Opinion ID: 784889
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Privatization of the DNS

Text: 81 As did many other components of the Internet infrastructure, the DNS originated under government grants. See, e.g., Nat'l A-1 Adver., Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 121 F.Supp.2d 156, 159 (D.N.H. 2000) (discussing The Government's Role in the Evolution of the Internet). In the Internet's infancy, a unique, authoritative list of IP addresses and their corresponding hosts was maintained by the late Dr. Jon Postel. Under government contract, Postel began managing the list as a graduate student at UCLA in the 1970s and continued to do so at the University of Southern California's Information Science Institute (USC-ISI) after obtaining his Ph.D. Id. In October 1983, Postel and his colleague, Joyce Reynolds, authored RFC 920, `an official policy statement' of the Internet Architecture Board (a private Internet standards body) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This official policy of the government and the Internet standards body defined most of the TLDs in use to this day. Froomkin, Wrong Turn in Cyberspace, 50 Duke L.J. at 53 (footnotes omitted). Over the next ten years, Postel and colleagues were intimately involved in the development and management of the DNS, although formal responsibility for the system was allocated to different entities through a series of government contracts. See Dep't of Commerce Policy Statement on Mgmt. of Internet Names and Addresses, 63 Fed.Reg. 31741, 31741-42 (June 10, 1998) (hereinafter,  White Paper ), available at http://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm; Rony & Rony, The Domain Name Handbook, at 113-27; Froomkin, Wrong Turn in Cyberspace, 50 Duke L.J. at 53-55. 82 Pursuant to authority granted to it by the 1991 High-Performance Computing Act, Pub.L. No. 102-194, 105 Stat. 1594 (December 9, 1991) ( codified at 15 U.S.C. § 5501 et seq. ); see 15 U.S.C. § 5521, the National Science Foundation (NSF) assumed responsibility for coordinating and funding the management of the non-military portion of the Internet infrastructure, including responsibility for the registration of domain names in 1991. White Paper, 63 Fed.Reg. at 31742; see, e.g., Rony & Rony, The Domain Name Handbook, at 125-27. NSF solicited competitive proposals to provide a variety of infrastructure services, including domain name registration services. White Paper, 63 Fed.Reg. at 31742. In late 1992, the NSF entered into an exclusive five-year cooperative agreement with Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) for the registration of new domain names. 16 Id. Thereafter, NSI performed key registration, coordination, and maintenance functions of the Internet domain system, including registering domain names in the generic TLDs, such as .com, .edu, etc., on a first come, first served basis, and operat[ing] the `A' root server, which maintains the authoritative root database and replicates changes to the other root servers on a daily basis. Id. NSI also maintained the authoritative database of Internet registrations ( i.e., the list of who owns what domain name and their contact information), called the WHOIS database. 17 Id. 83 In June 1998, the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) published a policy statement entitled Management of Internet Names and Addresses, commonly known as the White Paper, that proposed the creation of a private, not-for-profit entity to coordinate the technical management of the Internet's domain name system. 18 63 Fed.Reg. 31741. Specifically, the DOC stated that: 84 [T]he U.S. Government is prepared to recognize, by entering into agreement with, and to seek international support for, a new, not-for-profit corporation formed by private sector Internet stakeholders to administer policy for the Internet name and address system. Under such agreement(s) or understanding(s), the new corporation would undertake various responsibilities for the administration of the domain name system now performed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government or by third parties under arrangements or agreements with the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government would also ensure that the new corporation has appropriate access to needed databases and software developed under those agreements. 85 See id. at 31749. 86 Soon thereafter, ICANN was incorporated as a non-profit public benefit corporation in California, in order to assume the management of the DNS as contemplated in the White Paper. Name.Space, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 202 F.3d 573, 579 (2d Cir.2000). ICANN's Articles of Incorporation state that ICANN 87 shall, ..., pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol (IP) address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system (DNS), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv). 88 ICANN Articles of Incorporation (As Revised Nov. 21, 1998), ¶ 3, available at http://www.icann.org/general/articles.htm. As ICANN has stated, the reason for its existence is to carry out the Internet's central coordination functions for the public good as part of a public trust established by the White Paper and resulting privatization process. ICANN, ICP-3: A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS, (July 9, 2001), available at http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3.htm. 89 In September 1998, the DOC and the NSF entered into a memorandum of agreement transferring responsibilities for the cooperative agreement with [NSI] to the DOC. The NSI-DOC cooperative agreement was then amended to specify that [NSI] operates the authoritative root server under the direction of the [DOC]. DOC Relationship with ICANN, GAO/OGC-00-33R, at 7-8; see Nat'l A-1 Adver., 121 F.Supp.2d at 162. Furthermore, Amendment 11 to the NSI-DOC cooperative agreement required NSI to take various steps towards the creation of a Shared Registration System, essentially a competitive registration system for SLDs in the TLDs maintained by NSI. See Cooperative Agreement No. NCR-9218742, Amendment 11 (Oct. 7, 1998), available at http://www.icann.org/nsi/coopagmt-amend11-07oct98.htm; Name. Space, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 202 F.3d 573, 579 (2d Cir.2000) (discussing Amendment 11). Accordingly, NSI agreed with the DOC to recognize the entity created in response to the White Paper and formally recognized by DOC (deemed NewCo in Amendment 11), and to work with that entity to facilitate the transition from a single registrar system to a competitive system. See Amendment 11, supra; see also infra note 20. 90 In November 1998, ICANN received formal recognition from the DOC in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and entered into both a cooperative research and development agreement to study the root server system and a sole source contract to perform specific technical functions. See Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Dep't of Commerce and Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers (MOU), http://www.icann.org/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm (Nov. 25, 1998). 19 Notably, the DOC retains considerable oversight authority concerning ICANN activities. See, e.g., MOU, at §§ V.B.7, V.B.8 (DOC agrees to [p]rovide general oversight of activities conducted pursuant to this Agreement and to [m]aintain oversight of the technical management of DNS functions currently performed either directly, or subject to agreements with the U.S. Government, until such time as further agreement(s) are arranged as necessary, for the private sector to undertake management of specific DNS technical management functions.); id., Amendment 1, ¶ 5, available at http://www.icann.org/nsi/amend1-jpamou-04nov99.htm (Nov. 10, 1999) (If DOC withdraws its recognition of ICANN or any successor entity by terminating this MOU, ICANN agrees that it will assign to DOC any rights that ICANN has in all existing contracts with registries and registrars.); id. at 1 (The Agreement entitled `Registry Agreement' between ICANN and [NSI] with Effective Date November 10, 1999, and relating to the provision of registry services for the .com, .net and .org TLDs is hereby approved by DOC. ICANN will not enter into any amendment of, or substitute for, said agreement, nor will said agreement be assigned by ICANN, without the prior approval of DOC); id. at 2 (ICANN shall not enter into any agreement with any successor registry to NSI for the .com, .net, and .org TLDs without the prior approval by DOC of the successor registry and the provisions of the agreement between the registry and ICANN.). In fact, ICANN has submitted four status reports to the DOC to document its progress in implementing its responsibilities under the MOU. See ICANN's Major Agreements and Related Reports, at http://www.icann.org/general/agreements.htm (providing links to, inter alia, the status reports). 20 91 Despite the oversight responsibilities of the DOC, ICANN has considerable discretion and power under the MOU, which requires ICANN, inter alia, to provide expertise and advise on DNS management and, more generally, to collaborate with DOC on a series of issues. See MOU, at § V.C; see also id. § V.A (general shared obligations). The MOU can be amended only by mutual agreement and terminated by either party with 120 days written notice to the other party. Id. § VII. 92 As a result of the privatization process, ICANN now coordinates, sets policy for, and oversees the DNS. Among other things, ICANN is responsible for coordinating the assignment of domain names, IP numbers, and other parameters that allow the DNS to function as well as coordinating the root server system's operation. See, e.g., ICANN homepage, http://www.icann.org/. ICANN also has coordinated, with the approval of DOC, the introduction of new TLDs, such as .biz and .info. See ICANN, Third Status Report Under ICANN/US Government Memorandum of Understanding, (submitted to DOC on July 3, 2001), http://www.icann.org/general/statusreport-03jul01.htm. 93 Of the coordination functions performed by ICANN, perhaps the most visible and important, both generally and to this case specifically, is the registration of domain names. ICANN policies regarding domain name registrations are mainly implemented through ICANN's entry of agreements with domain-name registries and registrars. ICANN, Second Status Report Under ICANN/US Government Memorandum of Understanding, (submitted to DOC on Jun. 30, 2000), available at http://www.icann.org/general/statusreport-30jun00.htm. 21 While NSI still operates and maintains the TLD name servers and zone files that enable the other entities to access the DNS and to transmit domain name registration information for the .com, .net, and .org top level domain names to the System, 22 many competing entities, called registrars, have received contractual authorization from ICANN to register new SLD names within particular TLDs. 23 One such entity is Register.com. 94 The registration process essentially works as follows: 95 When an individual or an organization desires to register a domain name, it may do so through any accredited registrar.... The applicant first chooses one of the TLDs offered by the registrar and then creates an accompanying SLD name, thereby fashioning a potential domain name, which is then submitted electronically to the registrar for approval. However, no two SLD names within a given TLD can be identical. Accordingly, if someone submits an application for a particular domain name that already exists in the Registry WHOIS database by virtue of a prior registration, that name cannot be registered again, and the applicant is advised that the sought domain name is unavailable. The applicant may then choose to submit an application for an alternate domain name, either by changing or adding or subtracting a letter(s) or number(s) or a dash(es) to his initially submitted SLD name within the same TLD, or by going to another TLD where the initially submitted SLD name is still available. If there is no existing registration for a given SLD name within a given TLD, that domain name is considered available and generally may be registered on a first-come, first served basis. 96 Smith v. Network Solutions, Inc., 135 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1161-62 (N.D.Ala.2001) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, while one goal of the privatization process was to create a competitive market in registration services, competing registrars (and registrants) must be able to determine whether a particular domain name has already been registered, which necessarily requires coordination. Accordingly, in order to obtain authorization to compete, every registrar, including Register.com, must enter into a contractual relationship with ICANN governed by a uniform Registrar Accreditation Agreement (ICANN Agreement or RAA). The ICANN Agreement resulted from extensive public comment and was approved by the Department of Commerce and NSI as part of a package of agreements. 24 See Registrar Accreditation Agreement, (Nov. 4, 1999), http://www.icann.org/nsi/icann-raa-04nov99.htm. 97 Having provided a general overview of the manner in which the DNS operates, its privatization, and ICANN, we now narrow our focus on the particular issues central to this dispute. 98