rs nov25

Slide1: 

Robert Shaw <robert.shaw@itu.int> Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure (GII)/ iPOC Member International Telecommunication Union Geneva, Switzerland European Information meeting with the interim Policy Oversight Committee (iPOC) Brussels, November 25, 1997 Evolving Internet DNS Administration: Generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding (gTLD-MoU)

What’s a Domain Name?: 

What’s a Domain Name? Maps user-friendly name like “www.microsoft.com” to numeric address like “198.105.232.6” Provides “stable” address Conventions date from 1984 (RFC 920) 1984 definition created “generic” and ISO 3166 country-code based top level domains

Internet Top Level Domains (~1984): 

Internet Top Level Domains (~1984) “Generic” Top Level Domains .com commercial .org organization .net network .gov government .edu education .mil military .int treaty orgs. ISO Code Top Level Domains .af Afghanistan .ch Switzerland .dk Denmark .fr France .uk United Kingdom .us USA .zw Zimbabwe

Internet Top Level Domains (1997): 

Internet Top Level Domains (1997) “Generic” Top Level Domains .com commercial .org organization .net network ISO Code Top Level Domains .af Afghanistan .ch Switzerland .dk Denmark .fr France .uk United Kingdom .us USA .zw Zimbabwe “US-only” Top Level Domains .gov government .edu education .mil military “Restricted” Top Level Domain .int treaty orgs.

Global Use of Domains (Hosts - 1996): 

Global Use of Domains (Hosts - 1996) ISO Domains .af - .zw 39% US Domains .gov, .mil, .edu 23% ‘Generic’ Domains .com, .net, .org 38% Source data: M. Lottor Network Wizards <www.nw.com>

ISO Domain Registry Trends: 

ISO Domain Registry Trends Subdomains for increased granularity (e.g., co.uk, ltd.uk, gouv.fr) Shift from informal arrangements to industry-driven consortia (typically ISP-backed) Fees for registration, annual and/or update Strategic interest by governments, national telecom regulatory bodies, OECD Clear national sovereignty for policies

Example Country Code Subdomains: 

Example Country Code Subdomains

Generic TLD Trends (e.g., .com): 

Generic TLD Trends (e.g., .com) Low profile of .us tag, .us geo-political subdomain structure, ‘domain name envy’, ‘international envy’ all conspire against use of .us tag Tremendous growth & ‘commercialization’ of the net (popularity of .com) Increase in non-US registrations Conflict between registrations in gTLDs (a global name space) & ‘national’ trademarks

Internet Hosts: 3-Letter Domains: 

Internet Hosts: 3-Letter Domains Source data: M. Lottor Network Wizards <www.nw.com> Graphic: T. Rutkowski, NGI, 1997

gTLD Registrations performed by Network Solutions Inc. (NSI): 

gTLD Registrations performed by Network Solutions Inc. (NSI) NSF contract 1993 - March 1998 Optional “ramp-down” to September 1998 With .com growth, NSF authorized NSI to charge US$ 100 (2 year) fee from Sept. 95 NSI keeps 70%, 30% goes to Internet “Intellectual Infrastructure” fund (~US $25 million already appropriated by US Congress) Tremendous commercial and strategic value (e.g., registry database)

NSI Registration Growth Rates: 

NSI Registration Growth Rates

Domain Name Hijacking: 

Domain Name Hijacking SWISS ARMY KNIFE DENNER FRASCATI JAGERMEISTER BBC PRIME AUSTIN REED CACHAREL NAF-NAF LE MONDE SKY RADIO FERNET-BRANCA SOUTHERN COMFORT VATICAN RADIO Who has intellectual property rights to these “marks” in a domain name? INDIAN AIRLINES

Domain Name Hijacking: 

Domain Name Hijacking SWISSARMYKNIFE.COM DENNER.COM FRASCATI.COM JAGERMEISTER.COM BBCPRIME.COM AUSTINREED.COM CACHAREL.COM NAFNAF.COM LEMONDE.COM SKYRADIO.COM FERNET-BRANCA.COM SOUTHERN-COMFORT.COM VATICANRADIO.COM But all these are registered (hijacked?) by the Swiss company “Bureau D’Esprit” in Zurich INDIANAIRLINES.COM

NSI Trademark Policy: 

NSI Trademark Policy Introduced in ‘95 to allow trademark owners to claim back domain names Introduced ‘reverse domain name hijacking’ For example, Hasbro (since it has a game called ‘Clue’) wanted ‘clue.com’ from current domain name owner But why not ‘clue.hasbro.com’? Answer: ‘domain name envy’

But these trademark owners can also claim ‘clue.com’: 

But these trademark owners can also claim ‘clue.com’ Educational Development Corporation, holding the registered trademark CLUE for an educational magazine (US trademark reg. no. 968,677) Equifax Canada Inc., holding the registered trademark CLUE for an insurance-related database service (Canadian reg. no. TMA 331,270) United Biscuits Limited, holding the registered trademark CLUE for chocolate confectionery (UK reg. no. 1007723) Nichols William, holding the registered trademark CLUE for various services (French reg. no. 1611272) Ciba-Geigy AG, holding the registered trademark CLUE for fungicides (French reg. no. 617205, Benelux reg. no. 617205, Swiss reg. no. 409319, Austrian reg. no. 617205, German reg. no. 617205, Italian reg. no. 617205, Liechtenstein reg. no. 617205) Monsieur Penangwala Ahmed Sadrudin, holding the registered trademark CLUE for cosmetics (French reg. no. 94504168) and many more... Source: Carl Oppedahl at http://www.patents.com/clue/dism.sht

Perceived Problems: 

Perceived Problems NSI monopoly market lock on gTLDs (major % of Internet name registrations) NSF estimates ~US$ 200 million to per annum in 1999 NSI profits have driven others to set up ‘rogue’ registries which could destroy a single homogenous DNS name space (e.g., Alternic, eDNS, uDNS)

Problems cont’d: 

Problems cont’d Imminent end of NSF/NSI cooperative agreement How should transition to private sector be managed? How should competition be introduced? Self-interest / greed US government / NSF self-extraction Regulatory vacuum

IAHC Creation: 

IAHC Creation 2 1/2 years of initial Internet community discussion No resolution / tremendous debate ISOC-initiated “blue ribbon panel” formed to recommend DNS policy evolution (Oct 96) Appointees from IANA, IAB, ISOC, FNC/NSF, ITU, WIPO, INTA International expertise in legal, technical, business, standards and management issues

IAHC Public Review & Schedule: 

IAHC Public Review & Schedule Public review www.iahc.org, and iahc-discuss@iahc.org 6000 messages, >100 formal submissions Schedule Started in October, 1996 Draft on December 19, 1996 Final Report on February 4, 1997

IAHC / iPOC: 

IAHC / iPOC 13 months of IAHC / iPOC work More open than any previous Internet activity Massive participation Massive publicity Extensive ongoing modifications, based on feedback Constantly work in progress (devil is in the details)

Fundamentals: 

Fundamentals gTLD contextual value represents inherent competitive value (e.g., .web, .law, .inc) Entities want to have exclusive control over generic terms and abbreviations as gTLDs Equitable competition in registration services requires removing one-to-one relationship between Registrars and gTLDs Requires shared access to registration services to gTLDs

Benefits: 

Benefits User can change registrars based on price and service (domain name portability) With absence of global regulatory authority, must develop self-regulatory structure Goal is that registrars police themselves in competitive access to the same resources Remove claim by registrars that they own perpetual rights to generic or legal gTLD names

IAHC Proposal Components: 

IAHC Proposal Components Self-Regulatory Structure gTLDs Dispute Resolution Mediation Arbitration ACPs discussed this afternoon See http://www.gtld-mou.org www.iahc.org (historical)

Self-Regulatory Structure: 

Self-Regulatory Structure Establishment of generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding (gTLD-MoU) Voluntary policy framework which both public and private sector entities can sign ITU depository role WIPO dispute resolution role Defines oversight and operational bodies

The gTLD-MoU: 

The gTLD-MoU attempts to balance the many (and often disparate) interests of the many current and future stakeholders in the Internet DNS. is intentionally designed to be open-ended and will be adapted to evolving requirements. is an explicit recognition of a need to formalize the consultative policy framework for continued evolution of the Internet DNS.

gTLD-MoU Structure:: 

gTLD-MoU Structure: Policy Oversight Committee (POC) Policy Advisory Body (PAB) from gTLD-MoU signatories Council of Registrars (CORE) Swiss non-profit Association all registrars are members All registrars must be signatories to the CORE-MoU CORE-MoU administered by POC establishes policy oversight needs

gTLD-MoU Body Relationships: 

gTLD-MoU Body Relationships gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Board (PAB) (from gTLD-MoU supporting signatories) CORE-MoU ITU Depository Registrars Policy Oversight Committee (POC) Policy Operations WIPO Dispute Resolution

Documents: 

Documents Generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding (gTLD-MoU) CORE-MoU Core Articles of Association Administrative Domain Name Challenge Panels (Substantive Guidelines)

Signatories to gTLD-MoU (today > 180): 

Signatories to gTLD-MoU (today > 180) IANA see http://www.itu.int/net-itu/gtld-mou/signat.htm

Selection of Registrars: 

Selection of Registrars First phase selection opened from July 16 - October 18, 1997 Applicants must meet objective business criteria Handled by neutral auditing organization US$ 10,000.-- application fee US$ 300,00 in liquid capital Technical recommendations

CORE Registrars (today 86): 

CORE Registrars (today 86) see http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/reg-results.html NIC-DE MINDSPRING NIC-SE NIC-DK

CORE: 

CORE Contract for development and operation of shared registry system (SRS) awarded to Emergent Corporation (California) See http://www.emergent.com CORE Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland

‘generic’ TLDs (not int’l): 

‘generic’ TLDs (not int’l) Existing .net emphasizing data networking .org not-for-profit entities .com commercial businesses or firms New .firm businesses, or firms .shop businesses offering goods to purchase .web entities emphasizing Web .arts emphasizing culture and entertainment .rec recreation & entertainment .info providing information services .nom individual or personal nomenclature

Ongoing Response to Public Feedback: 

Ongoing Response to Public Feedback Some changes so far: 60 day wait =>voluntary Separate public oversight activities from CORE Lowered registrar entrance requirements Eliminated registrar quota, geographical allocation and lottery 2 PAB appointees to POC Review of gTLD names Now under discussion: ISPs, representation of different constituencies on POC (RFC to be issued) Substantive guidelines to Administrative Domain Name Challenge Panels

Final Remarks: 

Final Remarks US government imminent unveiling of plans for transition of .com, .net, .org to private sector management/governance Many challenges in developing a consultative policy framework that: has broadly accepted legitimacy balances different communities of interest caters to communities who work in very different styles and at very different speeds