Opinion ID: 784889
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Domain Name System (DNS)

Text: 78
79 The Internet is comprised of numerous interconnected communications and computer networks connecting a wide range of end-users to each other. See Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 849, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997). Every end-user's computer that is connected to the Internet is assigned a unique Internet Protocol number (IP address), such as 123.456.78.90, that identifies its location ( i.e., a particular computer-to-network connection) and serves as the routing address for email, pictures, requests to view a web page, and other data sent across the Internet from other end-users. 11 This IP address routing system is essential to the basic functionality of the Internet, in a similar fashion as mailing addresses and telephone numbers are essential to the functionality of the postal service and telecommunications system. 80 A domain name is an alphanumeric text representation (often a word) that identifies a numerical IP address, thus making it easier to remember. While every end-user's computer connected to the Internet is assigned an IP address, not every IP address has a corresponding domain name. Instead, a domain name is associated with a particular IP address (or group of IP addresses) only when an end-user registers the domain name. The primary purpose of domain names is to mak[e] it easier for users to navigate the Internet; the real networking is done through the IP numbers. PGMedia, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 51 F.Supp.2d 389, 408 (S.D.N.Y.1999), aff'd sub nom. Name.Space, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 202 F.3d 573 (2d Cir.2000). Domain names consist of various segments separated by periods, such that [t]he left-to-right string of name components proceeds from the most specific to the most general, that is, the root of the tree, ..., is on the right. Rony & Rony, The Domain Name Handbook, at 105 (quoting Zaw-Sing Hu & Jon Postel, The Domain Naming Convention for Internet User Applications, RFC 819 (Aug.1982), available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0819.txt?number =819). The Top Level Domain (TLD) refers to the final segment of the name ( i.e., the .gov in www.uscourts.gov). There are three-letter, general purpose TLDs (gTLDs), such as .com, .edu, .gov, and .org, as well as two-letter country-code TLDs (ccTLDs) that are available to end-users in particular geographic/political locations. The Second Level Domain (SLD) refers to the second-to-last segment of the web address ( i.e., the uscourts in www.uscourts.gov) and generally corresponds to an organization. 12 These segments each indicate a particular level within a hierarchical database. See Name.Space, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 202 F.3d 573, 577 (2d Cir. 2000). This hierarchical database, which maps domain names to IP addresses, is distributed across multiple computers that manage particular parts (or zones) of the database and are openly accessible via the Internet. The information maintained by each of these computers is stored in what is commonly referred to as the zone file. Rony & Rony, The Domain Name Handbook, at 61-62. Generally, Internet service providers (ISPs) 13 utilize domain name servers to translate domain names into numerical IP addresses, based on (1) queries to Root, TLD and SLD name servers, 14 or (2) cached data obtained from those servers, which is typically kept for the web sites requested most frequently by their end-users. See Froomkin, Wrong Turn in Cvberspace, 50 Duke L.J. at 38-39, 44. Essentially, when an end-user types a domain name into her browser, for example, her ISP receives it and, after translating it through the domain name server, forwards a request for data to the IP address corresponding to the domain name the end-user typed in. 15 The recipient of that request may then respond by sending the requested data to the requestor's IP address. See, e.g., Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500, 503-04 (D.C.Cir.1999) (describing the process of accessing bettyandnicks.com); Rony & Rony, The Domain Name Handbook, at 72-74.
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
99 Under the terms of the ICANN Agreement, each registrar must, among many other things, maintain its own on-line, interactive WHOIS database for those domain names it registers and make the database publicly available, in the way specified by the agreement. Specifically, the database must contain, inter alia, the names and contact information — postal address, telephone number, electronic mail address and in some cases facsimile number — for customers who register domain names through the registrar. ICANN Agreement, § II.F .1. Notably, neither the registrar nor the registrant has the option of prohibiting access to the registrant's contact information. Each registrar is obligated under the ICANN Agreement to make its WHOIS database freely and publicly accessible, and all registrants are obligated under their agreements with registrars to allow registrars to do so. See id.; id. § II.J.7.c (requiring registrar to enter into agreement with registrant whereby registrant consents to WHOIS information provisions). 100 The Agreement expressly requires each registrar to make its database freely accessible to the public via its web page and through an independent access port called port 43. Id. § II.F.1 (At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and a port 43 Whois service providing free public query-based access to up-to-date (i.e. updated at least daily) data concerning all active SLD registrations sponsored by Registrar in the registry for the .com, .net, and .org TLDs.). These query-based channels of access to the WHOIS database allow end-users to collect registrant contact information for one domain name at a time. Section II.F.4 notes that registrars must comply with any ICANN policy requiring registrars to cooperatively implement a distributed capability that provides query-based [WHOIS] search functionality across all registrars. Id. Section II.F.5 of the ICANN Agreement requires that: 101 In providing query-based public access to registration data as required by Sections II.F.1 and II.F.4, Registrar shall not impose terms and conditions on use of the data provided except as permitted by ICANN-adopted policy. Unless and until ICANN adopts a different policy, Registrar shall permit use of data it provides in response to queries for any lawful purposes except to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail (spam); or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to Registrar (or its systems). 102 This provision expressly permits (and may even require) registrars to impose use restrictions of type (a) and (b), and at the same time, expressly prohibits any other use restrictions. 25 103 The ICANN Agreement also obligates each registrar to provide third parties with bulk access to the same WHOIS information pursuant to a license agreement. Id. § II.F.6. The bulk access license entitles the licensee to receive weekly — in one transmission — an electronic copy of the same WHOIS information that is provided continuously through the registrar's web page and its access port 43. Id. § II.F.6.a. The registrar may charge a $10,000 yearly fee for the license. Id. § II.F.6.b. The ICANN Agreement states that each bulk license agreement between the registrar and a third party shall require the third party to agree not to use the data to allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail (spam). Id. § II.F.6.c. The ICANN Agreement also allows a registrar to enable individual registrants to choose not to have their WHOIS information made available through bulk access for marketing purposes by implementing an opt-out policy. If a registrar creates an opt-out policy, its bulk license agreements must include provisions requiring third parties to abide by the opt-out policy, and the registrar will also be unable to use the WHOIS information to market its products or services. Id. § II.F.6.f. 104 As the White Paper makes clear, free public access to WHOIS information, as required by the database provisions of the ICANN Agreement, has two purposes. The primary purpose is to provide necessary information in the event of domain name disputes, such as those arising from trademark infringement or cybersquatting. See White Paper, 63 Fed.Reg. at 31750. A second purpose, which the DOC felt would also benefit domain name holders, is to mak[e] it less expensive for new registrars and registries to identify potential customers, enhancing competition and lowering prices. Id. at 31750 n. 21. 105 It is important to recognize that in contrast with the registrar's computer systems (including the database housing WHOIS information), which the registrar undoubtedly owns, WHOIS information is public information that is not owned by anyone: WHOIS information cannot be copyrighted, see, e.g., Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991) (bits of [name, address, and telephone number] information are uncopyrightable facts), patented, see, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 101 (listing patentable subject matter), or protected as a trade secret or confidential information under state law, see, e.g., Ivy Mar Co. v. C.R. Seasons Ltd., 907 F.Supp. 547, 556 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (The single most important factor in determining whether particular information is a trade secret is whether the information is kept secret.) (citing Lehman v. Dow Jones & Co., 783 F.2d 285, 298 (2d Cir. 1986)). 26 Register.com (and other registrars) must make WHOIS information publicly accessible from the registrar's site and generally free as the air to common use. Int'l News Serv. v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 250, 39 S.Ct. 68, 63 L.Ed. 211 (1918) (Brandeis, dissenting). 106