Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31741 differences of juvenile fish as they pass rulemaking, or ‘‘Green Paper,’’ was U.S. Role in DNS Development downstream through Lake Pateros and published in the Federal Register on Wells Dam. For modification 1, PUD GC February 20, 1998, providing More than 25 years ago, the U.S. Government began funding research requests an increase in the take of opportunity for public comment. NTIA necessary to develop packet-switching juvenile, endangered, UCR steelhead received more than 650 comments, as of technology and communications associated with a study designed to March 23, 1998, when the comment networks, starting with the ‘‘ARPANET’’ inventory fish species in Wells reservoir period closed.3 network established by the Department on the Columbia River. ESA-listed fish The Green Paper proposed certain are proposed to be observed by SCUBA of Defense’s Advanced Research actions designed to privatize the Projects Agency (DARPA) in the 1960s. divers or collected in beach seines, management of Internet names and anesthetized, examined, allowed to ARPANET was later linked to other addresses in a manner that allows for recover, and released. Modification 1 is networks established by other the development of robust competition requested to be valid for the duration of government agencies, universities and and facilitates global participation in the permit. Permit 1116 expires on research facilities. During the 1970s, Internet management. The Green Paper December 31, 2002. DARPA also funded the development of proposed for discussion a variety of a ‘‘network of networks;’’ this became Dated: June 4, 1998. issues relating to DNS management known as the Internet, and the protocols Patricia A. Montanio, including private sector creation of a that allowed the networks to Deputy Director, Office of Protected new not-for-profit corporation (the ‘‘new intercommunicate became known as Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. corporation’’) managed by a globally Internet protocols (IP). [FR Doc. 98–15439 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am] and functionally representative Board of As part of the ARPANET development BILLING CODE 3510±22±F Directors. work contracted to the University of EFFECTIVE DATE: This general statement California at Los Angeles (UCLA), Dr. Jon Postel, then a graduate student at DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE of policy is not subject to the delay in effective date required of substantive the university, undertook the National Telecommunications and rules under 5 U.S.C. § 553(d). It does not maintenance of a list of host names and Information Administration contain mandatory provisions and does addresses and also a list of documents not itself have the force and effect of prepared by ARPANET researchers, [Docket Number: 980212036±8146±02] law.4 Therefore, the effective date of this called Requests for Comments (RFCs). policy statement is June 10, 1998. The lists and the RFCs were made Management of Internet Names and available to the network community Addresses FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: through the auspices of SRI Karen Rose, Office of International AGENCY: National Telecommunications International, under contract to DARPA Affairs (OIA), Rm 4701, National and Information Administration, and later the Defense Communication Telecommunications and Information Commerce. Agency (DCA) (now the Defense Administration (NTIA), U.S. ACTION: Statement of policy. Information Systems Agency (DISA)) for Department of Commerce, 14th and performing the functions of the Network SUMMARY: On July 1, 1997, as part of the Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, Information Center (the NIC). DC., 20230. Telephone: (202) 482–0365. Clinton Administration’s Framework for After Dr. Postel moved from UCLA to 1 E-mail: [email protected] Global Electronic Commerce, the the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) President directed the Secretary of Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1512; 15 U.S.C. 1525; at the University of Southern California Commerce to privatize the domain name 47 U.S.C. 902(b)(2)(H); 47 U.S.C. 902(b)(2)(I); (USC), he continued to maintain the list system (DNS) in a manner that increases 47 U.S.C. 902(b)(2)(M); 47 U.S.C. 904(c)(1). of assigned Internet numbers and names competition and facilitates international SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: under contracts with DARPA. SRI participation in its management. International continued to publish the Accordingly, on July 2, 1997, the Background lists. As the lists grew, DARPA Department of Commerce issued a permitted Dr. Postel to delegate Request for Comments (RFC) on DNS Domain names are the familiar and additional administrative aspects of the administration. The RFC solicited easy-to-remember names for Internet list maintenance to SRI, under public input on issues relating to the computers (e.g., continuing technical oversight. Dr. overall framework of the DNS ‘‘www.ecommerce.gov’’). They map to Postel, under the DARPA contracts, also administration, the creation of new top- unique Internet Protocol (IP) numbers published a list of technical parameters level domains, policies for domain (e.g., 98.37.241.30) that serve as routing that had been assigned for use by name registrars, and trademark issues. addresses on the Internet. The domain protocol developers. Eventually these During the comment period, more than name system (DNS) translates Internet functions collectively became known as 430 comments were received, names into the IP numbers needed for the Internet Assigned Numbers amounting to some 1500 pages.2 transmission of information across the Authority (IANA). On January 30, 1998, the National network. Until the early 1980s, the Internet was Telecommunications and Information managed by DARPA, and used primarily Administration (NTIA), an agency of the 3 The RFC, the Green Paper, and comments for research purposes. Nonetheless, the Department of Commerce, issued for received in response to both documents are available on the Internet at the following address: task of maintaining the name list comment, A Proposal to Improve the became onerous, and the Domain Name Technical Management of Internet . Additional comments were submitted after March 23, 1998. These System (DNS) was developed to Names and Addresses. The proposed comments have been considered and treated as part improve the process. Dr. Postel and SRI of the official record and have been separately participated in DARPA’s development 1 Available at . posted at the same site, although the comments 2 July 2, 1997 RFC and public comments are were not received by the deadline established in the and establishment of the technology and located at: . 4 See Administrative Law Requirements at p. 19. ARPANET was completely phased out. 31742 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices

The National Science Foundation today’s vibrant World Wide Web. This The U.S. Government plays a role in the (NSF) has statutory authority for type of pioneering Internet research and operation of about half of the Internet’s supporting and strengthening basic development continues in cooperative root servers. Universal name scientific research, engineering, and organizations and consortia throughout consistency on the Internet cannot be educational activities in the United the world. guaranteed without a set of authoritative States, including the maintenance of and consistent roots. Without such DNS Management Today computer networks to connect research consistency messages could not be and educational institutions. Beginning In recent years, commercial use of the routed with any certainty to the in 1987, IBM, MCI and Merit developed Internet has expanded rapidly. As a intended addresses. NSFNET, a national high-speed network legacy, however, major components of (4) Protocol Assignment. based on Internet protocols, under an the domain name system are still The Internet protocol suite, as defined award from NSF. NSFNET, the largest of performed by, or subject to, agreements by the Internet Engineering Task Force the governmental networks, provided a with agencies of the U.S. Government. (IETF), contains many technical ‘‘backbone’’ to connect other networks (1) Assignment of numerical parameters, including protocol serving more than 4,000 research and addresses to Internet users. numbers, port numbers, autonomous educational institutions throughout the Every Internet computer has a unique system numbers, management country. The National Aeronautics and IP number. IANA, headed by Dr. Jon information base object identifiers and Space Administration (NASA) and the Postel, coordinates this system by others. The common use of these U.S. Department of Energy also allocating blocks of numerical addresses protocols by the Internet community contributed backbone facilities. to regional IP registries (ARIN in North requires that the particular values used In 1991–92, NSF assumed America, RIPE in Europe, and APNIC in in these fields be assigned uniquely. responsibility for coordinating and the Asia/Pacific region), under contract Currently, IANA, under contract with funding the management of the non- with DARPA. In turn, larger Internet DARPA, makes these assignments and military portion of the Internet service providers apply to the regional maintains a registry of the assigned infrastructure. NSF solicited IP registries for blocks of IP addresses. values. competitive proposals to provide a The recipients of those address blocks variety of infrastructure services, then reassign addresses to smaller The Need for Change including domain name registration Internet service providers and to end From its origins as a U.S.-based services. On December 31, 1992, NSF users. research vehicle, the Internet is rapidly entered into a cooperative agreement (2) Management of the system of becoming an international medium for with Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) for registering names for Internet users. commerce, education and some of these services, including the The domain name space is communication. The traditional means domain name registration services. constructed as a hierarchy. It is divided of organizing its technical functions Since that time, NSI has managed key into top-level domains (TLDs), with need to evolve as well. The pressures for registration, coordination, and each TLD then divided into second- change are coming from many different maintenance functions of the Internet level domains (SLDs), and so on. More quarters: domain name system. NSI registers than 200 national, or country-code, —There is widespread dissatisfaction domain names in the generic top level TLDs (ccTLDs) are administered by their about the absence of competition in domains (gTLDs) on a first come, first corresponding governments or by domain name registration. served basis and also maintains a private entities with the appropriate —Conflicts between trademark holders directory linking domain names with national government’s acquiescence. A and domain name holders are the IP numbers of domain name servers. small set of gTLDs do not carry any becoming more common. Mechanisms NSI also currently maintains the national identifier, but denote the for resolving these conflicts are authoritative database of Internet intended function of that portion of the expensive and cumbersome. registrations. domain space. For example, .com was —Many commercial interests, staking In 1992, the U.S. Congress gave NSF established for commercial users, .org their future on the successful growth statutory authority to allow commercial for not-for-profit organizations, and .net of the Internet, are calling for a more activity on the NSFNET.5 This for network service providers. The formal and robust management facilitated connections between registration and propagation of these structure. NSFNET and newly forming key gTLDs are performed by NSI, under —An increasing percentage of Internet commercial network service providers, a five-year cooperative agreement with users reside outside of the U.S., and paving the way for today’s Internet. NSF. This agreement expires on those stakeholders want to participate Thus, the U.S. Government has played September 30, 1998. in Internet coordination. a pivotal role in creating the Internet as (3) Operation of the root server —As Internet names increasingly have we know it today. The U.S. Government system. commercial value, the decision to add consistently encouraged bottom-up The root server system is a set of new top-level domains cannot be development of networking thirteen file servers, which together made on an ad hoc basis by entities technologies, and throughout the course contain authoritative databases listing or individuals that are not formally of its development, computer scientists all TLDs. Currently, NSI operates the accountable to the Internet from around the world have enriched ‘‘A’’ root server, which maintains the community. the Internet and facilitated exploitation authoritative root database and —As the Internet becomes commercial, of its true potential. For example, replicates changes to the other root it becomes less appropriate for U.S. scientists at CERN, in Switzerland, servers on a daily basis. research agencies to direct and fund developed software, protocols and Different organizations, including these functions. conventions that formed the basis of NSI, operate the other 12 root servers.6 The Internet technical community has been actively debating DNS 5 See Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 6 An unofficial diagram of the general geographic 1992; Pub. L. 102–476 section 4(9), 106 Stat. 2297, location and institutional affiliations of the 13 Rutkowski, is available at . Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31743 management policy for several years. to be operated on a nonexclusive basis early Postel drafts and the IAHC gTLD– Experimental registry systems offering by a consortium of new private domain MoU. name registration services in an name registrars called the Council of Comments and Response: The alternative set of exclusive domains Registrars (CORE).12 Policy oversight following are summaries of and developed as early as January 1996. would have been undertaken in a responses to the major comments that Although visible to only a fraction of separate council called the Policy were received in response to NTIA’s Internet users, alternative systems such Oversight Committee (POC) with seats issuance of A Proposal to Improve the as the name.space, AlterNIC, and eDNS allocated to specified stakeholder Technical Management of Internet affiliated registries 7 contributed to the groups. Further, the plan formally Names and Addresses. As used herein, community’s dialogue on the evolution introduced mechanisms for resolving quantitative terms such as ‘‘some,’’ of DNS administration. trademark/domain name disputes. ‘‘many,’’ and ‘‘the majority of,’’ reflect, In May of 1996, Dr. Postel proposed Under the MoU, registrants for second- roughly speaking, the proportion of the creation of multiple, exclusive, level domains would have been comments addressing a particular issue competing top-level domain name required to submit to mediation and but are not intended to summarize all registries. This proposal called for the arbitration, facilitated by WIPO, in the comments received or the complete introduction of up to 50 new competing event of conflict with trademark substance of all such comments. domain name registries, each with the holders. 1. Principles for a New System exclusive right to register names in up Although the IAHC proposal gained to three new top-level domains, for a support in many quarters of the Internet The Green Paper set out four total of 150 new TLDs. While some community, the IAHC process was principles to guide the evolution of the supported the proposal, the plan drew criticized for its aggressive technology domain name system: stability, much criticism from the Internet development and implementation competition, private bottom-up coordination, and representation. technical community.8 The paper was schedule, for being dominated by the Comments: In general, commenters revised and reissued.9 The Internet Internet engineering community, and for supported these principles, in some Society’s (ISOC) board of trustees lacking participation by and input from cases highlighting the importance of one endorsed, in principle, the slightly business interests and others in the or more of the principles. For example, revised but substantively similar version 13 Internet community. Others criticized a number of commenters emphasized of the draft in June of 1996. the plan for failing to solve the the importance of establishing a body After considerable debate and competitive problems that were such a that fully reflects the broad diversity of redrafting failed to produce a consensus source of dissatisfaction among Internet the Internet community. Others stressed on DNS change, IANA and the Internet users and for imposing unnecessary the need to preserve the bottom-up Society (ISOC) organized the burdens on trademark holders. tradition of Internet governance. A International Ad Hoc Committee 10 Although the POC responded by limited number of commenters (IAHC or the Ad Hoc Committee) in revising the original plan, proposed additional principles for the September 1996, to resolve DNS demonstrating a commendable degree of new system, including principles management issues. The World flexibility, the proposal was not able to related to the protection of human Intellectual Property Organization overcome initial criticism of both the rights, free speech, open (WIPO) and the International plan and the process by which the plan communication, and the preservation of 14 Telecommunications Union (ITU) was developed. Important segments of the Internet as a public trust. Finally, participated in the IAHC. The Federal the Internet community remained some commenters who agreed that Networking Council (FNC) participated outside the IAHC process, criticizing it Internet stability is an important in the early deliberations of the Ad Hoc as insufficiently representative.15 principle, nonetheless objected to the Committee. As a result of the pressure to change U.S. Government’s assertion of any The IAHC issued a draft plan in DNS management, and in order to participatory role in ensuring such December 1996 that introduced unique facilitate its withdrawal from DNS stability. and thoughtful concepts for the management, the U.S. Government, Response: The U.S. Government 11 evolution of DNS administration. The through the Department of Commerce policy applies only to management of final report proposed a memorandum of and NTIA, sought public comment on Internet names and addresses and does understanding (MoU) that would have the direction of U.S. policy with respect not set out a system of Internet established, initially, seven new gTLDs to DNS, issuing the Green Paper on ‘‘governance.’’ Existing human rights January 30, 1998.16 The approach and free speech protections will not be 7 For further information about these systems see: outlined in the Green Paper adopted name.space: ; disturbed and, therefore, need not be AlterNIC: ; eDNS: . Reference to these organizations principles for DNS management. In does not constitute an endorsement of their 12 The IAHC final report is available at . displace other legal regimes 8 Lengthy discussions by the Internet technical 13 See generally public comments received in community on DNS issues generally and on the response to July 2, 1997 RFC located at . law and principles of international com-priv, ietf and domain-policy Internet mailing 14 For a discussion, see Congressional testimony taxation, intellectual property law, etc.) lists. of Assistant Secretary of Commerce Larry Irving, that may already apply. The continued 9 See draft-Postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt; available Before the House Committee on Science, at . Subcommittee on Basic Research, September 25, applicability of these systems as well as 10 For further information about the IAHC see: 1997 available at and related links. Reference ntiahome/domainname/email>. ensure that DNS management proceeds to this organization does not constitute an 15 See generally public comments received in in the interest of the Internet endorsement of the commercial activities of its response to July 2, 1997 RFC located at . 11 December 1996 draft: draft-iahc-gtldspec-00.txt; 16 The document was published in the Federal Government believes that it would be available at . 20, 1998)). existing management role without 31744 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices taking steps to ensure the stability of the 3. Separation of Name and Number participate in policy oversight until Internet during its transition to private Authority such time as the new corporation was sector management. On balance, the Comments: A number of commenters established and stable, phasing out as comments did not present any suggested that management of the soon as possible, but in no event later consensus for amending the principles domain name system should be than September 30, 2000. The Green outlined in the Green Paper. separated from management of the IP Paper suggested that the new corporation be incorporated in the 2. The Coordinated Functions number system. These commenters expressed the view that the numbering United States in order to promote The Green Paper identified four DNS system is relatively technical and stability and facilitate the continued functions to be performed on a straightforward. They feared that tight reliance on technical expertise residing in the United States, including IANA coordinated, centralized basis in order linkage of domain name and IP number staff at USC/ISI. policy development would embroil the to ensure that the Internet runs Comments: Almost all commenters smoothly: IP numbering system in the kind of supported the creation of a new, private 1. To set policy for and direct the controversy that has surrounded domain not-for-profit corporation to manage allocation of IP number blocks; name issuance in recent months. These DNS. Many suggested that IANA should commenters also expressed concern that evolve into the new corporation. A 2. To oversee the operation of the the development of alternative name Internet root server system; small number of commenters asserted and number systems could be inhibited that the U.S. Government should 3. To oversee policy for determining by this controversy or delayed by those continue to manage Internet names and the circumstances under which new top with vested interests in the existing addresses. Another small number of level domains would be added to the system. commenters suggested that DNS should root system; and Response: The concerns expressed by be managed by international 4. To coordinate the development of the commenters are legitimate, but governmental institutions such as the other technical protocol parameters as domain names and IP numbers must United Nations or the International needed to maintain universal ultimately be coordinated to preserve Telecommunications Union. Many connectivity on the Internet. universal connectivity on the Internet. commenters urged the U.S. Government Also, there are significant costs Comments: Most commenters agreed to commit to a more aggressive timeline associated with establishing and for the new corporation’s assumption of that these functions should be operating two separate management coordinated centrally, although a few management responsibility. Some entities. commenters also suggested that the argued that a system of authoritative However, there are organizational proposal to headquarter the new roots is not technically necessary to structures that could minimize the risks corporation in the United States ensure DNS stability. A number of identified by commenters. For example, represented an inappropriate attempt to commenters, however, noted that the separate name and number councils impose U.S. law on the Internet as a fourth function, as delineated in the could be formed within a single whole. Green Paper, overstated the functions organization. Policy could be Response: The U.S. Government is currently performed by IANA, determined within the appropriate committed to a transition that will allow attributing to it central management council that would submit its the private sector to take leadership for over an expanded set of functions, some recommendations to the new DNS management. Most commenters of which are now carried out by the corporation’s Board of Directors for shared this goal. While international IETF. ratification. organizations may provide specific Response: In order to preserve 4. Creation of the New Corporation and expertise or act as advisors to the new universal connectivity and the smooth Management of the DNS corporation, the U.S. continues to operation of the Internet, the U.S. believe, as do most commenters, that Government continues to believe, along The Green Paper called for the neither national governments acting as creation of a new private, not-for-profit sovereigns nor intergovernmental with most commenters, that these four 17 functions should be coordinated. In the corporation responsible for organizations acting as representatives absence of an authoritative root system, coordinating specific DNS functions for of governments should participate in the potential for name collisions among the benefit of the Internet as a whole. management of Internet names and Under the Green Paper proposal, the addresses. Of course, national competing sources for the same domain 18 name could undermine the smooth U.S. Government would gradually governments now have, and will functioning and stability of the Internet. transfer these functions to the new continue to have, authority to manage or corporation beginning as soon as establish policy for their own ccTLDs. The Green Paper was not, however, possible, with the goal of having the The U.S. Government would prefer intended to expand the responsibilities new corporation carry out operational that this transition be complete before associated with Internet protocols responsibility by October 1998. Under the year 2000. To the extent that the beyond those currently performed by the Green Paper proposal, the U.S. new corporation is established and IANA. Specifically, management of DNS Government would continue to operationally stable, September 30, 2000 by the new corporation does not is intended to be, and remains, an encompass the development of Internet 17 As used herein, the term ‘‘new corporation’’ is ‘‘outside’’ date. technical parameters for other purposes intended to refer to an entity formally organized IANA has functioned as a government under well recognized and established business law by other organizations such as IETF. contractor, albeit with considerable The fourth function should be restated standards. 18 As noted in the Summary, the President latitude, for some time now. Moreover, accordingly: directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize IANA is not formally organized or • To coordinate the assignment of DNS in a manner that increases competition and constituted. It describes a function more facilitates international participation in its other Internet technical parameters as management. Accordingly, the Department of than an entity, and as such does not needed to maintain universal Commerce will lead the coordination of the U.S. currently provide a legal foundation for connectivity on the Internet. government’s role in this transition. the new corporation. This is not to say, Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31745 however, that IANA could not be allocate Board seats in a way that name registries, citing one of several reconstituted by a broad-based, satisfies all parties concerned. On concerns. Some suggested that top level representative group of Internet balance, we believe the concerns raised domain names are not, by nature, ever stakeholders or that individuals about the representation of specific truly generic. As such, they will tend to associated with IANA should not groups are best addressed by a function as ‘‘natural monopolies’’ and themselves play important foundation thoughtful allocation of the ‘‘user’’ seats should be regulated as a public trust and roles in the formation of the new as determined by the organizers of the operated for the benefit of the Internet corporation. We believe, and many new corporation and its Board of community as a whole. Others commenters also suggested, that the Directors, as discussed below. suggested that even if competition private sector organizers will want Dr. The Green Paper identified several initially exists among various domain Postel and other IANA staff to be international membership associations name registries, lack of portability in the involved in the creation of the new and organizations to designate Board naming systems would create lock-in corporation. members such as APNIC, ARIN, RIPE, and switching costs, making Because of the significant U.S.-based and the Internet Architecture Board. We competition unsustainable in the long DNS expertise and in order to preserve continue to believe that as use of the run. Finally, other commenters stability, it makes sense to headquarter Internet expands outside the United suggested that no new registry could the new corporation in the United States, it is increasingly likely that a compete meaningfully with NSI unless States. Further, the mere fact that the properly open and transparent DNS all domain name registries were not-for- new corporation would be incorporated management entity will have board profit and/or noncompeting. in the United States would not remove members from around the world. Some commenters asserted that an it from the jurisdiction of other nations. Although we do not set any mandatory experiment involving the creation of Finally, we note that the new minimums for global representation, additional for-profit registries would be corporation must be headquartered this policy statement is designed to too risky, and irreversible once somewhere, and similar objections identify global representativeness as an undertaken. A related concern raised by would inevitably arise if it were important priority. commenters addressed the rights that incorporated in another location. for-profit operators might assert with 6. Registrars and Registries respect to the information contained in 5. Structure of the New Corporation The Green Paper proposed moving the registries they operate. These The Green Paper proposed a 15- system for registering second level commenters argued that registries member Board, consisting of three domains and the management of generic would have inadequate incentives to representatives of regional number top-level domains into a competitive abide by DNS policies and procedures registries, two members designated by environment by creating two market- unless the new corporation could the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), driven businesses, registration of second terminate a particular entity’s license to two members representing domain level domain names and the operate a registry. For-profit operators, name registries and domain name management of gTLD registries. under this line of reasoning, would be registrars, seven members representing more likely to disrupt the Internet by Internet users, and the Chief Executive a. Competitive Registrars resisting license terminations. Officer of the new corporation. Comments: Commenters strongly Commenters who supported Comments: Commenters expressed a supported establishment of a competitive registries conceded that, in variety of positions on the composition competitive registrar system whereby the absence of domain name portability, of the Board of Directors for the new registrars would obtain domain names domain name registries could impose corporation. In general, however, most for customers in any gTLD. Few switching costs on users who change commenters supported the disagreed with this position. The Green domain name registries. They establishment of a Board of Directors Paper proposed a set of requirements to cautioned, however, that it would be that would be representative of the be imposed by the new corporation on premature to conclude that switching functional and geographic diversity of all would-be registrars. Commenters for costs provide a sufficient basis for the Internet. For the most part, the most part did not take exception to precluding the proposed move to commenters agreed that the groups the proposed criteria, but a number of competitive domain name registries and listed in the Green Paper included commenters suggested that it was cited a number of factors that could individuals and entities likely to be inappropriate for the United States protect against registry opportunism. materially affected by changes in DNS. government to establish them. These commenters concluded that the Most of those who criticized the Response: In response to the potential benefits to customers from proposed allocation of Board seats comments received, the U.S. enhanced competition outweighed the called for increased representation of Government believes that the new risk of such opportunism. The responses their particular interest group on the corporation, rather than the U.S. to the Green Paper also included public Board of Directors. Specifically, a Government, should establish minimum comments on the proposed criteria for number of commenters suggested that criteria for registrars that are pro- registries. the allocation set forth in the Green competitive and provide some measure Response: Both sides of this argument Paper did not adequately reflect the of stability for Internet users without have considerable merit. It is possible special interests of (1) trademark being so onerous as to prevent entry by that additional discussion and holders, (2) Internet service providers, would-be domain name registrars from information will shed light on this or (3) the not-for-profit community. around the world. Accordingly, the issue, and therefore, as discussed below, Others commented that the Green Paper proposed criteria are not part of this the U.S. Government has concluded that did not adequately ensure that the policy statement. the issue should be left for further Board would be globally representative. consideration and final action by the Response: The Green Paper attempted b. Competitive Registries new corporation. The U.S. Government to describe a manageably sized Board of Comments: Many commenters voiced is of the view, however, that Directors that reflected the diversity of strong opposition to the idea of competitive systems generally result in the Internet. It is probably impossible to competitive and/or for-profit domain greater innovation, consumer choice, 31746 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices and satisfaction in the long run. preponderance of comments, the U.S. proposed in Appendix 2 of the Green Moreover, the pressure of competition is Government will not implement new Paper, although some commenters likely to be the most effective means of gTLDs at this time. proposed additional requirements. A discouraging registries from acting At least in the short run, a prudent few commenters noted, however, that monopolistically. Further, in response concern for the stability of the system privacy issues should be considered in to the comments received, the U.S. suggests that expansion of gTLDs this context. government believes that new proceed at a deliberate and controlled A number of commenters objected to corporation should establish and pace to allow for evaluation of the NSI’s current business practice of implement appropriate criteria for gTLD impact of the new gTLDs and well- allowing registrants to use domain registries. Accordingly, the proposed reasoned evolution of the domain space. names before they have actually paid criteria are not part of this policy New top level domains could be created any registration fees. These commenters statement. to enhance competition and to enable pointed out that this practice has the new corporation to evaluate the encouraged cybersquatters and 7. The Creation of New gTLDs functioning, in the new environment, of increased the number of conflicts The Green Paper suggested that the root server system and the software between domain name holders and during the period of transition to the systems that enable shared registration. trademark holders. They suggested that new corporation, the U.S. Government, domain name applicants should be 8. The Trademark Dilemma in cooperation with IANA, would required to pay before a desired domain undertake a process to add up to five When a trademark is used as a name becomes available for use. new gTLDs to the authoritative root. domain name without the trademark Most commenters also favored Noting that formation of the new owner’s consent, consumers may be creation of an on-line dispute resolution corporation would involve some delay, misled about the source of the product mechanism to provide inexpensive and the Green Paper contemplated new or service offered on the Internet, and efficient alternatives to litigation for gTLDs in the short term to enhance trademark owners may not be able to resolving disputes between trademark competition and provide information to protect their rights without very owners and domain name registrants. the technical community and to policy expensive litigation. For cyberspace to The Green Paper contemplated that each makers, while offering entities that function as an effective commercial registry would establish specified wished to enter into the registry market, businesses must have minimum dispute resolution business an opportunity to begin confidence that their trademarks can be procedures, but remain free to establish offering service to customers. The Green protected. On the other hand, additional trademark protection and Paper, however, noted that ideally the management of the Internet must dispute resolution mechanisms. Most addition of new TLDs would be left to respond to the needs of the Internet commenters did not agree with this the new corporation. community as a whole, and not approach, favoring instead a uniform Comments: The comments evidenced trademark owners exclusively. The approach to resolving trademark/ very strong support for limiting Green Paper proposed a number of steps domain name disputes. government involvement during the to balance the needs of domain name Some commenters noted that transition period on the matter of holders with the legitimate concerns of temporary suspension of a domain name adding new gTLDs. Specifically, most trademark owners in the interest of the in the event of an objection by a commenters—both U.S. and non-U.S.— Internet community as a whole. The trademark holder within a specified suggested that it would be more proposals were designed to provide period of time after registration would appropriate for the new, globally trademark holders with the same rights significantly extend trademark holders’ representative, corporation to decide they have in the physical world, to rights beyond what is accorded in the these issues once it is up and running. ensure transparency, and to guarantee a real world. They argued that such a Few believed that speed should dispute resolution mechanism with provision would create a de facto outweigh process considerations in this resort to a court system. waiting period for name use, as holders matter. Others warned, however, that The Green Paper also noted that would need to suspend the use of their relegating this contentious decision to a trademark holders have expressed name until after the objection window new and untested entity early in its concern that domain name registrants in had passed to forestall an interruption development could fracture the faraway places may be able to infringe in service. Further, they argue that such organization. Others argued that the their rights with no convenient a system could be used anti- market for a large or unlimited number jurisdiction available in which the competitively to stall a competitor’s of new gTLDs should be opened trademark owner could enforce a entry into the marketplace. immediately. They asserted that there judgment protecting those rights. The The suggestion that domain name are no technical impediments to the Green Paper solicited comments on an registrants be required to agree at the addition of a host of gTLDs, and the arrangement whereby, at the time of time of registration to submit disputed market will decide which TLDs succeed registration, registrants would agree to domain names to the jurisdiction of and which do not. Further, they pointed submit a contested domain name to the specified courts was supported by U.S. out that there are no artificial or jurisdiction of the courts where the trademark holders but drew strong arbitrary limits in other media on the registry is domiciled, where the registry protest from trademark holders and number of places in which trademark database is maintained, or where the domain name registrants outside the holders must defend against dilution. ‘‘A’’ root server is maintained. United States. A number of commenters Response: The challenge of deciding Comments: Commenters largely characterized this as an inappropriate policy for the addition of new domains agreed that domain name registries attempt to establish U.S. trademark law will be formidable. We agree with the should maintain up-to-date, readily as the law of the Internet. Others many commenters who said that the searchable domain name databases that suggested that existing jurisdictional new corporation would be the most contain the information necessary to arrangements are satisfactory. They appropriate body to make these locate a domain name holder. In general argue that establishing a mechanism decisions based on global input. commenters did not take specific issue whereby the judgment of a court can be Accordingly, as supported by the with the database specifications enforced absent personal jurisdiction Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31747 over the infringer would upset the name holders and those commenters body. Under this model, due process balance between the interests of who thought that trademark owners requirements and other appropriate trademark holders and those of other should have access to a reliable and up- processes that ensure transparency, members of the Internet community. to-date database, we believe that a equity and fair play in the development Response: The U.S. Government will database should be maintained that of policies or practices would need to be seek international support to call upon permits trademark owners to obtain the included in the new corporation’s the World Intellectual Property contact information necessary to protect originating documents. For example, the Organization (WIPO) to initiate a their trademarks. new corporation’s activities would need balanced and transparent process, Further, it should be clear that to be open to all persons who are which includes the participation of whatever dispute resolution mechanism directly affected by the entity, with no trademark holders and members of the is put in place by the new corporation, undue financial barriers to participation Internet community who are not that mechanism should be directed or unreasonable restrictions on trademark holders, to (1) develop toward disputes about cybersquatting participation based on technical or other recommendations for a uniform and cyberpiracy and not to settling the such requirements. Entities and approach to resolving trademark/ disputes between two parties with individuals would need to be able to domain name disputes involving legitimate competing interests in a participate by expressing a position and cyberpiracy (as opposed to conflicts particular mark. Where legitimate its basis, having that position between trademark holders with competing rights are concerned, considered, and appealing if adversely legitimate competing rights), (2) disputes are rightly settled in an affected. Further, the decision making recommend a process for protecting appropriate court. process would need to reflect a balance famous trademarks in the generic top Under the revised plan, we of interests and should not be level domains, and (3) evaluate the recommend that domain name holders dominated by any single interest effects, based on studies conducted by agree to submit infringing domain category. If the new corporation behaves independent organizations, such as the names to the jurisdiction of a court this way, it should be less vulnerable to National Research Council of the where the ‘‘A’’ root server is antitrust challenges. National Academy of Sciences, of maintained, where the registry is adding new gTLDs and related dispute domiciled, where the registry database 10. The NSI Agreement resolution procedures on trademark and is maintained, or where the registrar is Comments: Many commenters intellectual property holders. These domiciled. We believe that allowing expressed concern about continued findings and recommendations could be trademark infringement suits to be administration of key gTLDs by NSI. submitted to the board of the new brought wherever registrars and They argued that this would give NSI an corporation for its consideration in registries are located will help ensure unfair advantage in the marketplace and conjunction with its development of that all trademark holders ‘‘ both U.S. allow NSI to leverage economies of scale registry and registrar policy and the and non-U.S. ‘‘ have the opportunity to across their gTLD operations. Some creation and introduction of new gTLDs. bring suits in a convenient jurisdiction commenters also believe the Green In trademark/domain name conflicts, and enforce the judgments of those Paper approach would have entrenched there are issues of jurisdiction over the courts. and institutionalized NSI’s dominant domain name in controversy and Under the revised plan, we also market position over the key domain jurisdiction over the legal persons (the recommend that, whatever options are name going forward. Further, many trademark holder and the domain name chosen by the new corporation, each commenters expressed doubt that a holder). This document does not registrar should insist that payment be level playing field between NSI and the attempt to resolve questions of personal made for the domain name before it new registry market entrants could jurisdiction in trademark/domain name becomes available to the applicant. The emerge if NSI retained control over conflicts. The legal issues are numerous, failure to make a domain name .com, .net, and .org. involving contract, conflict of laws, applicant pay for its use of a domain Response: The cooperative agreement trademark, and other questions. In name has encouraged cyberpirates and between NSI and the U.S. Government addition, determining how these various is a practice that should end as soon as is currently in its ramp down period. legal principles will be applied to the possible. The U.S. Government and NSI will borderless Internet with an unlimited shortly commence discussions about the possibility of factual scenarios will 9. Competition Concerns terms and conditions governing the require a great deal of thought and Comments: Several commenters ramp-down of the cooperative deliberation. Obtaining agreement by suggested that the U.S. Government agreement. Through these discussions, the parties that jurisdiction over the should provide full antitrust immunity the U.S. Government expects NSI to domain name will be exercised by an or indemnification for the new agree to take specific actions, including alternative dispute resolution body is corporation. Others noted that potential commitments as to pricing and equal likely to be at least somewhat less antitrust liability would provide an access, designed to permit the controversial than agreement that the important safeguard against institutional development of competition in domain parties will subject themselves to the inflexibility and abuses of power. name registration and to approximate personal jurisdiction of a particular Response: Applicable antitrust law what would be expected in the presence national court. Thus, the references to will provide accountability to and of marketplace competition. The U.S. jurisdiction in this policy statement are protection for the international Internet Government expects NSI to agree to act limited to jurisdiction over the domain community. Legal challenges and in a manner consistent with this policy name in dispute, and not to the domain lawsuits can be expected within the statement, including recognizing the name holder. normal course of business for any role of the new corporation to establish In order to strike a balance between enterprise and the new corporation and implement DNS policy and to those commenters who thought that should anticipate this reality. establish terms (including licensing registrars and registries should not The Green Paper envisioned the new terms) applicable to new and existing themselves be engaged in disputes corporation as operating on principles gTLD registries under which registries, between trademark owners and domain similar to those of a standard-setting registrars and gTLDs are permitted to 31748 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices operate. Further, the U.S. Government supported either refunding the IIF sector and state and local governments expects NSI to agree to make available portion of the domain name registration to determine how best to make the .us on an ongoing basis appropriate fee to domain registrants from whom it domain more attractive to commercial databases, software, documentation had been collected or applying the users. Accordingly, the Department of thereof, technical expertise, and other funds toward Internet infrastructure Commerce will seek public input on intellectual property for DNS development projects generally, this important issue. management and shared registration of including funding the establishment of Administrative Law Requirements domain names. the new corporation. Response: As proposed in the Green On February 20, 1998, NTIA 11. A Global Perspective Paper, allocation of a portion of domain published for public comment a Comments: A number of commenters name registration fees to this fund proposed rule regarding the domain expressed concern that the Green Paper terminated as of March 31, 1998. NSI name registration system. That proposed did not go far enough in globalizing the has reduced its registration fees rule sought comment on substantive administration of the domain name accordingly. The IIF remains the subject regulatory provisions, including but not system. Some believed that of litigation. The U.S. Government takes limited to a variety of specific international organizations should have the position that its collection has requirements for the membership of the a role in administering the DNS. Others recently been ratified by the U.S. new corporation, the creation during a complained that incorporating the new Congress,19 and has moved to dismiss transition period of a specified number corporation in the United States would the claim that it was unlawfully of new generic top level domains and entrench control over the Internet with collected. This matter has not been minimum dispute resolution and other the U.S. Government. Still others finally resolved, however. procedures related to trademarks. As believed that the awarding by the U.S. discussed elsewhere in this document, Government of up to five new gTLDs 13. The .us Domain in response to public comment these would enforce the existing dominance At present, the IANA administers .us aspects of the original proposal have of U.S. entities over the gTLD system. as a locality-based hierarchy in which been eliminated. In light of the public Response: The U.S. Government second-level domain space is allocated comment and the changes to the believes that the Internet is a global to states and U.S. territories.20 This proposal made as a result, as well as the medium and that its technical name space is further subdivided into continued rapid technological management should fully reflect the localities. General registration under development of the Internet, the global diversity of Internet users. We localities is performed on an exclusive Department of Commerce has recognize the need for and fully support basis by private firms that have determined that it should issue a mechanisms that would ensure requested delegation from IANA. The general statement of policy, rather than international input into the management .us name space has typically been used define or impose a substantive of the domain name system. In by branches of state and local regulatory regime for the domain name withdrawing the U.S. Government from governments, although some system. As such, this policy statement is DNS management and promoting the commercial names have been assigned. not a substantive rule, does not contain establishment of a new, non- Where registration for a locality has not mandatory provisions and does not governmental entity to manage Internet been delegated, the IANA itself serves as itself have the force and effect of law. names and addresses, a key U.S. the registrar. The Assistant General Counsel for Government objective has been to Comments: Many commenters Legislation and Regulation, Department ensure that the increasingly global suggested that the pressure for unique of Commerce, certified to the Chief Internet user community has a voice in identifiers in the .com gTLD could be Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business decisions affecting the Internet’s relieved if commercial use of the .us Administration, that, for purposes of the technical management. space was encouraged. Commercial Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 We believe this process has reflected users and trademark holders, however, et seq., the proposed rule on this matter, our commitment. Many of the find the current locality-based system if adopted, would not have a significant comments on the Green Paper were filed too cumbersome and complicated for economic impact on a substantial by foreign entities, including commercial use. They called for number of small entities. The factual governments. Our dialogue has been expanded use of the .us TLD to alleviate basis for this certification was published open to all Internet users—foreign and some of the pressure for new generic along with the proposed rule. No domestic, government and private— TLDs and reduce conflicts between comments were received regarding this during this process, and we will American companies and others vying certification. As such, and because this continue to consult with the for the same domain name. Most final rule is a general statement of international community as we begin to commenters support an evolution of the policy, no final regulatory flexibility implement the transition plan outlined .us domain designed to make this name analysis has been prepared. in this paper. space more attractive to commercial This general statement of policy does users. not contain any reporting or record 12. The Intellectual Infrastructure Fund Response: Clearly, there is much keeping requirements subject to the In 1995, NSF authorized NSI to assess opportunity for enhancing the .us Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. ch. domain name registrants a $50 fee per domain space, and .us could be 35 (PRA). However, at the time the U.S. year for the first two years, 30 percent expanded in many ways without Government might seek to enter into of which was to be deposited in the displacing the current structure. Over agreements as described in this policy Intellectual Infrastructure Fund (IIF), a the next few months, the U.S. statement, a determination will be made fund to be used for the preservation and Government will work with the private as to whether any reporting or record enhancement of the intellectual keeping requirements subject to the PRA infrastructure of the Internet. 19 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and are being implemented. If so, the NTIA Comments: Very few comments Rescissions Act; Pub. L. 105–174; 112 Stat. 58. will, at that time, seek approval under 20 Management principles for the .us domain referenced the IIF. In general, the space are set forth in Internet RFC 1480, (http:// the PRA for such requirement(s) from comments received on the issue www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1480.txt). the Office of Management and Budget. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31749

This statement has been determined Further, changes made in the innovation, encourage diversity, and to be not significant for purposes of administration or the number of gTLDs enhance user choice and satisfaction. Office of Management and Budget contained in the authoritative root 3. Private, Bottom-Up Coordination. review under Executive Order 12866, system will have considerable impact Certain management functions require entitled Regulatory Planning and on Internet users throughout the world. coordination. In these cases, Review. In order to promote continuity and responsible, private-sector action is reasonable predictability in functions preferable to government control. A Revised Policy Statement related to the root zone, the private coordinating process is likely to This document provides the U.S. development of policies for the be more flexible than government and to Government’s policy regarding the addition, allocation, and management of move rapidly enough to meet the privatization of the domain name gTLDs and the establishment of domain changing needs of the Internet and of system in a manner that allows for the name registries and domain name Internet users. The private process development of robust competition and registrars to host gTLDs should be should, as far as possible, reflect the that facilitates global participation in coordinated. bottom-up governance that has the management of Internet names and Finally, coordinated maintenance and characterized development of the addresses. dissemination of the protocol Internet to date. The policy that follows does not parameters for Internet addressing will 4. Representation. The new propose a monolithic structure for best preserve the stability and corporation should operate as a private Internet governance. We doubt that the interconnectivity of the Internet. We are entity for the benefit of the Internet Internet should be governed by one plan not, however, proposing to expand the community as a whole. The or one body or even by a series of plans functional responsibilities of the new development of sound, fair, and widely and bodies. Rather, we seek a stable corporation beyond those exercised by accepted policies for the management of process to address the narrow issues of IANA currently. DNS will depend on input from the management and administration of In order to facilitate the needed broad and growing community of Internet names and numbers on an coordination, Internet stakeholders are Internet users. Management structures invited to work together to form a new, ongoing basis. should reflect the functional and private, not-for-profit corporation to geographic diversity of the Internet and As set out below, the U.S. manage DNS functions. The following Government is prepared to recognize, by its users. Mechanisms should be discussion reflects current U.S. established to ensure international entering into agreement with, and to Government views of the characteristics seek international support for, a new, participation in decision making. of an appropriate management entity. Purpose. The new corporation not-for-profit corporation formed by What follows is designed to describe the private sector Internet stakeholders to ultimately should have the authority to characteristics of an appropriate entity manage and perform a specific set of administer policy for the Internet name generally. and address system. Under such functions related to coordination of the agreement(s) or understanding(s), the Principles for a New System domain name system, including the new corporation would undertake authority necessary to: In making a decision to enter into an (1) Set policy for and direct allocation various responsibilities for the agreement to establish a process to of IP number blocks to regional Internet administration of the domain name transfer current U.S. Government number registries; system now performed by or on behalf management of DNS to such a new (2) Oversee operation of the of the U.S. Government or by third entity, the U.S. will be guided by, and authoritative Internet root server system; parties under arrangements or consider the proposed entity’s (3) Oversee policy for determining the agreements with the U.S. Government. commitment to, the following circumstances under which new TLDs The U.S. Government would also ensure principles: are added to the root system; and that the new corporation has 1. Stability. The U.S. Government (4) Coordinate the assignment of other appropriate access to needed databases should end its role in the Internet Internet technical parameters as needed and software developed under those number and name address system in a to maintain universal connectivity on agreements. manner that ensures the stability of the the Internet. The Coordinated Functions Internet. The introduction of a new Funding. Once established, the new management system should not disrupt corporation could be funded by domain Management of number addresses is current operations or create competing name registries, regional IP registries, or best done on a coordinated basis. root systems. During the transition and other entities identified by the Board. Internet numbers are a unique, and at thereafter, the stability of the Internet Staff. We anticipate that the new least currently, a limited resource. As should be the first priority of any DNS corporation would want to make technology evolves, changes may be management system. Security and arrangements with current IANA staff to needed in the number allocation system. reliability of the DNS are important provide continuity and expertise over These changes should also be aspects of stability, and as a new DNS the course of transition. The new coordinated. management system is introduced, a corporation should secure necessary Similarly, coordination of the root comprehensive security strategy should expertise to bring rigorous management server network is necessary if the whole be developed. to the organization. system is to work smoothly. While day- 2. Competition. The Internet succeeds Incorporation. We anticipate that the to-day operational tasks, such as the in great measure because it is a new corporation’s organizers will actual operation and maintenance of the decentralized system that encourages include representatives of regional Internet root servers, can be dispersed, innovation and maximizes individual Internet number registries, Internet overall policy guidance and control of freedom. Where possible, market engineers and computer scientists, the TLDs and the Internet root server mechanisms that support competition domain name registries, domain name system should be vested in a single and consumer choice should drive the registrars, commercial and organization that is representative of management of the Internet because noncommercial users, Internet service Internet users around the globe. they will lower costs, promote providers, international trademark 31750 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices holders and Internet experts highly and is sufficiently flexible to permit that the operation of the DNS system, respected throughout the international evolution to reflect changes in the and the operation of the authoritative Internet community. These constituency of Internet stakeholders. root server system should be secure, incorporators should include substantial Nominations to the Board of Directors stable, and robust. representation from around the world. should preserve, as much as possible, The new corporation’s charter should As these functions are now performed the tradition of bottom-up governance of provide a mechanism whereby its in the United States, by U.S. residents, the Internet, and Board Members should governing body will evolve to reflect and to ensure stability, the new be elected from membership or other changes in the constituency of Internet corporation should be headquartered in associations open to all or through other stakeholders. The new corporation the United States, and incorporated in mechanisms that ensure broad could, for example, establish an open the U.S. as a not-for-profit corporation. representation and participation in the process for the presentation of petitions It should, however, have a board of election process. to expand board representation. directors from around the world. (3) Direct the Interim Board to Trademark Issues. Trademark holders Moreover, incorporation in the United develop policies for the addition of and domain name registrants and others States is not intended to supplant or TLDs, and establish the qualifications should have access to searchable displace the laws of other countries for domain name registries and domain databases of registered domain names where applicable. name registrars within the system. that provide information necessary to Structure. The Internet community is (4) Restrict official government contact a domain name registrant when already global and diverse and likely to representation on the Board of Directors a conflict arises between a trademark become more so over time. The without precluding governments and holder and a domain name holder.21 To organization and its board should derive intergovernmental organizations from this end, we anticipate that the policies legitimacy from the participation of key participating as Internet users or in a established by the new corporation stakeholders. Since the organization non-voting advisory capacity. would provide that following will be concerned mainly with numbers, Governance. The organizing information would be included in all documents (Charter, Bylaws, etc.) names and protocols, its board should registry databases and available to should provide that the new corporation represent membership organizations in anyone with access to the Internet: is governed on the basis of a sound and each of these areas, as well as the direct —Up-to-date registration and contact transparent decision-making process, interests of Internet users. information; The Board of Directors for the new which protects against capture by a self- —Up-to-date and historical chain of corporation should be balanced to interested faction, and which provides registration information for the equitably represent the interests of IP for robust, professional management of domain name; number registries, domain name the new corporation. The new —A mail address for service of process; registries, domain name registrars, the corporation could rely on separate, —The date of domain name registration; technical community, Internet service diverse, and robust name and number —The date that any objection to the providers (ISPs), and Internet users councils responsible for developing, (commercial, not-for-profit, and reviewing, and recommending for the registration of the domain name is individuals) from around the world. board’s approval policy related to filed; and Since these constituencies are matters within each council’s —Any other information determined by international, we would expect the competence. Such councils, if the new corporation to be reasonably board of directors to be broadly developed, should also abide by rules necessary to resolve disputes between representative of the global Internet and decision-making processes that are domain name registrants and community. sound, transparent, protect against trademark holders expeditiously. As outlined in appropriate capture by a self-interested party and Further, the U.S. Government organizational documents, (Charter, provide an open process for the recommends that the new corporation Bylaws, etc.) the new corporation presentation of petitions for adopt policies whereby: should: consideration. The elected Board of (1) Domain registrants pay registration (1) Appoint, on an interim basis, an Directors, however, should have final fees at the time of registration or initial Board of Directors (an Interim authority to approve or reject policies renewal and agree to submit infringing Board) consisting of individuals recommended by the councils. domain names to the authority of a representing the functional and Operations. The new corporation’s court of law in the jurisdiction in which geographic diversity of the Internet processes should be fair, open and pro- the registry, registry database, registrar, community. The Interim Board would competitive, protecting against capture or the ‘‘A’’ root servers are located. likely need access to legal counsel with by a narrow group of stakeholders. (2) Domain name registrants would expertise in corporate law, competition Typically this means that decision- agree, at the time of registration or law, intellectual property law, and making processes should be sound and renewal, that in cases involving emerging Internet law. The Interim transparent; the basis for corporate cyberpiracy or cybersquatting (as Board could serve for a fixed period, decisions should be recorded and made opposed to conflicts between legitimate until the Board of Directors is elected publicly available. Super-majority or competing rights holders), they would and installed, and we anticipate that even consensus requirements may be submit to and be bound by alternative members of the Interim Board would useful to protect against capture by a dispute resolution systems identified by not themselves serve on the Board of self-interested faction. The new the new corporation for the purpose of Directors of the new corporation for a corporation does not need any special resolving those conflicts. Registries and fixed period thereafter. grant of immunity from the antitrust Registrars should be required to abide (2) Direct the Interim Board to laws so long as its policies and practices by decisions of the ADR system. establish a system for electing a Board are reasonably based on, and no broader of Directors for the new corporation that than necessary to promote the legitimate 21 These databases would also benefit domain name holders by making it less expensive for new insures that the new corporation’s Board coordinating objectives of the new registrars and registries to identify potential of Directors reflects the geographical corporation. Finally, the commercial customers, enhancing competition and lowering and functional diversity of the Internet, importance of the Internet necessitates prices. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31751

(3) Domain name registrants would property for DNS management and COMMITTEE FOR THE agree, at the time of registration or shared registration of domain names; IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE renewal, to abide by processes adopted (2) Enter into agreement with the new AGREEMENTS by the new corporation that exclude, corporation under which it assumes either pro-actively or retroactively, responsibility for management of the Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain certain famous trademarks from being domain name space; Cotton, Wool and Man-Made Fiber used as domain names (in one or more (3) Ask WIPO to convene an Textile Products and Silk Blend and TLDs) except by the designated international process including Other Vegetable Fiber Apparel trademark holder. individuals from the private sector and Produced or Manufactured in the (4) Nothing in the domain name government to develop a set of Philippines registration agreement or in the recommendations for trademark/domain June 5, 1998. operation of the new corporation should name dispute resolutions and other limit the rights that can be asserted by issues to be presented to the Interim AGENCY: Committee for the a domain name registrant or trademark Board for its consideration as soon as Implementation of Textile Agreements owner under national laws. possible; (CITA). The Transition (4) Consult with the international ACTION: Issuing a directive to the community, including other interested Commissioner of Customs adjusting Based on the processes described governments as it makes decisions on limits. above, the U.S. Government believes the transfer; and that certain actions should be taken to (5) Undertake, in cooperation with EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1998. accomplish the objectives set forth IANA, NSI, the IAB, and other relevant FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: above. Some of these steps must be organizations from the public and Janet Heinzen, International Trade taken by the government itself, while private sector, a review of the root Specialist, Office of Textiles and others will need to be taken by the server system to recommend means to Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, private sector. For example, a new not- increase the security and professional (202) 482–4212. For information on the for-profit organization must be management of the system. The quota status of these limits, refer to the established by the private sector and its recommendations of the study should Quota Status Reports posted on the Interim Board chosen. Agreement must be implemented as part of the transition bulletin boards of each Customs port or be reached between the U.S. process; and the new corporation call (202) 927–5850. For information on Government and the new corporation should develop a comprehensive embargoes and quota re-openings, call relating to transfer of the functions security strategy for DNS management (202) 482–3715. currently performed by IANA. NSI and and operations. the U.S. Government must reach SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: agreement on the terms and conditions Dated: June 4, 1998. Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural of NSI’s evolution into one competitor William M. Daley, Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); among many in the registrar and registry Secretary of Commerce. Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended. marketplaces. A process must be laid [FR Doc. 98–15392 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am] out for making the management of the BILLING CODE 3510±60±P The current limits for certain root server system more robust and categories are being adjusted, variously, secure. A relationship between the U.S. for special shift and carryover. Government and the new corporation COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS A description of the textile and must be developed to transition DNS apparel categories in terms of HTS management to the private sector and to Notice of Meeting numbers is available in the transfer management functions. CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel During the transition the U.S. The next meeting of the Commission Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Government expects to: of Fine Arts is scheduled for June 18, Schedule of the United States (see (1) Ramp down the cooperative 1998 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission’s Federal Register notice 62 FR 66057, agreement with NSI with the objective offices at the National Building Museum published on December 17, 1997). Also of introducing competition into the (Pension Building), Suite 312, Judiciary see 62 FR 64361, published on domain name space. Under the ramp Square, 441 F Street, N.W., Washington, December 5, 1997. down agreement NSI will agree to (a) D.C. 20001. The meeting will focus on Troy H. Cribb, take specific actions, including a variety of projects affecting the commitments as to pricing and equal Chairman, Committee for the Implementation appearance of the city. of Textile Agreements. access, designed to permit the Inquiries regarding the agenda and development of competition in domain requests to submit written or oral Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements name registration and to approximate statements should be addressed to what would be expected in the presence Charles H. Atherton, Secretary, June 5, 1998. of marketplace competition, (b) Commission of Fine Arts, at the above Commissioner of Customs, recognize the role of the new address or call 202–504–2200. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20229. corporation to establish and implement Individuals requiring sign language DNS policy and to establish terms interpretation for the hearing impaired Dear Commissioner: This directive (including licensing terms) applicable to amends, but does not cancel, the directive should contact the Secretary at least 10 issued to you on December 1, 1997, by the new and existing gTLDs and registries days before the meeting date. under which registries, registrars and Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive gTLDs are permitted to operate, (c) make Dated in Washington, D.C., June 2, 1998. Charles H. Atherton, concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and available on an ongoing basis man-made fiber textiles and textile products appropriate databases, software, Secretary. and silk blend and other vegetable fiber documentation thereof, technical [FR Doc. 98–15372 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am] apparel, produced or manufactured in the expertise, and other intellectual BILLING CODE 6330±01±M Philippines and exported during the twelve-