IP: FNCAC Meeting, Oct 21-22, 1996; NSF, Arlington, VA

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

Posted-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 19:00:07 -0400
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:46:20 -0600 (MDT)
Resent-Message-Id: <199610232146.PAA02256 () austin bsdi com>
This was sent to the INet distribution list: djf




Sent:   Wednesday, October 23, 1996 5:14 PM
To:     Multiple recipients of list DOMAIN-POLICY
Subject:        FNCAC Meeting, Oct 21-22, 1996; NSF, Arlington, VA


        On October 21-22, Dr. Peter Rony (my brother) attended a meeting of
the Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee (FNCAC) in Arlington,
Virginia.  Peter is a professor of chemical engineering at Virginia Tech.
He is also editor of the Communications and Systems Technology (CAST)
newsletter of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE). As a
member of the press, he is intellectually interested in the domain name
issue, an interest we share.


        He reported by phone that the meeting was an historic event and
asked me to forward his notes to subscribers of this list. In the
afternoon, FNCAC attention focused on a "proposal related to domain name
issue."  Of particular note are the comments recommending that NSF
transition itself out of domain name registration involvement as quickly as
it can.  "The FNC re-iterates and underscores the urgency of transferring
responsibility of U.S. interests in domain names supporting U.S. commercial
interests from NSF to an appropriate entity."  The minutes of this meeting
should be available on-line within about two weeks.


* * * * *


Subject: FNCAC afternoon meeting, Oct 21-22, 1996; NSF, Arlington, VA


On Monday, October 22, 1996, I spent the afternoon attending the Federal
Networking Council (FNC) Advisory Committee (FNCAC) meeting at the National
Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, Virginia. I thank Julie Walker for
inviting me to attend and for making me feel very comfortable at this
meeting. I sat in one of the seats that were designated for "observers," of
which there were approximately 15-20. The public meeting started at 1:30 PM
and ended at 6:00 PM at the conclusion of an absolutely electrifying
presentation by Kimberly Claffy of NLANR (kc @ nlanr.net).


Brian Kahin (Harvard University) was the second speaker--Report on the
"Governance of the Internet" Issues--of the afternoon. His comments
stimulated substantial discussion by FNCAC members concerning the matter of
NSF involvement in domain name problems. I counted at least 5 to 8 members
of the FNCAC who vigorously questioned attorney Kahin, but the leading
questioner was certainly Dr. Stewart Personick, of Bell Communications
Research, Inc. ("Bellcore).


Below is my attempt to capture excerpts of the powerful comments that were
made on Monday  afternoon. These are not all of the comments, and
unfortunately,few are attributed.   I have been selective. I refer
followers of this listserv to search out the FNCAC minutes, which-- as I
understand it -- should appear on the Web within about two weeks.


"Every assumption in 1993 has changed-- e.g., $$$, the number of  domain
name customers -- from the situation that was envisioned at the beginning."


"Some people do not feel that domain names are a limited resource."


"It is time to do a pre-emptive audit of the NSF - NSI contract. Maybe the
contract should be over within 4 years and not 5 years. It would be useful
to rethink this thing."


"This [matter] could become very embarrassing [for the NSF]"


"Since there is only 18 months until time runs out [on the NSF - NSI
contract], we should consider what we [FNC?  NSF?  FNCAC?] should do when
the 18 months are over."


"Those monies [the $30 million per year less $5 million expenses per year
for 600,000 domain names] are in trust."


"Nobody has authority. Need authority to offer solutions. Need to balance
authority and responsibility. Need long-term solutions."


 "Congress gave FCC authority to regulate interstate communications. NSF
should get out [of this domain name business] quickly."


"Hand this hot potato to another agency [besides NSF] that can deal with it."


"To whom should it be handed off?  (a) To industrial groups first, but (b)
to FCC if the industrial groups fail?"


"The problem involves the "international" TLDs."


"Universal agreement - there should be a separation of charge for names
versus numbers.  Move to separation, as it is done in Europe."


Brian Kahin: "Missing from the Harvard conference ["Coordination and
Administration of the Internet"] was a discussion of domain names as
intellectual property, not just domain names as trademarks. Surprising, a
lack of economics perspective at the conference, with the exception of a
paper by Paul Resnick of AT&T. International participation was not as great
as hoped at the conference. There will be two conferences on this topic in
1997, one of them in Europe."


"There is a concern about the lack of U.S. agency focus and coordination on
these issues.  FCC?  NTIA?  State Department? Trademark Office?  USPTO plans
hearing on January 17, 1997 (west coast) and January 24, 1997 (Washington,
D.C.)."


"USPTO not only handles U.S. trademarks, but it also handles international
policy for all intellectual property issues."


"The US country domain has never been properly marketed in the United States."


"The FNCAC committee member stated one of 20 proposals [to resolve this
dilemma].  Pandora's box has been opened."


"You should have suggested auctions."


"Artificial scarcity. It [the domain name problem] is out of the bag."


"There should be no international TLDs. Shut down COM, ORG,and NET."


"As we were advised to do during the Nixon administration, follow the money.
600,000 domain names registered per year, and steadily rising, could mean
that the entire NSF - NSI contract has a total worth of $100 million."


"The water is arbitrarily deep; we do not know where the bottom is."


Brian Kahin: "The workshops have raised international awareness.  Harvard is
playing a facilitator role."


"Policy makers do not understand this [domain name registration] issue."


"The FNC controls IANA."


"Who still should control U.S. policy [on international TLDs]?"


"Attack [involving] legitimacy and authority. Who owns the domain name
address space?"


"Clarify residual Federal claims."


"This asset has been initiated and developed by the Federal government; we
want to get out of it."


"Do I have copyright rights forever?"


"We [at the FNCAC] are being asked for a snap opinion."


"Consider the North American [telephone] numbering plan - my company is a
subsidiary of Bellcore."


"The job of the FNCAC and the FNC is to advise. My advice?  Get out of this
[domain name address space matter] quickly. Do not wait until $800 million
dollars accumulates in an organization that you [NSF? FNC? Federal
Government?] created as a monopoly."


"What about database rights after a possible 1998 termination [of the NSF -
NSI contract]?"


"It was our government -- USPTO-- that made a proposal to WIPO."


"Why are we introducing this [matter] to WIPO when it has not been discussed
in Congress?"


"Good intentions are leading us astray. (1) We need to put mechanisms of
registration on a competitive bid basis. (2) Should trademark rights extend
to domain names? My answer is yes. Let the trademark lawyers settle it
[domain name issues]."


"99% of the problem is the COM international TLD."


"One and one half years later, there still is a COM problem. But marketing
and advertising have now moved to NET and ORG [as alternatives]."


"Diseases. Disease is contagious. Open it [domain name registration] to
additional experimentation, e.g., more TLDs."


"NSF is still working on a response to Brian [Brian Kahin's committee]."


"Here, today, FNCAC can do something productive and concrete. We should not
leave this table without addressing this huge sum of money, $25 million per
year after expenses [for 600,000 domains]. FCC should issue a notice - make
a decision to more ________.  FNC should hand off to FCC; competitive
process, easy to do. No wrong has been done so far. Who [in the Federal
government] is checking the accounting at NSI?"


"I support Stewart Personick. Bring in competitive process.  Sensible [idea]."


"TRIDENT" was discussed as a hypothetical domain name situation.


"This FNCAC meeting [is having a discussion that] is similar to three
workshops."


"Some people say that 'it [the domain name registration process] is
working. Less than 1% contention. Has observed NSI as a performer.
Unanticipated growth [in domain name registrations per year]. Initially, it
was a small company for an [anticipated] small job. Company acquired by
SAIC, which has deeper pockets. I am positively inclined that FNCAC should
conclude its involvement quickly; we do not know these _____________."


"It is easier to make progress in PROCESS than on substantive issue."


"Where should one put competition?  Other registries?  Within the COM TLD?"


"This is an incredible issue. Why would anybody want to get into dispute
resolution.  We have a court system to do that."


"It is not enough to leave [this matter] to lawyers. Transaction costs [with
lawyers] get out of hand."


"Generic names have value; cannot get them as trademarks."


"Database 'heads up}?  Is there a database copyright proposal?"


"I am not aware of database [copyright]. Does it apply to consumer
information databases?  Databases are protectable as trade secrets."


"Recall the Supreme Court case involving 'white pages.'  Cannot claim
Intellectual Property copyright for a database."  Who is pushing it
[copyright for a database]?"


"Information industry is advocate for database copyright.  For example,
electronic publishers."


"White pages [are] not original writings."


        NOTE: After the afternoon break, FNCAC attention focused on a
"proposal
related to domain name issue." Look to the FNCAC minutes for the Oct 21-22
meeting for the precise wording of this proposal, but I captured the
following text:


"THE FNC RE-ITERATES AND UNDERSCORES THE URGENCY OF TRANSFERING
RESPONSIBILITY OF U.S. INTERESTS IN DOMAIN NAMES SUPPORTING U.S. COMMERCIAL
INTERESTS FROM NSF TO AN APPROPRIATE ENTITY."  [emphasis mine]


"Every second that NSF stays in this [domain name registration matter], it
increases its risk."


"We are not constraining NSF to pick the agency. Bad place [domain name
registration matter] for NSF to stay. Big, big commercial interests [are
involved]."


"Notice of proposal asking for inputs."


"We [at the FNCAC or FNC] expediently approved a $50 per year charge that
has now led to $25 million per year. There are serious concerns. Big
commercial interests are involved."


"Addresses is another quagmire. NSF has to get itself out of the middle and
put it in the hands of a Federal agency that can get the government out of
it.  IANA contract is same role as this {????].  Important that the proper
U.S. agency deals with it."


"Is there consensus that NSF transition itself out of this [domain name
registration matter] as quickly as it can?"


"Vote it up or down. Purview of NSF is research and education.  Expedience
should not outweigh where it [domain name registration] ends up."


"Transfer responsibility for U.S. COM interests in international TLDs."


"I support this proposal, but I am concerned that management should not stay
permanently in __________"


        At the end, a proposal was made; I believe that it passed. I have
placed in brackets [ ] my sense of what "it" and "this" and related words
meant.  I am
not trying to place any bias on the discussion; almost everything has been
included. If anybody has questions about the above, please consult the only
authoritative source, namely, the minutes of the Oct 21-22 FNCAC meeting.


I have tried my best to responsibly report what I believe happened (based
upon my written notes) at this historic meeting of the FNCAC?  What history
was made on Monday, October 21, 1996?  In my opinion, the sense of the FNCAC
was that NSF should quickly transition itself out of the domain name
registration business. This is history, I believe.


To give you my personal opinion, as a chemical engineering faculty member,
my sense of the FNCAC proposal is that it seems reasonable. I have always
viewed the NSF as an agency that supports scientific and engineering
research and education, an agency that is willing to serve as a testbed in
important technological areas. I really would like to prevent the NSF from
being dragged down in the growing legal controversy over domain name
disputes.  The allocation of artificially created limited resources does not
seem to be an activity that should be within NSF's sphere of activity. I
agree 100% with the opinions of Dr. Stewart Personick of Bell Communications
Research, Inc. He was most eloquent, and protective of NSF's good name and
reputation. ###


Ellen Rony
Director, Alexander Works
21 Juno Road * Tiburon, CA * 94920


Phone:  415/435-5010
Fax:    415/435-5010
Email:  erony () marin k12 ca us