Comment on the IAHC Proposal on gTLDs & Additional Registries


The Commercial Internet eXchange Association and the undersigned ISP
industry trade associations are committed to the development of the
commercial use of the Internet worldwide. We recognize the need for the
development of self-regulated organizations, processes and procedures in the
commercial marketplace for Internet administrative infrastructure. We
acknowledge the intentions of the IAHC to support the transition from a US
government-supported administrative infrastructure to one administered by
and supported by the private sector. We respectfully submit, however, that
the draft proposal submitted by the IAHC in its present form does not
provide a long-term, scaleable solution within a global and legal framework.

Some of our concerns regarding the current recommendation for the creation
of new registries and new top level domains are:

a) Consensus

The IAHC rightly identifies these matters as ones of public policy. The
current recommendation and implementation process, as defined by IAHC, does
not allow for an open comments process, for an administrative review, or for
the generally recognized and accepted  practices used to build consensus and
to air dissent in matters of public policy.

b) Industry input in public policy

Internet public policy which affects commercial Internet Service Providers
and their stakeholders, which include all classes and definitions of domain
name holders, should not be made without the representation of these parties
in the development of such policy. 
 
c)  Trademark

According to Network Solutions, Inc. statistics, as of January 10, 1997
there have been 800,000 .com registrations. There have been a total of 50
(.000063%) suits filed in the US on these matters. Of these, only 18
(.000023%) legal actions in the US have included Network Solutions as a
defendant. It would appear that there is no compelling reason to change the
current system on the proposed immediate implementation schedule without
careful consideration of its affects on the commercial marketplace.

 Both the US Patent and Trade Office and the European Commission DG XIII
have announced intentions to hold hearings or consider the domain name
question in 1997. We submit that these hearings are an important public
process in the matter of domain names and intellectual property and any
action regarding new registries and procedures should be delayed pending
outcome of these processes and review of any recommendations.

New top level domains cannot address the national character of trademarks
when a trademark is legitimately used in different countries or situations
by different entities. The potential is for increased problems and
litigation rather than less, which would have a chilling effect on the
development of electronic commerce. 

The 60-day waiting period recommended by the IAHC needlessly holds up
potentially tens of thousands of problem-free registrations and gives
preference to trademark holders over other legitimate applicants. This would
become a matter of recommended registry policy to be implemented by new
registries before any formal review or debate has taken place, either in the
US or in other countries. In addition, a publicly announced waiting period
may lower the chances of a dispute over a domain name, but cannot prevent
it. Though 60 days may see significant, it is not enough for most legal
processes.

d)	.com 

The creation of new top level domains and competition amongst the new
registries may not decrease the allure of the incumbent .com. under the
current proposal. Unfortunately, many companies may feel compelled to
register in every possible new commercial domain to protect themselves in
the absence of law in this area. 

We do not oppose the creation of new gTLDs  so much as the idea of creating
a number of new gTLDs which do not have a  specific purpose for their
creation and a clear charter for their intended use.

We agree that attention needs to be paid to .us.

In conclusion, we support the reorganization and harmonization of the
international and country name space. We believe that this process should
take place within a framework in which the authority and legitimacy of the
process creates public policy which can be supported by sovereign
governments, and interested and affected constituencies throughout the world.

We appreciate the hard work by the IAHC on behalf of the Internet community.
Accordingly, the ISP industry associations would work with the IAHC to
ensure that our industry is appropriately represented in the appropriate
forums. 

Submitted 17 January 1997 by:

Commercial Internet eXchange Association (CIX)
Internet Service Providers Association of Belgium (ISPA)
Canadian Association Internet Providers (CAIP)
Florida Internet Service Providers Association (FISPA)
eco (Electronic Commerce Forum), Germany
London Internet Exchange (LINX)
Minnesota Internet Services Trade Association (MISTA)