Subject: Suggestions for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

From: Joseph Friedman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 14:44:52 -0500

Dear members of the Board of Directors of ICANN,

I'd like to offer some suggestions for an improved Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers.  I will not be able to attend ICANNs
public meeting personally, but I do have some ideas I think would be
beneficial to the new organization.  I summarized them below as best I
could, and I hope you as well as the rest of the Board of Directors find
merit in some or all of these suggestions.  I ask that you share these
ideas with the board and with the public in your meetings.

Here are 10 issues I considered:

1) The name of the organization

The name of the organization, currently the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), should be renamed to the Internet
Assigned Number Authority (IANA).  In his 5th and final iteration of the
proposed Articles of Incorporation of the "New IANA" prior to
its submittal to the NTIA, Dr. Jon Postel noted that many people
commented that the name change from IANA to ICANN in the 4th proposal
"has not met with universal acclaim" and that "there is
apparently strong sentiment for continuing to use the name Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority and the acronym IANA". And he requested
additional input from the community.  Shortly afterwards Dr. Postel
passed away.  I believe the name of the organization should be IANA, and
I don't know of anyone who would have any objections to such a
move.

2) The root servers

All the authoritive root servers for the Internet's Domain
Name System (currently there are 12 maintained by volunteers, the United
States Government, the United States Military, Network Solutions, and the
University of Southern California/Information Science Institute) should
be under direct custody and maintenance of ICANN.

3) Separation of the root and the SLD

The root (the "dot") should be separated from the Second
Level Domain (SLD) servers.  Currently they are both served by the same
physical and logical servers.  i.e. the millions of SLDs, ibm.com,
uu.net, are in the same servers as the root.  Technically and logically
it makes more sense to separate these functions.  Separating them will
also relieve millions of SLDs from the root servers.

4) The SLD servers

The Second Level Domain (SLD) servers should also (in my opinion) be
under direct custody and maintenance of ICANN.  Currently the SLDs are
served by the same servers as the root.  Another option would be to
contract out to the best bidder maintenance of these servers.

Currently maintenance of the existing SLD servers are done by Network
Solutions (NSI), under contract with the United States.  I do not believe
NSI should be the contractor for .COM .NET .ORG and .EDU perpetually.
Eventually these should also be re bid.

5) Annual fees

I do not believe whoever maintains the SLD servers should charge the
registrars (or registrants) an annual fee per domain.
There is no annual cost associated with maintenance of a domain in a
server.  There may be a cost to adding and modifying information for a
domain, so perhaps the charges can be based on adding new domains and
modifying existing domains.  (It is even questionable as to the costs
involved adding and modifying domains considering that these functions
are processed by automated systems.)  The largest and primary cost a
registrar incurs, is maintaining the database (which isn't seriously
affected by the number of domains it contains) and for customer service
requiring manual assistance (which ideally would be minimized).

6) Shared gTLDs

All registrars should be allowed to register domains in all the
shared gTLDs (.COM, .ORG, .NET, and the new ones.)  Prices for
registration would be negotiated between the registrar and their
customers.  Any domain registrant should have the right to transfer their
domain from any registrar to any other registrar, in as much as consumers
have the right to transfer their local and long distance
telecommunications provider as often as they please.  This is fair
competition.

The .EDU TLD should be a shared TLD maintaining the current restriction
that its limited to registrations by public institutions of higher
education.

ICANN should maintain a whois database (at whois.internic.net?) that
provides domain and contact information on all the shared gTLDs.  It
would also be nice if arrangements can be made with all the ccTLD
registrars, the U.S. Government domain registrars (.GOV & .MIL), the
.INT registrar, as well as the IP registries (ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC) to
share their public whois database with ICANNs as to provide one
point-of-contact for a whois database.

7) The InterNIC

The name "InterNIC" (short for the Internet Network
Information Center) and the internic.net domain, should not remain in the
sole custody of NSI after the completion of the transition.  The term
"InterNIC" is not a NSI concept or brand name.  The term was
used for the U.S. Government contract awarded to NSI, AT&T, and
General Atomics.  All 3 companies have used the term in conjunction with
their part of the contract - NSI for registration services, AT&T for
directory services, and GA for information services.  It would not be
right for NSI to assume sole control for that name and domain.  It should
be transferred to ICANN which should use it as an information resource
(maintaining the RFCs as is done currently, etc.) and a directory of all
the official ICANN registrars.

8) Adding gTLDs

Add as many new gTLDs as possible.  This of course should not be done
all at once, but over the course of time. Every short, memorable, generic
(3-5 characters?) word, in all major languages, should be added as a new
shared gTLD.  i.e. .INFO, .STORE, .HELP, .INC, .CORP, etc.  Any word that
is short and memorable would be wanted by many parties and it is only
fair that it be a shared gTLD.  I believe there should be 100's even
1000's of new shared gTLDs added to the root.

Note:  There is no technical limitation on the number of TLDs that
can be in the root.  This is demonstrated by:

-There are currently about 200 TLDs. (including the gTLDs, ccTLDs, .EDU,
.GOV, .MIL, and .INT)

-Dr. Postel, in his original proposal in '96, proposed the creation of
150 new gTLDs.  Who is more of an authority on the technical capabilities
than Dr. Postel?

-And most importantly, as I mentioned earlier, currently the root servers
also function as the SLD servers which have literally millions of
domains.  If the root is capable of maintaining millions of SLDs there is
no reason why it couldn't handle millions of TLDs.

9) Adding TLDs

After some time to digest these changes, ICANN should strongly
consider allowing anyone or organization to register there own TLD.  For
example IBM might register .ibm as a TLD it would use for its internal
purposes.  I might register .friedman for myself.  Of course ICANN would
likely want to set policies on this i.e. pricing, and perhaps limiting
the number of TLD registered to an organization.  This proposal should
only be implemented after there are many (1000's?) of shared generic TLDs
in the root.

There is no real reason domain names must be in the second level (SLD) or
higher.  They can be in the first (root) level as well.  One benefit
(certainly not the only) of allowing open registration of TLDs in the
root, would be easier, shorter domain names. (i.e. www.ibm and mike@ibm
instead of ibm.com.)

10) Trademark disputes

It is my strong belief that domains should continue to be assigned on
a first-come first-serve basis, and that ICANN and the registrars should
be prohibited by ICANN policy from refusing to assign a domain, taking
away a domain, or suspending a domain due to alleged or possible
trademark violations.  The only time a domain should be refused or
revoked is with a valid court order from a  court with jurisdiction in
the place of resident or business of the registrant.  (If someone
believes there trademark has been violated by a domain registrant, they
shouldn't be able to drag the registrant to a court in a far away
jurisdiction, nor should they be able to pick 'n choose a friendly
court.)  It is not the business of ICANN or the registrars to determine
who has a valid trademark, in what jurisdiction, for what industry, and
decide if the another party is using a domain in a manner that legally
constitutes a violation of a trademark or whether its considered
fair-use, comical-use, or whether or not the domain is being used in a
manner that confuses consumers with a trademark owner.  There can also be
more than one legitimate holder of a trademark in different jurisdictions
and/or industries that both have a right to the same trademark.  In such
an instance a court would not have any basis to take a domain from one
party.  In short, leave the decisions to a court-of-law.  Let them
arbitrate as they always have and always will.

Sincerely,

Joseph Friedman

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 13:32:59 +0000

I hate to respond to such a large addressee list but it is necessary
to comment on two of Mr Friedman's points:

Joseph Friedman wrote:
...
> The name of the organization, currently the Internet Corporation for Assigned
> Names and Numbers (ICANN), should be renamed to the Internet Assigned Number
> Authority (IANA).  

This is impossible. IANA is a technical function executed for the IETF, 
currently by ISI, which the IETF (acting through the IAB) will 
re-delegate by the end of the year. The name is not available for ICANN 
as a corporation.

...
> 8) Adding gTLDs
> 
> Add as many new gTLDs as possible.  

The technical opinion that the IAB reached a long while back is that
adding hundreds of TLDs is technically safe, but that adding
thousands would take us into unknown territory in terms of
operational scale, and should be avoided in the foreseeable future.

Regards

   Brian Carpenter
   Chair, Internet Architecture Board

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 13:32:59 +0000

Joseph Friedman wrote:
...

...

Regards

   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Joseph Friedman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:11:16 -0500

>> The name of the organization, currently the Internet Corporation for
Assigned
>re-delegate by the end of the year. The name is not available for ICANN 

The IETF can't be possibly be re-delegating the technical functions
currently executed by IANA.  The functions will be carried on by the new
organization (ICANN) after the transition.  

And how is it then that Dr. Postel proposed the new organization be named
IANA if that name isn't available?

---

From: Joseph Friedman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:11:16 -0500

Assigned

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:56:40 +0000

No. The IETF is nothing to do with the American government. 
The IETF decides who it delegates its own parameter registration to;
right now it is delegated to ISI. Naturally, Jon hoped, as I personally
hope, that ICANN would be the natural home for this activity. But
we (the IETF) haven't yet reached a consensus on this. 

  Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:56:40 +0000

Brian

---

From: Joseph Friedman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:18:47 -0500

Brian,

	Would it not be fair to say that the United States maintains legal control
over the functions carried out by IANA? IANA is a function funded by the
Department of Defense, a contract between DoD and USC/ISI.  The U.S. is now
making the decisions regarding ICANNs taking over IANAs functions, not IETF.

Joseph

---

From: Joseph Friedman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:18:47 -0500

Brian,

Joseph

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:48:28 +0000

I don't think so.

  Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:48:28 +0000

I don't think so.

  Brian

---

From: Hendrik Rood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:51:46 +0100

At 14:44 10-11-98 -0500, Joseph Friedman wrote and send it to the
numerous people subscribing to lists:

<excerpt>Dear members of the Board of Directors of ICANN,

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

Due to the large list I removed all the persons from the cc: I expect
they subscribed to one or more of the lists or are information exchanged
in the discussion performed on these lists.

Due to the subject I removed also the lists I think are not appropriate,
because the discussion is focused on domain name issues.

<excerpt>

I'd like to offer some suggestions for an improved Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers.  

<bold>1) The name of the organization

</bold></excerpt><<<<<<<<

[snipped]

<excerpt>

<bold>2) The root servers

</bold><italic>All</italic> the authoritive root servers for the
Internet's Domain Name System (currently there are 12 maintained by
volunteers, the United States Government, the United States Military,
Network Solutions, and the University of Southern California/Information
Science Institute) should be under direct custody and maintenance of
ICANN.

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

It will be wise to separate operations from policy making. Operating
servers can be a task performed by anyone qualified. Explicit regulations
must be set on the use of the available data in the servers only for the
goal of a root-server.

<excerpt><bold>3) Separation of the root and the SLD

</bold>The root (the "dot") should be separated from the Second Level
Domain (SLD) servers.  Currently they are both served by the same
physical and logical servers.  i.e. the millions of SLDs, ibm.com,
uu.net, are in the same servers as the root.  Technically and logically
it makes more sense to separate these functions.  Separating them will
also relieve millions of SLDs from the root servers.

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

There are of course trade offs between traffic and handling the requests
to the most requested domain names and the place they reside. This is a
size of tables and performance discussion. Splitting of the SLDs only
makes sense when there are a multitude of TLDs with each containing a
large number of SLDs. An unequal distribution of SLDs over TLDs creates a
performance incentive for placing the most requested TLDs on the
root-servers, because a two step search on 1 machine is allways faster
than a two step search with a referral to a second machine.

<excerpt><bold>4) The SLD servers

</bold>The Second Level Domain (SLD) servers should also (in my opinion)
be under direct custody and maintenance of ICANN.  Currently the SLDs are
served by the same servers as the root.  Another option would be to
contract out to the best bidder maintenance of these servers.

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

Most SLDs in the ccTLDs are on different servers. I do not see the point
to bring them all under ICANN maintenance.

<excerpt><bold>5) Annual fees

</bold>I do not believe whoever maintains the SLD servers should charge
the registrars (or registrants) an
<italic><underline>annual</underline></italic> fee per domain.  There is
no annual cost associated with maintenance of a domain in a server.  

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

Who pays the traffic from and to these servers? These systems also do
require electricity, space rental, restoral of failing parts etc. 

Introducing a variable fee on the traffic attracted is also a strange
idea. Due to the caching function and the TimeToLive in DNS-records the
determining factors of traffic for the most resolved names are the number
of ISP and company DNS-servers performing DNS-resolution and the
TTL-value set in the DNS-record.

<excerpt><bold>6) Shared gTLDs

</bold>All registrars should be allowed to register domains in all the

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

This is not fair competition but "equal access". It may be possible that
a requirement that a new TLD must be open to at least 10 registrars where
competition law (anti-trust) govern these registrars might be sufficient
to ensure fair competition.

A world with different assignment policies for a large number of TLDs
might be more attractive too. You can get competition on added value and
recognizability between strict policed TLDs and loose policed TLDs.
Consumers and companies are then able to choose to register their names
in one of these TLDs diverging in quality by policy type.

<excerpt>The .EDU TLD should be a shared TLD maintaining the current
restriction that its limited to registrations by public institutions of
higher education.

ICANN should maintain a whois database (at whois.internic.net?) that
provides domain and contact information on all the shared gTLDs.  It
would also be nice if arrangements can be made with all the ccTLD
registrars, the U.S. Government domain registrars (.GOV & .MIL), the .INT
registrar, as well as the IP registries (ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC) to share
their public whois database with ICANNs as to provide one
point-of-contact for a whois database.

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

I think an experienced lawyer must look first at this item. As long as
whois contains merely data of adminsitrative and technical contacts in
companies and organizations the privacy sensitivity of this issue is low.
When a large number of individuals start registering personal domain
names, the whois database might start to conflict with privacy laws in a
number of countries. I think I only have to remind to the large amount of
telephone numbers which are whitdrawn from telephone book listings in the
last years to show that following a policy advocated by this statement
would restrict several types of usage of domain names.

<excerpt><bold>7) The InterNIC

</bold></excerpt><<<<<<<<

[snipped]

<excerpt><bold>8) Adding gTLDs

</bold>Add as many new gTLDs as possible.  This of course should not be
done all at once, but over the course of time. 

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

Maybe because there are not millions but hundreds of millions TLDs to be
pursued when all the limits are removed. If you do not restrict the
number of TLDs any netizen might be willing to create his own one. This
results in a flat namespace which means that the DNS-servers are going to
scale more than linearly in size with the number of Internet users. This
ultimately will mean prices might go up for domain names instead of going
down.

Just read the first DNS RFC's for the arguments what happens with more
than linear scaling laws for name services.

<excerpt><bold>9) Adding TLDs

</bold>After some time to digest these changes, ICANN should strongly

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

This means that at the moment ICANN decides to pursue this proposed
policy there will be a run on the TLD-space. I think it is reasonable to
presume that enough corporations has become aware enough of the DNS
nowadays that they will immediately start using Trademark Law to claim
their name. This will create a large number of global conflicts for those
companies who have only registered their name in a few countries around
the world, while others are operating under the same name in different
countries.

The current Trademark debates for the .com will pale when a fully
liberalized root-DNS policy is set. Are you a Trademark counsel?

<excerpt>There is no real reason domain names must be in the second level
(SLD) or higher.  They can be in the first (root) level as well.  One
benefit (certainly not the only) of allowing open registration of TLDs in
the root, would be easier, shorter domain names. (i.e. www.ibm and
mike@ibm instead of ibm.com.)

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

This ease comes at two prices. A global flat root namespace and a one
time move which is irreversible. After removing the structure for TLD's
there will be no way back and the societal costs to set up a new
alternative system with more hierarchy may a prove very expensive burden
when it becomes clear only after the change in policy that such a
namespace is effectively unmanageable. 

<excerpt><bold>10) Trademark disputes

</bold>It is my strong belief that domains should continue to be assigned
on a first-come first-serve basis, and that ICANN and the registrars
should be prohibited by ICANN policy from refusing to assign a domain,
taking away a domain, or suspending a domain due to alleged or possible
trademark violations.  The only time a domain should be refused or
revoked is with a valid court order from a  court with jurisdiction in
the place of resident or business <italic>of the registrant</italic>. 
(If someone believes there trademark has been violated by a domain
registrant, they shouldn't be able to drag the registrant to a court in a
far away jurisdiction, nor should they be able to pick 'n choose a
friendly court.)  

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

I am very interested in which countries registrants will set up shop when
this policy is introduced. It might create "domain havens" next to "tax
havens".

I do not want to dismiss an auction based TLD-policy or another
assignment mechanism for a few of the new TLDs up front. With a serious
number of additional gTLDs. Trademark issue might be dampened. A fully
liberated root however will make these issues of trademark policy even
more problematic and will create expensive trials. A domain name policy
for gTLDs must definitely be considered on its societal costs and the
spending of Internet users on law advice and court cases for settling
disputes must be factored in when deciding what to do with new domain
names.

Kind Regards,

Hendrik Rood

--

--

ir. Hendrik Rood

senior consultant

Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL

tel: +31 20 44 66 555

fax: +31 20 44 66 560

e-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Hendrik Rood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:51:46 +0100

At 14:44 10-11-98 -0500, Joseph Friedman wrote and send it to the
numerous people subscribing to lists:

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

<excerpt>

[snipped]

<excerpt>

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

[snipped]

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

Kind Regards,

Hendrik Rood

--

--

ir. Hendrik Rood

senior consultant

tel: +31 20 44 66 555

fax: +31 20 44 66 560

---

From: Joseph Friedman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 16:11:46 -0500

At 08:51 PM 11/11/98 +0100, Hendrik Rood wrote:

At 14:44 10-11-98 -0500, Joseph Friedman wrote
and send it to the numerous people subscribing to lists:

Dear members of the Board of Directors of
ICANN,

<<<<

I'd like to offer some suggestions for an
improved Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.

<<<<

[snipped]

2) The root servers

<<<<

Good point.  I still think that it would be in the interest of the
community as well as that of ICANN to maintain the root servers
themselves.  But this is certainly debatable.

<<<<

My assumption here is, in the future with new TLDs added to the root,
that there will be a multitude of TLDs with each containing a
large number of SLDs.  I think this is a fair guess.

4) The SLD servers

<<<<

I was referring to the SLDs in the gTLDs, not the ccTLDs.  I should
have been more specific.

5) Annual fees

server.
<<<<

My concern here is, with a large number of SLDs, the number of SLDs
registered to an organization does not necessarily reflect the amount of
traffic or maintenance required by that organization.  For example
IBM may have one domain (ibm.com) yet contributes a lot more traffic and
needs more maintenance (i.e. requesting modifications to the domain) that
another small organization with 50 domains (for vanity or other
purposes.)

Instead of annual fees, I think fees should be based on the number of
requests to modify a domain (new domain, change dns servers, etc.)

6) Shared gTLDs

<<<<

This is not fair competition but "equal access". It may be
possible that a requirement that a new TLD must be open to at least 10
registrars where competition law (anti-trust) govern these registrars
might be sufficient to ensure fair competition.

Why limit it to only 10 registrars?  Why limit it at all?

A world with different assignment policies for
a large number of TLDs might be more attractive too. You can get
competition on added value and recognizability between strict policed
TLDs and loose policed TLDs. Consumers and companies are then able to
choose to register their names in one of these TLDs diverging in quality
by policy type.

If an attractive TLD (i.e. .CORP) would become loosely policed, the
registrar may take advantage of the fact that many people want to
register in that particular TLD, not because of the service, but because
of the attractiveness to the name.

The .EDU TLD should be a shared TLD
maintaining the current restriction that its limited to registrations by
public institutions of higher education.

<<<<

It is difficult, if not impossible to conform with all the laws of
all countries.  It may be feasible to allow registrants to
limit certain information from their whois record.

7) The InterNIC

<<<<

[snipped]

8) Adding gTLDs

Add as many new gTLDs as possible.  This of course should not be done
all at once, but over the course of time.

<<<<

I do not believe this would be a bad idea.  I don't either see why
it may cause prices to rise.

Just read the first DNS RFC's for the
arguments what happens with more than linear scaling laws for name
services.

9) Adding TLDs

<<<<

It wouldn't cause any greater conflict than adding new TLDs.  If a
company or individual has a trademark in any jurisdiction, they
have a right to use that name as a domain name.  Another company or
individual with a similar trademark would have no basis to claim that
domain.

There is no real reason domain names must be
in the second level (SLD) or higher.  They can be in the first (root)
level as well.  One benefit (certainly not the only) of allowing open
registration of TLDs in the root, would be easier, shorter domain names.
(i.e. www.ibm and mike@ibm instead of ibm.com.)

<<<<

Theres no reason why such a namespace would be unmanageable.  Just
as we currently manage the SLD namespace, we would then manage the TLD
namespace.  As far as it being irreversible, there is no reason to
reverse it.

10) Trademark disputes

court.)
<<<<

I am very interested in which countries registrants will set up shop when
this policy is introduced. It might create "domain havens" next
to "tax havens".

Trademark holders would have the same legal remedies to pursue violators
of their trademark in foreign jurisdictions, as they do now with
non-domain trademark violations.  Practically all countries are
signatories to international trademark conventions.

I do not want to dismiss an auction based
TLD-policy or another assignment mechanism for a few of the new TLDs up
front. With a serious number of additional gTLDs. Trademark issue might
be dampened. A fully liberated root however will make these issues of
trademark policy even more problematic and will create expensive trials.
A domain name policy for gTLDs must definitely be considered on its
societal costs and the spending of Internet users on law advice and court
cases for settling disputes must be factored in when deciding what to do
with new domain names.

Trademark issues should not affect TLDs differently than they do
SLDs.  And SLD registration is (and must be) fully liberated.

Sincerely,

Joseph Friedman

---

From: Joseph Friedman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 16:11:46 -0500

At 14:44 10-11-98 -0500, Joseph Friedman wrote
and send it to the numerous people subscribing to lists:

<<<<

[snipped]

2) The root servers

<<<<

<<<<

4) The SLD servers

<<<<

5) Annual fees

6) Shared gTLDs

7) The InterNIC

<<<<

[snipped]

8) Adding gTLDs

<<<<

9) Adding TLDs

<<<<

10) Trademark disputes

Sincerely,

Joseph Friedman