Domain white paper comes up short
The long-awaited white paper on how to transfer control of top-level domains leaves many unanswered questions.
But within hours of its release, various sides applauded it while at the same time pondered what it would mean for the future of the domain name system (DNS).
The precursor to the white paper, the Commerce Department's so-called green paper, was long on details about how to pass control over the most popular top-level domains--including ".com," "net," and ".org"--should be handled, including calling for the creation of five new generic top-level domains (TLDs).
Today's white paper is presented as a policy statement from the Clinton administration, however, with all major decisions to be made by a yet-to-be established nonprofit corporation with wide representation from all parties interested in the domain naming system.
More coverage on CNET Radio |
The paper calls for the new corporation to focus on principles on which most can agree--competition, fair play, and an international solution that takes into account interests that vary from private businesses to governmental bodies. But it doesn't establish just how that corporation will be established.
While consensus is never easy to reach, in this case the task is even more daunting in light of the array of competing interests and individual cultures involved.
"It's almost like the beginning of the universe," said John Wood, senior Internet consultant at IT service provider Prince PLC. "The competing groups need to melt down their swords into plowshares. The absolute critical solution is the composition of the board. He who controls the board is the whole nine yards."
Since then, the agency received 650 comments on the plan, many of which were highly detailed.
Today's paper stated, "In response to the comments received, the U.S. government believes that the new corporation, rather than the U.S. government, should establish minimum criteria for registrars that are pro-competitive and provide some measure of stability for Internet users without being so onerous as to prevent entry by would-be domain name registrars from around the world. Accordingly, the proposed criteria are not part of this policy statement."
The question of who controls the domain name system and how it is operated is no small matter. The function of the entire Internet rests in the way the domain name system is handled. Currently, a few players control the system under a U.S. government contract.
Privately held Network Solutions registers the most popular top-level domains under the U.S. government contract. And the system is run by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
By extension, the players that control the DNS also control much of the Net's infrastructure.
How the varying parties will get together to establish the board is unclear, however.
The government will help to prepare Network Solutions for the transition, a move applauded by at least some who have long complained that NSI has an unfair monopoly that allows it to profit handsomely. How that transition will take place and what will happen to NSI after the transfer of power remains up in the air.
Whereas the green paper had given NSI the authority to continue running the most popular top-level domain name, ".com," the white paper leaves the issue up to the new corporation. And NSI's future becomes a bit more nebulous.
"Network Solutions is going to have the transition from being the sole registrar in the top-level domain space to being among a bunch of competitors," Burr said. "NSI needs to acknowledge the authority of this new entity."
NSI chief executive Gabe Battista today said that NSI was ready for competition and applauded the plan. He added that, "The white paper appears to be a policy follow on the green paper," and that there was an "implication" that the same plans in which NSI would run the registries for ".com," ".net" and ".org" hold true with this plan.
Many of those heavily involved in the process, spearheaded by President Clinton's Internet policy adviser Ira Magaziner, applauded it, saying the government did the right thing by relinquishing power.
"I viewed it as a victory for the Internet, and a victory for Internet self-governance," said Don Heath, president of the Internet Society, which had backed a position that was not held up in the green paper, but which now has the opportunity to gain ground many thought it had lost.
"There are those who would say the U.S. government has shirked its responsibility," he added. "But I honestly believe that they listened to the international community, heard them, and have responding accordingly. It's clear that the NSI doesn't own the top-level domains. They are not going to be a monopoly, but they will be the dominant market-share holder. I think it is going to open up competition. Service should be improved and costs should go down. People will have a richer array of domain names to register."
"We have a long process ahead of us and that's fine, because we want the best solution for the Internet," said Jay Fenello, president of Iperdome, whose plan was seen as a winner in the green paper. "On the flip side, it's going to take a long time and there's probably going to be a lot more debates ahead.
The paper calls on the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to oversee the process.
Some criticized the white paper for not doing enough on the copyright front.
Currently, instead of waiting for a court order, NSI puts domain names on hold when disputes arise.