Basically, there's nothing here for everybody:
1. There is no time frame for new domain names -- could be a year or more,
despite the fact that CORE, and even some of the alternative registries,
are ready to go. When will consumers be able to register domains?
The plan essentially pushes off all the difficult questions to a group that
won't be formed until the year 2000. What is everyone going to do in the
meantime?
2. This is the beginning of the end of the old spirit of Internet
co-operation, and the introduction of government meddling at the behest of
political interests. This paper was the result of meetings with people in
Washington -- in a word, lobbyists.
3. The big losers in this plan are consumers:
a. No domain name portability -- i.e., no ability to move from one registry
to another if a registry goes out of business or engages in rapacious
business standards.
b. No ethical standards required of registries or registrars -- short of
breaking the law (which varies from country to country), a registry or
registrar can do anything, including jacking up prices.
c. There is no-one to appeal to in case of shoddy business practices by
registries or registrars -- this will multiply and exacerbate the problems
that Network Solutions has created.
4. There is no leadership or co-ordination supplied in the interim period.
a. How are registries to be overseen? What happens when one of them fails?
Who will take care of the domains?
b. What are the specifics of dispute resolution for domain holders? This
is not an easy area, and it appears to have been given little thought at all.
c. How will disputes between registrars be handled? How does a domain
holder move from one registrar to another?
5. This plan is a nightmare for trademark holders, who must deal with
multiple registries, each with their own sets of guidelines and dispute
resolution policies. NetNames knows all about the mess this can create,
since we deal with all the nTLDs (National Top-Level Domains), each with
their own policies.
6. The plan is not in the least international, despite Magaziner's repeated
insistence that Internet solutions must be multilateral and international.
7. There is no way for other governments to participate. Surely they have
an interest.
9. There is no requirement that any RFCs be followed. Those RFCs didn't
come out of nowhere. A lot of smart people with a lot of experience put
them together. Is the government going to reinvent everything?
Of course, all this will be good for NetNames, because as a company
knowledgable about these things, with an established interface with the
public, we'll be dispensing information and advice about the chaos to come.
But we'd prefer to have a stable, predictable Internet, and this paper
points in the opposite direction.
Antony Van Couvering
President, NetNames USA
+1 212 627-4599