The following paper addresses competition in the domain name industry. New.net
hopes
that this paper will stimulate discussion regarding the name space and help
bring
all points of view to the table. New.net may publish other papers in the future
concerning
issues affecting the domain name industry, which could include issues
regarding
intellectual property rights, privacy, and international domain names, among
others.
In the spirit of fostering an on-going dialogue, New.net welcomes suggestions
for
future topics.
A Proposal to Introduce Market-Based Principles into Domain Name
GovernanceWe believe that the current Domain Name System (DNS) – the system that
enables
persons to use easy-to-remember, common language names instead of
numerical Internet
Protocol (IP) addresses to locate other computers and users on the
Internet –
suffers from an artificial scarcity of names that is detrimental to Internet
users
worldwide. The current system, administered by the Internet Corporation for
Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN), is one that hampers the release of top level
domains
(TLDs) and is the product of a legacy, consensus-based system of
governance that
inherently cannot serve the diverse and large groups that have
varying and even
diametrically opposed stakes in how today’s Internet is operated. As
a possible
solution, we propose a hybrid consensus/market-based system in which the
technical
aspects of the DNS are run by consensus through a central organization
such as
ICANN, but the political and economic aspects of the DNS – those involved in
choosing
which TLDs to use and who will operate them – are best served by
companies competing
in an open marketplace. (For those who are new to issues
relating to the DNS,
we present as background a brief history of the DNS in the
attached appendix.)
In
understanding the DNS, one must keep in mind the difference between
naming and
addressing. As Dr. Jon Postel, who had coordinated different Internet
protocols
including the assignation of names and numbers in the DNS, stated with
admirable
clarity, “A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is.”1
In
other words, naming allows one to find a given computer more easily; addressing
refers
to the way in which a computer is identified.
This distinction is not academic:
there is a clear difference between (1) the
decisions regarding addresses – which
relate to the way in which machines function
on the Internet including the assignment
of IP addresses, the establishment of Internet
protocols and the manner in which
names are mapped to addresses; and (2) decisions
regarding names – which relate
to exactly what names should be used by humans to
locate the machines within the
system as well as who should administer those names.
One set of decisions – addressing
and its attendant issues – is technical; the other –
naming – is political and
economic.2 For example, why must a TLD be “.COM” or
“.INFO”? The answer is simple:
it need not. There is no technical reason for that
choice.3 As Paul Vixie, the
author of the DNS server software BIND, has stated, "A
million names under “.”
isn't fundamentally harder to write code or operate computers
for than are a million
names under "COM"."4
Currently, however, one organization administers both the
addressing and the
naming space of the DNS, and as such it must try to balance
all three areas –
technology, politics and economics – in its work. In so doing,
ICANN has attempted to
preserve the consensus-based decision-making model out
of which the technical
parameters of the Internet grew. Along the way, ICANN has
faced criticisms and
questions regarding its administration, decision-making procedures,
rules, and even its
legitimacy.5 It is no surprise that any such administrative
body would encounter these issues when trying to address political and economic matters,
and especially so when
trying to apply a consensus-based decision process to such
matters.
Indeed, those who originally laid out the parameters for moving the control
of
the DNS out of the U.S. Department of Commerce were aware of the benefits of
a
competitive marketplace. Specifically, in setting forth the “Principles for
a New
System” (a key section of the Statement of Policy entitled “Management of
Internet
Domain Names and Addresses” -- commonly known as the “White Paper”),
the
Department of Commerce stated:
Competition. The Internet succeeds in great
measure because it is a
decentralized system that encourages innovation and maximizes
individual
freedom. Where possible, market mechanisms that support
competition and consumer
choice should drive the management of the
Internet because they will lower costs,
promote innovation, encourage
diversity, and enhance user choice and satisfaction.6
In
keeping with the White Paper’s principle of competition, we propose that a
market-based
approach in conjunction with a consensus approach will allow the DNS
to achieve
high efficiency and broad representation. This result is possible because
such
a combination allows the technical aspects of DNS to be separated from the
political
and economic questions concerning the creation of new TLDs. Under such a
system,
technical matters would be decided using a consensus-based decision-making
process,
and political and economic matters would be determined by market
forces. Accordingly,
under this proposal, consensus- and market-driven decision-making
processes are
used where they are best suited rather than forcing one into the
other’s realm.
This hybrid approach will allow the DNS to serve best the group with
the most
at stake: Internet users.
A History of Consensus-Based Decision-making
Since
the early days of the ARPANET, most questions of Internet architecture
have been
resolved using a consensus-based system. Indeed, the very nature of the
Internet
allows a consensus-based system to work extremely effectively in situations
where
technical issues can be carefully considered by knowledgeable parties across
the
world. The evolution of the RFC (request for comments) process – which allows
individuals
or groups to publish technical proposals for the rest of the Internet
community
to comment and build upon – has been and continues to be an essential
component
in resolving technical issues quickly and efficiently.
It is also clear that consensus
works well in certain situations but is unwieldy --
if not impossible -- as the
numbers of persons engaging in the consensus process
grow large.7 Indeed, a consensus
process loses its effectiveness as it tries to function
beyond a fairly homogenous
group.8 In the case of domain names today where a
heterogeneous group seeks to
govern technical, political, and economic matters,
consensus administration becomes
unworkable and often produces undesirable
results.9 Accordingly, it may be that
the natural limits of consensus-based decision-making
prevent it from achieving
an efficient and broadly representative result. Appreciating the limits of consensus-based
governance may be difficult for
many involved in the continuing administration
of the Internet. It involves reassessing,
with an open mind, the state of the
success or otherwise of a consensus-based
approach to Internet naming as a whole.
We assert that the evolution of the Internet
has resulted in such a wide diversity
of parties having an interest in the naming space
that the current approach, applying
a consensus-based process to all aspects of
naming, is no longer the best way
to ensure maximum efficiency and consumer
benefit.
From early 1982, decisions
as to how the domain name system would work
(and the attendant modifications to
the technical aspects of the system) used the RFC
process, as did many other aspects
of the Internet’s operation.10 This process issues
standards, informational pieces
and commentary. The standards do not create a law
per se in that someone can choose
to operate outside the standards, but deviating
from the standards obviously makes
it harder to work with those who have adopted
them.11 Insofar as changes to these
technical matters are required, the tested method
of the consensus-generating
RFC makes sense and is desired. This process brings
the benefits of the appropriate
group, the technical community – which is focused on
and passionate about making
the Internet operate well from a technical standpoint –
vetting protocols and
giving each other input. Technical innovation is positively
encouraged rather
than stifled.
Limits of Consensus
In contrast, we and many other groups feel
that the current naming process falls
short of such interaction and constructive
procedures. Regardless of the various
actions that brought about ICANN as the
current body governing the name space,
suffice it to say that no single body could
use the process described above for TLD
naming issues today. The TLD name space
is not comprised of a small independent
group as was the case with Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) with its rules
and procedures regarding adding extensions
that meet a minimum specification
threshold,12 or the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) consisting of engineers
developing protocols via occasional meetings
and email discussion groups to discuss
and evaluate those protocols.13 Rather,
the TLD name space consists of numerous,
disparate interests, and thus any governing
body must always attempt to serve many
masters at once. In so doing, it attempts
to resolve political and economic issues
relating to which TLDs should be created,
how they should be run, who should reap
the economic benefits of running them,
and so on.
Any organization addressing political and economic matters runs into
questions
of legitimacy and related questions of representation and due process.
As such, it is
easy to understand why ICANN, whose regulatory or commercial nature
has been
debated, faces numerous questions regarding legitimacy, fairness, undue
influence
and accountability, to name a few.14 Indeed, it is no surprise that
ICANN, in an
attempt to get anything done at all in the non-technical policy arena,
has, according to
its critics and even neutral observers, chosen to marginalize
many of its constituencies
and heed the counsel of a relatively like-minded, more
homogeneous subset of affected groups. Whether well founded or not, all of these
issues and questions
surrounding ICANN further hamper the process of creating
new generic TLDs. In fact,
many of these questions need not have arisen and will
actually be ameliorated by
opening up the naming space to competition and moving
away from a position of
artificial scarcity of names.
It is too much to post.
Read it at New.net or download it by using the link below.
Open your mind! Read
it!