Request for Comments on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

[Docket No. 980212036-8172-03]

Request for Comments on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space

AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice, Request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce requests comments on future

expansion and administration of the .us domain space. The registry for

.us domain space, administered by the Information Sciences Institute at

the University of California, is currently administered as a locality

based hierarchy in which second level domain space is allocated to

states and U.S. territories. The .us domain space has typically been

used by branches of state and local government, although some

commercial names have been assigned. This notice, through a series of

questions, requests public comment on issues relating to future

administration, and possible expansion, of the .us domain space.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 3, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The Department invites the public to submit written comments

in paper or electronic form. Comments may be mailed to Karen Rose,

Office of International Affairs (OIA), National Telecommunications and

Information Administration (NTIA), Room 4701, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

Paper submissions should include a version on diskette in ASCII, Word

Perfect (please specify version), or Microsoft Word (please specify

version) format.

Comments submitted in electronic form may be sent to

[email protected]. Electronic comments should be submitted in the

formats specified above.

Comments received will be posted on the NTIA website at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov. Detailed information on electronic filing is

available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/efiling/.

Comments should be numbered and organized in response to the

questions set forth in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Rose, NTIA/OIA, (202) 482-0365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 20, 1998, NTIA published ``Improvement of Technical

Management of Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule,'' 63 Fed.

Reg. 8825 (1998) (also posted at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/

domainname/domainname130.htm). The notice analyzed issues of generic

Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), including the future of gTLD registries and

the possible creation of new gTLDs. Section VII. D. briefly addressed

the national or ``country-code'' domain (ccTLD) for the United States,

.us as follows:

At present, the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority at the

University of Southern California) administers .us as a locality

based hierarchy in which second-level domain space is allocated to

states and US territories. This name space is further subdivided

into localities. General registration under localities is performed

on an exclusive basis by private firms that have requested

delegation from IANA. The .us name space has typically been used by

branches of state and local governments, although some commercial

names have been assigned. Where registration for a locality has not

been delegated, the IANA itself serves as the registrar.

Some in the Internet community have suggested that the pressure

for unique identifiers in the .com gTLD could be relieved if

commercial use of the .us space was encouraged. Commercial users and

trademark holders, however, find the current locality-based system

too cumbersome and complicated for commercial use. Expanded use of

the .us TLD could alleviate some of the pressure for new generic

TLDs and reduce conflicts between American companies and others

vying for the same domain name.

Clearly, there is much opportunity for enhancing the .us domain

space, and the .us domain could be expanded in many ways without

displacing the current geopolitical structure. Over the next few

months, the U.S. government will work with the private sector and

state and local governments to determine how best to make the .us

domain more attractive to commercial users. It may also be

appropriate to move the gTLDs traditionally reserved for U.S.

government use (i.e. .gov and .mil), into a reformulated .us ccTLD.

The U.S. government will further explore and seek public input

on these issues through a separate Request for Comment on the

evolution of the .us name space. However, we welcome any preliminary

comments at this time.1

\1\ 63 Fed. Reg. at 8831.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 10, 1998, NTIA published a Statement of Policy on DNS

administration, ``Management of Internet Names and Addresses,'' 63 Fed.

Reg. 31741 (1998) (also posted at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/

domainname/6__5__98dns.htm). The document summarized the responses to

the .us comment solicitation as follows:

Many commenters suggested that the pressure for unique

identifiers in the .com gTLD could be relieved if commercial use of

the .us space was encouraged. Commercial users and trademark

holders, however, find the current locality-based system too

cumbersome and complicated for commercial use. They called for

expanded use of the .us TLD to alleviate some of the pressure for

new generic TLDs and reduce conflicts between American companies and

others vying for the same domain name. Most commenters support an

evolution of the .us domain designed to make this name space more

attractive to commercial users.2

\2\ 63 Fed. Reg. at 31798.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The document also restated the U.S. Government's intent to request

public comment on the future of .us.3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ 63 Fed. Reg. at 31798.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 41548]]

While administration of .us is managed by the same personnel as the

IANA services, it does not fall under the DARPA/IANA contract and

should therefore be considered a separate service of the Information

Sciences Institute (ISI) at the University of Southern California.

We are now formally soliciting public comment on the future of the

.us domain space. Respondents should find it useful to review the full

text of ``Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and

Addresses'' and ``Management of Internet Names and Addresses'' for

general background information on the Internet domain name system and

its management. Respondents should also find useful RFC 1480: ``The .US

Domain'' (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1480.txt), as well as ISI's

posted policies for .us (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/usdnr/) for

information regarding current the structure and management of the .us

domain.

Additional Background

The Statement of Policy ``Management of Internet Names and

Addresses'' invited the international community of private sector

Internet stakeholders to work together to form a new, private, not-for-

profit corporation to manage DNS functions. The new corporation would

gradually assume various responsibilities for the administration of the

domain name system now performed by or on behalf of the U.S.

Government. The document noted, however, that national governments

would continue to have authority to manage or establish policy for

their own ccTLDs.

Other country-code domains are managed by a variety of entities,

either non-profit or for-profit, but almost always on an exclusive

basis. In many cases, the registry remains delegated to the same

university or research institute to which it was assigned in the early

days of the Internet. In a few cases, the assigned entity is an ISP

cooperative (e.g., Nominet, the registry for .uk). In virtually all

cases (with the notable exception of Nominet), the registry maintenance

and registration functions are handled by the same entity and not

treated separately. In the event of disputes over the assignment of

country-code registries, ISI defers to national governments, some of

which operate their registry through a public agency.

Many of the allocation and governance issues under .us and other

country-codes are ultimately analogous to the issues in gTLDs. The

early availability and extensive use of gTLDs by U.S. companies,

however, allowed .us to develop separately under a hierarchical

geopolitical structure. By contrast, other country-code TLDs typically

offer second-level domains on a more or less open and unrestricted

basis or allow unrestricted third-level domains under a few two-

character sector codes, such as .co for commercial or .ac for academic.

To our knowledge, no other country-code domain is managed under a

geopolitically ordered regime similar to .us.

Some have suggested using domain space for purposes such as zoning

or credentialing. With respect to zoning for example, there have been

suggestions that creating a domain for adult entertainment could

facilitate filtering while reducing liability risk for those businesses

that register under it. Likewise, a wide range of credentialed domains

are possible, i.e., domains in which the registrant warrants that it

meets some standard or in which a third party authority (e.g., a trade

organization, a licensing agency, a bank) certifies the identity or

characteristics of the registrant. It may be desirable to delegate such

domains to a certifying entity, or to an entity that sets and maintains

the standard in the case of self-certifying registrants. To our

knowledge, no national registry has attempted such a regime of industry

identifiers or other classifications at the second or lower levels.

Questions for Public Comment

While the public is free to comment on any issue related to the .us

domain space, the Department is particularly interested in receiving

input from the questions provided below:

1. How should the present geographic structure of .us be extended

or modified? What changes should be made in RFC 1480 or the posted

policies for .us?

2. What are the benefits and costs of different options for

allocating second-level domains under .us? How should the allocation of

such second-level domains be decided and administered? What should be

the terms of delegation?

3. Specifically, should special-purpose second-level domains be

created under .us? What are the benefits and costs of creating

particular special-purpose domains (e.g., industry-specific,

credentialing, zoning)? How should such domains be created and

administered? Are there reasons to map names and other addressing and

identification systems (e.g., postal addresses, telephone numbers,

longitude and latitude, uniform resource numbers or others) into .us?

4. Alternatively, should .us be treated as an unrestricted top-

level domain like .com or should one or more specific second-level

domains such as .co.us or .com.us be used for unrestricted assignment

of domain names (as in .com)? How should such unrestricted domains be

administered and by whom?

5. How should conflicting proposals and claims to manage or use .us

subdomains be resolved? Who should have responsibility for coordinating

policy for .us over the long term? What public oversight, if any,

should be provided?

6. What rules and procedures should be used to minimize conflicts

between trademarks and domain names under .us? Should this problem be

treated differently at international, national, state, and local

levels? Should special privileges be accorded to famous trademarks,

such as a right to register directly under .us or a procedure to

preempt the use of the trademark in a range of subdomains?

7. What role should states play in the allocation and registration

of their respective subdomains? Should commercial names be permitted

under states as third-level domains? Or should such third-level domains

be limited to special categories such as domestic corporations or other

state-licensed entities? Should states and localities operate

registries and accept registrations directly? To what extent should

state policies be coordinated and through what mechanisms and

procedures?

8. How well has the system of delegating third-level domains

(localities) to private registrars on an exclusive basis worked? How

could it be improved? Should registrars be accountable to their

delegated localities (just as country-code registries are accountable

to national governments)? Should registrars be limited to a single

jurisdiction? Should multiple competing registrars be able to register

under any local, state, or special-purpose domain under .us as in the

plan proposed for generic Top-Level Domains?

9. How should the operation of the .us registry be supported?

Should uniform registration (and renewal) fees be instituted? Should

registrars contribute to the operation of the registry?

10. What are best management and allocation practices for country-

code domains? What practices should be emulated or avoided?

11. By what type of entity should .us be administered? Private,

governmental, or quasi-governmental? For profit or not-for-profit? What

are the advantages and disadvantages of using one type of

[[Page 41549]]

entity (private, public, for profit, not-for-profit) over the others?

Kathy Smith,

Acting Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 98-20732 Filed 8-3-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-60-P