse their request. 

4. ski-area.com: An enterprising individual in Denver
registering aspen.com, vail.com, etc. and then selling the names 
to the ski areas for huge profits. We would refuse this request. 

5. Someone registering edu.com or com.edu;

6. Names that are registered and remain inactive for over 
a threshold period (eg. 6 months)

7. Shaw's paper has other examples...

Many domains currently have only a single person listed as both the administrative and the technical contact person. If this information is out-of-date, it becomes impossible to reach anyone responsible for the domain. We will require that the domain provide at least two distinct human contacts, and will verify the correctness of their contact information annually prior to renewal. 

Unless prohibited by the IANA, registrants will be able to suppress the address and telephone number information for their administrative and technical contact people. The registry would have that data on file and verify its correctness (reachability) annually, but would not include their information in the "whois" database if the registrant prefers it withheld.

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


please understand that our only motivation for applying for TLDs is to demonstrate 'how to run a tidy domain', and that it would really jettison our goal if domains were shared. 

we find the lack of accountability involved in shared domains really disconcerting. please convince me o/w if you disagree, but we just wanted to make sure you had the perspective of someone who's actually trying to propose and prototype a network-responsible domain registry.



-evi + kc

evi nemeth
assoc prof
computer science dept
university of colorado
boulder, co 80309-0430

kc claffy
nlanr research coordinator
uc, san diego
san diego, ca 92093-0505

Date: 1/6/97 8:41:57 AM
From: owner-iahc-discuss
Subject: Comments on draft-iahc-gTLDspec-00
To: iahc-discuss
To: iahc-submit
CC: Alan Sullivan

(NOTE from iahc-submit: I did not edit this draft at all to respect the indentation)

Introduction -
The comments made with regard to the IAHC proposal December 19,1996 
are indented. The actually text from the draft-iahc- gTLDspec-00 is
included for reference of comments. The general thesis of these 
comments is: "Shared gTLDs create many market barriers to registries."

IAHC should adopt a process that allows a free market of competing 
registries to offer exclusive service of a particular domain name 
space. This does not mean that the name space is not public - indeed it
is a public trust that is being cared for by competing custodial 
registries.


IAHC has decided to create further gTLDs as a means of increasing the
level of competitive supply and access to the gTLD space for the global
Internet community.

In addition IAHC has decided to ensure that the new gTLDs are all to be
operated in a shared fashion across a number of domain operators. This
is regarded as a secondary mechanism to ensure that each of these 
additional gTLDs are operated in an environment of a competitive market
for access to these name spaces, and the same checks and balances of the
competitive inter-gTLD access space also apply to the intra-gTLD space
through this mechanism.

Another way to ensure that additional gTLDs are operated in an 
environment of a competitive market would be to allow one registry per
a gTLD and not to limit the number of gTLDs. 

There seem to be conflicting edicts - 

* The .com, .org and .net are classified as existing gTLDs. IAHC will
define an additional set of seven (7) gTLDs. Any addtional gTLDs will be
defined under the aegis and policy coordination of the CORE, described 
below..

and

IAHC has decided to create further gTLDs as a means of increasing the
level of competitive supply and access to the gTLD space for the global
Internet community.

By the very definition given above IAHC will define 7 additional gTLDs
- not the market. By what means has IAHC determined that the gTLDs 
they decide to add will necessarily increase a level of supply 
demanded by the market? One could argue this is not competitive since
IAHC will limit the number of total additional to some arbitrary fixed
number (7). Registries can provide little market differentiation 
therefore a non-competitive regulated environment akin to public 
utilities will be created. 

It is noted by IAHC that competitive shared access to any domain 
registry is a useful market control mechanism to reduce the risk of
monopolistic trading practises. This is a core principle in IAHC's 
decision for administration and management of gTLD space. IAHC further
recommends this policy be considered by the relevant ISO 3166 TLD
national authorities and administrations.

IAHC should also note that competitive registries that have exclusive 
use of a domain name space also provide a useful market control 
mechanism to reduce monopolistic trading practices. What does IAHC
mean by "competitive shared access"? One could argue that what makes
sense - is "a competitive non- shared access" or "a non-competitive
shared access". One could argue that IAHC is really describing is "a
non-competitive shared access." Thus removing any incentive for good
service much like what is seen in the essentially monopolistic 
regulated utilities industry. It should be noted many areas are 
moving away from such non-competitive models.

It is noted that an immediate large increase of gTLDs does increase the
risk of impacting the coherence of the overall gTLD space, through 
increasing the level of complexity in the process of determining which
is the appropriate gTLD for any end consumer of these services to
choose.

How does increasing the number of choices a customer have in choosing 
domain spaces increase complexity and impact coherence of the Internet?

Therefore, IAHC will adopt an initially conservative approach to the
number of additional gTLDs, through the initial expansion in the first
annual round to a total of ten gTLDs. This entails the creation of seven
new gTLDs.

Let the market forces determine the number of gTLDs. Why does IAHC
want ten gTLDs? This seems like an arbitrary number. What not choose
100 gTLDs?




A REGISTRAR is the entity which is authorized to enter and modify a
registry's data, based on customer contact.

This definition for registrar seems straight forward and makes sense
a long as one assumes a registrar is THE entity and NOT one of MANY
entities as is suggested by:

A registry may have multiple registrars. A registrar may be authorized 
for multiple registries.

This definition of 'registrar' starts to resemble that of 'agent'. 

In determining the numbers of registrars for a registry, a fundamental 
issue is one of trust and cooperation. If multiple registrars share a
registry and they have a fully cooperative relationship, the repository 
for the registry can be maintained using fully distributed
data base technology.

If the registrars for a registry have a mutually suspicious relationship 
--
as is typical in competitive business circumstances -- then the 
repository for that registry needs to be operated by a trusted, 
independent third party, with simple rules of access. Particularly 
appropriate rules include fair use and assigning precedence for 
competing requests on first come, first served basis. 

How do you keep hostile non-cooperative registrars coordinated for
any registry? By definition on could argue these are not registrars. 
The registrars are more akin to ticket brokers or travel agents. 

Oversight responsibility for a registry rests with a STEWARD. If the
registry is a monopoly, the steward, the registrar, and the operator of
the repository are typically one in the same. When multiple, competing 
registrars exist for a registry, it is appropriate to have independent 
stewardship. This ensures operation of the registry as a public trust
for the Internet. It assesses performance of the repository and the
registrars, enacting changes as necessary.

Who will act as a steward and how will they be compensated? 

The ultimate goal for registries operating in the gTLD space is that any
qualified entity may be a registrar, and that every registrar shares
responsibility for registering domain names in all gTLDs. Noting its
concern for managing change to a critical Internet resource, IAHC 
believes that the number of additional Registrars authorized in the next
year should be limited to between twenty and thirty, with additional 
Registrars added at the rate of twenty to thirty per year, subject to an
annual review of the efficient functioning of the system. The limit on
the number of Registrars should be completely removed when the capacity
to register domain names in the present gTLD .com, .org and .net domains
become shared
among all Registrars.

The ultimate goal suggests name agents around the world. Even though
the concern for managing change is noble, the arbitrary limitation of
the authorized registrars creates a near term restraint of trade. Let
the market determine the number of registrars - not IAHC.

In order to ensure equitable international participation among 
Registrars, IAHC has determined that a fixed number of Registrars will
be initially allocated equally to each of the six (6) ITU designated 
geographical world zones (X.121 world zones 2-7); the current list being
available at <http://www.itu.int/intreg/itu-zones.html>. 

These zones do not reflect an equal distribution based upon the 
current Internet population. This is inherently unfair since more 
populated domains such as zone 2 and 3 will be under represented on a
per capita basis.

The selection of registries in a region will be by lottery among 
qualified applicants. Registrar rights are non-transferable to other
entities.

Why does IAHC limit the choice of registries by region and limit the
number of registries by lottery? Why does IAHC not let market forces
determine this? 

IAHC will establish the qualifications required of each applicant to
become a registrar. These qualifications will be objective and will be
subject to independent confirmation.

What are these qualifications? Much more space is devoted in the 
proposal to the lottery, quantity of gTLDS, geographic distribution, 
and other market barriers rather than the most important question that
is "What constitutes a qualified registry?" More importantly - rather
than IAHC concentrating on erecting market barriers (which the current
proposal has many), IAHC should determine the criteria of a
qualified registry. IAHC should develop a process for qualification, 
and let the market determine how many and what distribution of 
registrars, registries, and gTLDs exists.


5. Applicants must commit to sharing all gTLDs.

Registrars might have many legitimate reasons for not supporting all
gTLDs.

IAHC delegates stewardship for the set of gTLDs to the Council of
Registrars (CORE), comprising the multiple, competing gTLD registrars. 
All gTLDs are shared among all member registrars. 

Does that make CORE the steward referred to by? :

Oversight responsibility for a registry rests with a STEWARD. 

Registrars for existing gTLDs are encouraged to join CORE and abide by
CORE principles and rules, unifying the handling of all gTLDs and
obtaining equal benefits with other gTLD registries. 

Registrars are not required but only encouraged to join CORE? 

CORE will contract with an independent and neutral third-party for
operation of the shared gTLD repository data base (gDB). The specific 
details of gDB subcontracting and operation will be determined by CORE.

Who can apply to be subcontractors?

IAHC will specify the information to be required in all applications for
SLDs under gTLDs. 

This is clearly outside the IAHC charter. The reason this must now be
inclusive in the IAHC charter is because all power to determine what
is required from SLD applicants has been moved from the registries up
the hierarchy to IAHC. This is a good example of the types of problems
that exist when trying to implement a shared gTLD. There are probably 
lots of others. IAHC members will find themselves in an International 
Not So Ad Hoc Committee if they begin to takes up SLD issues. 

To promote accountability, discourage extortion and minimize obsolete 
entries, SLD assignments must be renewed annually. 

Again, this is outside if the IAHC charter. This should be up to the
registries to determine - but since the IAHC clearly intends these 
registries to share the registry - then they have effectively removed
this discretion and control from the registries. In a true free market
system, each registry would run their domain as they please. The market
would determine if their policies make sense. I think the market is
wiser than any committee.


There is no single, universal international law of trademark, so it is
not possible to reserve disputes involving trademark and domain names to
an international body applying a globally recognized body of law. 

Exactly - so why has the IAHC devoted a large section of the proposal 
to the trademark concerns for SLDs? Let each registry run their domain
as they see fit. If they have a policy that creates lots of problems -
they will not stay in business very long. Again - the market should 
determine this - not IAHC.

One gTLD registrar has attempted to address this problem by inserting 
itself as an arbiter of disputes between trademark owners and SLD
holders: The registrar will put an SLD on hold at the behest of the
owner of a trademark registration certificate if the holder of an
"identical" SLD, once challenged, cannot produce its own, trumping
trademark certificate or otherwise establish that its use of the domain
predates either the effective date or first use date of trademark 
registration. This well-intentioned policy, which has generated 
significant controversy, unjustifiably confers upon a non-judicial body
the discretion to essentially grant an injunction against continued use
of a SLD, without any adjudication of the merits of the trademark 
owner's claim against the domain holder. Such an approach is
inconsistent with basic tenets of trademark law and principles of equity
and fair play. The dispute policy unfairly burdens the domain holder -
who may actually have trademark rights
superior to those of the challenging trademark registrant. 

This describes NSI policy. In my opinion - this is bad policy. In an
open market - most businesses would simply take their business else
where. Right now that is not possible, since there are no competing 
registries.

In light of the legitimate interests of domain name holders and 
trademark owners, and in the overall interests of consistency and fair
play, IAHC strongly believes all gTLD registries and ISO country code
registries should, therefore, publish applications for SLDs, for a
period of sixty (60) days prior to assigning the requested SLD to the
applicant. Such publication should take place on a publicly available, 
publicized web site and include the SLD and the contact and use 
information contained in the application (see Appendix A).

However, in view of the fact that an existing gTLD registrar currently 
registers SLDs without a waiting period, the requirement that gTLD
registries institute a 60 day publication period will not be effective 
until that registrar changes its policy to include the 60 day 
publication period. In the interim, other gTLD registries are 
encouraged, but not required, to use this 60 day waiting period. Once
that registrar agrees to the 60 day publication period, CORE will 
implement the 60 day publication period immediately across the other
gTLD registries.

In my opinion this is a bad policy. This policy is somewhat like 
those of US gun control laws, that is to provide sufficient time for a
background check. Some US States have even gone to computerized 
background check systems to REDUCE this wait time. Publication for a 60
day period will be great for intellectual property lawyers looking for
business but at too large a cost to the Internet community. Leave it up
to the registry that is running a particular domain (which of course 
assumes NO SHARED REGISTRIES) to determine that policy. I would predict
that the market would reject ANY waiting period. 

To ensure immediate availability of some domain names, it is recommended 
that gTLD registries offer "random alphanumeric" domain names which
require no waiting period.

I would argue that the free market would also reject this policy. I
predict, if implemented - it would not be used - unless the need was
artificially created by an artificial waiting period. I would rather
just use my IP address, and I suspect others would too.

In further considering the existing operation of the ISO 3166 second
level domain spaces, IAHC recommends that the administrators of these
spaces add a fixed 60 day notification period between application and
delegation as a means of reducing the subsequent levels of litigation 
within these name spaces, as per the related recommendations in section
4 of this document relating to gTLDs.

I believe this to be a bad recommendation due to the reasons given 
above.

IAHC notes that the implication of the recommendation in section 5.4.4
is that there will be a consequent market demand for domain names which
are available within a more rapid period than 60 days. IAHC recommends 
that the administrators of ISO3166 name spaces consider the addition of
a functional name space, proposed to be a network user identifer: 
.nui.<iso3166-code>" . The characteristic of this space is that it would
be filled by randomly generated, meaningless alphanumeric strings, 
available within a short period after application, in order to provide
an alternative mechanism to
the process of obtaining a specified name which may include a 60 day
notification period.

What a complicated web we weave to accommodate that 60 day waiting 
period. We are now forced to introduce an artificial name space as well
as random artificial names to accommodate this artificial 60 day 
waiting period.

SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

The Domain Name Service is essential to the smooth operation of the
Internet. Changes to the structure or style of DNS operation therefore 
carry considerable risk. The specification offered here attempts to make
substantial changes to the administration and operation of gTLD names,
but limits the scale of those changes during an initial, "experimental" 
period, permitting expansion of the changes as experience dictates. 

What does this have to do with security?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The IAHC's efforts have greatly benefited from extensive on-line 
discussion, both within the committee and on public discussion lists.
Also, the Committee's open request for proposals resulted in numerous 
submissions from which some concepts and details in IAHC's proposal were
adapted. The current draft specification is the result of integrating 
the discussions and proposals, seeking a fair and practical balance. 

Please list the acknowledgments. It is good form to list all 
participants.

REFERENCES

[Post94] Postel, J. , Domain Name System Structure and Delegation, RFC
1591, March 1994.

There are clearly more references than this.



-- 
Alan Sullivan
President
Top Domain Registry Inc.

Date: 1/6/97 8:42:07 AM
From: Reza
Subject: New Names
To: webmaster

Dear Sir/Madam
As you know, many newspapers ans news wires have site on internet and I 
think all of them can be categorized in ".nws" group. 
Best Regards
Reza Farahani

Date: 1/6/97 8:42:09 AM
From: Warren F. Seltzer
Subject: TLD suggestions
To: iahc-submit


TLDs for COMPANIES:
Trade names make excellent SLDs, but "com" cannot contain them all. For global access to commercial organizations, I suggest the TLDs "inc", "corp", and "ltd". The companies would probably like to include their full name into their internet address. The (English) words Inc, Corp, and Ltd have the semantically identical function to the TLD "com". Com itself has become sort of a substitute for Inc, Corp, and Ltd. Customers and suppliers already know of and like "McDonalds Corp", "IBM Corp", et cetera.

TLDs for PEOPLE:
Often one wants to reach a particular person at home or at work, where ever that happens to be now. It could be useful for those individuals who wish, to obtain lifetime addresses, to be later mapped to specific sites as needed. These email addresses explain it all: "John-Smith.1234@home" and "John-Smith.1234@work". The registrars will need to allocate and resolve the numerous collisions of names, of course, in as user-friendly (memorable) a way as possible. This is not the only solution to the problem, but could be much more efficient than using search engines every time, and could make use of search engines more efficient as well. I think people would like to put their permanent Internet (email) name on a business card, High School yearbook, Birthday cards, Wedding announcements, Birth announcements, and so on.

There are a number of additional scenarios, (some of which follow) but the point is that 2 special TLDs seem to be needed to let any of this happen, as the whole idea is to transcend ephemeral employers and home addresses. 

Perhaps the authority issuing the birth certificate would want to issue the full, unique, email address. After all, it's nearly the same thing as a birth certificate serial number, but more useful. One could phone up or send email to "Jill-Q-Smith.CA1234@home". John and Jill will want the right to be able to block all such generic contact, of course.

The phone system is working on a similar dialing scheme for calling people wherever they are. The advent of Internet voice systems makes this especially relevant. For generic, life-long voice contact, I don't know whether a special protocol might be best - voice://Jill-Q-Smith@home. Or a special TLD - mailto://Jill-Q-Smith@voice. The former calls her house, the latter her internet phone, no matter where she is logged in, or even if she isn't. A way to block unwanted communication and retain privacy will be necessary.

A Bit Off Topic:
Certain TLDs should have the following standardized features: 

Industry will be well-served if there are standardized addresses for commercial web pages and email addresses, such as Complaints, PayBill, Promotions, Catalog-Sales, President, PurchaseOrders: 
mailto://complaints@ibm.com
mailto://complaints@LloydsOfLondon.Ltd
mailto://President@Odwalla.Inc

Standard site names for forms are likewise useful, For example, standard forms would be at:
http://Complaints.ibm.com
http://PayBill.ATT.com
http://PayBill.SearsRoebuck.Corp

The public should be able to guess the right spot from the company name.




Warren Seltzer
warrens@warrens.seanet.com 

Date: 1/6/97 8:42:20 AM
From: Mike Halleen
Subject: top level domains
To: iahc-submit

Hello,

I would like to suggest the following top level domains: .inc, .ltd, .ind

".inc" for corporations. This could releive pressure on the .com domain. This domain should only be available if the proposed name is the name of the registrant, i.e. exxon.inc would only be available to a corporation named Exxon. Exxon.com and Exxon.inc should not be given to the same Exxon, they should have to choose so that the other domain is available to other companies named Exxon. 

Similarly, ".ltd" could be used for companies that use the "Ltd." suffix.

".ind" for "individuals" and "independant" small companies. The ambiguity of ".ind" allows the domain to be used for personal use or for business. 


I do not like ".biz". I would not want this domain for my business. There is no letter "z" in the word "business." ".biz" is too informal. 


-- 
----------------
"There's a funeral home in this town, but I'm still alive." 
-Random cafe weirdo
The Grand Area http://www.mcs.com/~halleen/

Date: 1/6/97 8:42:21 AM
From: Thierry Bingen
Subject: Comments on Draft Specs for Admin & Mgt of gTLDs 
To: iahc-submit
CC: bernard.derubinat
CC: ray.foulkes

Following are my comments on the 

Draft Specifications for Administration and Management 
of generic Top Level Domains (dated 19 December 1996) 

1) Second Level Domains (SLD)

Statement
Although generally balanced, the policy is compulsive in terms of name usage: "there is a bona fide intent to use the domain name publicly within 60 days of registration, and a bona fide intent to continue such use in the foreseeable future". 

Criticism
Although this policy may be appropriate for small or start-up businesses, it does not suit the needs of large organisations. I cannot see any objective reason for imposing such hastened usage of a "reserved" name. 

Rationale
The names by which large companies may be known on the Internet are part of a complex (and often slow) business process. I will use a fictitious example to illustrate my point. My company operates in about fourteen <iso3166-code> domains, plus one gTLD. It is made of about thirty different visible legal entities, and at least sixty more less visible entities. Within the next five years, we will probably sell five entities and buy ten new ones. As we did a few years back, we will probably merge in the same foreseeable future with a comparable group. Out of respect for our customers, vendors, partners and employees, we wish to keep on using DNS names that are simple and intuitive. We are not interested in quibbling about these names, our business is not extortion, and we do not intend to apply for names that are unrelated to ours. For an organisation that will evolve from its current 12,000 staff to one of about 25,000, forcing us to apply for name changes and enforcing these within 60 days is simply impractical; these are not tactical moves, they are strategic. We wish to be able to make smooth transitions which may take YEARS before they complete, if ever. 

2) Repositories

Statement
A repository is said to "contain the primary data for a registry. It is important to note that a repository is NOT part of the operational (real-time) DNS". 

Criticism
There is no clear explanation of the hierarchical links between names in the repository and in the registries. I think that a clearer distinction between the roles of said repository and registries would add functional value to the repository. 

Rationale
In line with my comment #1 (about SLD), I think that repositories could also be used as placeholders for SLDs that are not yet operational. It would be an ideal place to keep names (whether trade marks or not) that are intended to be used as Internet names but are not yet ready to go on line. This would safeguard the genuine interests of those in the process of evolving their naming strategy while keeping others from making unfortunate choices. (In order to keep malicious organisations from abusing this facility, it might be wise to restrain entities to two or three such reservations.) 

Thierry Bingen
Technical Director

*--------------------*-------------------------------*
| Sema Group Belgium | Tel: +32-2-333 5 444 |
| rue de Stalle, 96 | Fax: +32-2-333 55 44 |
| 1180 Brussels | |
| Belgium | mailto:thierry.bingen@sema.be |
*--------------------*-------------------------------* 

Date: 1/9/97 3:23:07 AM
From: Dave Blinder
Subject: Re-draft
To: iahc-submit

That freedom the internet brings to an already overly bureaucratic society will be torn apart by this riga-ma-roll. This is happening because big business is getting involved and the party is over for all young entrepreneurs. The wild west is soon to be tamed by this draft, I hope to hell you at least think you know what your doing down there. This could blow up in every ones face!?

Dave Blinder
dave@ltspeed.com
*******************************
Light Speed Internet Associates
2667 Camino del Rio South
Suite 107B
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: 619-294-4493
FAX: 619-297-4469
Email: sales@ltspeed.com
http://www.ltspeed.com
*******************************

Date: 1/9/97 10:02:10 PM
From: Dr. Frank Antwerpes
Subject: Comment on IAHC proposal.
To: iahc-submit

Dear Sirs,

I think that parts of the IAHC proposal from Dec 19 are far from reality:

1. SLD Application Requirements

The application requirements for the assignment of a SLD (named in Appendix) will complicate the whole assignment process. If it needs a sworn statement to assign a SLD, how should it work over the net ? As far as I am informed, e-mails or electronic forms have no importance for later lawsuites. Does that mean we have to post around signed assignments via snail mail in near future ? Nowadays it needs 2 hours to get a SLD, will it be 4 weeks then (plus the 60 day publication period)?

Who is going to evaluate all the applications and will prove their "sworn" contents. The registrars ? And if, who is going to control them ? And, more important: Who is going to pay for all this "improvements" ? I think with 20 more InterNIC's there will be a lot more of paperwork and a lot more of payment, but not a bit more of justice.


2. Addition of .nui.<iso3166-code>

What should a website owner use a "randomly generated, meaningless alphanumeric string" for? As a provisorian domain name ? I would prefer to work with the old ugly IP number instead of communicating a confusing SLD to my clients.


Best regards

Dr. Frank Antwerpes

-- 

"Das Nichts nichtet nicht, es wird genichtet." (Jean Paul Sartre)
__________________
dr. frank antwerpes
antwerpes & partner gmbh
drususgasse 7-11 - 50667 koeln
phone +49.221.920530 - fax +49.221.9205333
http://www.antwerpes.de

Date: 1/10/97 4:16:31 AM
From: Michael Corso
Subject: Domain Name Recommendations
To: iahc-submit
CC: Mike Corso

To the Committee:

As the president of a 3 1/2-year old internet-based music marketing company I recommend that a domain name of ".music" be included as one of the new domain names. The enormouse number of web sites devoted to music suggest a strong need for such a domain name. I also recommend ".biz" as the most likely and logical extension of the ".com" heirarchy.

Many thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Mike Corso
C NOTES INTERACTIVE 
PO Box 439
Chappaqua, NY 10514
music@cnotes.com

Date: 1/10/97 5:02:27 AM
From: DCA
Subject: internet names
To: iahc-submit

Some names for your list:

countries names like
usa - fra - can - eng - aus - afr - ect.....

business names
biz - cap - can - sel - tch - ind - now - ord - vue - get - meu - luv - sex - 
buy - med - adv - trans - cmu - tru - bru - doo - 

educational
edu - lrn - tch - pla - wri - read - add - con - sup - grt - faq 

Date: 1/14/97 8:09:17 AM
From: Jim & Shirley Smith
Subject: suggestions for new domain names
To: iahc-submit

sch - for schools below the university level

rec - for fun , recreation and leisure

biz - for certain business groups

rel - for religious groups

med - for medical groups, hospitals, and medical data bases

sex - for porn sites

pol - for political sites

Date: 1/14/97 8:12:50 AM
From: Mark S. Velasquez
Subject: 60 day Publication Period
To: iahc-submit

Though I understand the purpose of the 60 day waiting period, and the need to protect the legitimate rights of others, the 60 day waitning/publication period will be quite problematic. Businesses that I have dealt with, don't want to be told that they may have to wait as much as two weeks to get their Domain Name registered. Sixty Days, will put an enormous burden on Business that are trying to enter the Internet. Perhaps the Domain Name can be registered immediately with language to the effect that the Domain Name is a "temporary" registration pending investigation of ownership conflicts, trademark infringments, etc., before the "permanent" registration is effective. 

Mark S. Velasquez, M.Sc. Engineering
Arisian Software, Inc.

Date: 1/14/97 7:22:51 PM
From: Daniel Kaplan
Subject: A collective contribution
To: iahc-submit

The following is a collective contribution. I will later provide more in-depth, but personal, comments on the Dec. 19 draft.

Daniel (who moderated the workgroup).

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

During the first French ISOC Encounters (Autrans, Jan. 9-11), a working group of about 20 persons gathered to comment IAHC¹s December 19 draft.

The working group reached the following 5 consensus points:

1- The origin of the problems IAHC is trying to solve is to be found in the unsatisfactory administration of the .com (and to a lesser degree, .net and .org) gTLDs.

2- The naming space (not including "leaf" domains belonging to registrants and which designate IP addresses), is a collective resource.

A corollary is that at the root, the management of the naming space should not
become a for-profit activity. This does not preclude the fact that, depending on
national sensibilities, the management of registrars may be a for-profit
activity.

3- The creation of each new gTLDs should be "for cause" and depend on the approval of its "charter" by a collective entity representing the Internet community. This "charter" should cover 2 aspects:

* towards registrars, "proper administration" provisions (transparency,
non-discrimination, sharing...). This may require some
completing of relevant RFCs;
* towards registrants, a set of criteria which will indicate wether a
specific domain name may, or not, be registered within a
specific gTLD. In order to avoid inducing multiple registrations which
would only recreate the problems we are trying to solve,
those criteria should (i) not be too generic, and (ii) derive as much as
possible from internationally recognized "real-world" criteria.

However, the working group does not believe that IAHC, nor any other group,
can provide an exhaustive and definitive way to pre-structure the naming space.
Trying to map the Internet's naming space with the real-world "naming spaces"
is neither possible, nor desirable.

4- In order to limit name conflicts and speculation, and to allow the resolution of conflicts, new registrars should all be located in one of the (132 to date) countries which have signed the Paris Union Convention on the protection of industrial property.

5- The recommendations IAHC formulated on the organisation of "national" (ISO 3166) TLDs should explicitely be directed towards the .us domain in priority.

As for other national domains, these proposals should be considered as an
interesting input and an incentive to provide a rational and efficient structure
for these domains, while taking into account each country's cultural, legal and
linguistic specificities.


Daniel

-------------------------------------------
Daniel Kaplan dkaplan@terra-nova.fr
Consultant - Media & Commerce Electroniques
- Electronic Media & Commerce
61 rue Monge - 75005 Paris - France
Tel/Fax +33 (0)1 4217 0754 GSM 06 0981 0377
-------------------------------------------

Date: 1/15/97 8:02:56 AM
From: owner-iahc-discuss
Subject: comments on the draft specifications for administration and management o
To: iahc-discuss
CC: heath

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT OF gTLDs BY CNNIC(Network Information Center of P.R.China)
(1/14/97)

I. Introduction

On behalf of the Internet community of the People's Republic of China, CNNIC strongly support the International Ad Hoc Committee's ("IAHC") proposed specifications for Administration and Management of gTLDs ("Draft Specifications") and urges its adoption. For reasons more fully discussed below, CNNIC believes that the provisions for SLD application and renewal, as specified in Appendix A and Appendix B are consistent with the IAHC's Charter, essential for the growth of an open and viable global Internet community, and will reasonably protect the interests of present and future stakeholders.

More particularly, CNNIC believes that such measures as requiring domain name applicants to provide, under oath, sufficient information regarding the applicant, intended use, reason for requesting a particular domain name, to agree to submit to the jurisdiction of a competent tribunal, and annual renewal of SLD must be included in the final specifications for Administration and Management of gTLDs.

In addition, CNNIC proposes that IAHC adopt a system for the disclosure of information provided in the application, under appropriate circumstances. Access to information concerning a registrant's identity, intended use and purpose for requesting certain domain name are critical, if affected third parties are to be able to assert their rights. cnNIC believes that where such a party can state a reasonably colorable claim --in writing and under oath, and is willing to pay the Registrar's administrative cost, then information contained in the Registrant's application should be release for that purpose only. A requesting party, in return must agree to indemnify the Registrar for all liability and damages arising from any misuse or abuse of information so provided.

II. Discussion

A. Reducing Abuse and Increasing Accountability 

By requiring all SLD applications to include information regarding the applicant, intended use and reasons for requesting certain domain name, and by requiring annual renewal, the Draft Specifications can significantly foster accountability, reduce abuse and fraud, extortion, deliberate dissemination of false information, and speculative hoarding of domain names for personal profit. Therefore, cnNIC support the use of SLD application and renewal as provided by Appendix A and Appendix B.

B. Reasonable Protection of Innocent Third Parties 

Likewise, by requiring the registrant to agree to submit to the jurisdiction of a competent tribunal in the country where the registrar resides, the Draft Specifications further ensures that innocent third parties will have the opportunities to have their claims properly adjudicated. Thus, the jurisdictional provisions in Appendix A and Appendix B should be adopted.

C. Facilitating Access to the Internet

When domain names can no longer be hoarded nor left to obsolescence through non-use, more suitable names will be available to new users. Because many future users are likely to come from the Internet communities in the developing economies, measures that will effectively prevent these users from being crowded out even before they are able to "get online" are crucial to the development of the Internet in those economies.

Also, we believe that the addition of ".tm.ISO country Code" will facilitate commercial use of the Internet in developing economies, without the user's having firstly to master complex international trademark and servicemark issues. 

We take this opportunity to point out that for developing economies, access to the Internet is one of the best expedient for obtaining new information, accessing distant resources, and facilitating development. Thus, free and open communication will raise the social welfare of these economies and narrow the gap between them and developed economies. Therefore, we urge the IAHC to redouble its commitment to developing international solutions to the management of the Internet, so that the Internet will always remain truly a public resource.

III. Conclusion

CNNIC pledges its support to IAHC for the adoption of the Draft Specifications. We recognizes that a perfect domain name registration system - one that proffers complete freedom to users and yet protects the rights of innocent third parties - is not yet tenable. Therefore, we believe that in the meantime, the Draft Specifications offers the reasonably available means for balancing the goals of open and free communication with that of user accountability and responsibility, the rights of present stakeholders with that of future stakeholders. 

CNNIC further urges IAHC to develop accompanying specifications for the disclosure of registration application information under appropriate circumstance, so to better protect the rights of innocent third parties and facilitate the adjudication of competing claims. 

China Internet Community is prepared to work with IAHC and the Internet community in furtherance of an open and fair Internet that is accessible to all who wishes to belong to this global community.

Date: 1/15/97 9:45:53 AM
From: KOON SANG LIM
Subject: Comments on IAHC draft for the Admin and Management of gTLDs
To: iahc-submit

Dear Sirs,
I have read the various press release and draft by the IAHC and had followed the discussions on various mailing lists in regards to the TLD issues. I appreciate the efforts put in by the IAHC members and would like to commend the IAHC for coming out with a comprehensive draft within a fairly short timeframe. 

I have the follwoing comments to make:
1. I agree and support the policy to treat TLDs as public resources and manage them under public trust. This is laudable. It will definitely stop many individuals and organisations from trying to exploit the situation and claim the "DNS Real Estate" without any contribution to the community.
2. I agree and support the concept of multiple competing registries as a typical end-user and member of the community.
3. 60 days publication period:
I believe this should only be applied to the Trademark specific domain space and would recommend that besides the International Trademark Specific space there should be similar Trademark specific domain space under each ISO 3166 TLD. For SLD not under the TRademark Specific space, there should not be any connection to any trademark except in the case when an individual or organisation try to register a SLA that has nothing to do with their actual names or business names. In such case, adequate justification should be required. Any Trademark dispute should be referred to the local Courts and neither the registrars nor IAHC should be involved.
4. The decision to make the existing gTLD to be shared is laudable. I personally believe NSI has been doing a great job but due to the current exclusivity enjoyed by NSI it costs NSI great deal of bad image and publicity. Opening up the exisitng gTLD will help NSI in the long run as I believe NSI, should it continue to do a good job, can compete effectively and efficiently even when the existing gTLD are shared.
Thank you and a belated Happy and prosperous New Year for all and thanks for the good works.
Best regards.
-- 
KS LIM
LOGIC GROUP OF COMPANIES
545 ORCHARD ROAD, #08-04/05
SINGAPORE 238882
TEL:65-7330553,FAX:65-7333068
E-MAIL: ks_lim@logchina.com.sg
kslim@singnet.com.sg

Date: 1/15/97 7:31:35 PM
From: Daniel Kaplan
Subject: Several suggestions on IAHC's draft
To: Liste IAHC IAHC
To: iahc-submit
To: isoc nommage
To: CA ISOC

Having worked on IAHC's Dec. 19 draft and followed the discussions so far, here are several opinions and suggestions by myself and Olivier Iteanu.

(disclaimer: the following remarks are personal and do not necessarily reflect the consensus of the working group Daniel Kaplan moderated, whose conclusions were mailed some days ago in another message) 

1- On the draft as a whole:
---------------------------
Although it can obviously be improved, we feel IAHC's draft in a good, sound proposal which will allow the Internet community to benefit from a better management of the naming space, while preserving such important principles as:
* technical stability (we very much favor IAHC's progressive approach); 
* the international aspect of the Internet
* the collective ownership of the naming space

2- On NSI's monopoly:
---------------------
The abolition of NSI's monopoly on administration of the 3 existing gTLDs should not be a prerequisite for implementation of iAHC's proposals; however, we feel IAHC, with the backing of the Internet community, should consider it as one of its top priorities and undertake all possible actions in order to provide this result. 

3- On the new gTLDs:
--------------------
3.1- The limitation to 7 (7 should be seen as an indication: it could be 5 to 9 depending on proposals) is a sound idea. However, it should be more clearly stated that in the near future (after an initial review period), a larger number of gTLDs could be created by a bottom-up approach, upon approval by CORE. 

3.2- Each new gTLD should be created and approved with a "charter". Apart from "good administration" provisions, this charter should include provisions on:
* the nature of entities or usages entitled to register names under that domain;
* access conditions. The charter for domains which refer to a common resource of the Internet, or are destined to non-profit organizations, should include a price- or profit-cap for registrars. 

3.3- The character string designating the 7 initial new gTLDs (and all gTLDs which IAHC or CORE may proactively decide to create) should take into account the diversity of languages in the world. The idea behind this is to choose "universally accepted" words or acronyms. Not discussing their other merits or flaws, .web or .alt have reached universal status among internauts, while .movie or .ent are only meaningful to English-speakers. 

4- On new registrars:
---------------------
We favor the initial limitation to 20-30 new registrars. In order to achieve that limitation, we would very much prefer an objective rating process to a lottery. However, we have as yet not seen any proposal to that end and therefore, will probably have to accept the lottery.

IAHC should however specify the review process which will allow the lifting of the limitation on new registrars.


5- On names and trademark protection:
-------------------------------------
We understand that most participants in the iahc-discuss list share the feeling :
* that registrars should avoid getting involved into name disputes 
* and that the new system should limit name disputes and name speculation to a minimum.

However, there are differences as to the solutions, mostly on the 60-days waiting period. We feel there are also other ways to reach the aforementionned objectives:

5.1- Request new registrars to be located in one of the (132 to date) countries which have signed the Paris Union Convention on the protection of industrial property. This ensures the courts of those countries enforce the trademark owners' rights, ie, there is a court to go to in case of a dispute.

5.2- Request registrants to provide, within 15 days of the electronic request and statements mentionned in Appendix A of IAHC's document: 
* signed paper copies of the statements;
* paper copies of whatever documentation entitling the registrant to ask for a specific name.
The registrar is not requested to check the validity of those documents. The idea is only that in case of a dispute, the registrar will turn all documents over to the court in charge, which will therefore be in a better position to assess both parties' good faith.
The request for paper documentation takes into account the fact that there is as yet no universally accepted electronic signature method. Regisrations could however be processed before the paper documentation arrives.

5.3- The reselling of domain names between unrelated entities should be forbidden (obviously, this provision will need some refining).

5.4- Name reservation, with no correspondance to an actual IP address or correspondance to a "non-pingable" address (forgive the non-technicians), should be made impossible. 

5.5- While we understand the concern behind the 60-days waiting period, we feel it is unenforceable because of the continuous push for speed in all business processes, most of all on the Internet. We also feel that this solution gives an excessive advantage to people who can constantly check the registration of new domain names. Several acceptable proposals have been put forth and could be combined:
* enforce 60-days wait in some specific gTLDs charters only (.tm.int is a good candidate);
* within other gTLDs, make the wait optionnal, advising registrants that they bypass it at their own risk;
* enforce a 60-days publication (not "waiting") period, on one central "new domains" repository accessible by a variety of methods.


Daniel

-------------------------------------------
Daniel Kaplan dkaplan@terra-nova.fr
Consultant - Media & Commerce Electroniques
- Electronic Media & Commerce
61 rue Monge - 75005 Paris - France
Tel/Fax +33 (0)1 4217 0754 GSM 06 0981 0377
-------------------------------------------

Date: 1/15/97 8:26:07 PM
From: Frank Apuzzo
Subject: Fees For Domain Names
To: ivo.essenberg

To whom it may concern:

A sincere thank you, to all involved, for your dedication and effort in attempting to solve the "Domain Name Dilemma." Here is an idea, (if you haven't already thought of it) that will add revenue and free up domain names while this issue is being worked out.

I understand that domain names were onced issued for free. The result of that policy was gluttonous name grabbing by many individuals and organizations. 

I recommend that you go back and demand payment retroactively, by the individuals and organizations who did not pay in the first place. 

Many of those people will pay because they rely on the domain name(s) for their business and I think $100 per name (for the first 2 years) is a very reasonable and affordable fee. This will result in a windfall of revenue, some of which can be used to work out a suitable solution to the "domain name dilemma." 

I also think you will find that many of those who scooped up large quantities of names based on pure speculation, aren't using those names and will not want to pay for them. Those names can then be recaptured, resulting in additional names and additional revenue once they are sold.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views and opinions. 

************************************************************** 
Frank Apuzzo * V.P. Marketing * Sales & Marketing Technologies 
425 W. Colonial Dr., Suite 304 * Orlando, FL 32804-6863
Work Phone: 407-422-4229 * Work Fax: 407-422-8633
E-mail: fapuzzo@smtorlando.com * WWW: http://smtorlando.com
************************************************************** 

Date: 1/16/97 12:39:02 AM
From: Denis Bucher
Subject: Suggestions
To: iahc-submit


Hello !

Those are my comments about new toplevel domains. I hope they are in the right place, and in the right form.

1. Domains like .com are super-user only because some toplevel coutries domains are TOO RESTRICTIVE or TOO EXPENSIVE. For example to register a domain under .fr you must fill out a lot of paper documents, pay 500$, and be a commercial or adm. entity.

2. First suggestion : A .cntry (country) toplevel domain would be nice to create (for example) something.fr.country at the official price of the new domains. It would be a good alternative to monopole markets.

3. I was choqued when I saw that you ask 20'000 US$ to organisations that would offer registration in those domains. How would you in Africa ? And in Europe, only big countries could do it, and WORSE : Only nic organisations that SURCHARGE their registrants will be able to pay that, while honnest nic (like nic.ch I think) won't be able to pay (I think !) ...

4. Some ideas about 3-5 toplevel domains (Which is what you want if I understood it well) :

.inet (Internet providers, services for Internet, etc)
.world (For all brands or organisations that really are spread WWW)

5. In the future why not become more specific thus avoiding all disputes about the same domain :
.food (Food, like Nestle.food Coca-Cola.food Pepsi.food)
.bank (Banks)
.comp (Computers brand, shops, etc)
...

6. You spoke about a way to avoid disputes. I would suggest to really take as the MAIN rule the first-asking first-served rule, but not at the second : If two persons ask the domain with a difference smaller than 20 days the demands are considered "in the same time", and a decision is based 1/ on official documents, trademarks, advertisements, general reputation and 2/ in the real arrival of demands.

7. If somebody uses pepsi.ch (Domain Pepsi in Switzerland) without making something about drinking and colas. For example a page about "Personal Emissions, Personnal Submissions Immediate" (It doesn't mean anything, but suppose it has a sense, not related to Colas), I would suggest that this person could keep the domain. I DON'T BELIEVE that domains like "Coca-Cola" BELONGS NATURALLY to Coca-Cola. I think that domains are something Internet-related, too much limited to belong legally to the real world :-| FIRST-ASKING, FIRST-SERVED, please ;-))

(Except in .tm domains)

Thank you and good luck :-)

Denis Bucher

-- 

Denis Bucher, \ Horus Networks Fax: +41-22-8000622 | Web designer &
dbucher@horus.ch \ info@horus.ch Tél. +41-22-8000625 | web provider

Date: 1/16/97 2:03:00 AM
From: Denis Bucher
Subject: Suggestions II
To: iahc-submit


Hello !

Another suggestion :

8. You shouldn't ask 20'000$ to future "nic"s but see if they are well organised because there is very big differences, for example :

.ch : 1 page to fill out in WWW and no problem 

.com : 8 pages easy to fill out in WWW and not too much problems 

.fr : 15 PAPER pages to order by snail mail, photocopy to have a double, fill out TWO times, sign, send to nic.fr, then receive a formular via send mail to create the domain (the first was to be registered as ISP), fill out the 6 (?) pages, send them via snail mail.

If somebody of .fr reads that, there is maybe some errors and I am sorry, but it shows anyway that somes systems are better than other (this is maybe intented to reduce creation of new domains) but anyway I don't think it's a good way to register domains on internet via snail mail ...

-- 

Denis Bucher, \ Horus Networks Fax: +41-22-8000622 | Web designer &
dbucher@horus.ch \ info@horus.ch Tél. +41-22-8000625 | web provider

Date: 1/16/97 2:45:05 AM
From: owner-iahc-discuss
Subject: Network Solutions' Response to IAHC Draft
To: iahc-discuss

Provided to the IAHC, the following is Network Solutions' response to the IAHC draft specifications for the adminsitration and management for gTLDs. You may also find this at Network Solutions' web site at the URL: 

http://www.netsol.com

Christopher Clough
Director of Communications
*********************************************************
January 14, 1997

Network Solutions' Preliminary Response to the IAHC's Draft Specifications for the Administration and Management of gTLDs.

Network Solutions understands that this first initiative taken by the Committee is an attempt to increase competition into the registration of Internet second level domain names (SLDs). The methodology chosen by the Committee is one of introducing additional generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)and selecting additional organizations to register those gTLDs. The Committee foresees the addition of seven new gTLDs to the three primary ones registered by Network Solutions. Under these new gTLDs, there will be twenty to thirty registrars having access to one or more of the registries. Further, a separate entity will be chosen as a repository for the database of the shared gTLDs and each new registry would be overseen by a steward.

Network Solutions is not opposed to these initiatives. We have always supported and continue to support competition in registration services. Network Solutions looks forward to participating in the process. We are willing and open to facilitating this goal as long as the process meets the needs of our customers, ensures the continued stable growth of the Internet and does not threaten the integrity of a system which works very well today. Although the methodology chosen by the Committee may not have been the approach recommended by all stakeholders, it addresses many of the concerns and issues of that constituency, increasing its potential for creating that "consensus" which is central to the goal of an eventual self-governing Internet.

We acknowledge, as does the Committee in its Preliminary Conclusions, that no one has the legal basis, delegated by statute or otherwise, to oversee and direct the affairs of the Internet. Without legal mandate, the Committee must seek and obtain consensus for its actions. The membership of the Committee, with its broad constituency, may be an organization which can bring the various constituencies to consensus. That consensus, however, must be consistent with the needs of the Internet's customers. As a key stakeholder and participant, we realize that our consensus is also needed. We will assist and participate in helping to form that consensus. Make no mistake, the Committee may make decisions which will forever effect the way the Internet operates.

Network Solutions, as the registrar for the existing gTLDs, has as much experience and knowledge as anyone in registration services. Our expertise has come at substantial cost and at an explosive pace. Thankfully, we have been overseen by the National Science Foundation, with its many years of experience in Internet affairs. As a successful incubator of networking technology, the Foundation has demonstrated that the coordinated partnership of government and industry can result in a greater common good, successful corporate investment, and continued development. By retaining its research and development focus, the Foundation has repeatedly demonstrated that an effective partnership may be achieved through careful seeding and sponsorship, cooperative agreement, commercialization, and the eventual removal of government oversight, allowing market-based evolution. The Foundation's goal is to foster growth and evolution in the Internet by protecting the stability and security of its participants, including its end-user customers. Under its aegis, registration services have become one of the successful, enabling functions in the Internet.

As the Committee noted in its Preliminary Conclusions, initial changes are to be of a relatively modest scale, in order to preserve "functional stability" and to decrease the "risk of impacting the coherence of the overall gTLD space." Network Solutions endorses this philosophy, because it is consistent with the past and future vision of Network Solutions and the Internet's key participants. The Internet customers' confidence must be protected and enhanced. To this ultimate end, Network Solutions is prepared to work with the Committee in every aspect of its new initiatives. 

Consistent with the stated goals, the Committee's plan acknowledges the continuation of Network Solutions as registrar of .COM, .ORG and .NET. The Committee also points out that Network Solutions should consider sharing its gTLDs in order to share in the registration of future gTLDs. Further, the plan calls for a Council of Registrars, to be formed, to self-govern the various aspects of Internet registration services around the world. The Committee also proposes that all new registries delay the registration of each "non-random" SLD for a 60-day waiting period. We need to evaluate these recommendations because of their potential impact on our customers. As your plan points out, Network Solutions' participation in various aspects of the plan will be impacted by and dependent upon its success. 

Much of what the Committee recommends may be accepted by the Internet community, including Network Solutions, pending a careful review of the detailed specifics of the plan and a better understanding of the impact of the specific implementation mechanisms. Each recommendation should be evaluated for its impact on customers, Internet commerce, technical feasibility, operational efficiency, and legality. It is our pledge to work with the Committee each step of the way.

NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.

Date: 1/16/97 6:49:23 PM
From: webmaster
Subject: [Fwd: DEADLINE: 60 day waiting period for ALL new domain names]
To: lovehhi
To: SilverBee
To: sterling
To: iahc-submit

I just wanted to forward this to you all. I didn't know if you read one of these news groups or not, or if you have heard of this. I know that it was nice for me to get my domain in 2 days and not waiting 60 days to get the domain name. I don't know what you think about it, but I think it plain SUCKS. It's not doing anything but making time for MORE arguements and MORE disputs about names. I think that it should be left the way it was. If there is a dispute, let the courts make the decision. I have a few reasons for this. My first reason, is that due to the court costs, people would think twice if it was really worht going to cour. Dealing with court time and court costs, and all the rest of the hassle. Second, Who are you going to argue to? Are you going to argue to the IAHC organization saying that I should have a name over someone else because of Trademarks or other legal issues? If you are going to argue legal issues, then it should be dealt with by the court system and not by the IAHC. And thirdly, should all of the rest of us, the oh 1 billion or so internet population be hassled by a few insignificant cases? We all have bookmarks. Most of us all use them. If we spend more time surfing with our bookmakrs and links off of pages, then actually knowing what the domain name is www.coke.com or www.coca-cola.com doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I think that most of these disputes are with people who have nothing better than to dispute with one another. And if that is the case, let them deal with it in the court system. Let them repramand the diputers for disputing such an insignificant thing, RATHER THAN, make the rest of the internet population have to suffer.

Just my thoughts,
Jared Barlow
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: message/news
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

From: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.misc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix,comp.infosystems.www.users,comp.infosystems.www.providers,comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html 
Subject: DEADLINE: 60 day waiting period for ALL new domain names 
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:00:42 -0800
Organization: Memra Software Inc.
Message-ID: <32DBF3FA.3907@memra.com>
References: <32D3C77F.70AF@esoc.esa.com>
Reply-To: michael@memra.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sidhe.memra.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I)
Path: 204.71.8.22!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!felix.junction.net!news 
Xref: 204.71.8.22 comp.infosystems.www.misc:54933 comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix:22260 comp.infosystems.www.users:2549 comp.infosystems.www.providers:3088 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:106248 

The deadline for comments on the new global domain name registration policies is Jan 17th. Read the full policy at http://www.iahc.org and send your comments to iahc-submit@iahc.org 

The following message illustrates the SERIOUSNESS of this whole affair. Do you really want to wait 60 days for every new domain name to be registered?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:16:44 +0000
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <o.crepin-leblond@ic.ac.uk> 
To: Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>, sully@frontiernet.net, 
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@imc.org>
Cc: iahc-discuss@iahc.org
Subject: Re: How does a 60-day waiting period promote URL stability? 
(was some$

Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com> says:

> The idea is to *compress* the vulnerability to some extent (hopefully, to a
> great extent). The idea is (after a few court cases have been decided)
> that if some trademark owner who (if they would only admit it) really has
> no gripe other than that they wish they had signed up for a domain name
> before someone else, sleeps until a couple of years later, and only then
> goes to court, the judge will look at them and say:
>
> "where were you during the 60-day opposition period?" 
>
> They won't have any decent answer, and the judge will send them home.

Carl,

I clearly understand your point, but doubt about the judge's decision in the above scenario.

I've given facts twice already, and you haven't cared to comment: 

FACT 1:

The 60 day waiting period will slow-down business on the internet. It will put a strain on startups both in the connectivity business and Web design business. An Internet year is 3 months long and 60 days is 2/3rds of a year.

FACT 2:

Publication of a domain name for 60 days prior to its use is detrimental to open conpetition in some cases, by taking away the element of surprise for a project to be made public.

FACT 3:

There will always be a market for immediately obtainable domains which are not subject to a 60 day waiting period. The prevention of domain hoarding by pirates put forward as one reason why a 60-day period is required will be replaced by a trade where companies will register lots of new domains, wait for the 60 day period, and then re-sell them to their clients as/when required.

FACT 4:

Until the first court case of a domain dispute where the domain has gone through the 60-day approval/publishing process takes place, the idea that domain names are going to be safer from dispute, and that this will make the Internet domain naming more stable is speculative.

In view of the above facts, there is understandably a great amount of resistance in the Internet community to the idea of having a 60-day compulsory waiting/publishing period.

I will therefore repeat the proposal that an inspired soul (and I am sorry I have forgotten who it was) has come-up with in this forum, and that is to make the 60-day period *optional*.

If a domain name requestor does not need the added safeguard of a 60-day publishing period, then let them do without it. For those that will want the added safeguard, they can choose the option of having the 60-day safeguard in place.

This solves FACT 1, FACT 2, FACT 3, and leave FACT 4 to be decided accordingly.

In view of the amount of tension that the subject of a 60-day waiting period has caused in the forum, I can speculate that there may well be a similar amount of tension within the IAHC, and I think that the above proposal is the *only* solution that will make everybody happy.

Freedom of choice is one of the world's basic human rights.

Kind regards,


--
Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, EE Dept | Also: Global Information Highway Ltd.
Imperial College of Science, Tech. & | Mobile: +44 (0)956 84 1113
Medicine, London SW7 2BT, UK | Fax: +44 (0)171 937 7666
<foobar@ic.ac.uk> In Funk We Trust 
<foobar@gih.com> 
--------end forwarded message--------

Date: 1/16/97 8:34:26 PM
From: owner-iahc-discuss
Subject: .africa gTLD
To: iahc-discuss

I propose the creation of .africa gTLD as a shared registry, which should be included in the first group of new registries. Such a decision should lead to a more vibrant Internet in Africa. As a matter of fact, it would:

- Give the African private sector a level playing field vis-a-vis the country domains (ISO 3166) monopolies, managed by Government agencies.

- Create a free and competitive climate, attractive to private investment capital and financial institutions, business partnerships, etc.

- Lend substance to a pending proposal for the creation of NICAFRICA. 

Finally, even though the name proposed here exceeds by one character the word length (5 characters) recommended by the IAHC, an extra byte should not prevent the IAHC from considering this proposition. Otherwise, an alternate name could be .afriq. 


Tierno S. Bah 
President/CEO 
AfriQ*Access, Inc.

Date: Thu Jan 16, 1997 12:20 pm EST 
Source-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 12:48:00 GMT
From: Gymer, Keith (Internet on MCI)

To: 'Maher, David (Internet on MCI)
To: Albert Tramposch (Instant on MCI)
To: 'Sally Abel (Internet on MCI) 

Subject: COMMENTS ON IAHC PROPOSAL
Message-Id: 53970116172035/0003765414DC3EM
Source-Msg-Id: <32DE23AC@ah2gate.agw.bt.co.uk> 



Dear All
Here are comments from BT as a major trade mark owner and network and service operator. These comments have been drawn together from discussions with several other major UK trade mark owners (eg Marks and Spencer) and representatives of organisations with trade mark interests. As a service provider, BT is firmly of the view that it wants stable domain names that are not going to be subject to dispute, both for itself and for its customers. We would also like to see a system which will improve ease of use of the internet for our customers. Given the range and number of abusive domain name registrations which we have directly experienced ourselves, we also have no doubt that better rules and first line dispute resolution procedures need to be established to pre-empt abuse of trade marks. Our conclusions are that this will require separation of commercial and non-commercial namespace(s) and would be most effectively and practically achieved by incorporating neutral trade identification elements within domain name structure, along the lines detailed below. We appreciate the difficulties you are up against in the task you have to face and thank you for your past efforts to address the concerns which have been raised. Please let me know if there is anything more we can do to help from our side.

Best regards

Keith Gymer
BT Group Legal Services
Intellectual Property Department
Holborn Centre
120 Holborn
London
EC1N 2TE
Tel: +44 (0)171 492 8129
Fax: +44(0)171 242 0585

A copy of the comments below can be provided in the original Word6 format
(uuencoded or by fax) if this would assist.


COMMENTS ON IAHC PROPOSAL:
Draft Specifications for Administration and Management of gTLDs
(draft-iahc-gTLDspec-00.html)

Key Points
1. Introduction of new gTLDs, unless subject to stricter rules and formal structure for domain names, will only multiply and replicate existing trade mark problems experienced in .com, .org, .net and elsewhere where trade mark abuses occur because the existing domain name rules and dispute policies are either inadequate or unenforced.
2. Rules for new gTLDs should enable and enforce strict separation of commercial namespace(s) from private personal and other non-commercial namespace(s)
3. Commercial namespaces should allow all businesses a "level playing-field" to register and use their trade marks (registered or not) as domain names just as they would use their marks to identify goods and service inthe real world. This could easily be done using "trade" and "country" identifiers in commercial domain names, (not spurious random numbers or nothing at all) to distinguish businesses with rights to the same mark. Commercial namespaces should have appropriate formal structure to enable this.
4. The 60 day period for early objection to registration of a domain name is strongly supported - if, in response to complaints from some commentators, IAHC decides that use of a domain name should be allowed during this period, then such use must be only allowed provisionally and the domain name must be subject to suspension on objection.
5. Registrars cannot disown responsibility for allowing delegation of a domain name (cf. NSI failed interpleader) - therefore they need to establish at least first line, fast track dispute resolution procedures, using independent expert adjudicators to consider and take initial decisions on objections raised in the 60 day period.
6. Trade mark specific subdomains (and a .tm.int) are unnecessary and are unlikely to assist in reducing conflicts, unless registration of a trade mark in such a specific namespace automatically precludes registration of the same mark in any other namespace at the relevant national or gTLD level.
7. The DNS should not be degraded by introducing random number elements or random domains - random numbers do not help reduce trade mark owners concerns and are contrary to the original purpose of the DNS which was to substitute user-friendly names for unmemorable IP addresses.
8. The DNS can still be "user-friendly" and provide an effective means of reducing the potential for disputes and improve the usability of the Internet for the majority of users yet to come if relevant "trade" and "country" identification is included as a neutral element in any COMMERCIAL domain name. The DNS can then serve as its own directory.

Detailed Comments:

Nature of TLDs
Whether to Create New gTLDs
Which gTLDs to Create

1. The IAHC has a task equivalent to squaring the circle in trying to reconcile respect for existing trade mark rights, which are fundamentally national in nature, with the establishment of more pseudo-international, generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs). It is doubtful that this can be satisfactorily achieved without also establishing more comprehensive and prescriptive rules for allocation of names in commercial gTLD namespaces. Therefore, the IAHC statement that registration in a gTLD may be made "without having to conform to any particular criteria" is inappropriate. If the introduction of new gTLDs is not to lead to a substantial multiplication of problems for trade mark owners, then we believe the specification of particular criteria in the form of suitable rules for registration is essential.
2. If new gTLDs are introduced, they should be made generic only in respect of specific interest groups. It is desirable to have ordered and orderly, genuinely commercial namespace(s) effectively separated from any personal and non-commercial namespace(s). Thus, it would seem desirable to introduce, say, a .pers namespace for private individuals (not for commercial use) and a .alt namespace for alternative discussion/commentary, again purely non-commercial, whilst .org should be retained for non-commercial organisations and .net for genuine network operators/service providers. Otherwise, if a gTLD suffix is to have no discriminating effect, why bother with it at all?
3. If the gTLD suffices and gTLD rules are not to provide effective distinction between gTLDs, the potential for conflicts might at least be alleviated slightly provided that the same mark or name could not be registered in more than one gTLD without consent of the registrant(s) of the same mark or name in any other corresponding gTLD. (i.e. if we just have commercial gTLDs .com1, .com2 etc., the domain names . and . would require consents analogous with the situation in many trade mark laws.)
4. The formation of more gTLDs without stricter rules on allocation of sub-domains, (probably down to the third level), will simply result in replicating the problems already experienced in .com.
5. The proposed formal removal, rather than stricter enforcement, of the special criteria which are supposed to apply in the .org and .net namespaces just allows the registrar to abdicate responsibility and amounts to a validation of the abusive registration of names in these spaces by entities which have been allowed to use these namespaces inappropriately, because the responsible registry failed to implement any effective procedures for preventing such abuse. Failure to apply the special criteria for these namespaces only serves to multiply the scope of the potential problems for trade mark owners seeking to protect their legitimate rights, because they are forced to watch these namespaces as well, whereas if applicants bona fides were properly checked, these namespaces would not be relevant to most commercial businesses.
6. The proposal for better use to be made of the .us namespace is strongly to be supported. Rather than new gTLDs, it would be preferable to see new SLDs in the relevant country namespaces.

Registries and Registrars

1. Whilst the desires for a competitive market in domain name services is understood, it is questionable whether a competitive market is appropriate for registration of unique names in what is seen as a public resource (the namespace). We do not have competing trade mark registries in the same jurisdiction.
2. In any event, if registrars can ultimately only compete on price, it must be anticipated that the market will not support large numbers of registrars, and that business will simply go to the cheapest. This will likely result in survival of at most a few registrars all charging equivalent fees.
3. Conversely, if multiple registrars are supported by the market and are added at the rate of 20-30 per year, as suggested by the IAHC, it is submitted that the proposed structure for the Council of Registrars (CORE) will rapidly become unwieldy and impractical (for every new registrar, a new independent member of CORE is needed as well!)

Existing gTLD Registrars

1. It makes a mockery of any proposal if the implementation of any new rules is to depend on the optional adoption of such rules by existing gTLD registries (i.e. NSI). NSI s non-cooperation would simply render the IAHC proposals nugatory.
2. Any new rules must apply automatically to existing gTLDs and, as a matter of equity, NSI should be required to submit to the bid and lottery process if it wishes to continue administration of the existing gTLDs under the new rules.

Second Level Domains

1. We strongly support the IAHC proposals for more detailed information to be required of applicants for domain names (although as discussed below, our view is that in general it would be preferable to delegate at the third level and have a neutral second-level domain for identifying the nature of the business and the country where a business is established).
2. Sufficient details about applications, registrations and applicants and registrants must also be publicly available for searching purposes, as is now the case for major trade mark registries like the UK. The objections raised in some quarters about not providing such information to protect privacy are red-herrings in this context and should be dismissed.
3. We would raise a caveat regarding the proposal for submission to the jurisdiction "in the country where the registrar resides". For consistency between registrars it might be preferable to specify, at least as a first step, resolution of disputes according to some suitable international rules of arbitration (e.g. WIPO, International Chamber of Commerce) or for IAHC/CORE to lay down consistent procedural rules themselves. Further, it would not be desirable to have registrars establish themselves in jurisdictions where trade mark laws might be weak, simply to make it more difficult for trade mark owners to take effective action. Certainly, no registrar should be permitted to set up other than in a member state of the WTO, signatory to the GATT/TRIPS agreement.
4. The need to recover lame delegations and discourage warehousing is agreed. However, the imposition of renewal fees could pose an unnecessary burden on trade-mark owners who have felt obliged, because of the slack administration and allocation of domain names, to register a range of variants of their marks simply to stop others pirating them. This frequently means organisations have a number of domain name registrations which, ideally, they would rather not have to maintain, but are forced to keep because the relevant registrars won t otherwise prevent such names being reissued - paying for the unwanted registrations is generally cheaper than having to litigate against pirates who might otherwise misuse them. BT, for example, has been forced into this situation by repeated piracy of variants of its well-known trade mark "British Telecom". For this reason, we have had to acquire and maintain britishtelecom.co.uk and britishtelecom.net, in addition to british-telecom.co.uk and british-telecom.net. We believe, therefore, that rather than force companies to pre-emptively register such variants, it would be desirable to automatically block their issue once a basic registration was in existence. Variants which take advantage of the gTLD suffix to misappropriate a trade mark (eg britishtele.com) should also be disallowed.

Trade Mark Concerns

1. It is understandable for the IAHC to seek a policy in which registrars are involved as little as possible in trade mark disputes. However, we believe that IAHC member Albert Tramposch identified the fundamental problem with this in commenting on iahc-discuss when he stated (about the failed interpleader in NSI v. Clue Computing): "..the registry was not a disinterested stakeholder, but rather was a party to a contract (the registration itself) that was fundamental to the lawsuit. In other words, the registrar created and issued the domain name for the purpose of its use on the Internet; it cannot therefore remove itself from the conflict." In our view this analysis is absolutely correct. BT and other companies affected by one pirate case in the UK have in fact made arguments along exactly those lines against the UK registrar, Nominet UK, for issuing the relevant names to the pirate.
2. Proposals which attempt to remove the registrar altogether from involvement in a dispute or which attempt to disown any responsibility, therefore, are likely to fail. Nonetheless, we agree that from a practical perspective the registrar is unlikely to be qualified or suitable as an appropriate arbiter in such disputes. However, because the registrar IS unavoidably going to be involved in giving rise to potential conflicts, we consider it appropriate and necessary that the registrar should have a duty to establish first level procedures for dispute resolution. The registrar could then remove itself from the dispute as far as possible by delegating the hearing and decision to an independent arbiter. We have discussed the possibility of introducing such procedures in the UK and we understand Nominet UK has been investigating the practicalities of setting up an independent panel of qualified experts for that purpose. Clive Elliott has made similar suggestions in his submission to the IAHC "A proposed structure for lodging domain names and dealing with initial disputes" (draft-iahc-elliott-id-00.txt). It would be desirable for dispute resolution procedures to follow suitable agreed international rules as noted above.

60-day publication period

1. We strongly support the proposal that there should be a period for consideration of objections before a domain name delegation is confirmed by a registrar. Objections must also be considered on all relevant trade mark grounds - ie. there should be no artificial limitation (as with NSI's policy) restricting objections only to cases where trade mark and domain name are identical. Confusing similarity and use of marks in combination must be grounds for objection just as they would be in normal trade mark proceedings (i.e. it must be possible to use the procedures to prevent abuses like britishtele.com and bt-mci.com which NSI apparently does not consider objectionable under its inadequate dispute policy.)
2. However, for the reason given above, we do not believe it is acceptable for a registrar simply to leave it to the disputants to come to a resolution within 60 days and to disown any involvement itself. Before a trade mark is registered, it is generally subject to a period of opposition. If an opposition is filed, the trade mark registries usually have procedures, short of full scale legal action, for resolving such disputes and either allowing or rejecting a registration. Domain name registries should establish similar procedures, otherwise, once the 60 day period expires the only recourse for a complainant will be immediate, full-scale legal action.
3. We recognise that considerable opposition has been voiced on iahc-discuss (at least by a small number of vociferous objectors) to the introduction of any period of delay between application for and delegation of a domain name. We cannot judge how representative these objections are of feelings in the internet community as a whole. However, we are unconvinced of the arguments that this delay would cause significant problems. A domain name simply stands in for an applicant s IP address which can be used during the 60 days and which would continue to work whether or not the requested domain name was delegated thereafter.
4. However, if the IAHC is minded to consider reducing or eliminating the 60 day period, any alternative proposal must make it worthwhile raising objections promptly. If early use is allowed, then the potential for damage to a trade mark owner s rights would be significantly increased, so the possibility for a delay to be activated in the event of an objection (i.e. by suspending the delegation) should still be retained.
5. Difficulties arise, of course, because registration of trade marks and domain names differ in some key respects. A trade mark may be used before it is registered, but exclusive rights only effectively arise on registration. A domain name, on the other hand, cannot be used before it is registered (delegated) but is immediately exclusive - no one else can use the same domain name.
6. One way of meeting the objections about delaying use, whilst also recognising the concerns of trade mark owners that domain names should be open to objection before registration is confirmed, would perhaps be to make delegations "provisional" on no formal objections being filed within the 60 days, but subject to immediate suspension if objections were made in that period (i.e. the domain names would be usable at the applicant s risk before the end of the 60 day period, but would be suspended if an objection came in during that period). After the expiry of the 60 day period, the provisional delegation would mature into a registration. The registrar would then no longer suspend the delegation on , other than in the event of a court order. This would surely encourage any objectors to act quickly.
7. Such a proposal would necessarily require there to be a fast-track dispute resolution procedure (as outlined above) to initially resolve such objections and enable a decision to be reached quickly on whether the delegation should be confirmed or rejected.
8. There are clearly issues over costs and damages which need to be addressed in any dispute procedure. It should be possible to discourage vexatious applications and objections by requiring a fee to be paid in each case (i.e. no registrar should delegate a domain name, even provisionally, unless and until he has been paid the relevant application fee and no objection should be entered unless the equivalent objection fee has also been paid. As a matter of equity, these fees ought probably to be the same. The objection fee should be refundable if the objection is upheld.)

Immediate SLDs

1. These would seem likely to be unattractive to users and are surely unnecessary - for a given site, a random domain name would have to change when the preferred domain name was registered, but the underlying IP address would still be the same and could certainly be used for web access anyway whilst the preferred domain name was in the waiting period.

Other Name Spaces

1. The recommendation that national namespaces, especially .us, should adopt broadly consistent second (or further) level name structure is welcome.
2. However, the references to the supposed differentiation of .net and .org namespaces is inconsistent with the IAHC proposal not to apply the original special criteria to these namespaces at gTLD level. In effect they might as well become .com2 and .com3. The point of having a distinct suffix is lost once you concede that anyone can register in any of .com, .net or .org.
3. For the reasons expanded upon below, we do not consider that a simplistic .tm SLD namespace is necessary or desirable at national or international level.
4. We support the recommendation that national registries should implement waiting periods prior to delegating domain names. We would also strongly recommend that national registries should implement periods for raising objections and independent, first level, fast-track arbitration to provide an initial resolution of disputes as discussed above.

Trade Mark-specific Domain Name Spaces

1. We agree with the stated principle that "each trade mark owner should be entitled to a domain name which contains its trade mark, even if there are multiple owners of registrations for the identical trade mark". However, this principle must not be restricted only to registered marks, but should also apply for unregistered, common-law marks as well. In any event, relegation of trade marks, registered or not, to a .tm SLD does not address the potential problems of confusion with, and disadvantages relative to, the same trade marks appearing in other gTLDs.
2. Practically, the only desirable function for a national .tm SLD namespace would be if registration of a mark there meant that registration of the same or a confusingly similar variant in any other commercial namespace in that country was then precluded (in the absence of express trade distinction in the domain name). However, as the IAHC states, this is not the present intention. There would be no obligation to register in the .tm SLD and there could not legally be any adverse consequences or estoppel for not having a registration there. Equally such registration would not prevent trade mark conflicts in other gTLD.
3. Whilst domains in commercial namespaces remain the domains of choice, and so long as commercial namespaces are open and inadequately structured and controlled, then .tm SLD namespaces will be as irrelevant and unused as are the existing .plc.uk and .ltd.uk.
4. What commercial organisations want is the proverbial "level playing field" - the equitable opportunity to use their trade marks in domain names just as they would use them in the real world. This means that the commercial domain name spaces (emphasis on "commercial") need to be structured to allow peaceful co-existence of multiple owners of the same mark. And therein lies the key to a practical solution.
5. In the real world, businesses co-exist using the same marks because they are using them (a) in different countries, and/or (b) for different goods or services. This strongly suggests that any practical structure for COMMERCIAL domain namespace should reflect that differentiation. i.e. Domain names should have a neutral element (eg at the second level) which identifies the business and the country of establishment.
6. Instead, the IAHC has proposed that, in addition to allowing marks to be registered first-come, first-served, in the form . in each gTLD, we should also have an infinite number of potential registrations of the form <.tm>.TLD. This will just add to the potential for confusion and litigation. It certainly won t help users and consumers identify or distinguish the business they are looking for. For trade mark owners, also, the addition of random number tags would introduce an inappropriate limitation to the scope of their rights through acquiescence to the use of the same marks (i.e. in domain names with no distinctive difference) - no trade mark registry would allow registration of the same mark distinguished only by addition of a random number sequence. Trade mark registries, of course, would make a distinction on the basis of differences in the relevant trades.
7. Thus, it is submitted, what is required for commercial namespaces is not the introduction of spurious random number sequences, or ".tm" subdomains, but express trade and country categorisation.
8. This would mean, for example, instead of having ..., businesses would have ... Instead of having confusion between (say) guardian.com; guardian.gTLD1, guardian.gTLD2...guardian.gTLD7, guardian0587.tm.xx, guardian0967.tm.xx etc. etc., we would have a structured namespace with (say) guardian.news.uk; guardian.ins[urance].uk etc.
9. The trade categories would need to be more like a consolidation of Yellow Pages directory classifications rather than just the 42 trade mark classes (which would be insufficient to allow unique differentiation of businesses for domain name purposes. These categories could be developed nationally to reflect national differences in the types of business which exist.
10. In cases where a mark is nationally famous, and could claim wider protection for its mark, then . could be allowable.
11. If we are to be forced to have more gTLDs, then except where businesses have marks which are genuinely, internationally famous, they should be obliged to identify their country of establishment and business type. This could easily be incorporated in a SLD with the trade ID:- eg. ... (At gTLD level, it is conceivable that the gTLD suffices themselves could be made the trade categories - this would mean several hundred (rather than 7) new gTLD would need to be created, and it would be absolutely essential to have strict rules to ensure businesses were registered in the appropriate trade category and national differences were catered for. However, this is obviously easier said than done, so for various reasons such a change would probably not be practical in the short term!).
12. If a formal structure, relevant to the real world, can be implemented for COMMERCIAL namespace, then surely browsers would very soon be adapted to the benefit of all to provide real-time selection equivalent to directory services - i.e. a browser would be set to select for businesses in a specific country and in a specific trade, so that the user would still only need to enter the trade mark he knew to locate the business required. This would be to the advantage of users, businesses and the internet generally since it would reduce the potential for confusion and wasted time and bandwidth spent on searching through many sites to find the one which is wanted. In contrast, the IAHC proposals will not help reduce confusion or help users quickly and conveniently find the business they are looking for.
13. All of these changes could be made under existing gTLDs. The IAHC could use its influence to promote the introduction of rules to give such structure to commercial namespace. (New gTLDs would still need to be established to separate non-commercial and personal namespaces from commercial namespace - the proposals here are directed at commercial namespaces.)

International trade mark domain name space

1. If there is a pseudo-international, .tm.int gTLD, with rules restricting registration to registered trade marks, then why bother with the .tm.int at all? In such a TM namespace, clearly only genuinely internationally recognised marks should be allowed (is there a role here for WIPO in adjudicating on claims to international repute?). So why require kodak.tm.int, for example rather than just .kodak?
2. Internationally famous marks are surely the only ones entitled to be used as TLDs in their own right, so why not just allow .kodak, .ibm, .exxon, .coca-cola etc. (but perhaps for a very large fee!!!)
3. If registration of marks in a .tm.int is not restricted to genuinely internationally famous marks then it will simply invite more disputes. For the reasons already given above, simply allowing any trade mark owner to register and then differentiating domains by random number is not desirable - if owners have to use random numbers, they might as well just use their IP addresses.

User-friendly directory

1. The DNS was introduced because IP addresses were not user friendly. If domain names are now to be degraded with random number strings (so that, in the IAHC s words, they "may not be particularly user friendly") it seems we are just going back to square one.
2. Proposing a "user friendly directory" on top of a degraded DNS looks like asking for a DNS on top of a DNS! This is surely superfluous.
3. The directory function can and, in my view, should conveniently and directly be implemented within the existing DNS as it stands. That is, as described above, by introducing a formal structure into COMMERCIAL gTLD (which could be done without necessarily creating new commercial gTLD) which is aligned with the real world structure, distinguishing businesses by country and by trade.
4. Those who have been at the internet frontier may complain at the imposition of a new order on their previous free-for-all, but the demands of civilisation and the need for stability in trade have always meant that ultimately a formal framework and appropriate rules have been introduced as nations have developed from frontier states into mature societies. The potential for commercial growth of the internet is such that, if we want it to develop into an effective environment for business and leisure then the challenge of imposing a sensible and ordered framework to manage that growth must be met now. If it is not, and the indications are that the present IAHC proposals are unfortunately do not go far enough to meet the challenge, then it seems likely that the utility of the DNS will be lost altogether and users will have to make their way through a chaos of confusingly similar and identical names in different namespaces with nothing to help differentiate between them. In the short term, this may please the frontiersmen who want to hold on to their libertarian ways forever, but in the long run it seems likely to have adverse consequences for the overwhelming majority of users yet to come onto the net!
 

Date: 1/17/97 12:41:41 AM
From: owner-iahc-discuss
Subject: A modest proposal--add <trademark> tag to solve domain name problem
To: iahc-discuss

From my unpublished article "The Mark of a Commercial Web Site":

To solve the trademark/domain name standoff, I propose that a new standardized tag be added to HTML called <trademark>, which would be a non-displaying tag (that is, any text within the tag would not show up on the screen to the reader of the Web site). The <trademark> and corresponding </trademark> tags could be placed around a list of trademarks held by the owner of the site, which could include company names, product names or slogans. It would be the HTML equivalent of (tm) or (R). As the tag comes into common use, it can be added as a search option to the most popular Web index sites, so that anyone can search specifically for a well-known trademark to find information about that company or its products, whether or not the company has registered its marks as domain names for the site. 

For example, imagine that every Microsoft Web site contained the following tag somewhere in the HTML:

<trademark> Microsoft </trademark>

Every search engine which read such a page would store these words as part of the trademark information for the site. Whenever a user wanted to find Microsoft's sites, the user could search for "<trademark> Microsoft </trademark>", and every one of these pages would show up. However, none of the many third-party sites discussing Microsoft products should be found by the sear