ITU Fax Template

INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION

General Secretariat
TELEFAX

Place des Nations Telephone +41 22 730 51 11

CH-1211 Geneva 20 Telefax Gr3: +41 22 733 72 56

Switzerland Gr4: +41 22 730 65 00

Date:	17 February 1998	Time:	Page 1/		Ref:	Circular letter No. 79 SPU/DM/jb
To:	To all Member States and Sector Members FRENCH AND SPANISH VERSIONS TO FOLLOW			Fax:

From:	Pekka Tarjanne, Secretary-General		For your reply:
Contact:	Don MacLean, Head, SPU		E-Mail: maclean@itu.int
			Fax: +41 22 730 5881			Tel: +41 22 730 5201
Subject:	gTLD-MoU

Dear Sir/Madam,

Having considered a report from the Secretary-General on action he had taken to support the International Ad Hoc Committee on Internet Domain Names and Generic Top Level Domain Names (IAHC), in particular his agreement to serve as depository of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Generic Top Level Domain Name Space of the Internet Domain Name System (gTLD-MoU) which resulted from the work of the IAHC, the 1997 session of Council requested the Chairman of Council to seek the views of ITU Member States and Sector Members on:

1. the Secretary-General’s role as depository of the gTLD-MoU, which includes the following functions:

a) circulation of the gTLD-MoU to relevant public and private entities representing a broad range of interests in the Internet gTLD name space including, inter alia, relevant Internet-related organizations and bodies, software publishers, operators and service providers, intergovernmental organizations, governmental or regional agencies and authorities, non-governmental organizations and manufacturers, with an invitation to sign, if they so wish;

b) to maintain and publish periodically an updated list of Signatories;

c) to facilitate further cooperation in the implementation of the gTLD-MoU;

2. the provisions of the gTLD-Mou itself.

A report on the results of this consultation is attached (Annex 1).

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that on 30 January 1998 the United States Department of Commerce proposed an approach to the governance, management and administration of Internet gTLDs which is significantly different from the approach embodied in the gTDL-MoU, with a request for comments. A table summarizing the main differences between these approaches is also attached (Annex 2). Should you wish further information on the proposals of the U.S. Department of Commerce and/or to respond to their request for comments, they may be contacted at:

U.S. Department of Commerce
NTIA/OIA
14^th and Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington D.C. 20230

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htm.

Please note that the period for comments will end 30 days after the official publication of these proposals in the United States Federal Registrer.

Yours faithfully,

Pekka TARJANNE
Secretary-General

ANNEX 1

Report by the Council Chairman

Consultation on the Internet Generic Top-Level Domain Name

Memorandum of Understanding (gTLD-MoU)

A. Purpose

1. The purpose of this document is to report on the results of a consultation of ITU Member States and Sector Members concerning the gTLD-MoU and, more particularly, the role of the ITU Secretary-General as depository of the MoU.

B. Background

2. At its 1996 session, Council confirmed the decision that was provisionally taken at the 1995 session to accept the Internet Society (ISOC) as an ITU Sector Member on the basis of reciprocity, given the mutual interest of the two organizations in developing the global information infrastructure.

3. On this basis, in October 1996 the Secretary-General accepted ISOC's invitation to take part in the work of the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) on administration and management of the Internet generic Top Level Domain name space. Other participants included appointees from the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), Internet Society (ISOC), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), US Federal Networking Council (FNC), and the International Trademark Association (INTA).

4. The IAHC was established at the initiative of ISOC in response to a request from the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA). IANA historically has had the central responsibility for coordination of assignment of unique Internet identifiers including Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and assignment of Internet top level domains.

4.1 All Internet users are familiar with the "domain names" given to computers which provide Internet services (e.g. "itu.int" is the ITU's domain name and when prefixed by 'www' typically refers to a World Wide Web service). There is a hierarchy of domain names beginning with top-level domains (TLDs) and continuing with second-level domains (SLDs), etc.

4.2 Among the top-level domains, some are "national" or "country code" domains (ccTLDs) based on the ISO 3166 standard (e.g. ".ch" may be used by an Internet service in Switzerland, ".fr" in France etc.). National TLDs are administered by national governments or by other entities which are usually based in the country to which IANA has allocated the relevant national TLD.

4.3 There are a few TLDs (".gov", ".mil", and ".edu") that are only allocated to United States entities. There is also a top level domain ".int" which is intended for use by international treaty organizations.

4.4 Other TLDs are "generic" or "international" (e.g. ".com", ".net", ".org" ) and have no link with a specific country. Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), a United States National Science Foundation contractor in Virginia, USA, currently administers these three gTLDs which together account for more than 70% of global domain name space. The global character of these gTLDs is reflected in the fact that 30% of all NSI registrations are held by non-US entities. This contract ends in 1998.

5. The mandate of the IAHC was to recommend ways in which the administration and management of generic or international TLDs could be improved. IANA asked ISOC to establish the IAHC because the rapid transformation of the Internet from a domestic US research network into a commercial information infrastructure with global reach had highlighted a number of issues. The basic challenge perceived by IANA was to expand the gTLD name space while addressing concerns such as administrative fairness, operational stability and robustness, and protection of intellectual property.

6. Following extensive consultations in the Internet community and with other interested parties, in February 1997 the IAHC issued a report recommending a new approach to the administration and management of gTLDs. The main elements of the recommended approach were the following:

6.1 The Internet top level domain name space should be viewed as a public resource. It should therefore be administered as a public trust, in an open and public manner, in the interests and service of the public. The TLD public policy process should represent and balance the interests of current and future stakeholders in the Internet name space.

6.2 A memorandum of understanding (the gTLD-MoU) which both private and public sector organizations would be invited to sign, should provide a voluntary, non-binding and non-regulatory framework for developing and implementing public policy for Internet top level domain name space. IANA and ISOC would be the founding signatories to the gTLD-MoU. The Secretary-General of the ITU would serve as its depository.

6.3 The Internet gTLD name space should be expanded through the addition of seven new gTLDs, each of which would designate an intended area of commercial or non-commercial activity (.firm, .store, .web, .arts, .rec, .info, .nom).

6.4 New gTLDs would be administered and managed by a Council of Registrars (CORE). CORE would be established through a Swiss non-profit association and memorandum of understanding (CORE-MoU) signed by multiple registrars (there are currently 88). Registrars would be selected according to specified financial and technical recommendations criteria and would be drawn on an equitable basis from all regions of the world.

6.5 CORE would contract for services to registrars, in particular a shared database (registry) for all gTLD registries. However, the registrars would compete with each other in offering services to registrants. To permit "one-stop shopping", each registrar could offer every gTLD to their customers. Since gTLDs would be completely portable between different registrars, a customer who was not satisfied with the service received from a registrar could move his business to any other registrar, anywhere in the world and keep his domain name.

6.6 Disputes concerning intellectual property rights (IPRs) in the gTLD name space should be resolved through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center by using mediation, optional arbitration and Administrative Domain Name Challenge Panels (ACPs).

6.7 Governance of the gTLD space should be the responsibility of a Policy Oversight Committee (POC). Initially, it would be composed of representatives of ISOC, IANA, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the ITU, the International Trademark Association (INTA), WIPO and CORE.

6.8 POC and CORE should obtain advice from a Policy Advisory Body (PAB), composed of representatives from gTLD-MoU signatories.

7. In his role as depository of the gTLD-MoU, the ITU Secretary-General would have the following functions:

7.1 circulation of the gTLD-MoU to relevant public and private entities representing a broad range of interests in the Internet gTLD name space including, inter alia, relevant Internet-related organizations and bodies, software publishers, operators and service providers, intergovernmental organization, governmental or regional agencies and authorities, non-governmental organizations and manufacturers, with an invitation to sign, if they so wish;

7.2 to maintain and publish periodically an updated list of signatories;

7.3 to facilitate further cooperation in implementation of the gTLD-MoU.

8. On 29 April-1 May 1997, the Secretary-General hosted an information meeting on the IAHC report and the gTLD-MoU at ITU headquarters in Geneva. Following the presentation and discussion of the IAHC report, participants were invited to sign the gTLD-MoU if they so wished. Representatives of 80 organizations signed the gTLD-MoU on that occasion. In addition, the ITU Secretary-General and the WIPO Director-General signed annexes to the document to indicate that they accepted the roles which the gTLD-MoU conferred on them in their capacity as executive heads of their respective organizations.

9. As of January 10, 1998, the gTLD-MoU had been signed by 208 entities and organizations, of which 11 are ITU Sector Members. In addition, 88 registrars have been selected, of whom six are ITU Sector Members. Lists of gTLD-MoU signatories and CORE registrars are presented in Annexes A and B.

10. In June 1997, the Secretary-General informed the ITU Council of the action he had taken. The Council then requested its Chairman to seek the views of ITU Member States and Sector Members on the Secretary-General's role as depository of the gTLD-MoU, as well as on the provisions of the gTLD-MoU itself. This was done by Circular Letter No. 52 of 27 August 1997, with a request for comments by 27 October 1997.

C. Results of the Consultation

11. There were 17 responses to the Council Chairman's request for comments:

Member States (listed in the French alphabetical order)	Sector Members
Germany (D)	Bell Atlantic
Australia (AUS)	GPT
Cameroon (CME)	MCI
Canada (CAN)	New T&T Hong Kong
Republic of Korea (KOR)	Telia
Denmark (DNK)
United States of America (USA)
France (F)
Portugal (POR)
United Kingdom (G)
Senegal (SEN)
Switzerland (SUI)

C.1 Comments on the Role and Functions of the ITU Secretary-General in the gTLD-MoU

12. Sixteen respondents commented on the role and functions of the ITU Secretary-General contained in the gTLD-MoU. In some cases, they prefaced their comments with general remarks on the role of the ITU in Internet governance. For analytical purposes, their comments may be grouped in four categories:

12.1 Seven respondents expressed unqualified acceptance of the role and functions of the ITU Secretary-General contained in the gTLD-MoU (CME, KOR, DNK, GPT, MCI, New Hong Kong T&T, Telia).

12.2 Five respondents expressed qualified acceptance of the role and functions of the ITU Secretary-General contained in the gTLD-MoU (D, USA, F, POR, SUI).

Three of these respondents expressed concern that the Secretariat had participated in the development of the gTLD-MoU and convened a meeting of signatories without giving sufficient notice to ITU Member States and/or seeking the consent of Council for these actions. They proposed that similar situations should be avoided in the future (D, USA, POR).
One respondent agreed that it would be acceptable for the Secretary-General to serve as depository of the gTLD-MoU and consistent with his other functions to maintain and periodically publish an updated list of signatories. However, the respondent felt that one of the other functions envisaged for the Secretary-General, to circulate the gTLD-MoU with an invitation to sign, would not be acceptable. This respondent also felt that the third function assigned to the Secretary-General, to facilitate further cooperation in the implementation of the gTLD-MoU, should be limited to providing factual information on the private sector's ongoing efforts at self-governance of the Internet (USA).
One respondent accepted the role and functions of the Secretary-General on condition that the gTLD-MoU was revised to accommodate its concerns which included a stronger role for national governments and international organizations as well as more effective protection for intellectual property rights (F).
Two respondents proposed that the costs associated with the Secretary-General's role and functions as depository of the gTLD-MoU should be fully recovered and not charged to the budget of the Union (D, SUI).

12.3 One respondent said that it was unconvinced of the necessity of the Secretary-General to have involved himself in the work of the IAHC, and expressed concern that the role of the ITU would go beyond the simple facilitating role which had been adopted (G).

12.4 Two respondents, while supporting in principle the role of the ITU in facilitating global telecommunications understandings, including voluntary arrangements such as the gTLD-MoU which are distinct from traditional ITU functions, felt it was premature to accept the role and functions of the Secretary-General until the ITU's position on Internet governance in general and domain name issues in particular had been clarified (AUS, CAN).

C.2 Comments on the gTLD-MoU

13. All 17 respondents commented on the gTLD-MoU. In some cases, they also made general comments on broad issues related to Internet governance. For analytical purposes, they may be grouped into four categories:

13.1 Six respondents expressed unqualified acceptance of the gTLD-MoU (CME, DNK, GPT, MCI, SEN, Telia).

13.2 Six respondents appeared to express qualified acceptance of the MoU (D, USA, F, G, New Hong Kong T&T, POR). On the whole, these respondents agreed that there is a need to improve Internet governance structures in general, and the administration and management of the domain name space in particular. In general, they saw the need to develop international solutions to the problems identified by the IAHC through the involvement of all interested parties and welcomed the proposal to expand the domain name space and introduce competition in its administration. They tended to view the gTLD-MoU as a step in the right direction, but made specific suggestions as to how the structures recommended by the IAHC could be improved. The following issues were identified by this group of respondents:

General concerns were expressed that the membership of the proposed Policy Oversight Committee was not sufficiently representative of all stakeholders and other interested parties (POR). While there was broad agreement that the private sector and the Internet community should be represented, there was no consensus on the role of the government. One respondent proposed that representatives of national governments should serve neither as regular, voting nor as advisory, non-voting members of POC (USA). However, another respondent proposed that a good level of representation by national governments was necessary (F). Opinions were also divided on the role of international organizations. One respondent proposed that the representatives of ITU and WIPO should serve only in a non-voting, advisory capacity (USA), while another respondent proposed that the role envisaged by the IAHC for these organizations was insufficient (F).
Doubts were expressed that the creation of 7 new gTLDs would solve the problem of domain name saturation which it was meant to address (D, F, G). It was suggested that further work would be needed to develop the criteria for creating new gTLDs, and that particular account should be taken of linguistic diversity (POR). It was also proposed that attention should be paid to developing criteria for allocating and managing SLDs as a way of taking pressure off TLDs (F, G).
While generally welcoming the proposal to introduce competition and geographic diversity in the gTLD registry function (G), some respondents suggested that the mechanisms proposed by the IAHC needed further work (D, F). In particular, it was suggested that the criteria and process for selecting registrars should be transparent (F).
Some respondents expressed concerns about the dispute resolution mechanism proposed by the IAHC and suggested that it would need further work (D, F). Specifically, it was suggested that one dispute resolution mechanism should apply to both existing and new gTLDs and that the relationship between national trademark laws and the proposed gTLD dispute resolution mechanism should be addressed (F). One respondent suggested that it might be preferable to adopt mechanisms that would encourage disputes to be resolved under trademark law at the national level, instead of seeking an international solution (G). In this regard, it was pointed out that the administrative dispute resolution mechanism proposed by the IAHC would not prevent judicial recourse in national or regional jurisdictions (F, New Hong Kong T&T).

13.3 One respondent expressed qualified rejection of the gTLD-MoU (Bell Atlantic). Like the respondents in the previous category, this respondent saw some positive features in the gTLD-MoU. They agreed on the need for an international approach to Internet governance issues in general, and to the administration and management of the domain name space in particular. They agreed with the need to involve all stakeholders, including government, in the development of solutions to the problems addressed in the gTLD-MoU. They were in favour of introducing competition in the TLD registry function and insisted strongly on the need to ensure that any new governance scheme provides adequate protection for intellectual property rights. In sum, they identified the same concerns as the respondents in the previous category, and analyzed a number of them in considerable detail. On balance, they found that the negative points in the gTLD-MoU outweighed its positive aspects.

13.4 Four respondents felt that further discussion of Internet governance issues in general and domain name questions in particular was needed within the ITU, and possibly in other international fora, before conclusions could be reached (AUS, CAN, KOR, SUI).

ANNEX A

List of gTLD-MoU Signatories

Company Name/Location

A.C.E./Côte d’Ivoire

Adega, LLC/USA

Adilan S.A./France

Admiral Systems Inc./Japan

AETEA Information Technology Inc./USA

Albanian Mobile Communications (AMC)/Albania

Alinet Italia/Italy

Altair Data System/Italy

American Data Technology, Inc./USA

American Internet Corporation/USA

Ark Inc./Japan

Asociacion Nacional de Proveedores Telematicos (ANPROTEL)/Spain

Asia Pacific Network Information Center Ltd. (APNIC)/Japan

American Samoa NIC (ASNIC)/American Samoa

Asociacion de Usuarios de Internet/Spain

Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia (APJII)/Indonesia

Association Francaise pour le Commerce et les Echanges Electroniques (AFCEE)/France

Association Francaise des Professionnels de l’Internet (AFPI)/France

Association Francaise de la Telematique Multimedia (AFTEL)/France

ASUSA Corporation/USA

Atheatre.com/Australia

Axone Services & Development/Switzerland

Bell Canada/Canada

Biblio Pty Ltd./Australia

Blueshift, Inc./USA

Botswana Telecommunications Corporation/Botswana

Bunyip Information Systems Inc./Canada

CAL Institute Corporation/USA

Calgary On-Line Inc./Canada

Canada Internet Direct Inc./Canada

CaryNET Information Center/Hong Kong

Charm Net Inc./USA

China Internet Information Center (CNNIC)/China

Xarxa CINET, S. L./Spain

CompuTron GNetX Germany/Germany

CompuTron GNetX Yugoslavia/Serbia

ComStar Internet-Services/Germany

Connected Systems Group/USA

Connetix, Inc./USA

CSC The United States Corporation Company/USA

CYBERplex interactive media/Canada

DACOM Corporation/Republic of Korea

Dana Point Communication Systems/USA

DESIGN.NET/United Kingdom

Digital Equipment Corporation/USA

DIGEX, Inc./USA

Directory Corporation/Bahamas

Dokumenta/Maxdat Group/Germany

Domain Communications LLC/USA

Domain Names International LLC/USA

Dynatek Infoworld, Inc./USA

Eaton & Van Winkle/USA

Ebone Inc./Denmark

eco - Electronic Commerce Forum e.V./Germany

EdCom International/USA

The Edge Consultants Pte Ltd./Singapore

Robert Ellis, Ellis & Aeschliman/USA

ep Productions Inc./USA

Europe Online A.s.b.l/Luxembourg

European On-Line Partners/Ireland

European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)/France*

Eurotel GmbH/Germany

First Identity Net, Inc./USA

Flying Penguin Productions Limited/USA

Fontes & Wituschek GBR/Germany

France Telecom/France*

Fundacio Catalana per a la Recerca/Spain

Global Online Japan/Japan

GlobeCom Network/Sweden

GlobeComm, Inc./USA

Graefe & Partner Rechtsanwalte GbR/Germany

Grona Verket AB/Sweden

Guernsey Network Information Centre/Alderney, Channel Islands

Hiway Technologies Inc./USA

ICT AG/Germany

idNames.com (Internet Domain Names, Inc.)/USA

IDT Corp./USA

Imminus/United Kingdom

Inet, Inc./Korea

Information Highway AB/Sweden

Interdeposit/Switzerland

Interdomain, S.A./Spain

Interlog Internet Services/Canada

International Air Transport Association (IATA)/Switzerland*

International Trademark Association/USA

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority/USA

Internet Association Japan/Japan

Internet Business Services/USA

Internet Computing/Czech Republic

Internet Domain Registrars/Canada

Internet KSC Co., Ltd./Thailand

Internet Mail Consortium/USA

Internet Research & Consulting/USA

Internet Society International Secretariat/USA*

Internet Society of Australia/Australia

Internet Society - Chapitre Francais/France

Internet Society of Geneva/Switzerland

Internet Society of Ghana/Ghana

Internet Society of Israel/Israel

Internet Society of Japan/Japan

Internet Society of Mexico/Mexico

Internet Society of Norway/Norway

Internet Society of Thailand/Thailand

Internet Society of Vienna/Austria

Internet Software Consortium/USA

Internet Solutions and Mangement, Inc. (ISAM)/USA

Internet Users Society/USA

Internet-Way/France

The Internetwork Operating Company, Inc. (INTERNOC)/USA

iPass, Inc./ÚSA

I.P.F. Net - Internet Service Provider GmbH/Germany

Ipsilon Networks, Inc./USA

It Comunicacion/Spain

Japan Network Informaton Center (JPNIC)/Japan

Marylee Jenkins Robin, Blecker, Daley & Driscoll/USA

Jersey Network Information Centre/Jersey, Channel Islands

Ji Tong Communications Co., Ltd./China

Josmarin S.A./Switzerland

Just Results Plc./United Kingdom

Kokusai Denshin Denwa Co., Ltd (KDD)/Japan

Korea Network Information Center (KRNIC)/Republic of Korea

LanMinds, Inc./USA

Logic Group of Companies/Singapore

LogoWEB Communications GmbH/Germany

MagicNet, Incorporated/USA

MC2 Cyberspace Research, Inc./USA

MCI Communications/USA*

MediaFusion/Canada

Melbourne Information Technologies/Australia

MidWest Group/China

Mindspring Enterprises Inc./USA

Moniker Pty Ltd./Australia

Moscow Patent Bureau (Mospatent)/Russia

MP Associates/Japan

Diario EL MUNDO - Internet/Spain

Nesser & Nesser Consulting/USA

N.E. & T. SRL-Internet Competence Center for Siemens Nixdorf Spa/Italy

NETBAY/Monaco

NetBenefit/United Kingdom

NetNames International/United Kingdom

NetNames USA/USA

Net Searches/United Kingdom

NetVenture, Inc./USA

Net Vision/Israel

Network Computer Systems/Ghana

Networks Web Design Services Ltd./United Kingdom

NIC-Mexico/Mexico

OLX/USA

Omniart/USA

OneGlobe.net/USA

Ordenamineto de Links Especializados, S.L. (OLE)/Spain

OuterNet Connection Strategies, Inc./USA

Oyster Systems Limited/United Kingdom

Partal, Maresma & Associats, S.L./Spain

PBM Internet-Services/Germany

PERWORK, S.L./Spain

Procurement Services International/Japan

Procurement Services International, Inc./USA

RapidSite, Inc./Germany

Rebel Net/United Kingdom

Registry of Museum Network Resources/Sweden

RomNIC - Network Information Center for Romania/Romania

Samsung SDS Co., Ltd./Republic of Korea*

Sattler & Schanda, Rechtsanwalte/Austria

SERVICOM/Spain

SharqueByte Productions/USA

Silver Server/Austria

Siraat Solutions/United Kingdom

Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques (SITA) S.C./Belgium*

Songbird/USA

Speewak Communications/Denmark

Spray Interactive Domain AB/Sweden

State Department of Posts and Telecommunication/Albania

Anwaltskanzlei Tobias H. Stromer/Germany

SURFnet bv/The Netherlands

Sweden Post Ltd./Sweden

Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property/Switzerland

SWITCH/Switzerland

SYSTEL/Guadeloupe F.W.I.

Tele2 AB/Sweden*

Telecom Italia/Italy*

TELESUR/Suriname

Telia AB/Sweden*

Telstra/Australia*

Thai Federation for Information Processing/Thailand

2Day Internet Limited/New Zealand

Togo Telecom/Togo

Tokyo Internet Corporation/Japan

Top Domain Registry Inc./USA

Trade Media Ltd./Philippines

TRANSEO/France

UNINETT AS/Norway

U.S. Datanet/USA

Virtation Technologies, Inc./USA

Virtual Internet Limited/United Kingdom

VLS-TJT/Indonesia

WEB4U/Germany

Widely Integrated Distributed Environment (WIDE)/Japan

Wyith R. Cheng & Associates Limited/Hong Kong

X-Media Venture/Singapore

____________

* ITU Sector Members

ANNEX B

List of Core-MoU Signatories

Name/Location

Fundacio Catalana per a la Recerca/Spain

Globecomm Inc./USA

Procurement Services International K.K./Japan

Internet Domain Registrars Corporation/Canada

First Identitiy Net/USA

Moniker Pty Ltd./Australia

Frank Ungari/USA

Chung Hwa Telecom/Taiwan

California Suncare, Inc./USA

European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)/France*

CSL GmbH/Germany

TUCOWS/Internet Direct/Canada

DENIC eG/Germany

Computer Network Information Center/China

General Internet Corporation/United Kingdom

Interdomain S.A./Spain

NetBay S.A.M./Monaco

Pacific Communications/Taiwan

Aktiv Handelsgesellschaft/Germany

Telecom Plus Ltd./Mauritius

OneGlobe.net/USA

Topnet AG/Germany

Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation/Bahamas

Corporation Service Company/USA

Mindspring Enterprises, Inc./USA

National Computerization Agency/Korea

Net Wizards, Inc./USA

Perwork, S.L./Spain

Saritel S.p.A./Italy

Domain Name Services/South Africa

Just Results PLC/United Kingdom

IP Consult GmbH/Germany

SoftAware, Inc./USA

Smartphone S.A./Switzerland

Virtual Internet Limited/United Kingdom

Business Names Registration PLC/United Kingdom

Callisto germany.net/Germany

Knipp Medien und Kommunikation OHG/Germany

Redse y Telecomunicaciones T.B. Informatic S.L. Spain

Telia AB Network Services/Sweden*

A Technology Company (ATC), Inc./Canada

Alinet Italia Srl/Italy

Corpex Limited/United Kingdom

Domain Names International, LLC/USA

Eurotel-Systems Europaische/Germany

Hiway Technologies, Inc./USA

LanMinds, Inc./USA

L.M. Man Power Services Ltd./Israel

Mediafusion Inc./Canada

Netlink Holdings Pty Ltd/Australia

Netlink Internet Services Ltd./United Kingdom

CASDNS Inc./USA

Syllogistics LLC/USA

Thomson & Thomson/USA

TotalNet, Inc.

AETEA Information Technology, Inc./USA

B&C Microsystems, Inc./USA

The Edge Consultants Pte Ltd./Singapore

France Telecom Transpac*

Freedom Communications, Inc./USA

Interactive Telecom Network, Inc./USA

Ji Tong Communications Co., Ltd./China

SITA/Switzerland*

SuperHighway, Inc. DBA IndyNet/USA

Demon Internet Ltd./United Kingdom

Epoch Networks/USA

Interlog Internet Services, Inc./Canada

NetNames Ltd./United Kingdom

Secunet Security Networks GmbH/Germany

Halo Technologies Ltd./USA

Networks Web Design Services Ltd./United Kingdom

AXIS Information Systems GmbH/Germany

Deutsche Telekom AG*

Network Information Centre/Sweden

Steffens & Wespe/Germany

Altronics, Inc./USA

Axone Services & Developpement S.A.

Capital Networks Pty Ltd./Switzerland

TUV Rheinland Sicherheit und Umweltschutz GmbH Institut fur Software, Elektronik, Bahntechnik/Germany

Grona Verket AB/Sweden

IDT Corporation/USA

Dknet A/S/Denmark

PTT Telecom/The Netherlands*

Europe Online/Luxembourg

ARK Inc./Japan

Tokyo Internet Corporation/Japan

___________

*ITU Sector Members

ANNEX 2

Comparative Table between gTLD-MoU and US Department of Commerce Proposals

	gTLD-MoU	US Department of Commerce
Goal	"Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) name space is a public resource and is subject to the public trust; any administration, use and/or evolution of the Internet TLD space is a public policy issue and should be carried out in the interests and service of the public. Related public policy needs to balance and represent the interests of the current and future stakeholders in the Internet name space." (IAHC Report)	"I direct the Secretary of Commerce to support efforts to make the governance of the domain name system private and competitive and to create a contractually based self-regulatory regime that deals with potential conflicts between domain name usage and trademark laws on a global basis." (US Presidential Directive to Department of Commerce (July 2, 1997))
Policy Framework	The gTLD-MoU	Proposed rule of US Commerce Department: "Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses" released by the US Department of Commerce/NTIA on January 30, 1998.
Governance Structure	The Policy Oversight Committee (POC) is currently composed of representatives from IANA, ISOC, IAB, ITU, INTA, WIPO, CORE and pab 'observers' with a proposed expansion to 20 members; The Policy Advisory Body (PAB) composed of representatives from signatories to the gTLD-MoU.	A not-for-profit corporation headquartered in the US and incorporated under US law; A Board of Directors with 14 members with some international membership; no details on method of appointment.
Expansion of the gTLD Name Space	7 new gTLDs	5 new gTLDs.
Registry Function	A single registry for the new gTLDs, operated in a not-for-profit manner under contract to the Council of Registrars (CORE), a Swiss non-profit association subject to Swiss law.	Proposes 5 new registries each with exclusive right to serve as a profit-making registry for one new gTLD Network Solutions Inc. (NSI) in USA keeps registry rights to 3 gTLDs (.com, .net, org)
Registrar Function	Multiple (currently 88) geographically dispersed, competing registrars, each of whom would be able to serve customers in any or all gTLDs; Registrars are signatories to CORE-MoU	Registries set requirements for registrars; Registrars must make bilateral agreements with each gTLD registry Registries could also be registrars, but only at "arm’s-length"
Dispute Resolution Mechanism	Mediation, Arbitration and Administrative Domain Name Challenge Panels (ACPs) using the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. Substantive guidelines developed by POC using public processes.	Each competing registry would develop its own dispute resolution mechanism.
Role of International Organizations	ITU and WIPO have seats on POC	No involvement of international organizations
Role of National Governments	No current involvement by national governments, but the possibility is not excluded a priori	No involvement of national governments