FARNET Washington Update --- August 22, 1997

[Jeff Ogden]

FYI
  -Jeff

>Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 13:55:24 -0400
>To: legup@farnet.org
>From: Garret Sern <garret@farnet.org>
>Subject: Washington Update --- August 22, 1997
>Cc: policy@educom.edu, taskforce@educom.edu
>
>FARNET'S WASHINGTON UPDATE --- AUGUST 22, 1997
>
>IN THIS ISSUE:
>
>DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE RECEIVES FEEDBACK ON REGISTRATION OF INTERNET DOMAIN
>NAMES
>
>IS THE FCC REJECTION OF AMERITECH LEGAL?
>
>FARNET MEETING SCHEDULED FOR LATE SEPTEMBER
>
>FARNET NEEDS YOUR FEEDBACK!
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>
>DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE RECEIVES FEEDBACK ON REGISTRATION OF INTERNET DOMAIN
>NAMES
>
>August 18 - The deadline has passed to submit comments to the Department of
>Commerce's Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding the future system of
>registering Internet domain names. Issued on July 1, the NOI solicited
>public feedback as to what principles should guide the government when
>evaluating domain name registration proposals.  Currently, the Internet
>domain name system is run by Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) under a
>cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation (NSF). NSI's
>contract expires in 1998.  Critics of this arrangement, such as the
>Electronic Frontier Foundation, are concerned that NSI will retain the
>domain database once the contract expires, despite a Cooperative Agreement
>already in place to ensure this does not occur.
>
>The main issue is what role, if any, should the government have in the
>future registration of Internet domain names? The Commerce Department's NOI
>recognizes the private sector's leadership role in the development of the
>Internet and that the transition to private sector control should continue.
> However, while espousing competition, the NOI also warns that the
>stability of the Internet must be considered when deciding which entity
>should administer Internet domain names.  Proposals prior to NOI take two
>different approaches.  The Internet Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC), which is now
>disbanded, released its' "Generic Top-Level Domain Memorandum of
>Understanding", calling for multiple competing registrars under the
>auspices of a non-profit Swiss association known as the Council of
>Registrars (CORE). CORE would be responsible for operating a shared data
>base for all the generic Top Level Domain Names. (eg. .com, .edu, .org) In
>response to the IAHC proposal, Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI)submitted a
>plan calling for a competing Internet domain name registry system which
>specific TLDs would be operated by each registrar. Registrars may propose
>exclusive TLDs (for example, instead of .com, how about .biz or even
>.buy)while establishing their own operating and price structures.  While a
>NSI proposal on  Internet number registry has been implemented
>(see http://www.farnet.org/updates/washupd7-3-1997.html ), it is unclear
>whether its' Internet domain name proposal will become the accepted
>practice.
>
>Whether the administration of Internet domain names is handled by a
>government or several competitive private entities, a central authority to
>resolve domain name disputes will be needed.  Until such an entity is
>chosen, one solution proposed is to add country codes to the existing TLDs,
>such as .com.us, whereby each country would administer domain names in
>accordance to their own laws.  While many in the Internet community oppose
>any government involvement in the administration of Internet domain names,
>the establishment of a non-profit, regional entity might avoid the future
>headaches if the courts are forced to deal with domain name disputes.
>
>For the Department of Commerce's NOI on Domain Names:
>
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domain name/dn5notic.htm
>
>IS THE FCC REJECTION OF AMERITECH LEGAL?
>
>August 19 - This week the FCC rejected Ameritech's bid to enter the
>long-distance market based upon evidence Ameritech presented that it had
>taken measures to open its local markets to competition.  Despite this
>setback, however, many in the telecommunications industry are pleased that
>the lengthy FCC order provides the Bell companies with clearer guidelines
>as to the steps they need to fulfill in meeting the FCC's mandate for
>opening their markets to competitors.
>
>In rejecting Ameritech's application, the FCC cited three items were that
>were not met under the 14 point "competitive checklist" found under Section
>271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Technical issues aside, what is
>most relevant about this recent FCC order is its requirement that Bell
>companies prices for the leasing of unbundled network elements should be
>based on "forward-looking economic costs".  The order states that the FCC
>will determine whether the Bell companies are uniformly applying this
>requirement. Critics charge that the commission is trying to reassert its
>influence in
>lieu of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recent decision that the FCC has
>no authority to issue local telecommunications pricing models.
>
>Keeping the 8th Circuit's decision in mind, some have questioned whether
>this recent FCC order is an illegal action.  Most appear to view this order
>as a positive step, however, as an attempt by the FCC to quicken the
>opening of local telephone markets.  Whether that will be the case will be
>seen as more Bell companies apply to enter the long-distance market.
>Hopefully, the guidelines presented by the FCC will facilitate the promise
>of the Telecommunication Act of 1996 to increase competition, a promise
>that has to date, remained unfulfilled.
>
>To view the FCC order:
>http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/ameritech_m
>i/
>
>
>FARNET MEETING SCHEDULED FOR LATE SEPTEMBER
>
>FARNET will be holding a workshop in Ypsilanti, Michigan between September
>28 to 30.  The workshop will focus on issues relevant to state-based
>networking organizations and their relationship with current national
>initiatives.  The status of Universal Service and how to take advantage of
>the "e-rate" will be among the topics being discussed.  This is an
>excellent opportunity to network with other state organizations and
>discover how they are approaching interconnection issues.
>
>For more information:  http://www.farnet.org/Sep97v4.htm#why
>
>
>FARNET NEEDS YOUR FEEDBACK!
>
>FARNET is requesting feedback from our members and Update readers. Please
>take a moment to fill out our survey. Your opinions are important to us and
>will assist in ensuring our services meet your needs.  Results will be
>posted within the next two issues of FARNET's Washington Update.  Please
>note that any information provided will be for FARNET use only and will not
>be distributed to any third party.
>
>To access the survey: http://www.farnet.org/updates/survey.html
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________
>
>Written from FARNET's Washington office, "FARNET's Washington Update" is a
>service to FARNET members and other interested subscribers.  We gratefully
>acknowledge EDUCOM's NTTF and the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI)
>for additional support.  If you would like more information about the
>Update or would like to offer comments or suggestions, please contact
>Garret Sern at garret@farnet.org.
>