[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41547-41549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20732]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
[Docket No. 980212036-8172-03]


Request for Comments on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space

AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice, Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce requests comments on future 
expansion and administration of the .us domain space. The registry for 
.us domain space, administered by the Information Sciences Institute at 
the University of California, is currently administered as a locality 
based hierarchy in which second level domain space is allocated to 
states and U.S. territories. The .us domain space has typically been 
used by branches of state and local government, although some 
commercial names have been assigned. This notice, through a series of 
questions, requests public comment on issues relating to future 
administration, and possible expansion, of the .us domain space.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 3, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The Department invites the public to submit written comments 
in paper or electronic form. Comments may be mailed to Karen Rose, 
Office of International Affairs (OIA), National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA), Room 4701, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. 
Paper submissions should include a version on diskette in ASCII, Word 
Perfect (please specify version), or Microsoft Word (please specify 
version) format.
    Comments submitted in electronic form may be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#82f7f1e6edefe3ebecc2ecf6ebe3ace6ede1ace5edf4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d8adabbcb7b5b9b1b698b6acb1b9f6bcb7bbf6bfb7ae">[email protected]</span></a>. Electronic comments should be submitted in the 
formats specified above.
    Comments received will be posted on the NTIA website at <a href="http://
www.ntia.doc.gov">http://
www.ntia.doc.gov</a>. Detailed information on electronic filing is 
available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/efiling/.
    Comments should be numbered and organized in response to the 
questions set forth in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Rose, NTIA/OIA, (202) 482-0365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 20, 1998, NTIA published ``Improvement of Technical 
Management of Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule,'' 63 Fed. 
Reg. 8825 (1998) (also posted at <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/
domainname/domainname130.htm">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/
domainname/domainname130.htm</a>). The notice analyzed issues of generic 
Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), including the future of gTLD registries and 
the possible creation of new gTLDs. Section VII. D. briefly addressed 
the national or ``country-code'' domain (ccTLD) for the United States, 
.us as follows:

    At present, the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority at the 
University of Southern California) administers .us as a locality 
based hierarchy in which second-level domain space is allocated to 
states and US territories. This name space is further subdivided 
into localities. General registration under localities is performed 
on an exclusive basis by private firms that have requested 
delegation from IANA. The .us name space has typically been used by 
branches of state and local governments, although some commercial 
names have been assigned. Where registration for a locality has not 
been delegated, the IANA itself serves as the registrar.
    Some in the Internet community have suggested that the pressure 
for unique identifiers in the .com gTLD could be relieved if 
commercial use of the .us space was encouraged. Commercial users and 
trademark holders, however, find the current locality-based system 
too cumbersome and complicated for commercial use. Expanded use of 
the .us TLD could alleviate some of the pressure for new generic 
TLDs and reduce conflicts between American companies and others 
vying for the same domain name.
    Clearly, there is much opportunity for enhancing the .us domain 
space, and the .us domain could be expanded in many ways without 
displacing the current geopolitical structure. Over the next few 
months, the U.S. government will work with the private sector and 
state and local governments to determine how best to make the .us 
domain more attractive to commercial users. It may also be 
appropriate to move the gTLDs traditionally reserved for U.S. 
government use (i.e. .gov and .mil), into a reformulated .us ccTLD.
    The U.S. government will further explore and seek public input 
on these issues through a separate Request for Comment on the 
evolution of the .us name space. However, we welcome any preliminary 
comments at this time.<SUP>1</SUP>

    \1\ 63 Fed. Reg. at 8831.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 10, 1998, NTIA published a Statement of Policy on DNS 
administration, ``Management of Internet Names and Addresses,'' 63 Fed. 
Reg. 31741 (1998) (also posted at <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/
domainname/6__5__98dns.htm">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/
domainname/6__5__98dns.htm</a>). The document summarized the responses to 
the .us comment solicitation as follows:

    Many commenters suggested that the pressure for unique 
identifiers in the .com gTLD could be relieved if commercial use of 
the .us space was encouraged. Commercial users and trademark 
holders, however, find the current locality-based system too 
cumbersome and complicated for commercial use. They called for 
expanded use of the .us TLD to alleviate some of the pressure for 
new generic TLDs and reduce conflicts between American companies and 
others vying for the same domain name. Most commenters support an 
evolution of the .us domain designed to make this name space more 
attractive to commercial users.<SUP>2</SUP>

    \2\ 63 Fed. Reg. at 31798.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The document also restated the U.S. Government's intent to request 
public comment on the future of .us.<SUP>3</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 63 Fed. Reg. at 31798.

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

[[Page 41548]]

    While administration of .us is managed by the same personnel as the 
IANA services, it does not fall under the DARPA/IANA contract and 
should therefore be considered a separate service of the Information 
Sciences Institute (ISI) at the University of Southern California.
    We are now formally soliciting public comment on the future of the 
.us domain space. Respondents should find it useful to review the full 
text of ``Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and 
Addresses'' and ``Management of Internet Names and Addresses'' for 
general background information on the Internet domain name system and 
its management. Respondents should also find useful RFC 1480: ``The .US 
Domain'' (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1480.txt), as well as ISI's 
posted policies for .us (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/usdnr/) for 
information regarding current the structure and management of the .us 
domain.

Additional Background

    The Statement of Policy ``Management of Internet Names and 
Addresses'' invited the international community of private sector 
Internet stakeholders to work together to form a new, private, not-for-
profit corporation to manage DNS functions. The new corporation would 
gradually assume various responsibilities for the administration of the 
domain name system now performed by or on behalf of the U.S. 
Government. The document noted, however, that national governments 
would continue to have authority to manage or establish policy for 
their own ccTLDs.
    Other country-code domains are managed by a variety of entities, 
either non-profit or for-profit, but almost always on an exclusive 
basis. In many cases, the registry remains delegated to the same 
university or research institute to which it was assigned in the early 
days of the Internet. In a few cases, the assigned entity is an ISP 
cooperative (e.g., Nominet, the registry for .uk). In virtually all 
cases (with the notable exception of Nominet), the registry maintenance 
and registration functions are handled by the same entity and not 
treated separately. In the event of disputes over the assignment of 
country-code registries, ISI defers to national governments, some of 
which operate their registry through a public agency.
    Many of the allocation and governance issues under .us and other 
country-codes are ultimately analogous to the issues in gTLDs. The 
early availability and extensive use of gTLDs by U.S. companies, 
however, allowed .us to develop separately under a hierarchical 
geopolitical structure. By contrast, other country-code TLDs typically 
offer second-level domains on a more or less open and unrestricted 
basis or allow unrestricted third-level domains under a few two-
character sector codes, such as .co for commercial or .ac for academic. 
To our knowledge, no other country-code domain is managed under a 
geopolitically ordered regime similar to .us.
    Some have suggested using domain space for purposes such as zoning 
or credentialing. With respect to zoning for example, there have been 
suggestions that creating a domain for adult entertainment could 
facilitate filtering while reducing liability risk for those businesses 
that register under it. Likewise, a wide range of credentialed domains 
are possible, i.e., domains in which the registrant warrants that it 
meets some standard or in which a third party authority (e.g., a trade 
organization, a licensing agency, a bank) certifies the identity or 
characteristics of the registrant. It may be desirable to delegate such 
domains to a certifying entity, or to an entity that sets and maintains 
the standard in the case of self-certifying registrants. To our 
knowledge, no national registry has attempted such a regime of industry 
identifiers or other classifications at the second or lower levels.

Questions for Public Comment

    While the public is free to comment on any issue related to the .us 
domain space, the Department is particularly interested in receiving 
input from the questions provided below:
    1. How should the present geographic structure of .us be extended 
or modified? What changes should be made in RFC 1480 or the posted 
policies for .us?
    2. What are the benefits and costs of different options for 
allocating second-level domains under .us? How should the allocation of 
such second-level domains be decided and administered? What should be 
the terms of delegation?
    3. Specifically, should special-purpose second-level domains be 
created under .us? What are the benefits and costs of creating 
particular special-purpose domains (e.g., industry-specific, 
credentialing, zoning)? How should such domains be created and 
administered? Are there reasons to map names and other addressing and 
identification systems (e.g., postal addresses, telephone numbers, 
longitude and latitude, uniform resource numbers or others) into .us?
    4. Alternatively, should .us be treated as an unrestricted top-
level domain like .com or should one or more specific second-level 
domains such as .co.us or .com.us be used for unrestricted assignment 
of domain names (as in .com)? How should such unrestricted domains be 
administered and by whom?
    5. How should conflicting proposals and claims to manage or use .us 
subdomains be resolved? Who should have responsibility for coordinating 
policy for .us over the long term? What public oversight, if any, 
should be provided?
    6. What rules and procedures should be used to minimize conflicts 
between trademarks and domain names under .us? Should this problem be 
treated differently at international, national, state, and local 
levels? Should special privileges be accorded to famous trademarks, 
such as a right to register directly under .us or a procedure to 
preempt the use of the trademark in a range of subdomains?
    7. What role should states play in the allocation and registration 
of their respective subdomains? Should commercial names be permitted 
under states as third-level domains? Or should such third-level domains 
be limited to special categories such as domestic corporations or other 
state-licensed entities? Should states and localities operate 
registries and accept registrations directly? To what extent should 
state policies be coordinated and through what mechanisms and 
procedures?
    8. How well has the system of delegating third-level domains 
(localities) to private registrars on an exclusive basis worked? How 
could it be improved? Should registrars be accountable to their 
delegated localities (just as country-code registries are accountable 
to national governments)? Should registrars be limited to a single 
jurisdiction? Should multiple competing registrars be able to register 
under any local, state, or special-purpose domain under .us as in the 
plan proposed for generic Top-Level Domains?
    9. How should the operation of the .us registry be supported? 
Should uniform registration (and renewal) fees be instituted? Should 
registrars contribute to the operation of the registry?
    10. What are best management and allocation practices for country-
code domains? What practices should be emulated or avoided?
    11. By what type of entity should .us be administered? Private, 
governmental, or quasi-governmental? For profit or not-for-profit? What 
are the advantages and disadvantages of using one type of

[[Page 41549]]

entity (private, public, for profit, not-for-profit) over the others?
Kathy Smith,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-20732 Filed 8-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-60-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>