I. Background and Introduction
Background
For several years there has been
an effort to introduce competition at the registry level by the introduction of new
top-level domains (TLDs). Many such efforts have failed either through a lack of
consensus or the entrance of government participation. Image Online Design, Inc.
has been involved with this effort since late 1995. In early 1996, Image Online Design
proposed the .web registry to the Internet Assigned Numbering Authority (IANA) and
participated in the creation of policies and procedures for the addition of it and
other new TLDs. In July, 1996, a meeting was held in Marina Del Rey, California,
at the offices of IANA. At this meeting, a representative of IANA told a representative
of Image Online Design, Inc. to make the .web registry, at that time a proof-of-concept
prototype system, active, in order to show stability and operational readiness. Image
Online Design has run The .Web Internet Domain Registry continuously since that time.
Unfortunately, the original plan as set forth by Dr. Jon Postel of IANA was not implemented.
Instead, an ill-fated attempt by the Internet Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC) to create a
new set of policies and procedures was tried, and eventually halted and superceded
by a process initiated by the United States Government. The Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the creation of that process, and is currently
soliciting opinions on the current effort to create policies and procedures for the
creation of new TLDs.It is interesting, in contemplating the history of the new
TLD movement, to note that it all began with a posting to the "newdom" list by Dr.
Postel in 1995. That posting, found at http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1995q4/0197.html,
reads:
From: Jon Postel (postel@ISI.EDU)
Subject: Re: Registering TLD's
Date:
Sat, 11 Nov 1995 22:49:44 -0800
Hi.
Want to register a new TLD?
Here is the
procedure:
1) Get the Internic's domain template.
2) fill it out.
3) Send
it to the IANA at iana@isi.edu.
4) Wait.
Be prepared to wait a long time since
the IANA is not about to actually
allocate any new TLDs until the procedures we
sometimes discussing on this
list get sorted out.
--jon.
Image Online Design
joined a number of other individuals and companies in doing exactly what Dr. Postel
asked, in applying for its .web registry to be added to the Internet's root servers.
In light of the considerable history, including the applications to IANA, ICANN should
take these existing applications, with a mind towards those that were simply requests
that new TLDs be created (as opposed to direct requests to run a registry), and use
them as a starting point throughout this entire process.
Introduction
As the
longest-standing pioneer registry, Image Online Design, Inc. and The .Web Internet
Domain Registry present this paper outlining the position of the companies and answering
the numerous questions that ICANN has asked regarding this process. More information
about Image Online Design and The .Web Internet Domain Registry, including a more
detailed timeline, may be found at the end of this position paper.
Image Online
Design clearly recognizes the difficulty in articulating the spectrum of policy concerns
for the introduction of new TLDs, and has lived with and through a process that has
extended for many years. It is not Image Online Design's intention to be critical
of ICANN's posting, since it is important in bringing the issue to the forefront
of decision-making and significantly advancing its ultimate resolution. It is important,
however, to recognize two themes that seem to predominate the direction of the posting:
stability and the protection of intellectual property rights.
No one can disagree
with the importance of maintaining the stability of the Internet and the Domain Name
System. Certainly this concern is well established in the White Paper, as is the
need to address what the White Paper labels the "trademark dilemma." Image Online
Design, however, would respectfully suggest that there is a broader range of policy
concerns, which must also be considered. The purpose of the following sections in
this introduction is an effort at suggesting the variety of other concerns, which
require balancing, and implementation.
Avoiding Irreversible Lock-In, In The Context
of Exponential Growth in the Commercial Internet
Press reports have been replete
with studies indicating that within the past year the volume of e-commerce has more
than doubled, and that within the next year it is expected to do so again. The rate
and nature of this growth contributes to increasing productivity and sustaining economic
growth while assisting in the containment of inflation, and provides a general backdrop
within which ICANN's own policies must be considered.
Economists have clearly recognized
the lock-in phenomena, especially in areas of technological innovation. Increasing
rates of return from first-to-market innovations have a tendency to "lock-in" the
market positions of one competing technological innovation over another. A problem,
however, arises when the more efficient alternative is excluded by an inability to
overcome the competitive advantage of the locked-in competitor, whose market share
increases to a degree that it obtains continuing growth in rates of return and ends-up
being the only effective choice. This may occur by accident, random factors, or simply
from good fortune. It may not, however, lead to sustainable innovation over the longer-term.
The euphoria associated with the growth of the Internet and e-commerce should not
result in a "policy hubris" of invulnerability to locked-in, long-term inefficiencies.
The
potential for lock-in is illustrated by the ".com" phenomena, which few could have
fully anticipated, as one after another new start-up bears the ".com" designation.
At some point that cycle may pass, but without effective competition and alternatives,
the sustainability of innovation and continued growth will inevitably be restricted.
One can only imagine how different e-commerce might be today if, four years ago,
a robust system of competition and alternatives had been introduced into the authoritative
roots. The role of the domain name system in fostering growth, innovation and efficiency
cannot be underestimated.
The twin factors of existing and on-going lock-in, combined
with exponential growth, must provide a balancing context within which the introduction
of new TLDs should be evaluated. Stability must never, and need never be pitted against
competition. Both the White Paper and ICANN's MoU recognize the importance of robust
competition, providing for a diversity of business models, with bottom-up, private-sector-driven
innovation as important factors in both the timing and scope of the introduction
of new TLDs.
The Pioneer "Preference", "First In Time, First In Right"
One of
the implicit Internet governance principles recognized in the Postel Drafts, and
even in the IAHC proposal, is the concept that the first in time has the first right.
There are many reasons for this principle, which finds corollaries in many systems
that attempt to allocate "rights" or to decide between competing users. It is supported
by an inherent logic and sense of fairness, and provides a simple and non-arbitrary
method of distinguishing between different claims.
Behind the policy, however,
are the foundations of sound economics and policy.
Avoiding "Demoralization Costs"
Economists
since Bentham have recognized that investment, knowledge, labor and innovation depend
upon a stability of expectations. In other words, no one would invest time, effort,
knowledge and resources if such efforts could be taken or exploited without cause
simply because someone else had superior power. The consequences of this simple idea
have lead to the concept of property rights, or user rights, upon which innovation
and risk-taking leads to the creation of maximum mutual benefit and social utility.
In
the context of Internet governance, a principle has evolved from the earliest development
of the Internet beyond national defense purposes that reasonable expectations of
existing, bona-fide stakeholders, who propose to make a beneficial use that is not
injurious to others, should not be disrupted without substantial and over-riding
cause. Image Online Design and its more than 14,000 registrants represent that principle.
All have proceeded in good faith, in reliance upon the ultimate fairness of the "system,"
in an effort to contribute and participate.
Not to recognize the justifiable claim
of these stake-holders would be to introduce a new concept into the Internet economy
and policy: the ability to arbitrarily take innovation and risk-taking, to deny the
free expression of preference, individual choice, and the rewards due to labor, investment,
and reasonable risk-taking.
That reasonable expectations backed by investment and
effort may be summarily dismissed within any system is not without profound long-term
costs. One cannot expect in the future that others will not recognize the unreasonable
risk and uncertainty which arbitrary non-acknowledgement leads to, and decline participation
altogether. In the extreme, Bentham's demoralization costs lead to a system of decay
and collapse. It is imperative that in charting the future course of the DNS, demoralization
costs be recognized and avoided except under compelling circumstances.
Recognition
of ICANN's MoU
The implicit policy of avoiding demoralization costs is recognized
in ICANN's MoU with the U.S. Department of Commerce. ICANN is prohibited, as is the
U.S. Government, from acting "unjustifiably or arbitrarily to injure particular persons
or entities or particular categories of person or entities." Even in the design,
development and testing of the DNS Project, the prohibition against unjustifiable
or arbitrary action is clearly recognized (D. "Prohibitions," 2, 3). Image Online
Design and its registrants are exactly the category that the MoU is presumed to protect.
This provision and the policy behind it should be given due weight and consideration
in implementing new TLDs.
Identifying and Avoiding Market Failures Through the
Recognition of Zones of Exclusivity (Property Rights)
The 13 June, 2000 ICANN
posting correctly recognizes that, "For technical reasons, it is convenient to delegate
the operation of each top-level domain to a single organization." However, the reason
for doing so goes beyond "technical reasons," however compelling they may be. Despite
the increase in competition at the registrar level, it must still be recognized that
there is a failure to achieve market competition at the registry level. From an economic
standpoint, this results from the failure to identify and implement, at the TLD level,
zones of exclusivity - an inherent part of the Internet at the second domain name
level - with the TLDs.
Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Ronald Coase identified a
fundamental cause of market failure - that is, the failure to force the internalization
of costs and benefits, each bearing their own costs and benefits - to be the result
of the failure to identify property rights. In a Coasean system, efficiency will
be achieved when all rights are allocated and thereafter will be through natural
rational negotiation be used in the most beneficial manner. Applied to TLDs, there
is an absence of effective competition because the system has recognized only one
zone of exclusivity at the registry level, and failed to establish others to force
competition on the basis of comparative costs and services. The costs of the failure
to create other TLDs become a windfall to the sole registry (an externalized benefit
without any compensating contribution), and impose opportunity (the benefits that
would have been) and externality costs throughout the entire Internet economy.
Preferring
Beneficial Uses Over Speculative Uses
TLDs are a potential economic resource that
should be put to beneficial uses and not restricted for speculative uses. In classic
terms, the true Speculator seeks to claim something to hold it off the market - to
make it unavailable and thereby exact a speculative benefit when selling or transferring
it to a user who will produce goods and services from the use of the resource. TLD
policies should avoid rewarding the Speculator who intends no beneficial use.
In
traditional Internet governance, this concept has been expressed by simply requiring
the prospective user to demonstrate "running code" - the ability to translate the
abstract desire to stake a claim into something that can be verified and demonstrated
to work and confer a beneficial result. In evaluating competing claims to new TLDs,
the demonstration that the claim has proceeded to be pragmatically beneficial through
"running code" should be required, based upon the first in time, first in right principle.
This will sort the Speculator from the Innovator in a clear and verifiable manner,
and benefit the entire Internet by rewarding one and ignoring the other.
II. Comments
on the Names Council Report
"The Names Council determines that the report of Working
Group C and related comments indicate that there exists a consensus for the introduction
of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner. The Names Council therefore recommends
to the ICANN Board that it establish a policy for the introduction of new gTLDs in
a measured and responsible manner, giving due regard in the implementation of that
policy to (a) promoting orderly registration of names during the initial phases;
(b) minimizing the use of gTLDs to carry out infringements of intellectual property
rights; and (c) recognizing the need for ensuring user confidence in the technical
operation of the new TLD and the DNS as a whole.
It is the position of Image Online
Design that the above position, as taken by the Names Council, is essentially correct,
and represents the consensus that has been apparent over the past four years of debate
on the issues before us. With respect to the specific concerns called out, it is
our position that (a) promoting orderly registration of names during the initial
phases is self-evident, and should be promoted at all times, and not just during
the initial phases. Minimizing the use of TLDs to carry out infringements of intellectual
property rights (b) is also self-evident in that such infringements are in the jurisdiction
of the judicial system. While all registries (not just new registries) can and should
take steps to minimize infringements, it should be noted that it is not always possible
to do so in a fair manner. As such, we are reminded of the existence of laws governing
such infringements. Finally, recognizing the need for ensuring user confidence (c)
is also self-evident, and should not be limited only to new registries, but to all
registries both new and existing.
"Because there is no recent experience in introducing
new gTLDs, we recommend to the Board that a limited number of new top-level domains
be introduced initially and that the future introduction of additional top-level
domains be done only after careful evaluation of the initial introduction.
It
is the position of Image Online Design that the introduction of new Country Code
TLDs (ccTLDs) provides a wealth of information, and that fearing instability due
to the introduction of new TLDs (other than ccTLDs) is inappropriate. Calling for
a limited number of new top-level domains only serves to restrict entry into a market
that has suffered monopoly thus far. Additionally, although the existing gTLDs (.com,
.net and .org) are not new, their rapid adoption and rate of use provide more than
enough experience in the management of TLDs. Simply because they are not new is not
a reason to discard the wealth of experience that they have provided. In short, there
is more than enough experience to offset any call for limiting the number of new
TLDs.
Implementation should promote competition in the domain-name registration
business at the registry and registrar levels. The Names Council recognizes that
any roll-out must not jeopardize the stability of the Internet, and assumes a responsible
process for introducing new gTLDs, which includes ensuring that there is close coordination
with organizations dealing with Internet protocols and standards.
While we cannot
imagine any changes to existing Internet protocols and standards as a result of the
introductions of new TLDs, we agree with the spirit of this statement. In answer
to ICANN Question 1, no substantial consultation with Internet Standards Organizations
need occur unless it can be shown that such standards must be changed.
III. Response
to A. The need to maintain the Internet's stability: a "measured and responsible"
introduction.
The U.S. Government's White Paper identified four principles that
should guide ICANN's activities. Of these, the White Paper made clear that ICANN's
primary mission is to preserve the stability of the Internet. ICANN has stated
Introducing
new TLDs implies a change in the overall structure of the DNS, and it is therefore
appropriate to take care to introduce any new TLDs in a manner that does not endanger
stability.
While we agree that stability is of paramount importance, we disagree
that introducing new TLDs implies a change in the overall structure of the DNS. No
change to the structure of the DNS occurs, either implied or in fact. Were this the
case, then the addition of new ccTLDs (such as the TLD for Palestine) or the change
of delegation of ccTLDs (such as the change for the Pitcairn Islands) would imply
such a structural change as well, and would require an extensive study such as the
one being done here for new TLDs. The argument that ccTLDs have a small fraction
of the number of registrations that a larger TLD would have is irrelevant - the difference
in traffic is one to the registry, and not a feature or function of the DNS itself.
Indeed, were this to be a concern, then the vast number of third-level domains used
by America On-Line would warrant a study in itself.
The Names Council statement
also noted that the implementation of a policy for the introduction of new TLDs should
give due regard to practical considerations, such as start-up issues (the "land rush"
phenomenon of huge query and transaction loads during the first few hours and days
of registration)
Again, this traffic would be a function of the registry, and
not the DNS itself, and is misleading, at best. In answer to ICANN Questions 2, 3
and 4, there appear to be no stability concerns associated with the initial phases
of registration in a new TLD. In the worst case, a registry would fail under the
load and would need to be brought back online in a more robust manner. To eliminate
or reduce this stability concern, ICANN should, in any objective criteria for acceptance
as a registry, require adequate facilities to accommodate the anticipated traffic
and load associated with a registry. As these concerns are specific to each individual
registry, they are not magnified by the introduction of a large number of TLDs at
once. With respect to ICANN Questions 5 and 6, the practical means of reversing the
introduction of a significant new TLD once it is in operation would be removal from
the root servers. Why this would be done, however, is unknown to us. Creating a TLD
on a "trial basis" is an action that has no obvious value, as new TLDs and registries
have been created in the past with no adverse reaction. Indeed, there have also been
failures of registries (.tv and .tm, for example), again, with no adverse reactions.
The
answer to ICANN Question 7 could be an entire document unto itself. The question
essentially asks what characteristics should be sought in a proposed TLD and its
proposing organization. The answer to this question would enumerate the fair and
objective criteria that would comprise an application for a TLD registry. Many of
these criteria are expanded upon further in this document.
IV. Response to B.
A well-controlled, small-scale introduction as a "proof of concept" for possible
future introductions.
Recent experience in the introduction of new TLDs is somewhat
limited. No new TLD designated as a "generic" TLD has been introduced for over ten
years, since before significant commercial use of the Internet began. Although dozens
of ccTLDs have been introduced since the onset of commercial use of the Internet
in the early 1990s, fewer than 10 of the 245 ccTLDs have as many as 100,000 registrations
within them.
As previously noted, this statement is misleading. The number of registrations
in a ccTLD is irrelevant to the technical aspects of its creation and addition to
the roots. As ICANN is mandated as a technical coordination body, the simple fact
that ccTLDs have been added, modified and deleted from the root servers with no adverse
reactions should end debate on this topic.
As a result, our answers to ICANN Questions
8 through 16 can be expressed by stating that the experience gained to date, in all
aspects of the DNS, tells us what we need to know in that there are no technical
barriers to the creation of a functionally unlimited number of TLDs, and that the
Names Council's recommendation that a "limited number of new top-level domains be
introduced initially" is not a sensible way to minimize risks, as those risks do
not exist. New TLDs should be created immediately upon the acceptance of an application,
based on the fact that an application meets the minimum technical requirements to
operate a registry. Where such additions would happen faster than could be carried
out with the resources available, the additions should happen as rapidly as possible,
and in a first-come-first-served (FCFS) format. There should be no goal for, nor
limit on the number of TLDs to be included in the initial introduction. For that
matter, the initial introduction should contain as many TLDs as there are qualified
applicants. The only limiting factor should be on the number of TLDs allowed to be
run by any single applicant, in order to avoid the possibility of a single applicant
being granted too large a number of TLDs.
V. Response to C. The purposes for
adding new TLDs.
It is the position of Image Online Design that separating TLDs
into functional categories is both irrelevant and adds a level of complexity that
is not needed and serves only to delay the introduction of new TLDs. Our answers
to ICANN Questions 17 through 24 can be expressed by stating that the type of TLD
(so-called "open" versus so-called "chartered" TLDs) is merely a choice that the
registry makes in how it will operate and market the TLD. As ICANN is only a technical
coordination body, imposing distinctions based on business model is inappropriate.
ICANN indicates that there is a desire for diverse vendors of registry services (question
18). Drawing a distinction between various types of TLDs will, if anything, prohibit
diversity in limiting the number of each type of TLD. This would have the effect
of blocking an application for a registry based on the number of applications of
a specific type. There will be no more confusion among TLDs of different types than
there would be among TLDs of the same type (question 19). It is completely inappropriate
for ICANN to be asking if one or more fully-open TLDs should be included in the initial
introduction (question 20), as this indicates a bias on the part of ICANN exists
already against so-called "open" TLDs.
In summary, all of the concerns expressed
by ICANN and put in terms of the differentiation of types of TLDs only serve to complicate
the question. New TLDs should be approved based on their ability to run within the
parameters of the stability of the Internet, and decisions such as the type of TLD
should be left to the registry. It is inappropriate for ICANN to be concerned with
the ability of a registry to compete with .com (question 22). It is entirely possible
that there will be applications for registries that have no intention of competing
with .com.
Finally, as to the question of the single-character TLDs, it is our
opinion that they are the one and only scarce resource in this entire forum, and
should be treated as such.
Another motivation frequently cited for introducing
new TLDs is that doing so might increase the utility of the DNS. Under this view,
the appropriateness of adding new TLDs should be evaluated based on whether addition
of the new TLDs would make it easier for Internet users to find the web sites and
other Internet resources they are seeking and would make it easier for the providers
of Internet resources to be found.
The DNS is not a lookup system. It is merely
a way to match names to numbers for the convenience of humans. With respect to ICANN
Questions 25 through 33, increasing the utility of the DNS as a resource-location
tool is not an appropriate goal in the introduction of new TLDs. That is not to say
that it is not a valid business model for a new registry to attempt to do this, just
that it is not an issue with which ICANN need concern itself. The concept of TLD
"charters" is in no way helpful to promoting the evolution of the DNS. Such "charters"
would be, however, helpful in creating a sound business plan for a registry - an
activity with which ICANN has no concern, providing that such a registry meets and
continues to meet the objective technical criteria set forth.
Some participants
in the discussion have asserted that adding undifferentiated TLDs for the purpose
of increasing the number of available domain names runs counter to the goal of enhancing
the distinctness of DNS names. In this view, adding names that differ from existing
ones only because they fall into new, undifferentiated TLDs would impair the utility
of the DNS. These participants argue that expansion of the DNS name space should
not be accomplished by making available additional names that are likely to be confused
with existing names, particularly since distinctive TLDs could instead be created.
In
short, and to the point, Image Online Design does not share this view. The inventory
of useful and available domain names has reached an unacceptably low level (question
34). The concept of "differentiation" of TLDs is misleading, at best. The actual
string used by a new TLD should be based on the choice of the applying registry,
and upon no other criteria (question 35).
Image Online Design does not support
the concept of "sponsoring organizations" for new TLDs (ICANN Questions 36 through
39) except in the case where the organization is the registry itself, or contracts
for such a registry (in which case it would take on the role of the registry). There
should be no difference between a "sponsoring organization" and a registry. Such
differences add yet another unnecessary level of complexity.
As explained elsewhere,
there should be no distinction among types of TLDs. As such, the answer to ICANN
Question 40 is that no types of new TLDs should be excluded.
VI. Responses to
Intellectual Property Concerns
Image Online Design agrees that the introduction
of new TLDs poses risks to intellectual property rights, but does not feel that these
risks are in addition to any other risks that exist in this or any other arena. It
is our opinion that these risks warrant no additional protections (questions 41,
42). While we do not agree with the current state of the UDRP, we feel that the availability
of the UDRP and courts as remedies for violations of enforceable legal rights are
sufficient at this time (question 43). There are no further protections needed (question
44).
With respect to ICANN Question 45, the mechanism for start-up of a new TLD
should be FCFS, as outlined in the current RFC applicable to domain name registration.
No special cases should be made for trademarks (question 46), as violations can and
should be handled through the UDRP and/or court system. To create additional mechanisms
for trademark protection would be admitting that the UDRP is not up to the task for
which it was designed. No delay should be caused by any further study of UDRP issues
(questions 47 and 48).
VII. Proposed Schedule
With respect to the proposed schedule
(ICANN Questions 49 through 52), while Image Online Design is inclined to agree that
the timetable is short, the delays over the past four years have been excessive.
As such, we cautiously feel that this timetable should be adhered-to as much as possible.
While the timetable has a very small amount of time for public comment, there is
a wealth of public comment over the past four years. Nothing has been opened for
comment in these proceedings that has not been extensively commented-upon in previous
discussions. Formal applications have no reason to be subjected to public comment,
as they should be judged based on objective criteria that are not subject to opinion,
public or private.
VIII. Response to IV. Suggested Data Elements to Be Sought
from Organizations Applying to Sponsor or Operate TLDs
Proposals should chose a
single proposed TLD initially, with multiple proposals in the case where an entity
wishes to run more than a single TLD (question 53). ICANN should not select the TLD
labels - they should be chosen by the prospective registry (question 54). Proposed
TLDs should be at minimum 3 characters so as to avoid collision with existing or
future ISO-3166 codes (question 55). In the case of single-letter TLDs, these are
the only unique case, and should be treated as a scarce resource. There should be
no restrictions on the types of TLD labels that are established (question 56). There
should be no criteria for selecting between potential TLD labels (language or other
criteria), as they should be chosen by the prospective registry based on its evaluation
of its ability to run such a registry (question 57).
ICANN Questions 58 through
61 suppose that TLDs of specific types will be limited. As discussed previously,
this need not be the case. As such, there should be no question of "how many" of
any kind of new TLD, and these questions are moot.
ICANN Question 63 is rather
perplexing, as it asks if ICANN should accept proposals from companies formed for
the purpose of operating a new TLD. We cannot imagine any reason not to accept proposals
from such a company. ICANN should determine the competence of such a company in the
same way that it determines the competence of any applicant. ICANN should not need
to evaluate the level of competence of officers and/or employees of applicants (ICANN
Questions 64 and 65), as the criteria for evaluation should be objective. Such evaluations
(as proposed in questions 64 and 65) are highly subjective and subject to misinterpretation,
at best.
With respect to ICANN Questions 66 through 68, we must reiterate that
all criteria must be object. As such, a requirement for a fixed amount of capital
is appropriate, but a varying amount based upon business plans or other subjective
criteria is inappropriate. ICANN should not need to seek diversity in business models:
if there is no scarcity in the number of registries, there will be no business models
rejected. As such, diversity will be satisfied. ICANN Question 67 is distressing,
however, in that it asks if diversity should be sought "in business models as well
as TLD types," yet a previous question asks if there should be diversity in TLD types
at all. We would like to point out that such leading questions tend to give one the
impression that ICANN has already made up its mind on the question of TLD types.
We invite (and strongly urge) ICANN to address this concern.
In the case of a
business failure, we suspect that other existing registries will be more than pleased
to take over operation of the TLD. As such, we support the concept of data escrow
and contractual obligations to provide for such a possibility.
IX. Objective Criteria
for Approval
ICANN Question 69 is the very heart of this issue. To reiterate the
question,
Q69: What should be the minimum technical requirements to ensure sufficient
stability and interoperability?
It is the position of Image Online Design that
the minimum technical requirements should be fair and objective. The composition
of these requirements is a very difficult question to answer, and we encourage ICANN,
within the scope of the already-published timeline, to specifically solicit comments
on these criteria. To include this process within this large set of questions would
tend to dilute the importance of these key issues.
In the words of the late Dr.
Jon Postel, "The only legitimate way to determine the requirements for a registry
is to allow the consumer to decide..."
ICANN Question 70 pre-supposes that there
will be intellectual property protections. Again, ICANN indicates that it has already
decided that this will be the case. Image Online Design respectfully disagrees.
ICANN
Question 71 pre-supposes that new TLDs will be type-cast, and that "unrestricted
TLDs" will require a role on the part of ICANN separate from that of other types
of TLDs. Image Online Design feels that neither case is necessary.
ICANN Question
72 pre-supposes that new TLDs will be type-cast, and that "sponsored/chartered/restricted"
TLDs will require application requirements different from any other type of TLD.
Image Online Design feels that this distinction is not necessary and, in fact, is
inappropriate.
With respect to ICANN Question 73, any statement of policy should
be at the sole decision of the registry. This question provides for a choice between
two options, neither of which is correct.
The answer to ICANN Question 74, asking
what level of openness, transparency and representativeness in policymaking should
ICANN require, can be answered quite simply: no less than 100%. This applies to ICANN
more than any other entity in this process.
X. Statement of Interest
ICANN
has asked that interested entities self-identify their intent to run a TLD registry.
Image Online Design would like to remind ICANN that it has been interested in such
an activity since 1995, when it began this process, and through 1996 when IANA gave
it specific instructions to begin live operations as a proof of concept. Image Online
Design finds itself in the position of being the longest-standing pioneer registry.
As
is well-documented, Image Online Design operates The .Web Internet Domain Registry
. The structure and purpose of this TLD is indistinguishable from any other TLD structure
now operating, or anticipated to be operating at any time in the future. The purpose
is to provide users of the Internet with an alternative to existing (and anticipated)
TLD registries. The likelihood of Image Online Design submitting a formal application,
provided that the process is fair and objective, is 100%.
XI. About Image
Online Design and The .Web Internet Domain Registry
About Image Online Design,
Inc.
Image Online Design is a duly organized California Corporation with its principal
facilities and place of business in San Luis Obispo, California. Since 1996, Image
Online Design has been engaged in the business of providing telecommunications services
focused on computer network addressing and domain registry services for the ".Web"
Top Level Domain.
The .Web Registry currently has more than 14,000 paid registration
from more than 87 countries, reflecting a strong and pent-up demand for new TLDs
capable of providing a viable commercial alternative to ".com," despite significant
delays and uncertainty in the process of introducing new TLDs.
The .Web Registry
is believed to be the only potential new registry with existing developed facilities,
proprietary and innovative software, demonstrated "running code," and recognized
expertise capable of immediately being entered into the authoritative roots.
Image
Online Design and The .Web Registry is strategically located in the heart of California's
emerging "cyber coast" with preferred locational accessibility to the onshore landings
of a number of new fiber optic cable networks, including the AT&T Japan-US Cable
Network Segments S8 and S9, the AT&T China-US Cable Network, Segments S7 and E1,
the MCIWorldCom Montana De Oro Project, the Global Crossing Japan-US Cable Network
Project, and the global Photon Systems Project.
About Image Online Design's Participation
During
the earliest considerations of adding new TLDs, and well before the policy process
leading to the formation of ICANN, Image Online Design was a leading independent,
self-starting new TLD pioneer advocating, demonstrating, and implementing the paradigm
of a competition-based, user-oriented, robust, bottom-up, dynamic DNS policy and
management, focused upon customer loyalty and never dependent upon exploiting the
initiative and ideas of others.
Image Online Design has consistently advocated
a DNS policy, which rewards originality, innovation, demonstration and competence.
While some have attempted to exploit Image Online Design's original concept while
never demonstrating capacity or verifiable "running code," Image Online Design's
emphasis has been forward-looking, positive, and oriented toward simply being admitted
to the authorized root server system. All that Image Online Design has sought is
the opportunity to compete within the DNS establishment, while never trying to close
the door to those who may follow and compete effectively.
The History and Record
Are Clear (A Timeline)
* In late 1995, and early 1996, Image Online Design became
interested in becoming an Internet TLD registry.
* From that time, until early
1996, Image Online Design founder Christopher Ambler conducted and supervised research
into the feasibility of operating such a registry. The commercial Internet market
was dominated by Network Solutions, Inc.'s (NSI) .com, .net and .org registries.
Nevertheless, all indications were that the commercial Internet market was being
opened to fair and open competition. It was anticipated that new TLDs would be available
by October 1996, and Image Online Design proceeded to operational status well ahead
of that schedule.
* Image Online Design's concept in anticipation of open competition
was to develop value-added enhancements and cost-saving methods as the basis for
open and fair market-based competition
* This early Image Online Design research
and innovation involved testing internet domain protocols, preliminary software specifications,
and related development and exploration activities which lead to the conclusion that
a new TLD was a viable commercial option. Simultaneously, it became clear that the
subject of new TLDs was under substantial debate on the "newdom" mailing list, which
was initially monitored and then actively joined.
* During the first week of July
1996, Image Online Design initially made a request to operate the .web TLD with InterNIC,
and received an automated response indicating that such a request could not be processed
since it did not fall under the established domains of .com, .net or .org.
* On
6 July, 1996, the same request to operate the .web registry was submitted directly
to the Internet Assigned Numbering Authority (IANA), the procedures for which were
under study by Dr. Postel. His earlier 1995 paper regarding new TLDs was both sound
and encouraging and included fundamental policy principles which ring true today:
o
"...use market forces to enforce whatever requirements are necessary."
o "...any
qualifications that we try to establish are going to be arbitrary, and will be seen
as artificial restrictions to entry (which they will be)..."
o "The only legitimate
way to determine the requirements for a registry is to allow the consumer to decide..."
*
Concurrently with determining the policy feasibility of the .web registry, Image
Online Design conducted research into the requirements and specifications for a software
suite needed to run a TLD, and Ambler developed a system of interconnected software
systems, including database systems as well as front-end web-based interactive systems
for the registration, modification and manipulation of domain names underneath the
.web TLD. Needless to say, thousands of hours of labor were involved in developing
the .web software suite (now in its 4th version) and enhancements have proceeded
continuously - leading to what Image Online Design believes to be the most innovative
registry system.
* Both before and during these 1996 efforts, Ambler continued
to coordinate with IANA, which encouraged the continued pursuit of the development
of a .web registry.
* While some might debate the specifics which then transpired,
Image Online Design met with an IANA representative on 31 July, 1996, submitted an
application for the .web registry, together with the fees suggested in the draft
written by Dr. Postel, and was advised that Image Online Design could take .web operations,
begin accepting registrations and collecting fees, and include a disclaimer in the
registration process that approval of the Postel Draft could be delayed beyond the
anticipated October, 1996 date.
* Within 24 hours, on 1 August, 1996, Image Online
Design activated the .web registry and went online through the "alternative" root
servers to demonstrate the operational nature of the registry, establish first use,
and support the application to be included in the root servers.
* During August
and September 1996, Image Online Design moved to larger facilities to fully implement
the .web registry, purchased significantly upgraded network connectivity to support
a high volume of Internet traffic, contracted additional technicians, and purchased
additional hardware to fully implement the registry. Refinements and systems development
continued simultaneously with the continuous operation of the registry. The second
version (v2) of the registry software was completed and went online during this time.
*
By November 1996, the Postel Draft, which contemplated a competence-based quasi-judicial
ad-hoc committee review process for new TLD applications was abandoned, and the International
Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC) was established with the mission of establishing a broad
quasi-legislative, top-down, single-business-model DNS control system, specifying
the number, purpose and names of the new TLDs. The IAHC report selected 7 TLD names,
one of which was .web. This report would have created a single registry, contemplated
incorporation of the existing .com, .net and .org registries (to be taken from Network
Solutions), and would have reserved all registry functions for itself. It then contemplated
the creation of the Council of Registrars (CORE), which would be a fee-based quasi-franchise
organization with the mandate of licensing "registrars" who would re-sell domain
names purchased from the single, non-profit registry.
* The IAHC drafts and final
reports were strongly opposed by Image Online Design, which began an intensive process
of contacting every traditional root server operator, agency and responsible player
in an effort to marshal support against its implementation, which was planned for
May, 1997.
* In order to avoid irreparable injury, Image Online Design initiated
state court litigation seeking a preliminary injunction against implementation of
the IAHC proposal. The preliminary injunction motion was denied by a state court
judge who confessed to being "technologically challenged," and was presented with
Internet stability arguments that preventing the IAHC implementation could seriously
damage the functioning of the entire Internet.
* While the preliminary judicial
hearing was unsuccessful, the litigation and arguments helped focus attention on
the importance of the process to determine TLD issues. On the day originally scheduled
for the hearing, Secretary of State Albright cabled the U.S. Geneva Mission expressing
reservations about the processes being followed, the absence of consensus, and the
"strong interest from Washington agency, industry and Internet community representatives."
The day after the preliminary injunction request was denied, the U.S. Government
announced its intention to institute the public policy comment process which lead
to the Green and White Papers, and ultimately the formation of ICANN itself.
*
With the intervention of the U.S. Government to commence a public policy process,
Image Online Design announced its decision to dismiss the litigation without prejudice
and to participate fully in that process. Image Online Design has continued to do
so, and responded to numerous requests from policy makers for the perspective of
a recognized innovator and pioneer.
* Image Online Design has continued to develop
and refine its registry software, now entering its fourth version (v4), systems,
enhanced product concepts, and acquire upgraded servers and technical facilities.
By virtue of these efforts, Image Online Design is the logical and most effective
choice for the expansion of TLDs with a business model capable of entering a new
era where broader consumer choice and effective competition become the norm.