IP: The Economist on DNS

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

<<http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/current/index_wb9247.html>h
ttp://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/current/index_wb9247.html>


BUSINESS=20




What=92s in a name?=20


S A N F R A N C I S C O=20


WHO should allocate addresses on the Internet? The future of the domain-name
system (DNS) has become the most fiercely argued aspect of Internet
governance.
On January 30th America=92s Commerce Department put forward proposals that=
 have
infuriated some of the old hands who have long run the Internet=97as well as
those who see this as a job for international agreement.=20


The issue sounds obscure. But it is central to the Internet=92s development.
=93One
of the most pressing issues in relation to the Internet=92s transition to a
fully
commercial communication network is DNS reform,=94 argues a recent study by=
 the
OECD. Cyberspace may seem infinite; but with more than 3m Internet addresses
now registered, a memorable monicker is a company=92s best hope of standing=
 out
in the crowd.=20


The main debate is over global top-level domain names (ones such as =93.com=
=94,
which carry no letters to mark out their country). These are the Upper West
Side of the Internet: its most desirable real estate. For many years, they
have
been allocated only by Network Solutions Inc (NSI), an American company,=
 with
the blessing of the National Science Foundation, a government agency. As=
 long
as the registration service was free and the Internet inconspicuous, no one
cared about the monopoly. But once NSI started charging for an Internet
address
in 1995 (the fee is now $100), users began to grumble.=20


They complain partly about NSI=92s pricing and service; and partly about the
trademark disputes that its allocation policy aggravates. Many companies may
have the same name; but only one can have that name in its Internet address.=
=20


Last year an international group of Internet veterans produced a plan for
reform. Some of these old-timers subsequently set up an Internet Council of
Registrars (CORE), and signed up 88 bodies around the world that are in the
business of registering domain names. CORE wants registries around the
world to
compete to handle registration, and seven new, top-level domains, including
=93.firm=94 and =93.info=94 to be introduced, to make it easier to register=
 firms in
different businesses, but with the same name.=20


The Commerce Department=92s plan, devised by Ira Magaziner, Bill Clinton=92s
Internet guru, draws on CORE=92s ideas. For instance, it suggests adding fiv=
e
new
top-level domains, and wants competition between registrars regulated by a
private, non-profit corporation.=20


But the people behind CORE are unhappy, and not just because their egos are
bruised. The green paper, they say, is contradictory. For instance, in
spite of
its commitment to competition, the plan would create, at least for a
transitional period, new exclusive Internet registries: each of the new
top-level domains would be controlled by just one company.=20


Once other countries digest the proposals, they may be even more aggrieved.
For
the green paper specifically excludes officials of foreign governments or
international organisations from sitting on the board of the controlling
corporation. Yet, as NSI revealed this week, 34% of all registrations in
global
top-level domains come from abroad. Indeed, foreigners accounted for more=
 than
90% of the growth between the fourth quarters of 1996 and 1997. The days=
 when
America can reasonably claim the Internet as its fief are running out.=20