Source: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/domainname/usrfc2/comments.html
Timestamp: 2014-09-18 05:53:38
Document Index: 140514255

Matched Legal Cases: ['§706', '§ 301', '§ 397', '§73', '§335', '§ 326']

THE DIGITAL OPPORTUNITY TRUST
The DOT in .US
The Benton Foundation* with legal
support from the Media Access Project (MAP)* is exploring the opportunities
for managing the .us domain space for the benefits of all US citizens,
especially those on the wrong side of the Digital Divide. The Benton
Foundation believes that the .us domain space is a public resource that
should be utilized to help bridge the Digital Divide. We further
believe that the existing Commerce Department request for comments on this
issue misses an excellent opportunity to take advantage of the public
.us domain space creatively to the benefits of all U.S. citizens. Below you find a brief overview of the Digital Opportunity Trust project
and talking points of the key issues that highlight the great opportunities
and responsibilities for managing the .us domain space. For further
information please contact the Benton Foundation.
The Benton Foundation proposed to
narrow the �digital divide� in a new and innovative way. We want
to see the nation make use of its national top-level domain resource (.us)
to advance the goal of universal access and participation in our networked
society. In order to make the .us space more valuable and attractive
for commercial development and public interest use, we are proposing to
improve how the space is administered and used. Furthermore, we are
proposing to set up a Digital Opportunity Trust, financed through auctioning
of the .us top level domain space and sponsorships, that will invest in
projects enabling the widest possible participation and access to information
Communications technologies are central
how business is transacted,
how goods and services are
how work is organized, how
education is delivered,
how health care is managed,
how government responds to
its citizens, and
In other words, access to and the
ability to use these technologies have become essential to full participation
in contemporary life. It is time for a forceful push to make the
networked society a reality for all. The Digital Opportunity Trust
will not aim to duplicate the many ongoing and successful initiatives in
both the public and private sectors. Instead, the Trust will provide
leadership identifying the greatest needs and missing pieces of the various
projects as a whole, building on existing progress, and will devote the
proceeds raised by the redesigned .us domain space to widening participation
in the new economy and society.
There is a great need to overcome
the �digital divide� and ensure broad participation in the digital economy
and society. Contrary to common notions about the �digital divide,�
the gap will not be narrowed by simply providing access to a computer and
the Internet in every school and home, i.e. by building out the hardware
infrastructure. This in itself is a huge task. To truly close
the gap, however, a concerted effort must be made to develop what some
refer to as the �social infrastructure:� literacy and research skills and
motivation among users, content for and by all users, systems and organizational
structures that encourage knowledge sharing and building communities of
users, learners and mentors, with access to tools and know-how as needed.
The task ahead is formidable and
it will be accomplished more quickly through a funding organization endowed
with considerable resources that are sustained over a long period. Currently, there are hundreds of separate �digital divide� efforts across
the country, funded by both the public and private sectors. An organization
that consolidates and coordinates these various efforts and that applies
a long-term funding perspective will ensure that new resources are used
A redesigned country code top-level
domain name space provides a unique opportunity to generate private capital
derived from the perceived value of newly available �real estate� on the
network. This public resource should be used to increase public participation
in the economy and society at large. The .us space until recently
has been unattractive for commercial users and individuals, who are only
permitted to register as fourth-level domains under localities. By
changing how .us is made available for commercial and non-commercial development,
this proposed plan would make the domain more attractive to users and hence
more valuable. In addition to generating new resources from auctioning
generic domain names under .us, a redesigned .us space should also be used
to promote non-commercial public interest uses. Channeling this newly
generated value to further social goals and to benefit all of society is
consistent with longstanding US policy.
The proposed plan would auction
new generic second-level domain names under .us (.e.g. business.us, loans.us),
the proceeds from which would fund a �Digital Opportunity Trust� that connects,
educates, and empowers people to participate in the networked society. Until now the .us space has been unattractive for commercial users and
individuals because of its cumbersome registration system under geographic
localities, e.g. ibm.armonk.ny.us. The new .us system we propose
will auction generic names as an efficient way to allocate scarce resources
and would be restructured to facilitate non-commercial uses in the public
As the United States country code
top-level domain space is redesigned, we believe that the .us name space
should be managed mindful of the history of US communications policy and
in accordance with the principle that the .us name space is a public resource
that must further the public interest through both commercial and non-commercial
development. In particular, the following principles must be adhered
- The .us name space is a public
resource, and must be managed in the public interest.
- As a public resource, .us name
space must be managed to promote access by all Americans to communications
services and to expose its citizens to a diverse marketplace of ideas and
to foster civic discourse and the arts.
- The private sector should continue
to play an important role in promoting these polices through commercial
development of public resources. In particular, the tradition of
making commercial development subject to conditions designed to foster
the public interest, such as conditions of non-discrimination or service
to the local community, should be continued.
- Noncommercial organizations equally
should continue to play an important role in developing our national resources
for the public good. Communications in particular, the set aside
of spectrum for non-profit educational uses, and the funding of such enterprises
by the public and private sector, have vastly increased the public�s exposure
to diverse ideas and benefited the cultural life of all Americans.
To fulfill these principles, the
plan envisions the creation of two independent nonprofit organizations. The Digital Opportunity Trust will focus on charitable, programmatic goals
to narrow the �digital divide,� using proceeds raised from auctioning generic
second-level domain names. A separate nonprofit operating corporation,
the National Domain Corporation, would handle the policy and administrative
functions of .us. This Corporation will focus on policy and strategy
while outsourcing routine operations, including the auctioning of second-level
domain names. The operator would work to gain broad acceptance for
the plan and to brand .us as a premium domain. The Corporation will
establish policies that ensure that the .us space stays free of cybersquatters
and other domain name space abuses. As a registrar to ICANN�s Uniform
Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy, the .us space remains subject to
The Digital Opportunity Trust will
use the fees generated through auctions and other forms of sponsorship
by corporations and philanthropic foundations to fund projects that aim
to narrow the �digital divide.� Its charter will be broad, flexible
and evolving over time as deemed necessary by its independent board. Potential funding criteria are:
- new technical approaches to addressing
hardware infrastructure/access constraints
- creation of content for and by
- building web-based networks to
support communities of volunteers
- curricula development and other
tools that proof effective with specific targeted audiences
- mentoring and other efforts that
- seeding venture funding for technologies
or firms devoted to expanding access and participation
The Benton Foundation with the Media
Access Project are proposing this new approach to narrowing the �digital
divide.� The Media Access Project is providing legal counsel for
this project and is preparing filings with the NTIA.
Benton believes that there is great
urgency to address the �digital divide� and that the most recent Commerce
Department�s Request for Comments on the .us space provide an opportunity
to move our proposal forward. MAP and Benton also strongly believe
that the framework provided by the RFC is too narrow and that it must be
broadened based on the aforementioned principles to allow for the .us public
resource to become a unique asset that can truly serve the interests of
the nation as a whole. MAP on behalf of the Benton Foundation will
be filing comments in response to NTIA�s RFC. We are looking forward
to working together with other organizations to produce a joint filing. We encourage interested parties to support this important project and to
contact us for further information. (Please contact: Katharina Kopp,
The Benton Foundation, 202-638 5770, kk@benton.org).
* The Alliance for
Community Technology (ACT) is Benton�s partner in the development and implementation
of the DOT project; the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the Charles Stewart
Mott Foundation have provided funding for the development of this initiative.
*Media Access Project is a twenty-four year old non-profit, public interest
law firm which promotes the public's First Amendment right to hear and
be heard on the electronic media of today and tomorrow.
I have a few comments and tidbits
that I would like to relate concerning the .US domain changes that you
are looking to amend.
First, my story. It will provide
background to substantiate my views as well as point out some of the problems
About 4 years ago, I was working
as a System Engineer with a computer reseller in Chambersburg, PA, my hometown.
We had just gotten Internet access (at my behest, since I'd been using
the Net at College since 1991) and I wanted to register a domain name and
set up a web server and mail server for the company. After the owner initially
balked at paying $100 for the Internic fees, I began looking into the .US
domain. Chambersburg.PA.US was available at the time (no surprise, it is
a rather small town).
I began an email conversation with
the folks at ISI, because I was quite unsure as to the amount of resources
that we as a company would need to throw at hostmastering a .US domain...
and the policy was that if we registered first, we would be obliged with
that responsibility. After several emails, and several assurances, I finally
placed a call to ISI and spoke with none other than Jon Postel himself.
It was quite an honor. He outlined what we would need and offered that
it was people just like ourselves that ISI was looking for to administer
local domains: companies or individuals within a local area with good relations
with the community. I hung up the phone with a feeling that I was going
to be "helping" out my community by extending the .US domain to them. Postel
said that we could charge a "modest" fee if we decided, but that ISI would
prefer it to be less than Internic's $50/year. At first, I had no intention
of making it anything other than free, since I really couldn't think of
five other companies in the area with interest in the internet. I immediately
emailed the paperwork forms necessary to get our company set up as the
registrar for Chambersburg.PA.US, by applying for Sunrise.Chambersburg.PA.US.
After nearly two weeks (which is
a long time, and longer than Postel had said it would take) I received
an unsolicited email from a company in Kansas City about registering my
domain... for $50 per year. At first I thought that it was some sort of
ruse, by another registrar, having possibly been knowledgeable of my application.
I declined, because I was sure that my company had the technical capability
to host the domain. I waited a bit more (another week). Finally I called
Jon Postel back at ISI to inquire about my application. This is when I
realized that speaking to Jon Postel several weeks earlier was, perhaps,
not an honor.
Mr. Postel told me that the other
company that had contacted me was the registrar for my domain. I asked
if he remembered our conversation. He did. I asked him how they could have
gotten my email information, since I sent it to ISI, not to them. He stated
that my email was "forwarded" to them. I asked him why. He stated that
since they were the registrar, that was what was done. I asked him how,
if the domain had NOT been registered the day I spoke with him (and for
that matter had no open applications for registry), could my IMMEDIATE
submission of application could have been superceded by another registrar.
He stated that they had applied "at the same time". Although this sounded
awful fishy, I pursued. I asked why, with two separate applications on
the same 3rd level, one from a local company with good relations with the
community (the kind of group they were "looking for") the other with a
registrar in Kansas City who already had snatched up several other locations
in PA, they would have chosen the latter. He stated simply that he could
not discuss the other applicants and that that was "just the way it was".
I then asked him about the $50 per year price. He stated that the registrar
could charge a "reasonable" fee. I countered that the fee was contrary
to both what he said to me and the spirit of the .US domain. I then pretty
much said what I had been thinking. I accused Jon Postel of GIVING our
3rd level away to a for-profit agency, because he was the ONLY individual
that knew of my plans, other than whoever had read my application... both
occuring BEFORE the other applicant could have applied. It was, as far
as I was concerned, corruption pure and simple. He then terminated the
I went back to the ISI site and searched
for other 3rd level domains in my area. With little surprise I found that
the very same registrar that had gotten Chambersburg.PA.US had also, over
time, snatched up many, MANY other 3rd levels around PA. For that matter
they had many around the COUNTRY!
So, I decided to appeal directly
to the registrar. I sent email after email. But never got a response. So
I got sneaky. Through a bit of tracerouting and "hacking" tricks, I found
that all the 3rd level web pages were running on ONE Windows NT box. I
then went to the Internic database and found the contact info for the domain
name they were using and called them. They were NOT happy that I called.
But even MORE telling, the representative on the phone said "They [ISI]
told me not to talk to you."
So, there is a problem with the .US
domain. The cost of obtaining a 3rd level is prohibitive and a ridiculous
scam. With CORE registrars in the .com space working on open source registrar
software, I can see no reason why a .US domain should cost more than the
Network Solutions wholesale price ($6). Also, by taking a long look down
the list of registrars, it becomes apparent that large geographic segments
have been swallowed by a few registrars. I believe this needs to be undone.
And I believe that any locality currently registered under one of these
squatters with fewer than 25 registered 4th levels should be handed over
to the municipal government presiding over that locality to be handed out
to a registrar of that locality's choice. The squatter would then have
the right to bid to the local government for the contract, if they so desire.
As long as the insane capitalists
control the .US space, it will not grow. It should be a lesson that after
Network Solutions (Internic) was forced to open up, prices for domains
went from $50 per year down to $6. To me that is sad. Especially coming
from a program that was regulated by the Federal Government. How long would
that price abuse of the global citizen have lasted if Network Solutions
had spent a bit more money in Washington? But perhaps the .US domain situation
is even more sad, since what started out as a free service has escalated
into a near unusable stagnation.
Thank you for finally looking into
Scott Boone Consulting
There are currently no appropriate
domains for individual persons. We have names and Social Security
Numbers that we can keep forever, and we should each have a stable domain
name as well. The gTLDs .com, .org, and .net are all inappropriate,
and so are the current city.state.us domains (because most people move).
ICANN may eventually provide a gTLD
for individuals, but of course keeping a name requires paying an annual
fee. It may be in the interest of the U.S. to have a domain name
associated with each of its citizens (and residents, and probably anyone
with a taxpayer ID).
They could, for example, have the
form *.i.us (i for individual), and could be registered on a first-come-first-serve
basis. There would be no charge for someone's first domain name. If they ever wanted to change their domain name, they could be charged
a fee for the new name. The old name should become an alias (CNAME record)
for the new name; it should never be used for someone else--that would
lead to confusion. Changing one's domain name should be about as common
as changing one's real name.
There should not be separate subdomains
for citizens versus residents, because residents tend to become citizens,
and the names should be stable.
Of course, actually using a domain
name to receive email or serve web pages requires internet service, and
I am *not* suggesting that the government do that. It should merely
be possible for people to point their domain names at whatever servers
they are currently using, and it should be easy to change these pointers
(without involving a human).
I don't know what government agency
would be most appropriate for managing this registry. Perhaps the
Postal Service or the IRS, which already have experience keeping track
of hundreds of millions of people, and which have both demonstrated their
ability to provide online services.
By the way, there was once a time
when the idea of a single registry of 300 million names seemed absurd,
but I don't think that will be a problem. The .com domain already
has several million names. With computing power doubling every 18
months, and bandwidth growing even faster, the technical ability to serve
300 million names should be available before that many people have actually
bothered to register.
The canadian government is taking
the exact opposite view of domain registry at this time. The citizenry
of Canada have not whole heartedly bought into the domain name structure
due to the non exclusive nature of the city.state.country style. They are
looking at opening up the just .ca to achieve exclusivity.
Lets@worldeffect.com
P>S> A canadian with 30 some odd
dot com names and not one dot bc dot ca
I attempted two times to get a .us
domain name. (scrooge.eugene.or.us). The applications were forwarded by
the .us domain admin (USC) to hostmaster@structured.net . Structured.net
has been delegated the eugene.or and most other .or domains. That was the
end of it, nothing happened, except a copy of an e-mail from USC threatening
structured.net to respond, or their delegation would be revoked. I gave up.
Michael V. Hoffman
It is evident, from even a cursory
reading of the NTIA's Request for Comments on its Statement of Work regarding
the reorganization of .US, that the DOC intends, or at least wishes, to
place .US under the aegis and control of ICANN. This will, rather than
make of .US a haven for personal, individual, non-profit, and non-commercial
users (as was originally intended by the DOC itself and supported by most
of the participants in the past two years of multilateral discussions on
.US reorganization), turn .US into another commodity to be exploited by
craven registrars and their greedy clients, just as has been done with
.ORG and .NET.
The ICIIU considers the NTIA's intention
to subject .US to ICANN, implicit in its recent RFC, to be a very grievous
error bordering on madness.
The ICIIU will be publishing detailed
comments in response to the NTIA's RFC.
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT
These are some quick inital thoughts.
I think the market has spoken, and
the current .us structure isn't a good one. People don't want to
be stuck on 4th level domains. I think it is essential to flatten
the domain structure, with less emphasis on geograph within the US. That said, I think a reservation of certain 2nd level tlds would be very
useful. Groups that might benefit from this are:
Non-Profit organizations (under at
least Sections 501c3 and 501c4 of the US IRS code).
Why not limit the .us domain to individuals,
organizations or firms that accept US jurisdiction of law?
I don't think that shared registry
should be an end in itself. I think that it would be good if the
.us registry permitted shared register to some extent, as some ccTLDs do
now, but creating business opportunities for registrars it not itself that
Re: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usrfc2/dotusrfc2.htm
Regardless of the naming structure
or registration policies of the usTLD, several core registry functions
need to be provided by the successful offeror responding to an RFP to administer
the usTLD ("Awardee"). Does the list in Section I.A of the Draft SOW accurately
reflect the full range of core registry functions? Should other/additional
core functions be included?
It is well known that the DNS has
a very serious problem - it is not secure. Users of the service have
no way to verify the information provided thru the DNS other than to hope
that the routing infrastructure is itself secure, which is also a false
It is very important that the .us
domain provide digital signatures on the information it provides so that
client computers can verify the information.
Are any particular technical
specifications, software, or methods and procedures necessary to
complete the tasks outlined? Are there other tasks that should be
required as part of this section?
The best current methods for securing
DNS information are DNSSEC, RFC2535 and TSIG, RFC2845, and their successors.
the .us Domain Space
AGENCY: National Telecommunications
TO: Karen A. Rose
Room 4701 HCHB
I am writing regarding the proposals
for management of the .US Domain Space, cited above.
I wish to comment on Posted Question
8, cited at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usrfc2/dotusrfc2.htm
I believe registrations at the various
levels could be encouraged if the COM, NET, ORG names were incorporated
into the second and third levels of .US Domain structure. For example:
applicant-name.com.us
applicant-name.net.us
applicant-name.org.us
applicant-name.com.(State-Code).us
applicant-name.com.ny.us
applicant-name.net.ny.us
applicant-name.org.ny.us
A pricing structure could be suggested
for the above domains. The second level domains cited above would be desired
by National Companies or Organizations, and could carry a premium price.
The third level domains cited above would be desired by State level Companies
or organizations, and could carry a moderate price.
The current structure of locality
based US domains should remain available as well, remaining either free
or at a low cost to applicants, who should be forseen as local-based applicants:
Locality Level Domains (Currently
applicant-name.daytona-beach.fl.us
applicant-name.washington.dc.us
applicant-name.new-york.ny.us
Applicants for any of the current
or new domains should demonstrate a physical presence in the domain applied
I currently use a handful of the
locality based US domains. One is for a business, one for a social club
I belong to, and the last for my personal web site.
George A. Miziuk
Regarding the .us top-level domain.
I, Andrew Mossberg, have been an
Internet user and administrator of Internet-connected systems since approximately
January 1985, including use of the HOSTS file prior to widespread use of
DNS. My background includes responsibility for Class B, and Class C networks,
as well as an assortment of second and third level domain names in the
.edu, .com, .net, and .org TLDs. I also was the owner of a .us domain
for many years, sfer.miami.fl.us, now defunct.
My experience with the .us TLD was
circa 1989-1992, with a .us domain that I obtained for a local environmental
group and newsletter, the South Florida Environmental Reader. My use of the domain ceased because of two problems with the group that
took over responsibility for the miami.fl.us delegation. First, at no time
was there reliable DNS servers handling the miami.fl.us domain. Second,
the group decided to impose charges of about $30 a year for the domain,
which had previously been at no charge. Given that at the time one
could have a .com, .net, or .org domain for $70/2 years, there was no incentive
to continue use of the .us domain.
Comments on the draft SOW:
Q4. The current .us structure
has severe problems related to the vast differences in capabilities of
the various delegates for the second level domains, and coordination amongst
them. The Draft SOW does much to address these shortcomings.
Q6. The suspension is an appropriate
step in order to ensure the stability during an evaluation period. Delegation
transfers should also be suspended generally, with provision for transfer
only in cases where a delagate is unable to provide minimum services.
Q7. Any fees that are imposed
should be at a minimum level, designed solely to recover actual costs.
If fees are imposed, a portion should go to any delagates for local subdomains.
Q8. Specialty second level
domains under .us should be allowed following a RFC procedure. Creation
of one for personal non commericial use would be an excellent approach
that should provide good visibility and growth for .us
Q10. Yes, .us registrations
should continue to have the requirement of US-based hosting. The restriction
should be "located in". Criteria should be valid street address in the
US, and in the cases of a commercial entity, incorporation or other legal
US entity with a valid street address within the US.
submit my comments. Upon review of the current ICANN and IETF documents,
I will submit comments regarding questions 11-15.
Director, Operations, Asoki Corporation
President, Inicom, Incorporated
The .US domain has always been the
"poor relations" in the Internet world. It continues to be so, one
reason why no one wants in.
The RFC for the .US domain is wordy,
creating obscenely long email addresses, a second reason no one wants in. It doesn't allow for catchy names other than at the end of a long geographical
In 1994 or so, I did battle with
Dr. Postel on the issue when I tried to create a NCOOK.EDU domain for several
K-8 schools. .EDU was too rarified for the hoi polloi of public education.
Another argument was that the name
space for .EDU was too limited, but I countered with the fact that using
just letters and numbers, there are 2.8 trillion combinations so that if
only one in a million worked, there were still 2.8 million possible names.
I lost, and became .NCOOK.K12.IL.US
which in a way was a compromise over the RFC's suggested email address
of JMUNDT@SPRINGMANJR.DISTRICT34.COOK.K12.IL.US.
I work at a high school, .DISTRICT125.K12.IL.US,
which is subtly ridiculed by people whose address is FOO.NET, or FOO.ORG. Postel was jpostel@isi.edu at the time.
A third reason it is unpopular are
the squatters who have taken over .CITY.COUNTY.STATE.US and want to sell
DNS services for obscene costs.
Therefore, I suggest not defending
or trying to do anything useful with the .US domain. It is forever
tainted. Instead, create top level domains as has been suggested,
but for K-12 education, create a .K12 top level domain and let schools
duke it out for creative names. those same 2.8 trillion combinations
would apply, and our school could be
.STEVENSON.K12
.AESHS.K12
.PATRIOTS.K12
.SHS.K12 (if we got there
A second suggestion is to remove
the geographical restrictions and allow the same .SHS.US or .AESHS.US,
etc., names to be used in a manner not restricted by state, county or affiliation. Those 2.8 trillion names are there for the US as well, giving 10,000 possible
names for every man, woman and child in the US.
John P. Mundt
One problem with the internet is
it's global orientation when you want to find something locally. When ordering groceries or pizza, you don't want to be dealing with someone
in Thailand... but ".com" could be anywhere.
".us" could be used to localize businesses
and individuals who need to deal locally. For example, the format
could be: "www.domain.city.state.us" (possibly, zip codes could be used
too, as in: "www.domain.zip.us"). If I want to order pizza, I could
lookup "www.geppettos.slc.ut.us". Such a scheme also begs for servers
for searching for local businesses and individuals.
SMITH & METALITZ, L.L.P.
ERIC H. SMITH 1747 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
STEVEN J METALITZ SUITE 825
ERIC J. SCHWARTZ WASHINGTON, DC 20006-4604
MARIA STRONG TELEPHONE: (202) 833-4198
------------------- FAX: (202) 872-0546
MICHAEL N. SCHLESINGER E-MAIL: metalitz@iipa.com
Ms. Karen A. Rose, Office of International
Room 4701, HCHB
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO USDOMAIN@NTIA.DOC.GOV
RE: Request for Public Comment on Management and Administration of
Coalition on Domain Names (CCDN) welcomes this opportunity to provide comments
on the draft Statement of Work (SOW) regarding management and administration
of the .us Top Level Domain (usTLD). These comments are filed
in response to the Federal Register notice appearing on the NTIA web site
at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usrfc2/dotusrfc2.htm.
CCDN brings
together ten major associations of copyright owners with a common goal
of preserving and enhancing free, unfettered, real-time access to Whois
and other directory services. These tools of the Domain Name System
are essential for combating online copyright piracy, and for facilitating
the licensed use of copyrighted materials online. CCDN participants
are listed at the end of this submission.
CCDN applauds
the approach taken in the draft SOW as it pertains to the key issues of
transparency and accountability in the domain name registration system. NTIA�s draft clearly recognizes the paramount importance of a robust, searchable,
accurate and up-to-date usTLD Whois database to which members of the public
enjoy unfettered access via the World Wide Web. Such a system will
enable consumers, intellectual property owners, and all other users of
the Internet to quickly and easily learn who is responsible for the registration
of a particular domain name within the .us space. From the perspective
of copyright owners, such transparency is essential in dealing with the
potential for copyright piracy in .us, a potential which will certainly
increase as this ccTLD moves away from its current relatively controlled
status toward a more open and heavily populated environment, as the draft
SOW contemplates. This transparency is also needed to
facilitate the licensing of online uses of copyrighted materials.
appreciate the fact that the draft SOW builds upon and elaborates on the
general Whois principles that are operative in the generic Top Level Domain
environment. Both within the current scope of .us, and in any expansion
of the ccTLD that will ultimately result from the re-awarding of the managerial
and administrative functions, the draft SOW calls for a Whois database
that includes several critical features. Importantly, the draft SOW
specifies that the usTLD Whois must be �
unified, so that a single query will
bring together results from all .us registrars and from all sub-delegated
.us registries;
integrated with any other cross-registry
Whois services adopted by ICANN-accredited registrars, so that searches
can be easily carried out across a multiplicity of TLDs;
searchable by all data elements and
multiple character strings, and without unjustifiable limits on the number
of searches or the volume of search results.
we find the approach taken by the draft SOW commendable, we think that
its provisions could usefully be clarified in two areas, and that two other
registration policy issues should be addressed.
would spell out that the �free, public, web-based� Whois access (see draft
SOW sections I.B and I.D) would be provided without any restrictions on
the use of the Whois search results, other than those restrictions required
to protect the integrity and availability of the database or to prevent
its exploitation for purposes such as inappropriate mass commercial solicitations.
would be to require the administration of both the existing and any expanded
usTLD structure to comply, not only with ICANN-adopted policies governing
open ccTLDs (see section I.D of the draft SOW), but also, to the extent
applicable, with the corresponding ICANN policies for gTLDs. Currently
the ICANN policies on issues such as Whois are more clearly spelled out
for gTLDs than they are for ccTLDs. While we hope that this situation
will change, this clarification would be helpful to the extent that ICANN�s
ccTLD policies remain underdeveloped at the time that the draft SOW matures
into a full-fledged request for proposals regarding usTLD administration.
The first additional
registration policy that the SOW should address concerns steps to maintain
the highest practicable quality of Whois data. The usefulness of
Whois access is greatly compromised to the extent that registrants can
register on the basis of false or incomplete contact data, or fail to keep
their contact data current and accurate. All registrants in either
the current or the expanded usTLD should be required to provide complete
and accurate contact data at the time of registration, and to keep it current
thereafter. Failure to fulfill this obligation should result in termination
or cancellation of the registration, either by the registrar, by the appropriate
sub-delegated registry, or by the usTLD administrator/registry. At whichever level this compliance authority is allocated, the registrar
or registry should issue a clearly stated policy for the receipt and processing
of third party complaints about bogus contact data. The registrar
or registry should also commit to taking reasonable steps to screen out
applications that contain obviously false contact data (e.g., a US telephone
number with a 555 exchange). A registrar who refuses to make
reasonable efforts to prevent and to detect registrations based on false
contact data, particularly within the expanded usTLD foreseen in the draft
SOW, is virtually inviting pirates and scam artists to occupy this new
registrars, sub-delegated registries, or the usTLD administrator/registry
(depending on the particular allocation of registration policy responsibilities
that is adopted) should retain the unilateral authority to cancel or suspend
a registration for submission of false contact data, failure to maintain
current and accurate contact data, or use of the registration for an illegal
purpose. Here, too, a third party complaint procedure should
be adopted and publicized. In these circumstances, as contrasted
with disputes over domain names that are confusingly similar to trademarks
or service marks, it should not be necessary to initiate litigation or
a formal dispute resolution process in order to clean up the TLD. The registry or registrar should assert and should exercise the authority
to do that itself.
With these clarifications
and additions, we believe that NTIA would be guiding future development
of the .us domain space in a direction that will make the usTLD a model
for all other ccTLDs with respect to domain name registration policy. Once again, we commend you for taking this approach.
your consideration of our views, and please let me know if I can provide
Counsel to Copyright Coalition on
On behalf of CCDN PARTICIPANTS:
National Music Publishers� Association
The Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications
Management and Administration of the ) Docket Number: 980212036-0235-06
The American Library Association (ALA), the American Association of
School Administrators (AASA), and the National Association of Independent
Schools are pleased to comment on the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration�s (NTIA) Draft Statement of Work for management and administration
of the .us country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). ALA is the oldest and
largest national library association in the world, representing nearly
60,000 librarians and institutions. AASA is the professional association
for school superintendents and district leaders, representing over 14,000
school districts nationwide. NAIS represents 1100 member schools,
472,000 students and nearly 60,000 teachers and administrators.
We have two fundamental interests in the disposition of the .us ccTLD.
In the first place, libraries and schools are major users of the .us address
space. Thousands of public libraries and school districts use regional
subdomains for their address space. This practice results in domains that
are logical, easy to find, and clearly in a public, rather than commercial,
domain space. (For example, the San Francisco Public Library is found at
SFPL.LIB.CA.US. and Alexandria, Virginia Public Schools can be found at
ACPS.K12.VA.US). We are concerned about the future availability and character
of this domain space presently occupied by so many public service organizations.
Secondly, schools and libraries are an important part of the Internet.
They provide access for the public, populate the Internet with expensive
and valuable information resources, and archive resources. Libraries
and schools also train students and the public in use of the Internet and
provide the necessary expertise to organize and navigate the World Wide
Web. As part of the Internet Infrastructure, media-technology professionals
have a fundamental concern with management and governance issues. In particular,
we are concerned that the Internet be managed to serve the broad public
interest and to provide the maximum possible accessibility and diversity
Our concerns are, thus, broader than the specific questions in the Draft
SOW. In particular, we feel that before a SOW is issued, NTIA needs to
define a set of high-level strategic objectives for administration of the
.us ccTLD. These objectives should assure that any step toward privatization
of the registration and management functions protects the substantial public
investment in this infrastructure and advances the public interest. They should be developed in consultation with libraries, schools and other
1. We generally agree with the need to regularize
and update the technical management of the .us domain. It currently exists
in technical and administrative limbo, with no clear and long-term management
responsibility. As the RFC points out, this results in the lack of services
and some delay in use of the .us domain compared with the gTLDs such as
.com and .org. Over the longer term, this lack of both clear responsibility
and incentives to modernize could harm the community of users and make
.us a less attractive and useable domain.
2. The regional structure needs to be retained
at this time as part of any new system. This is not simply to protect or
�grandfather� existing use, but is reflective of the reality that much
human activity and organization, private and government, reflects physical
geography. However, the �virtual� geography of Internet certainly suggests
that some expansion beyond regional geography could and should be encouraged
as .us expands.
3. The structure and technology of the Internet
and of organizations using it are changing as we speak. For example:
A. ICANN is considering adding new gTLDs. Their decision, both in the short
term and in the strategic sense, will provide a new context for consideration
of the role of .us. If ICANN, as we expect, institutes an expansion of
commercial domain space, there will be greater reason to consider .us as
a dominantly public interest domain. (The RFC suggests that congestion
of .com could be a reason to expand .us�a proposition with which we would
B. Technology is still changing, and the fundamental architecture of the Internet
could well allow a very large number of TLDs and flexible, distributed
addressing systems. Again, this will affect the requirements and potential
impact of NTIA�s decisions.
C. Third, there are continuing unresolved concerns about whether the ICANN
model of Internet governance will adequately protect the public interest.
D. Finally, there is growing awareness and concern in the public interest
community about the impacts of �technical� and �administrative� decisions
on Internet architecture and operation.
4. We believe that the fundamental purpose for
the .us domain should be to advance the public interest. In this, we concur
with the submission of the Media Access Project that the �management of
the .us ccTLD serve the public interest.� The Internet was created with
public funds. Its original purpose was to serve scholarship, research,
We applaud the extraordinary growth in the private sector, and commercial
interests will continue to be a driving force in the evolution of the Internet.
However, it is also important to assure that broader public purposes not
be swamped by the drive to commercialization. We believe that commercial
interests will be well represented in the ICANN debates over expanding
the gTLD space and that overcrowding of the .com TLD will be relieved soon.
Thus, it would be a serious mistake to use .us to address that issue. As
the Internet is privatized, the .us TLD is one of the few potential levers
remaining by which government can protect and advance public purposes.
5. Because of this ferment and the need to protect
public space on the Internet, we believe that it is necessary for NTIA
to move cautiously and carefully in disposition of .us. We believe that
much more dialog needs to be undertaken about the fundamental public purposes
that the domain should serve. There is no need to move precipitously; no
fundamental reason to immediately privatize the operations.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. The associations would welcome the chance to participate further in the
.us ccTLD discussion.
These comments respectfully submitted by:
(202) 628-8421
Bruce Hunter, Director of Public Policy
(703)528-0700
Peter D. Relic, President
Management of the .us Domain Space )
Request for Public Comment )
NeuStar, Inc. (�NeuStar�) submits the following
comments in response to the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration�s (�NTIA�) request for comment on the proposed statement
of work (�SOW�) for future management of the .us domain space. NeuStar supports the NTIA�s efforts to enhance and strengthen the .us domain
space to better serve the public interest, and provides the following specific
responses to questions regarding the proposed SOW.
Since the Department of Commerce (�DoC�), through
the NTIA, issued its statement of policy on the management of Internet
names and addresses, The Internet Community has expended significant
effort in the development of policies and mechanisms for the governance
of the Internet domain name system (�DNS�), as well as the enhancement
of existing top level domains (�TLD�) and the introduction of new TLDs. These efforts have resulted in the development of a workable shared registry
model that encourages competition and Internet stability, as well as protects
the individual rights of Internet users. Recognizing these efforts
and the need to maintain consistent Internet governance models, NeuStar
believes that the future management and enhancement of the usTLD should
mirror these basic business and policy models for the development of a
robust .us domain space.
In order for the usTLD to become a highly-used and
valuable ccTLD, the DoC must establish a structure for the TLD that supports
its growth, development and stability. Therefore, the DoC should
remove the restrictions that have limited the growth of the usTLD and establish
the space as a hybrid open/locality-based TLD.
The following specific responses will better describe
NeuStar�s views on enhancement and expansion of the usTLD.
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FOR THE DRAFT STATEMENT OF WORK
Regardless of the naming structure or registration
policies of the usTLD, several core registry functions need to be provided
by the successful offeror responding to an RFP to administer the usTLD
("Awardee"). Does the list in Section I.A of the Draft SOW accurately reflect
the full range of core registry functions? Should other/additional core
functions be included?
NeuStar agrees that the importance of expanding the
scope and quality of core registry functions for the usTLD cannot be stressed
enough. In addition to the core functions outlined in the SOW, NeuStar
believes that a number of enhancements, including the provisioning of registry/registrar
interactions, registrar/registry transfers, registrant information changes
and name availability queries are necessary. The Awardee should be
prepared to develop a shared registry system (�SRS�) along the lines proposed
for the new TLDs that will be established by ICANN. Thus, expanded
usTLD services would follow the registry/registrar model that has become
common place in the industry. Not only will this approach allow the
development of a feature rich domain space, it also will establish a level
of consumer familiarity that will help ensure a successful roll-out of
an enhanced usTLD.
industry experience has shown that distributed TLD
registry data and functionality is very difficult to manage and creates
security problems that affect operations and overall TLD stability. A �fat registry� centralizes the data storage elements of a TLD registry,
increasing security, functionality and stability. NeuStar submits
that existing .us delegation operators should be required to transition
to a �fat registry.�
Are any particular technical specifications, software, or methods
and procedures necessary to complete the tasks outlined? Are there other
tasks that should be required as part of this section?
The development of a sufficiently secure, functional and robust SRS
is not a trivial task. In developing the kind of SRS discussed in
Question 1 above, NeuStar believes that a number of key elements must be
implemented to handle delegation based TLD registration. In particular,
NeuStar agrees that the SRS database and Whois functionality should be
centralized in the registry operator.
Some of the key components of the SRS are:
* Geographically diverse, redundant data centers
with a high level of physical security and appropriate environmental conditions
* Network access for registrars
* System interface for registrars � using an open
* Security for the registrars and the information
that�s transmitted to the provider
* SRS Database containing registrar information,
transaction information, and domain name and name server assignments, as
well as other related information. This is a fat registry model.
* Whois Database
* Billing Database
* Master Zone File
* Zone file deployment systems
The key functions of the SRS are:
* Provide periodic reports regarding agreed upon
* Implement the business rules and processes determined
by the Awardee and the NTIA
* Add, modify, and delete names on behalf of registrars
* Respond to registrar queries regarding whether
a name is available
* Respond to registrar queries regarding who has
registered a specific name
* Provide registrar functionality directly to end users
in circumstances where delegated name spaces do not have associated third-party
* Create and deploy zone file updates to a worldwide
network of TLD name servers
* Escrow database and application software with
* Provide customer care for the registry-related
needs of interconnected registrars
* Bill and collect fees from registrars on behalf
* Help desk support for registrars � including initial
testing and operational maintenance
* Help desk support for registry � including deployment
and maintenance of customer (registrar) interfaces and accounts
* Network and systems management, monitoring, trouble
reporting, and trouble shooting
The key components of the name server network are:
* Multiple, geographically diverse, highly secure
* TLD zone files updated on a regular basis
* Highly diverse and redundant Internet access to
name servers for Internet users
NeuStar supports NTIA�s intent to maintain support
for the existing delegation structure with the usTLD. As is discussed
herein, however, certain overall changes to the .us structure will provide
enhanced functionality and stability for the domain space.
While usTLD registration policies may change or be adjusted over
time, the Draft SOW contemplates that the current usTLD locality-based
structure will continue to be supported. What mechanisms should Awardee
employ to provide outreach to and coordination among the current usTLD
community? Is information dissemination through a website (as required
in Section I.A. of the Draft SOW) sufficient?
Coordination and consultation with the current usTLD
community will be a necessary component of efforts to enhance and grow
the usTLD. Given that the SOW contemplates significant administrative
and operational changes to the usTLD, NeuStar submits that the Awardee
must make a concerted effort to communicate with the TLD community. Although web publication makes information available, it does not �push�
that information out to its intended recipients. The Awardee must
supplement web publication with a targeted outreach plan utilizing available
registered contact data and other resources. At the very least, the
Awardee must attempt to contact directly each delegate at its registered
Are there any drawbacks or disadvantages to continuing the support
for the current .us structure? If support for the existing usTLD structure,
or portions of it, should be discontinued, please describe how any transition
Termination of existing DNS services would raise
significant and justified concerns among members of the existing .us community. The core existing .us structure is based upon well-established legal and
organizational structures and should be maintained. It will be necessary,
however, to revisit the existing delegation structure in the usTLD and
determine whether administrative changes must be made. NeuStar agrees
that the entire .us domain space would benefit from a more centralized
Because the current .us structure simply provides
for specified second and third-level domain registrations, there are no
significant problems associated with maintenance of that structure alongside
any new structure (e.g. direct registration in .us) for the domain space. Indeed, different uses of the TLD could ultimately prove complementary
and expand name availability.
Regarding the requirement to investigate and report on possible structural,
procedural, and policy improvements to the current usTLD structure, are
there specific procedures or policy improvements that should be implemented
by Awardee prior to completion of this study? Are there issues that need
to be specifically addressed in the required study, such as "locality-squatting,"
the role of state and local governments, or appropriate cost recovery mechanisms?
The usTLD has remained significantly underutilized
since its inception. NeuStar believes, therefore, that the public
interest best will be served by allowing the Awardee to take immediate
steps to operate the TLD in a more open, less restricted, and sustainable
manner. With respect to the existing delegation structure, the Awardee
should implement a freeze on new delegations and transfers of delegations. At this time, there do not appear to be any necessary additional policies,
improvements or procedures for the locality-based .us domain space.
As suggested, this preservation of the �status quo�
will ensure a stable environment in which to conduct the study, with the
input and participation of the .us user community, and determine the most
effective future utilization of that portion of the .us domain space. NeuStar agrees that numerous issues will require serious consideration,
including the questions of �locality-squatting,� and the roles of state
and local governmental delegates. In addition, it will be critical
to a successful restructuring of the usTLD that the study address the necessary
separation and centralization of administrative and technical operations
in the delegated name space. Moreover, the Awardee will need to conduct
a thorough investigation of existing registration policies maintained by
delegates to ensure consistency with the overall enhanced and expanded
usTLD structure.
In the SOW, the Department of Commerce contemplates directing the
usTLD Administrator to suspend additional locality delegations and to provide
registration services directly for all undelegated subdomains. The Draft
SOW contemplates that this arrangement would continue until the required
study is completed. This "status quo" period is intended to provide a stable
environment in which to conduct the study. Is such delegation suspension
during this time necessary? Is the requirement to provide direct registration
services in the undelegated subdomains enough to ensure the continued availability
of the usTLD during this period? Should delegation transfers also be suspended?
As noted in its response to Question 5 above, NeuStar
agrees that a complete suspension of delegation activity, including delegation
transfers, with respect to the existing delegated locality-based subdomains
is necessary to establish a baseline to permit an effective and detailed
reporting on the future administration of the domain space and to ensure
TLD stability during the initial reporting process. The requirement
to provide direct registration services in the undelegated subdomains and
expanded usTLD should be sufficient to ensure the continued availability
of the usTLD during the reporting period.
Currently, the usTLD Administrator does not charge fees for its
services. We contemplate that the Awardee would administer the existing
locality-based usTLD structure under this same policy, pending completion
of the study and the approval of any recommended cost recovery mechanism.
Should the Awardee be allowed to establish a cost recovery mechanism for
the existing usTLD space upon award? If so, on what basis should such fees
be determined and how should such fees be phased in?
Given that NeuStar agrees that all activity within
the existing locality-based usTLD structure should be suspended pending
completion of the study, it further agrees that administrator service fees
also should not be charged during this interim period. Again, it
is necessary that the �status quo� for these subdomains be maintained to
ensure that the Awardee is able to develop an effective report regarding
their future administration. To the extent, however, that the Awardee
provides registrations in the expanded usTLD, NeuStar submits that the
Awardee must be permitted to begin immediately to recover its costs.
Commenters have suggested that an expanded usTLD structure that allows
direct registrations under the usTLD as well as under specified second
level domains would be most attractive for prospective registrants. In
this Draft SOW we provide a great deal of latitude to consider and propose
expansion of the usTLD structure. Should the final SOW impose more specific
requirements in this area? Should certain second-level domains in the usTLD
be required or specified? If so, which ones and how should they be selected?
Should a second level domain for the registration of domain names for personal,
non-commercial use be created? Are there disadvantages to allowing second
level domain registrations directly under .us? Would a system that both
establishes specific second level domains and allows direct registration
under .us be feasible or would a mixed approach cause confusion for users?
NeuStar agrees with NTIA�s belief, as evidenced in
the SOW, that there should be few, if any, restrictions on registration
in and operation of the expanded usTLD. The key philosophy behind
the enhancement and expansion of the usTLD must be that domain name holders
should be able to utilize domain naming schemes that they find comfortable,
convenient and that meet their individual need. This philosophy is
consistent with a system that establishes specific second level domains
and also allows direct registration under .us. In the seven years
of DNS development since the publication of RFC 1480, it has become clear
that domain name holders often find it useful to associate geographic or
political distinctions in their domain names while others prefer generic
second level registrations.
Contrary to the notion that users may be confused,
this approach will allow for very structured domain spaces where such structure
is helpful. For example, a .com.us second level domain delegation
could be established to allow registrations for US businesses only. Such a distinctive classification would simplify user searches for US businesses. Other similar new second level domains could be created as user demand
The SOW should keep specific restrictions on these
issues to a minimum. Although existing second level delegations should,
of course, be maintained, the Awardee must have the flexibility to develop
a robust and innovative expanded usTLD.
The Draft SOW contemplates that the Awardee will follow ICANN adopted
policies relating to open ccTLDs, unless otherwise directed by the Department
of Commerce. NTIA believes that this will allow straightforward administration
of the expanded usTLD, with little additional policy development required.
To the extent that additional substantive policy is required, NTIA contemplates
that it would work cooperatively with the Awardee to develop such policy.
What are the advantages and disadvantages to such an approach? Should other
approaches be considered? Please describe alternate approaches, and discuss
NeuStar agrees that existing ICANN policies provide
a sound initial basis for usTLD policy. In particular, the ICANN
policies governing open ccTLDs should apply unless otherwise directed by
the DoC. Other ICANN policies, such as the UDRP, also may provide
good base policies for the usTLD and should be considered by the Awardee. NeuStar also agrees, however, that it is critical to the stable development
of the enhanced usTLD that the Awardee and the NTIA work cooperatively
to establish and develop necessary additional policy.
This measured approach to policy adoption and new
policy development will allow straightforward administration of the usTLD. Moreover, it will increase TLD stability, as well as user familiarity and
comfort and, therefore, will help speed acceptance of the expanded TLD.
Under current usTLD policy, registrations in the usTLD must be hosted
on computers in the United States (RFC 1480 Section 1.3). Should this requirement
apply to the expanded usTLD structure? Should registrations in the usTLD
be further restricted to individuals or entities "located in" or "with
a connection to" the United States? If so, what are appropriate criteria
for determining eligibility: valid street address in the United States;
citizenship or residency in the United States; incorporation and/or establishment
in the United States? How would such criteria be established and enforced?
How would such requirements affect administration of the usTLD?
NeuStar believes that only critical core registry
infrastructure need be maintained in the United States. Indeed, sound
engineering practice may dictate, if user load so required, that some name
savers may need to be operated outside the United States to maintain acceptable
user service levels. Maintenance of the core infrastructure in the
US will ensure that the functionality of the usTLD cannot be disrupted.
Beyond the operational infrastructure of the expanded
usTLD, NeuStar does not believe that requirements that individual domain
names must be hosted within the United States are necessary. Given
the global nature of the Internet and Internet users, such restrictions
not only are unnecessary, they are inconsistent with the concept of an
open ccTLD. Such a restriction could harm legitimate users and discourage
use of the TLD. For example, a US subsidiary of a foreign company
might seek a .us open registration but want the actual name hosted on the
networks of its foreign parent. Thus, in keeping with the philosophy
of comfort and convenience for users, there should be few, if any, such
restrictions on the expanded usTLD.
The Draft SOW contemplates that registrations in the expanded usTLD
would be performed by competitive registrars through a shared registration
system. (Awardee will not be permitted to serve as a usTLD registrar, except
with respect to registrations in the existing, locality-based usTLD space
until the required study has been completed.) Under this system, who should
be eligible to serve as usTLD registrars? ICANN has established accreditation
procedures for registrars in the .com, .net and .org top level domains.
Should all individuals and entities accredited by ICANN be eligible to
register in the usTLD? If not, why not? What alternative process, procedures,
criteria, or additional requirements should be used?
In order to encourage the rapid implementation of
the enhanced usTLD, as well as promote strong competition among registrars,
and to encourage user acceptance of the domain space, NeuStar submits that
all existing ICANN accredited registrars should be eligible to register
in the usTLD without material restriction. Eligibility of ICANN registrars
should be subject only to technical testing and approval by registry technical
staff. This restriction is necessary to ensure the stability and
security of the TLD.
What type of contractual arrangement and provisions should be required
of usTLD registrars? Should usTLD registrars enter into an agreement similar
to ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see http://www.icann.org/nsi/icann-raa-04nov99.htm).
How would the ICANN agreement need to be modified to fit the usTLD context?
Is this a feasible approach? Are there any provisions of the ICANN agreement
that should not be included in a usTLD accreditation agreement? If so,
which provisions should not be included and why? Are there any provisions
that should be added, and if so, why?
NeuStar agrees that existing TLD policies should
be followed where possible to permit consistency and stability within the
TLD. The ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement provides a sound
initial basis for usTLD registrar contractual arrangements. Again,
using this document as a basis will allow for straightforward relations
with ICANN registrars. Upon completion of the study required in the
SOW, it may become necessary to modify or add to the agreement to address
the governance structure of the delegated subdomains and the possibility
of subdomain delegates operating as registrars in their own right. In addition, the Awardee and the NTIA likely will have to develop registrar
compliance and removal procedures to ensure that registrars comply with
all rules and policies governing the usTLD.
Should the interface between Awardee's usTLD registry and the usTLD
registrars be specified in the final SOW? If so, should the interface follow
the specifications set forth in RFC 2832 (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2832.txt),
or should other/additional technical and/or functional specifications be
used? What, if any, quality of service requirements should Awardee be expected
to meet? If other/additional specifications should be used, what should
these specifications be?
The NTIA should not specify in the SOW the interface
between Awardee�s usTLD registry and the registrars. Rather, the
SOW should list high-level functional specifications to apply to the development
of the necessary interface protocol. Consistent with its overall
approach to public resource management, NeuStar supports the development
of an entirely open source next generation registry protocol. The
open source protocol should be developed and controlled by an open Internet
standards body like the IETF. Given the public interest nature of
.us, the adoption of such an openly developed and publicly owned protocol
is both reasonable and appropriate.
With respect to quality of service requirements,
NeuStar believes that the SOW should require that applicants include within
their proposals defined service level commitments. The content of
those commitments, however, should be left to the applicant to develop
based upon their proposal and capabilities.
It is likely that Awardee will want to license usTLD registrars to
use its registry access software. Is Network Solutions' Registrar License
Agreement (see http://www.icann.org/nsi/nsi-rla-28sept99.htm) a good model
for such a license? If not, why not? What provisions of the NSI agreement
should be deleted? What provisions should be added?
As noted above, NeuStar supports the use of existing
TLD policies for the enhanced and expanded usTLD. The NSI Registrar
License Agreement may serve as a useful model for usTLD registry/registrar
relations. However, such a license should only apply to registry
developed software, not to the protocol itself, which should be open source
as discussed in Question 13 above. The agreement should be developed
and modified as necessary by the Awardee and the NTIA.
On February 23, 2000, ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee ("GAC")
adopted "Principles for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code
Top Level Domains" (see http://www.icann.org/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm).
The document sets forth basic principles for the administration and management
of ccTLDs, as well as a framework for the relationships among the relevant
local governments in the context of a ccTLD, the ccTLD administrator, and
ICANN. The Department of Commerce has endorsed and intends to implement
the GAC Principles. Are there any provisions of the GAC Principles that
should not be included in an agreement between Department of Commerce and
the Awardee, or between the Awardee and ICANN? If so, which provisions
should not be included and why? Are there any provisions that should be
added, and if so, why?
NeuStar does not recommend any alterations or modifications
of the provisions of the ICANN GAC Principles for open ccTLDs as they may
relate to the usTLD. The Awardee and the NTIA should work cooperatively
to develop and implement any additional policies as the need for such becomes
The draft SOW represents a solid starting point for a request for proposals
for an enhanced and expanded usTLD. NeuStar urges the NTIA to consider
seriously the specific principles and suggestions discussed briefly above
in developing the final SOW.
Telephone: (202) 331-3109
Counsel for NeuStar, Inc.
Comments for NTIA
Management and Administration of the .us Domain
I am working with the National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP), a consortium
of 12 federal government agencies, and this comment is submitted on the
behalf of NOPP.
A simple, expedited mechanism should be established to request the creation
of new second level domains under .us. That is, domains of the form:
<new_domain>.us
We are not proposing to disrupt the geographical basis of the .us domain. New additions could be limited to domains that are geographical in nature,
but represent a different geographical part or aspect of the US, not covered
by the current second level domains.
In the future there will be many geographically-oriented programs in
areas such as geology, ecology, regional planning and governance, resource
management. These will be larger geographically than a single
state, so a state designation is not appropriate. Also these programs
typically involve a collaboration among government, academia, private enterprise,
and non-governmental (non-profit) organizations. They are not traditional
interstate governmental agencies. Therefore, domains such as .gov,
.edu, .fed.us, or .isa.us are not acceptable.
Examples might be: "South," "WestCoast," "GreatLakes," "MississippiRiver,"
"RockyMountains," or "GrandCanyon."
The criteria for accepting such a domain should be 1) that it fit the
general geographical structure of the .us domain, and 2) that it not duplicate
any existing second level domain in function.
We would like to see a simple, fair, expeditious procedure to submit
a request for a second level domain, have it considered by a standing review
committee, and -- if it meets the criteria -- approved, implemented, and
delegated to a responsible, qualified party mutually agreed-upon with the
original requestors. We suggest that 30 days should be sufficient
There should, of course, be some sort of appeal provision. But,
in general, the whole thing should be kept simple.
RE: Docket Number 980212036-0235-06
The City of Staunton (VA) is supportive of the Draft SOW. We are
in favor of continuing the usTLD structure and are encouraged by the Draft
With regards to the Methods and Procedures (Section II), I would like
to emphasize that the public authorities should have in delegation of a
domain. In the document, Principles for Delegation and Administration of
ccTLDs � 23 February 2000), ICANN outlines that the administration should
be �designated by the relevant government or public authority.� We
have had ongoing issues with the registrar of our domain (staunton.va.us)
who acquired the domain prior to ICANN management. They do not feel
ICANN rules apply to them since they had acquired the domain earlier. They do not have the support of the local government, yet continue to manage
the delegation. We would like to see consistency and uniformity in
all delegations regardless of when they were acquired, giving the right
of the local governing body to make the decision regarding delegation and
applicability of the uniform dispute resolution procedures for cases such
as this. The delegation of the local domain should be the responsibility
of the local governing body.
Kurt S. Plowman
Management and Administration ) Dkt No. 980212036-0235-06
Of the .us Domain Space )
COMMENTS OF THE BENTON FOUNDATION
AND THE MEDIA ACCESS PROJECT
The Benton Foundation (Benton) and the Media Access
Project (MAP) (collectively �Commenters�) hereby submit these comments
in the above captioned proceeding.
Benton and MAP respectfully suggest that the
Commerce Department has failed to include in its proposed scope of work
the most important question: how will management of the .us namespace benefit
the American people? Although several of the questions included in
the Request for Comments (RFC) and the proposed scope of work (SOW) include
elements that obviously benefit some sectors of the public, nothing in
the SOW requires that the winning proposal manage .us as a public trust,
as required by the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Commerce embraced
in the RFC, and in keeping with the long history of the United States in
In particular, management of the .us space
should address the growing �Digital Divide� that threatens to disenfanchise
those who lack Internet access or skills. Second, management of the
.us space should be used to fulfill the First Amendment�s promise of a
market place of ideas �as diverse as human thought.� Reno v. ACLU, 521
U.S. 844, 870 (1997).
I. BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR MANAGEMENT OF .US MUST BENEFIT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AS A WHOLE AND RECOGNIZE VALUE OF BOTH COMMERCIAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL
Commenters attach to this filing a separate document
entitled �Principles For Management of the .US Namespace,� jointly submitted
by Commenters and a coalition of non-profit organizations dedicated to
closing the Digital Divide and promoting democracy in the Internet age. As explained in the Principles, the Government Advisory Committee (GAC)
of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) identify
country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) as a public resource, �administered
in the public interest.� Furthermore:
The delegee of a ccTLD is a trustee for the
delegated domain, and has a duty to serve
the residents of the relevant country or territory.
The RFC explicitly embraces
the GAC principles. Despite this, the SOW does not explain how it
intends to administer the .us domain in the public interest or how NTIA
will hold the delegee accountable as a �trustee� with �a duty to serve�
Commenters urge that NTIA include the Principles
in the future scope of work. These will provide necessary guidance
to the future delegee in acting as a trustee of the .us domain space.
II. PROPOSALS FOR ENACTING THE PRINCIPLES
Although the RFC does not, at this point, solicit
specific proposals, Commenters believe it appropriate to bring to NTIA�s
attention ways in which Commerce can incorporate the Principles and appropriate
benchmarks into the SOW. Commenters urge that the SOW should specify
a non-profit serve as delegee;
the delegee use a portion of the revenue raised from management and the
resources available from management to provide Internet access, training
and content development for those on the wrong side of the Digital Divide;
the delegee implement new ways to enhance non-commercial use of the space
while fostering appropriate commercial development; and,
the delegee not only preserve the current legacy network, but work to enhance
the abilities of states, localities, libraries, and schools to use .us
as a more effective tool and means of creating online communities.
A. The Delegee Should
Be a Non-Profit Corporation
NTIA should require that the delegee be a non-profit
corporation. NTIA has itself recognized the wisdom of entrusting
DNS management issues to a non-profit corporation. From the first
statement of policy on transitioning the DNS from United States management
to private management, NTIA recognized that it would be preferable to entrust
this responsibility with a non-profit corporation dedicated to the public
good, rather than a for-profit corporation which must, as a matter of law,
act in the interest of its stockholders. See Improvement of Technical
Management of Internet Names and Addresses, 63 Fed. Reg. 8826 (1998)
(�Green Paper�). This does not mean, of course, that non-profits
are automatically qualified to handle such responsibilities or that for-profit
companies cannot act in the public interest. In the area of DNS management,
however, the Commerce Department now has a history to draw upon. Commerce has frequently observed that, although the process of developing
ICANN has not gone as smoothly as one might hope, it is a successful process
that embodies the consensus of the Internet community. See, e.g.,
Testimony of Andrew J. Pincus, General Counsel, Department of Commerce,
before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Commerce
Committee, July 22, 1999. It would be appropriate for Commerce
to replicate that process to some degree here. In particular, Commerce�s
conclusion to entrust DNS management to a non-profit, while creating a
system that permits for-profit registries and registrars to develop the
commercial potential of the namespace.
B. The Delegee Should
Devote A Portion Of The Revenue and Resources Derived From Managing .US
To Closing The Digital Divide
The United States faces an ever-increasing problem
in the form of the growing Digital Divide. While Internet penetration
continues to rise, and more and more Americans are coming online, a large
portion of our society continues to lag behind. This gap continues
to grow daily, as does the �experience gap� between the mainstream of American
society that enjoys access and those who have only recently secured access
to the Internet. In the words of Secretary Daley: �We should be alarmed
by this news.�
Both Congress and the Commerce Department have identified
providing access for all Americans to advanced communications services
a national priority and an integrated part of our national communications
policy. It is fitting that America�s premier Internet public resource
and the symbol of the nation in cyberspace, the .us domain, should become
an integral part of this national policy.
In this regard, Commenters note that the digital
divide has the highest degree of persistence among racial and ethnic minorities,
inner city communities, and rural communities. See, e.g., �Digital
Divide Leaves Country and City Behind,� USA Today, June 6, 2000 at
3D. See also http://www.digitaldivide.gov; http://digitialdividenetwork.
org. Traditionally, the private sector has failed to provide adequate
solutions for these communities. If the nation is to fulfill Congress�
goal of access to advanced services by all Americans, Telecommunications
Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104 §706, the federal government must act. As the branch of the executive charged to address this issue, NTIA should
It should be noted that the SOW should allow
the delegee, rather than the Commerce Department, to determine how best
to raise revenue for Digital Divide purposes and how to best use the resources
available to further this goal. As a contractor, the delagee has
a greater degree of discretion to act than the Commerce Department would
directly. For example, nothing prevents the delegee from auctioning
names to raise revenue. As several Federal Courts of Appeals and
the General Accounting Office have painstakingly explained, the fees charged
by the namespace administrator are not limited to cost. See, e.g., Thomas
v. Network Solutions, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 22, 36-37 (D.D.C.) affirmed
176 F.3d 500, 510-12 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Department of Commerce: Relationship
With The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, General
Accounting Office at 22-25 (2000). Nor must such fees be returned
to the treasury. Id. This, of course, stands in sharp
contrast with federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission,
which required legislative authorization to auction spectrum. See
generally Nextwave Personal Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 200 F.3d 43,
53 (2nd Cir. 1999).
Conversely, the delegee may decide to subsidize registrations
or activities that further the public interest. Nothing in the SOW
should prevent a delagee from taking such actions.
C. The Delegee Should
Enhance Non-Commercial Use of the Space
Scholars and the Courts have recognized that the
First Amendment to the Constitution requires the government to do more
than refrain from direct censorship. See, e.g., Cass R. Sunstein,
The First Amendment in Cyberspace, 104 Yale L.J. 1757 (1995). The
government has an affirmative duty to foster a diverse marketplace of ideas. As the Supreme Court has made plain:
It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited
marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail . . . . It
the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political,
esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences.
Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969).
Administration of the .us domain should further
the public access to �social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas
and experiences.� Congress and the courts have recognized this �government
purpose of the highest order.� Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC,
512 U.S. 622, 662 (1994).
Indeed, the United States has a long history of using
public resources and public funds to promote non-commercial speech. To
take but a few examples, the Morrill Act of 1862 provided for the sale
of public land to create the land grant university system. See
7 U.S.C.A. §§ 301 et seq. Two government agencies,
the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the
Humanities, are dedicated to making grants that promote non-commercial
speech. See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act
of 1965, P.L. 89-209. In addition, Congress created and funds the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to promote non-commercial speech over
the airwaves. 47 U.S.C. §§ 397, et seq. Congress
and the FCC have allocated segments of the broadcast spectrum exclusively
for non-commercial speech, see 47 CFR §§73.501, et seq.,
have required cable operators to allocate channels for public, educational,
and government programming (the �PEG� channels) and have recognized the
importance of non-profit educational broadcasting as part of cable must-carry
rules, see Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition
Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-385, and required Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)
operators to set aside a portion of their spectrum for non-commercial use.
47 U.S.C. §335. In short, the national policy of the United States
has consistently, since the days of the first land-grant
universities, favored the use of public resources to promote non-commercial
speech that contributes to the national culture and educates and informs
At the same time, the United States has traditionally
preferred not to generate this content itself, or exercise control over
content directly. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 326 (prohibiting
censorship). Rather, the United States has traditionally turned to
the non-profit community, to individuals, and to some degree to the private
sector, to create non-commercial content to provide the public, in
the words of Red Lion, �social, political, esthetic, moral and other
ideas and experiences.�
For this reason, the SOW should include a requirement
that the delegee foster use of the .us namespace for noncommercial speech,
and particularly facilitate its use by non-profits. True, the non-profits
have access to the Internet in the same manner as anyone else. Unfortunately,
the generic TLD originally reserved for non-profits, .org, has become increasingly
commercialized, diminishing the value of .org as a signal for non-commercial
speech. Requiring the delegee to promote use of the space by
non-profits will facilitate creation of a true public commons, where United
States citizens can expect to find substantive non-commercial content easily
D. The Delegee Should
Not Only Preserve The Existing Legacy System, But Explore Ways to Enhance
While the .us space has not yet fulfilled its full
potential, it has served some sectors of society very well. In particular,
libraries, schools, and state and local governments have made effective
use of the current structure.
The SOW should require the delegee to do more than
maintain the existing structure. The SOW should require the delegee
to work closely with these constituencies (and other .us registrants) to
discuss how use of the legacy structure and enhancements of the space can
serve these communities. These communities have played a pivotal
role in working to make the Internet accessible to all Americans, and have
unique relationships with their local communities. Indeed, Congress
has determined that libraries and schools should serve as the beach-head
for universal deployment and the war on the Digital Divide, by providing
that they receive subsidies for Internet access. See Telecommunications
Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104.
III. ANSWERS TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE RFC
Commenters have addressed this question in Part II above.
Commenters have no opinion on this question at this time.
To the extent Commenters have not addressed this
question in Part II, Commenters believe that the SOW should allow the Awardee
to act with some discretion. The SOW should require the Awardee to
address this issue in the proposal, and should consider the quality of
the proposed outreach and coordination (including proposed performance
benchmarks) as part of the overall evaluation of the response to the SOW.
Commenters do not believe support should be discontinued. To the contrary, Commenters believe the structure should be enhanced.
Commenters believe that the Awardee should coordinate
this project with the effected constituencies, although proposals on how
to coordinate and conduct the study should be part of any proposal submitted
in response to the SOW.
In the SOW, the Department of Commerce contemplates
directing the usTLD Administrator to suspend additional locality delegations
and to provide registration services directly for all undelegated subdomains.
The Draft SOW contemplates that this arrangement would continue until the
required study is completed. This "status quo" period is intended to provide
a stable environment in which to conduct the study. Is such delegation
suspension during this time necessary? Is the requirement to provide direct
registration services in the undelegated subdomains enough to ensure the
continued availability of the usTLD during this period? Should delegation
transfers also be suspended?
Imposing this condition may unintentionally burden
the communities that most use the existing .us system. The SOW should
leave discretion to the effected communities and the Awardee.
Currently, the usTLD Administrator does not charge fees for its services.
We contemplate that the Awardee would administer the existing locality-based
usTLD structure under this same policy, pending completion of the study
and the approval of any recommended cost recovery mechanism. Should the
Awardee be allowed to establish a cost recovery mechanism for the existing
usTLD space upon award? If so, on what basis should such fees be determined
and how should such fees be phased in?
Commenters addressed this issue above.
level domains would be most attractive for prospective registrants. In this Draft SOW we provide a great deal of latitude to consider and propose
Consistent with the principles discussed above, the
SOW should not impose artificial constraints upon the Awardee. Rather
the SOW should impose a public interest requirement and sufficient safeguards
to ensure that the Awardee fulfills its responsibilities as a trustee of
the .us TLD for the citizens of the United States.
As discussed at length above, the Awardee should
develop practices that further the principles described above. Notably,
the Awardee should be free to develop practices that work to close the
digital divide and that foster the development of a �public commons� in
the .us space.
Commenters anticipate that ICANN would play virtually
no role in development of policy within .us. ICANN is an international
body tasked with technical coordination of the domain space generally. While .us would, of course, comply with all ICANN policies generally applicable
to ccTLDs, Commenters do not foresee circumstances where it would be appropriate
for ICANN to take a more active role in managing a specific ccTLD (outside
of the context of a disputed delegation).
By contrast, Commenters expect Commerce would exercise
sufficient oversight to ensure that the Awardee fulfills its obligations
under the SOW and as a trustee of the ccTLD.
on computers in the United States (RFC 1480 Section1.3). Should this requirement
Commenters have no opinion at this time.
Commenters believe it is premature to speculate
as to what form of registration will ultimately best serve the public interest. Certainly promoting competition in registration (with the attendant price
and service advantages to registrants) should be a goal of the Awardee. However, there are situations where such a system may not be appropriate. The SOW should not constrain the Awardee from experimenting with different
systems. At the same time, the SOW should contain sufficient oversight
and intervention mechanisms to prevent abuse of the system by the Awardee.
The .us ccTLD should not be artificially constrained
or put at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis other ccTLDs. Furthermore, it is important that .us not forfeit essential elements of
its sovereignty over its ccTLD administration. At the same time, .us should
not interfere in anyway with ICANN�s general coordination of ccTLDs.
To balance these important considerations, the SOW
should give the Awardee discretion to act in consultation with Commerce,
rather than requiring a particular agreement as it exists at the time of
Commenters would prefer to see the SOW require sufficient
oversight and benchmarks rather than mandating a particular technology.
Agreement (see http://www.icann.org/ nsi/nsi-rla-28sept99.htm) a good model
Commenters believe that the SOW should not mandate
a particular form of license. Rather, the SOW should focus on overall
methods of accountability to ensure that the Awardee does not abuse its
control of the .us space.
Commenters have addressed this issue above. Commenters agree that the ccTLD should be treated as a public resource
and that the Awardee is a trustee, administering the ccTLD for the benefit
Only two clauses raise concerns. Specifically,
Clauses 10.2.5 and 10.2.6. As regards to Clause 10.2.5, Commenters
express concern that the question of anonymous registration remains an
important public policy issues. Commenters hesitate to endorse a
commitment to an ICANN policy on �public access to, accurate and up-to-date
contact information for domain name registrants.� Given the important
public policy issues involved, and that ICANN may formulate a policy that
runs counter to a future nationally-developed policy on privacy, Commenters
maintain that the United States government and the Awardee, not ICANN,
should have the final say in this matter.
As regards Clause 10.2.6, Commenters re-iterate
that .us should not encumber itself with comments that do not have the
general support of other TLDs. To the extent that Clause 10.2.6 could
be read to provide ICANN with a �blank check,� Commenters urge that
the Awardee and the United States retain some discretion.
The .us domain space has the potential to address
some of the most serious social issues facing the United States in the
digital age. Commerce should not squander this opportunity. Rather, Commerce must include within any delegation or agreement the specific
principles attached in the Principles for Management of the .US Namespace. At the same time, Commerce should take care not to make any SOW so tied
to a particular technology or approach that it would interfere with achieving
the important goals of combating the Digital Divide and fostering non-commercial
950 18TH St.
PRINCIPLES FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE .US NAMESPACE
The undersigned believe that the .US, the country
code top level domain (ccTLD) of the United States, must be managed under
the guiding principle that management of public resources must serve the
public interest. In addition to promoting valuable commercial development,
the .US ccTLD should promote non-commercial public benefits. In particular,
the .US domain should be utilized to address the growing Digital Divide,
to create opportunities for use by non-profits, and to foster valuable
non-commercial speech. The proposed statement of work issued by the
Commerce Department fails to reflect what should be the bedrock principle
of management of the .US namespace.
I. THE DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE HAS ALREADY EMBRACED THE GAC PRINCIPLES, WHICH REQUIRE THAT
MANAGEMENT OF THE .US SPACE SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
The Department of Commerce has endorsed the principles
of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for the management and delegation
of country code top-level domains (ccTLDs). Under these principles:
the role of the relevant government or public authority is to
ensure that the ccTLD is being administered in the public
interest, whilst taking into consideration issues of public
policy and relevant law and regulation.
The delegee of a ccTLD is a trustee for the delegated domain, and
has a duty to serve the residents of the relevant country or territory.
Under this principle the ccTLD represents a public
resource; the relevant country and delegee, as �trustees� for the citizens
of the relevant country, have a fiduciary obligation to manage this public
resource for the benefit of all of that country�s citizens.
II. TRADITIONAL PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REQUIRE THAT MANAGEMENT OF .US BENEFIT ALL CITIZENS
The GAC principles quoted above apply with particular
force to the .US domain. The United States has always recognized
an obligation to manage its public resources for the good of all. This �public interest� model has inspired the use of public land to establish
and support universities, the creation of postal roads and a national postal
system, set asides of land for natural parks and nature conservatories,
and subsidies for the sciences and arts.
The public interest has been the cornerstone of United
States communications policy in the �old economy� and into the �Internet
age.� Under the basic principle that telephony services are a �lifeline�
service to which all Americans are entitled, Congress has now ordained
that it is the policy of the United States to foster the deployment of
advanced telecommunications services to ALL Americans, and has provided
for a means to ensure that every school and library in America can access
This makes sound economic sense as well as sound
moral sense. The greater the number of people on the network, the
more valuable the network to everyone on it, including those previously
connected. The person in the city who can call or send email to his
or her parents back on the farm benefits as much as the parents back on
the farm from hearing from their children. The business that can
reach a new minority customer in the inner city benefits as much as the
consumer who can now place an order.
III. MANAGEMENT OF .US SHOULD SERVE
THE VITAL FIRST AMENDMENT PURPOSE OF FOSTERING AN INFORMED, DIGITALLY CONNECTED
The First Amendment impels government to maintain a
well-informed electorate by fostering a marketplace of ideas rich in civic
discourse, and to ensure that all citizens have access to this rich marketplace. More importantly, the First Amendment recognizes the importance of promoting
true diversity in speech by providing to all � regardless of their race,
age, or economic status � not merely access, but the means to participate
Congress has recognized the centrality of these First
Amendment principles in formulating our national policy on deployment of
the Internet and advanced telecommunications services:
The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive
computer services available to individual Americans represents
an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and
informational resources to our citizens.
The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum
for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities
for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual opportunity.
Congress has also articulated a clear national policy
�favoring diversity of media voices, vigorous economic competition, technological
advancement, and promotion of the public interest, convenience, and necessity.�
IV. MANAGEMENT OF .US SHOULD ADDRESS THE GROWING �DIGITAL
DIVIDE� SEPARATING THE UNITED STATES INTO INFORMATION �HAVES� AND �HAVE
NOTS.�
An increasing number of Americans find themselves excluded
from the Internet. Those on the wrong side of the �Digital Divide,�
who � for reasons of race or economic status � find themselves excluded
from this increasingly central network, will lack both the access to economic
opportunity and to the cultural opportunities the medium represents. Nor is this harm that flows in only one direction. The rest of American
society will suffer from the loss of these diverse voices and novel ideas. The discoveries that those on the wrong side of the Digital Divide could
have made, and the ideas they could have shared, will be lost unless the
federal government, the public sector, and the private sector intervene.
For these people in particular, .US is a valuable
resource that must not be squandered. The United States funded the
development of the domain name system with federal dollars. While
the United States has decided to internationalize the management of the
generic domain name system, the United States country code, at the least,
should be managed in the public interest of all United States citizens. Managing .US in the public interest must focus on addressing the growing
Digital Divide head on, and committing to leaving no one in our society
behind in the Internet revolution.
We will all suffer as a whole economically, as well
as culturally, if we do not address this growing Digital Divide. A vast number of jobs in information technology currently go unfilled for
want of applicants, and the demand for qualified applicants continues to
grow. In addition, providers of new online goods and services will
be unable to market these goods and services to rural and inner city customers.
Using .US to address Digital Divide concerns, and
to provide all Americans with access to non-commercial speech and greater
opportunities for civic discourse, would therefore truly serve the public
interest by benefiting us all, the digital �haves� as well as the digital
�have nots.�
V. MANAGEMENT OF .US IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST CAN ADDRESS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE AND EMBRACE FIRST AMENDMENT PRINCIPLES,
WITHOUT HEAVY-HANDED REGULATION AND WHILE ENCOURAGING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
Management of the .US domain could address the problems
of the Digital Divide and generally serve the public interest and the principles
of the First Amendment. For example, revenues raised from managing
.US could directly fund projects designed to provide Internet access and
technical training to those otherwise unable to obtain it. This follows
the tradition of subsidizing universal service and non-commercial speech
� first through postal services and land grant universities, then basic
phone services and radio and television spectrum set-asides, and now a
publicly supported educational television and radio network and Internet
access for schools and libraries. Furthermore, the space itself should
be managed in such a way as to promote greater connectivity for all, and
to foster the type of civic discourse the authors of the First Amendment
Management in the public interest, of course, does
imply top-down, centralized government regulation. Nor does it preclude
commercial development. To the contrary, the United States has long
recognized the important role played by commercial development and free
market competition in serving the public interest. Congress has used
public lands to stimulate industry through acts to encourage mining, leases
to companies exploiting our oil and natural gas resources, and giving private
industries involved in providing valuable services such as transportation,
energy and telecommunications the power to take easements through condemnation
In the area of communications, the United States
has recognized the importance of free competition and entrepreneurship. Although the spectrum is a public resource, those using it are free to
engage in profitable enterprises, and have become among the most profitable
But, just as public management must include the private
sphere, it must also include the public sphere. The United States
has balanced its management of natural resources carefully, and actively
used public resources to promote the good of all citizens. This has
taken many forms over the years, from cash payments to the general U.S.
Treasury, such as spectrum auctions, to payments in kind, such as payments
under oil and gas leases and public interest obligations on commercial
broadcasters, to dedication of resources to benefit educational enterprises,
such as land-grant colleges and public broadcasting,
In particular, the United States has recognized the
value of non-commercial speech and the important role that non-profits
have played in American society. The United States has enshrined
the principles of non-commercial speech in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the value of non-commercial
speech as the highest form of speech protected by the First Amendment which
all Americans have a right to receive, and that fostering an informed
citizenry with access to the widest sources of information is �a government
purpose of the highest order.� As a central means of
achieving this goal, the United States has subsidized non-profits engaged
in educating our society, enriching our shared culture, and providing access
to those who would not otherwise have access. Indeed, the NTIA itself
plays an important role in providing these subsidies through administration
of the Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) and the Public Telecommunications
Facilities Programs (PTFP).
VI. SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES TO GOVERN
MANAGEMENT OF THE .US CCTLD
Specifically, the statement of work should reflect the
1) The .US namespace is a national public resources,
and must be managed in the public interest of all United States citizens.
2) It has been the policy of the United States to
manage public resources to promote access by all Americans to communications
services, whether by postal road, a national telephone network, or deploying
advanced telecommunications services to all Americans in a timely fashion. In addition, the United States has a long history of dedicating public
resources -- including land, communications networks and radio spectrum
-- to promote the First Amendment goal of maintaining a diverse marketplace
of ideas and to foster civic discourse and the arts.
3) The private sector has played an important role
in promoting these polices through commercial development of public resources. In particular, there is a long history of commercial development subject
to conditions designed to foster the public interest, such as conditions
of non-discrimination or service to the local community.
4) Noncommercial organizations equally have played
an important role in developing our national resources for the public good. In communications in particular, the set aside of spectrum for non-profit
educational uses, and the funding of such enterprises by the public and
private sector, have vastly increased the public�s exposure to diverse
ideas and benefited the cultural life of all Americans.
5) The United States country code top-level domain,
the .US namespace, should be managed mindful of this history and in accordance
with the principle that, as a public resource, development of the .US namespace
must further the public interest through both commercial development and
non-commercial development.
1. Alliance for Community Technology (ACT)
3078 West Hall
ACT identifies, investigates, and promotes information and collaboration
technologies to build the skills of youth and those who work with youth. Its goal is to ensure that young people will have the opportunity as active
citizens in a more diverse world. In this role ACT intends to be
a link among communities and the public, nonprofit, and commercial sectors.
2. Athena Alliance
711 10th Street, SE
202-547-7064 - 202-547-7034
Athena Alliance is a non-profit organization dedicated to public education
and research on the emerging global information economy and the networked
3. The Benton Foundation
950 18th Street, NW
202- 638 5770
kk@benton.org
Since 1981, the Benton Foundation has worked to realize the social
benefits made possible by the public interest use of communications. Through its projects, the foundation seeks to shape the emerging communications
environment in the public interest. Bridging the worlds of philanthropy,
public policy and community action, Benton demonstrates and promotes the
use of digital media to engage, equip and connect people to solve social
4. Center for Media Education
202- 331 7833
The Center for Media Education is a national nonprofit organization
dedicated to creating a quality electronic media culture for children and
youth, their families and the community.
5. The Communications Consortium Media Center
202-326 8700
psparks@ccmc.org
The Communications Consortium Media Center helps nonprofit organizations
use media and new telecommunications technologies as tools for public education
and policy change. Since 1988, they have worked with scores of nonprofits
around the U.S. and around the globe on an array of issues, from children
and families to global population to learning disabilities to diversity
6. Communications Development Incorporated
2 Embarcadero Center, 2nd Floor
415-621-8724
david@cdinet.com
http://www.cdinet.com
Communications Development has been designing Web sites for more than
four years, a long time in a relatively new field. The belief is
that good content is inherently valuable, and that a flashy site with little
to say will not keep visitors coming back.
7. Community Technology Centers' Network (CTCNet)
Karen Chandler, Acting Executive Director
Antonia Stone, Founder
617-354-0825
kchandler@ctcnet.org
Community Technology Centers' Network (CTCNet) envisions a society
in which all people are equitably empowered by technology skills and usage. They bring agencies and programs together that provide opportunities whereby
people of all ages who typically lack access to computers and related technologies
can learn to use these technologies in an environment that encourages exploration
and discovery and, through this experience, develop personal skills and
8. Community Technology Policy Council (CTPC)
Philip Tuong Duy Nguyen
c/o 875 O'Farrell Street
The Council was established in 1999 as a national, nonprofit collaboration
among individuals and community-based organizations concerned with universal
access to advanced technology and the use of these technologies to enhance
the delivery of services and promote the quality of life of all communities.
9. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
650-322-3778
hklein@cpsr.org
A public-interest alliance of computer scientists and others concerned
about the impact of computer technology on society.
10. Consumer Federation of America
markcooper@aol.com
Since 1968, the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) has provided consumers
a well-reasoned and articulate voice in decisions that affect their lives.
Day in and out, CFA's professional staff gathers facts, analyzes issues,
and disseminates information to the public, legislators, and regulators.
11. Consumer Project on Technology
Consumer Project on Technology is focusing on intellectual property
rights and health care, electronic commerce (very broadly defined) and
12. Consumers Union
Kimmge@consumer.org
nonprofit testing and information organization serving only consumers.
They are a comprehensive source for unbiased advice about products and
services, personal finance, health and nutrition, and other consumer concerns.
13. Creative Capital Fund
65 Bleeker Street, 7th Floor
ruby@creative-capital.org
Creative Capital is a national nonprofit organization that supports
artists pursuing innovative approaches to form and content in the performing,
visual, literary, and media arts, and in emerging arts fields.
14. Davis Community Network
1623 Fifth St.
dcnadmin@dcn.davis.ca.us
The Davis Community Network (DCN), founded in 1994, was the first non-university
Internet provider in the local calling area. Today, as a non-profit research,
demonstration and community service organization, DCN is working to help
make Davis, California and its neighbors smarter, more creative and healthier
participants in the new Information Society.
15. East End Community Heritage School
2423 Eastern Avenue in Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
513-281-3900 - 513-281-0818
eastendschool@aol.com
16. The George Mason University Instructional Foundation, Inc.
Mail Stop 1D2
mkelley@gmu.edu
17. Libraries for the Future
121 W. 27th. Street, Suite 1102, New York, NY 10001
212-352-2330
dschull@lff.org
http://www/lff.org
Libraries for the Future, founded in 1994 as a national advocacy organization
for those who use public libraries, engages in three main lines of activity: Education, advocacy, and the operation of a national network of access
18. Media Access Project
950 18th Street, NW, Suite 220
202-454-5684
Media Access Project is a twenty-four year old non-profit, public interest
law firm which promotes the public�s First Amendment right to hear and
be head on the electronic media of today and tomorrow.
19. NEXUS FORUMS
10740 Woodbine Street, Ste. 102
NEXUS FORUMS is a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to building
a participatory democracy through interactive forums and leadership development.
They strive to create an environment for people of all generations and
ethnicities to share their viewpoints on issues that affect us as citizens
of our nation and of our global society.
20. OMB Watch
Director, Nonprofits' Policy and Technology
turnerr@ombwatch.org
OMB Watch was formed in 1983 to lift the veil of secrecy shrouding
the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which oversees regulation,
the budget, information collection and dissemination, proposed legislation,
testimony by agencies, and much more.
21. Prometheous Project
Prometheus Radio Project is a collective of media activists that supports
grassroots organizations seeking to build and operate radio stations. Prometheus advocates, educates and organizes around technical and policy
questions, usually focusing on radio but also issues of media democracy.
22. Working Films
2901 Yadkin Avenue
704 334-5089
Working Films, Inc. is a new organization linking independent filmmaking
to social action and community education. Their campaigns use film,
video and the Internet to shift public opinion and policy; and range from
high profile national efforts to regional and local grassroots initiatives.
Request for Comments on the .US Domain Space
(Docket No. 980212036-0235-06)
Comments of the Verizon Communications
Verizon Communications is pleased to respond to the
NTIA�s request for comments on the management and administration of the
.us domain space. Verizon has been active in the development of the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (�ICANN�) and has been
an active member of ICANN�s Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO)
Intellectual Property and Business Constituencies.
ICANN has made significant progress in building the
processes and framework to create a robust, competitive domain market. We urge the Department of Commerce to work within the framework ICANN is
establishing for new and existing TLDs. This cooperative effort will
further enhance the possibility for harmonization across the domain name
system and lead to greater certainty for businesses, consumers, and non-commercial
(�Awardee�). Does the list in Section I.A of the Draft SOW accurately
The list set forth in Section I accurately reflects
the full range of core registry functions. In particular, Verizon
is pleased to see the focus on maintaining an accurate and up-to-date registration
(WHOIS) database.
Are any particular technical specifications, software
or methods and procedures necessary to complete the tasks outlined? Are there other tasks that should be required as part of this section?
Verizon is particularly pleased to see the requirement
to develop an enhanced searchable WHOIS database. We firmly support
the requirement for multiple string and field searching through a free,
public, web-based interface. The required elements proposed are complete
and none should be eliminated, although there may be benefits to providing
additional data. Finally, the WHOIS database provides the primary
mechanism for trademark owners to identify cybersquatters and notify these
unauthorized registrants of domain names incorporating their trademarks
that the act of registering, using or trafficking in such domain names
constitutions a violation of the trademark owners� rights under federal
law. As such, we firmly support the requirement that the database
must be accessible through any "universal WHOIS service" especially those
designed to enbable �cross top-level domain searches� so a trademark owner
may search multiple top level domains using a single search
Are there any drawbacks or disadvantages to continuing
the support for the current .us structure? If support for the existing
usTLD structure, or portions of it, should be discontinued, please describe
how any transition should take place.
The current structure provides substantial benefits,
especially in the area of state and local government information. Having an area on the Internet identified with state and local governments
is beneficial and is a good reason to continue supporting the .US locality-based
structure in its current form.
Currently, the usTLD Administrator does not charge
fees for its services. We contemplate that the Awardee would administer
the existing locality-based usTLD structure under this same policy, pending
completion of the study and the approval of any recommended cost recovery
mechanism. Should the Awardee be allowed to establish a cost recovery
mechanism for the existing usTLD space upon award? If so, on what
basis should such fees be determined and how should such fees be phased
If the .US ccTLD space is expanded to include direct
registration under .US and/or new commercial second level domains, there
will be significant revenue derived from registrations in this space. It would be reasonable to require the Awardee to continue the free,
public sector (only) registrations in the existing locality-based structure.
Commenters have suggested that an expanded usTLD
structure that allows direct registrations under the usTLD as well as under
specified second level domains would be most attractive for prospective
registrations. In this Draft SOW, we provide a great deal of latitude
to consider and propose expansion of the usTLD structure. Should
the final SOW impose more specific requirements in this area? Should
certain second-level domains in the usTLD be required or specified? If so, which ones and how should they be selected? Should a second
level domain for the registration of domain names for personal, non-commercial
use be created? Are there disadvantages to allowing second level
domain registrations directly under .us? Would a system that both
Verizon sees little need for the introduction of
new commercial second level domains in the usTLD. ICANN
is currently evaluating proposals for expanding the gTLD space which should
address any perceived shortage of domain space. The only second level
domains that may be appropriate would be a commercial (.com.us), an educational
(.edu.us) and governmental (.gov.us).
Although it may appear that special-purpose second
level domains could be helpful in locating a particular entity (much like
the yellow pages is divided up by category to help one find a particular
entity), in practice, searchable directories provide a more flexible, solution
while adding special-purpose second level domain names create numerous
problems, such as consumer confusion regarding SLD structure.
Regarding direct registration in the usTLD, this
could be very useful, but only if the decision is made to forego the use
of specific second level domains such as .com.us, .edu.us and .gov.us. This may be reasonable since the existing .EDU and .GOV are presumed US-centric
already. The result of this customary usage avoids the need to create
a .com.us. Instead, commercial domains can be directly registered
in the usTLD. This would accommodate companies that are affiliated
with, want to project an affiliation with or want to reach consumers
Under current usTLD policy, registrations in the
usTLD must be hosted on computers in the United States (RFC 1480 Section
1.3). Should this requirement apply to the expanded usTLD structure? Should registrations in the usTLD be further restricted to individuals
or entities �located in� or �with a connection to� the United States? If so, what are the appropriate criteria for determining eligibility: valid
street address in the United States; citizenship or residency in the United
States; incorporation or establishment in the United States? How
would such criteria be established and enforced? How would such requirements
affect administration of the usTLD?
A local residence requirement is counterproductive,
costly to implement, difficult to enforce and serves no beneficial purpose. In addition, it sets a bad example for other ccTLD operators who may be
inclined to use similar requirements to impede US-based companies from
competing in their online market places. Such a requirement
would undermine the global, borderless nature of the Internet which is
a key strength.
What type of contractual arrangement and provisions
should be required of usTLD registrars? Should usTLD registrars enter
into an agreement similar to ICANN�s Registrar Accreditation Agreement
(see http://www.icann.org/nsi/icann-raa004nov99.htm). How would the
ICANN agreement need to be modified to fit the usTLD context? Is
this a feasible approach? Are there any provisions of the ICANN agreement
that should not be included in a usTLD accreditation agreement? If
so, which provisions should not be included and why? Are there any
provisions that should be added, and if so, why?
Verizon believes that any registrars for the usTLD
should be required to enter into an agreement similar to ICANN�s Registrar
Accreditation Agreement. In order to allow for a fully searchable WHOIS
database, any registrars for the usTLD should be required to collect all
of the information required to populate WHOIS and submit the information
collected from registrants, excluding payment information, to the registry. We strongly support the requirement that any registrars for the usTLD should
agree to maintain a policy and procedure for resolution of disputes concerning
SLD names and, if adopted, the adherence of the usTLD registrars to the
ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy.
Should the interface between Awardee�s usTLD registry
and the usTLD registrars be specified in the final SOW? If so, should
the interface follow the specifications set forth in RFC 2832, or should
other/additional technical and/or functional specifications be used? What, if any, quality of service requirements should Awardee be expected
to meet? If other/additional specifications should be used, what
should these specifications be?
The interface between the Awardee�s usTLD registry
and the usTLD registrars should be specified using the RFC 2832. [I don�t know if we need to answer this, but I think it is important that
there be a well-defined interface between registrar/registry]
Verizon fully supports the Department of Commerce
effort to reinvigorate the .US domain space. The changes proposed
have the potential to make the domain more attractive for commercial activity
without disrupting the existing, useful location-based structure for state
and local entities. It is important, however, that this reinvigoration
must avoid exacerbating the already difficult issues relative to trademark
infringement and dilution associated with gTLDs.
1133 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036-6710 USA
Telephone: 212-768-9887 Fax:212-768-7796
The International Trademark Association ("INTA") is pleased to respond to the NTIA's request for comments on the expansion and administration of the .us
domain space. INTA is a 122-year-old not-for-profit organization consisting of over 3,900 members in 120 countries.
The membership of INTA, which crosses all industry lines and includes both manufacturers and retailers, values the essential role trademarks play in promoting
effective commerce, protecting the interests of consumers, and encouraging free and fair competition. INTA has been active in the development of the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") and is a founding member of ICANN's Intellectual Property Constituency.
During deliberations, INTA urges the Department of Commerce to consider the fact that commercial activity on the Internet is increasing at a phenomenal rate.
Trademarks have been an integral part of this marketplace growth. Due to the immense and perhaps limitless size of the Internet, consumers, researchers, and the
general public need an assurance that they have reached their intended destination in cyberspace. That assurance, that sign, is a trademark. Trademarks, when used
in the form of domain names, are the street signs on the "information superhighway."
An Internet without respect for trademark rights would be disastrous to trademark owners and the public alike. Consumer confidence in the Internet would fade,
while companies that own trademarks, faced with the piracy of their property, would be reluctant to market their goods and services online. This would take a
considerable financial toll on national economies, as well as possibly lead to the loss of countless jobs. In some instances, it would also pose a risk to the health
and safety of the consuming public.
As the Department of Commerce continues to ponder the future of .us, we also urge it to work within the framework ICANN is establishing for new and existing
TLDs. This cooperative effort will further enhance the possibility for harmonization across the domain name system and lead to greater certainty for businesses,
consumers, and noncommercial Internet users.
As we have found that they relate to the protection of intellectual property, INTA has elected to respond to questions 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12. The responses are
reflected herein.
Regardless of the naming structure or registration policies of the usTLD, several core registry functions need to be provided by the successful offeror responding
to an RFP to administer the usTLD ("Awardee"). Does the list in Section 1.A of the Draft SOW accurately reflect the full range of core registry functions? Should
other/additional core functions be included?
The list set forth in Section 1.A covers the basic core registry functions that must be provided by any Awardee. In particular, INTA believes that an Awardee must
provide a free, fully searchable WHOIS database that is both accurate and up-to-date. The WHOIS database provides the primary mechanism for trademark
owners to identify cybersquatters and notify them that the bad-faith registration of domain names incorporating trademarks owned by third parties constitutes a
violation of the trademark owners' rights under federal law. INTA also recommends requiring the Awardee to make the WHOIS database available to "cross top-level domain searches" that enable a trademark owner to search multiple top-level domains using a single search.
Are any particular technical specifications, software or methods and procedures necessary to complete the tasks outlined? Are there other tasks that should be
In INTA's experience, the most valuable WHOIS centralized database systems are those that are fully searchable, either by domain name, by registrant name, or by
NIC handle. INTA strongly believes that all domain name registrations in the usTLD must be included in any WHOIS database. The WHOIS database should also
include sub-domains registered under second level domains.
Question 5 Regarding the requirement to investigate and report on possible structural, procedural, and policy improvements to the current usTLD structure, are there
specific procedures or policy improvements that should be implemented by Awardee prior to completion of this study? Are there issues that need to be specifically
addressed in the required study such as "localitysquatting," the role of state and local governments, or appropriate cost recovery mechanisms? Prior to the completion of this study, INTA believes that the Awardee should be required to implement preventive, as well as remedial measures (such as a dispute
resolution policy) concerning the bad-faith registration of domain names in the usTLD, which incorporate trademarks owned by third parties.
Currently, the usTLD Administrator does not charge fees for its services. We contemplate that the Awardee would administer the existing locality-based usTLD
structure under this same policy, pending completion of the study and the approval of any recommended cost recovery mechanism. Should the Awardee be
allowed to establish a cost recovery mechanism for the existing usTLD space upon award? If so, on what basis should such fees be determined and how should
such fees be phased in?
INTA supports the imposition of fees for domain name registration that are sufficient to deter the frivolous registration by cybersquatters of domain names
incorporating trademarks owned by third parties. INTA also recommends that the Awardee require payment upon application for a domain name as another
method of deterring cybersquatting.
Commenters have suggested that an expanded usTLD structure that allows direct registrations under the usTLD as well as under specified second level domains
would be most attractive for prospective registrations. In this Draft SOW, we provide a great deal of latitude to consider and propose expansion of the usTLD
structure. Should the final SOW impose more specific requirements in this area? Should certain second-level domains in the usTLD be required or specified? If
so, which ones and how should they be selected? Should a second level domain for the registration of domain names for personal, non-commercial use be
created? Are there disadvantages to allowing second level domain registrations directly under .us? Would a system that both establishes specific second level
domains and allows direct registration under .us be feasible or would a mixed approach cause confusion for users?
INTA does not object to the creation of a limited number of second-level domains such as .co.us, .edu.us or .gov.us. Thus far, this has proven to be successful in
country code domains such as .uk.
INTA believes that beyond those for commerce, government and education, multiple special-purpose second level domains should not be created under the
usTLD. Although it may appear that such special-purpose second level domains can be helpful in locating a particular entity (much like the yellow pages is
divided up by category to help one find a particular entity), in practice, second level domain names create numerous problems.
First, there is the problem of deciding in which category a particular entity falls. A single company properly might be classified under several different categories,
requiring that company to register its name for each of the applicable categories. Even more problematic is that a single company might not fall into any one of the
Second, trademark owners in particular have had numerous problems with unrelated third parties registering their trademarks as domain names under the currently
existing generic top-level domains (TLDs). INTA believes that the addition of second level domains beyond .co, .gov and .edu in .us would only exacerbate these
problems. The public would be hurt by the resulting confusion caused by cybersquatters who have registered a trademark as a domain name using a second-level
Third, INTA believes that multiple second-level domain names are likely to cause problems for consumers seeking reach specific sites. The requirement that a
consumer enter multiple values as part of a Web address is likely to cause problems because there is a greater propensity for consumer error, preventing a
consumer from reaching his or her desired site. Simplicity is better both for the consumer and the site owner.
The Draft SOW contemplates that the Awardee will follow ICANN adopted policies relating to open ccTLDs, unless otherwise directed by the Department of
Commerce. NTIA believes that this will allow straightforward administration of the expanded usTLD, with little additional policy development required. To the
extent that additional substantive policy is required, NTIA contemplates that it would work cooperatively with the Awardee to develop such a policy. What are the
advantages and disadvantages to such an approach? Should other approaches be considered? Please describe alternate approaches, and discuss their
INTA agrees with the contemplation put forth concerning the adherence of Awardee to ICANN adopted policies. It is our hope that such a policy will encourage
other ccTLD administrators to adopt a similar approach, eventually leading to greater uniformity in the arena of ccTLD management and operations. To the extent
that additional policy development is necessary, INTA believes that NTIA should play an active consultative role. Through its association with other agencies in
the Department of Commerce, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, NTIA could provide substantive advice on matters relating to consumer protection
Under current usTLD policy, registrations in the usTLD must be hosted on computers in the United States (RFC 1480 Section 1.3). Should this requirement apply
to the expanded usTLD structure? Should registrations in the usTLD be further restricted to individuals or entities "located in" or "with a connection to" the
United States? If so, what are the appropriate criteria for determining eligibility: valid street address in the United States; citizenship or residency in the United
States; incorporation or establishment in the United States? How would such criteria be established and enforced? How would such requirements affect
administration of the usTLD?
The local residence requirement is often a problem, because there could be significant marketing activity in the country with no direct subsidiary. Given the global
nature of the Internet, such residency requirements can stifle legitimate commercial interests in tailoring a website to meet local needs, in spite of the lack of
residence. No similar residency requirement applies for non-U.S. entities owning local trademarks; there is typically, though, a requirement of local representation,
i.e. for service of process, and such a requirement regarding domain names under .us would be advisable in order to ensure accountability for domain name
What type of contractual arrangement and provisions should be required of usTLD registrars? Should usTLD registrars enter into an agreement similar to
ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see http://www.icann.org/nsi/icann-raa004nov99.htm ). How would the ICANN agreement need to be modified to fit
the usTLD context? Is this a feasible approach? Are there any provisions of the ICANN agreement that should not be included in a usTLD accreditation
agreement? If so, which provisions should not be included and why? Are there any provisions that should be added, and if so, why?
INTA believes that any registrars for the usTLD should be required to enter into an agreement similar to ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement. INTA also
recommends that any registrars for the usTLD should be required to submit all information collected from registrants to the registry in order to allow for a fully
searchable WHOIS database. INTA strongly supports the requirement that the usTLD Awardee agree to maintain a policy and procedure for resolution of disputes
concerning SLD names that is consistent with the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy.
INTA believes that a reinvigorated .us domain space can be an important step in the development of the Internet and supports the idea to make the .us domain
space "more attractive to commercial users." INTA believes that this reinvigoration must avoid exacerbating the already difficult issues relative to trademark