Comments of AOL on Guidelines for Accreditation of Registrars

[Edymay@aol.com]

The attachment contains these same comments in Microsoft Word 97 format.

Comments of America Online on Proposed
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Guidelines for Accreditation of Internet Domain Name Registrars 
and for the Selection of Registrars for the 
Shared Registry System Testbed for .com, .net and .org Domains

February 26, 1999

I. Summary

ICANN proposes to establish a comprehensive direct accreditation program for
registrars of second level domain names and select five registrars to test a
shared registry system.  The draft guidelines seek to promote fair dealing and
good business practices, competition in registration services, and Internet
stability and operational integrity.

The goals are appropriate and necessary since registration services are now
available from one firm that also operates the monopoly database registry.  As
the market becomes more competitive, ICANN should periodically revise its
guidelines to reduce unnecessary administrative costs and delays for
customers, registrars, registry administrators, registries, and ICANN itself.
Market changes may also require different protection for customers and third
parties such as trademark holders.  AOL recommends several changes for
incorporation into the final guidelines.

With regard to the SRS testbed, the five participants will be subject to the
final guidelines and such other additional technical and operational
requirements as may be necessary.  To ensure that other non-participating
registrars are not disadvantaged, AOL proposes that they be given reasonable
access to test results and other technical data through an ICANN organized
meeting.

II. Overview

America Online is the world's largest ISP with more than 16.5 million business
and residential customers.  Many of our customers would like to obtain second
level domain names (SLDs).  In addition to its domestic US service, AOL is
rapidly expanding in international markets and has become a major
international service provider.  AOL and other firms also offer Internet-
related software products, communications, data processing, and network
management services that are directly affected by the DNS.

The global registration market is growing rapidly as the number of users grows
and new services are demanded.  The current market structure is the result of
US Government decisions to vest registry and registration services in a single
entity.  A competitive registration market would stimulate innovation,
increase productivity, reduce costs, and promote efficiency.  During the
transition to competition, the regulation of firms' anti-competitive practices
may be necessary but should be modified as conditions warrant.
 III.	Guidelines for the Selection of Registrars

A. ICANN should designate a date to review its program and guideline and
specify the process by which they will be amended.

The February 8, 1999, proposal envisions a comprehensive program of direct
accreditation that will include fair dealing and conduct rules based on good
business practices and a code of conduct.  Such a structure may be necessary
initially to ensure public confidence in the new guidelines, protect
competition, and ensure network stability.  If they persist after the market
renders them obsolete, however, they may - perversely - retard competition and
competitors and service innovation.  Therefore, AOL proposes that ICANN
formally designate a date to review the guidelines after stakeholders have had
the opportunity to review their experience.

Since amendments to the guidelines may be needed from time to time.  ICANN
should prescribe a process by which such changes can be made with public
participation and comment.  Minor ministerial changes can be made internally.

B)	Accreditation should be extended to stabilize the system and reduce renewal
costs

ICANN proposes that the initial accreditation agreement should be renewed
annually.  This term should be extended to at least two years, the period for
which registered domain names are valid.  ICANN should consider extending the
term even longer for publicly traded companies since they are already subject
to stringent financial and operational oversight by national securities
regulators.  US securities laws require publicly traded companies to file
quarterly financial reports or risk severe penalties and to share promptly
with the public information about developments that could materially affect
the company.  Once a registrar has qualified to register SLDs, there is little
reason why they should reapply soon unless there is a material change in their
financial or technological capabilities.  The term of the accreditation
agreement should last at least three years for such registrars unless a case
can be made for more frequent scrutiny.

Furthermore, such companies should be permitted to submit copies of their
regulatory filings and press releases to satisfy their application and
accreditation obligations.  This would reduce the cost of accreditation,
expedite the approval of registrars, and promote competition.

C) The protection of intellectual property rights should be strengthened

The commercialization of the public Internet has heightened the tension
between the navigational and advertising uses of the DNS.  This potential and
actual conflict will grow as the number of users and DNS registrations
increase.  The proposed guidelines are sensitive to the needs of trademark
owners and foresee the possibility of strengthening IPR safeguards.

The World Intellectual Property Organization will soon issue a report on the
DNS that proposes to enhance dispute resolution procedures to protect
trademark holders.  If WIPO is agreeable, ICANN and WIPO should consider
jointly sponsoring conference to develop additional measures to protect
holders without adversely affecting the DNS registration system.

D) Dispute resolution should be timely and conclude expeditiously.

The proposed guidelines would direct any disputes arising under accreditation
agreements to an appropriate international arbitral body.  A court in Los
Angeles, California would have exclusive jurisdiction over litigation.  The
dispute resolution guideline Section IV.13 should establish a parameter for
resolving disputes to prevent unreasonable and costly delays.

Similarly, it would be advisable to have a uniform deadline for resolving SLD
disputes.  This would limit disruptions in a registrar's operations and ensure
that registrants and third parties have expedited access to a hearing.

E)	ICANN should establish a limit in which to conclude the application and
accreditation processes

Currently the proposed guidelines set open-ended application and accreditation
procedures.  It is theoretically possible for applications to be delayed
indefinitely.  In order to promote timely consideration, promote efficiency,
and encourage competition, AOL proposes that ICANN require that applications
and accreditation of registrars be completed within 30 days after submission
so that registrars can be chosen to participate in the testbed commencing on
April 25, 1999.

F)	Escrowed data should be limited to records of transactions involving a
customer, registrar and registry administrator.

Question 19 asks whether all registrar electronic records covering dealings
with customers should be subject to a data escrow requirement.  Such a
requirement is excessive and would involve potentially valuable customer
information.  The purpose of the escrow requirement is to protect customers in
the event that a registrar goes out of business.  The only relevant
information in that event would be information about a registrar's
transactions with a registrar.

G)	Registrars should be free to charge differing prices and offer differing
services to best serve a competitive registration services market.

ICANN correctly excludes price controls to enable customers to enjoy a wide
variety of features, services, and prices.  In response to Q47 and Q48, ICANN
should refrain from regulating prices and service offerings.  It should
instead allow the markets to function and to allow consumers to chose the
service and price they determine meets their needs.  Such controls would be
diametrically opposed to the reasons for privatizing the DNS and substitute
the dead hand of one monopoly for that of another.

IV. Guidelines for the Selection of Registrars for the SRS Testbed

The testbed will be limited to five registrars which apply for and receive
accreditation.  Participation in a testbed could confer advantages on the five
that other registrars do not receive.  Before the SRS is deployed, non-
participants should have full access to the testbed results both through the
individual registrars and in an official ICANN meeting.  AOL recommends that
Section V be modified to include such a requirement and that ICANN schedule a
technical informational meeting before the planned deployment date.

Submitted by:
  America Online Incorporated
  22000 AOL Way
  Dulles, Virginia 20166
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Edy Henderson
Principal Strategic Analyst, AOL Technologies, America Online
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1 \deff0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;
\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;
\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive Default Paragraph Font;}}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid698678130\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc1\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat4\levelspace0
\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\b\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listname ;}\listid273054154}{\list\listtemplateid253107750\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc3\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0
{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listname ;}\listid641469967}{\list\listtemplateid67698707\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc1\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listname ;}\listid1605961081}{\list\listtemplateid335443614\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc3\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat3\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'02\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listname ;}\listid1835296941}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid1605961081\listoverridecount0\ls1}{\listoverride\listid641469967\listoverridecount0\ls2}
{\listoverride\listid1835296941\listoverridecount0\ls3}{\listoverride\listid273054154\listoverridecount0\ls4}}{\info{\title [DRAFT] Comments of America Online on Proposed}{\author Paul Levine}{\operator Edy Henderson}{\creatim\yr1999\mo2\dy24\hr19\min38}
{\revtim\yr1999\mo2\dy26\hr17\min5}{\version12}{\edmins90}{\nofpages5}{\nofwords1325}{\nofchars7558}{\*\company  }{\nofcharsws0}{\vern89}}\margl1728\margr1728 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\hyphcaps0\formshade\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot \fet0
\sectd \linex0\headery0\footery0\endnhere\titlepg\sectdefaultcl {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang
{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc\widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {\b
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par Comments of America Online on Proposed
\par Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
\par Guidelines for Accreditation of Internet Domain Name Registrars
\par and for the Selection of Registrars for the
\par Shared Registry System Testbed for .com, .net and .org Domains
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {\b
\par }\pard \qc\widctlpar\adjustright {\b
\par
\par
\par Submitted by:
\par
\par }{\b America Online Incorporated
\par 22000 AOL Way
\par Dulles, Virginia 20166}{\b
\par
\par
\par
\par February 26, 1999
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {\b \page
\par }\pard \qc\widctlpar\adjustright {\b
\par Comments of America Online on Proposed
\par Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
\par Guidelines for Accreditation of Internet Domain Name Registrars
\par and for the Selection of Registrars for the
\par Shared Registry System Testbed for .com, .net and .org Domains
\par
\par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\cgrid \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 I.\tab}}\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx720{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls1\pnrnot0\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}\ls1\adjustright {\b Summary
\par }\pard \widctlpar{\*\pn \pnlvlcont\ilvl0\ls0\pnrnot0\pndec }\adjustright {
\par ICANN proposes to
 establish a comprehensive direct accreditation program for registrars of second level domain names and select five registrars to test a shared registry system.  The draft guidelines seek to promote fair dealing and good business practices, competition in
 registration services, and Internet stability and operational integrity.
\par
\par The goals are appropriate and necessary since registration services are now available from one firm that also operates the monopoly database registry.  As the market becomes more co
mpetitive, ICANN should periodically revise its guidelines to reduce unnecessary administrative costs and delays for customers, registrars, registry administrators, registries, and ICANN itself.  Market changes may also require different protection for cu
stomers and third parties such as trademark holders.  AOL recommends several changes for incorporation into the final guidelines.
\par
\par With regard to the SRS testbed, the five participants will be subject to the final guidelines and such other additional techni
cal and operational requirements as may be necessary.  To ensure that other non-participating registrars are not disadvantaged, AOL proposes that they be given reasonable access to test results and other technical data through an ICANN organized meeting.

\par
\par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\cgrid \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 II.\tab}}\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx720{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls1\pnrnot0\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}\ls1\adjustright {\b Overview
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {\b
\par }{America Online is the world's largest ISP with more than 16.5 million business and residential customers.  Many of our customers would like to obtain second level domain names (SLDs).  In addition to its domestic US service, AOL is rapidly e
xpanding in international markets and has become a major international service provider.  AOL and other firms also offer Internet-related software products, communications, data processing, and network management services that are directly affected by the
 DNS.
\par
\par The global registration market is growing rapidly as the number of users grows and new services are demanded.  The current market structure is the result of US Government decisions to vest registry and registration services in a single entity.  A com
petitive registration market would stimulate innovation, increase productivity, reduce costs, and promote efficiency.  During the transition to competition, the regulation of firms' anti-competitive practices may be necessary but should be modified as con
ditions warrant.
\par \page }{\b III.\tab Guidelines for the Selection of Registrars
\par }{
\par {\pntext\pard\plain\ul\cgrid \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 A.\tab}}\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx720{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls2\pnrnot0\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}\ls2\adjustright {\ul
ICANN should designate a date to review its program and guideline and specify the process by which they will be amended.}{
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par The February 8, 1999, proposal envisions a comprehensive program
 of direct accreditation that will include fair dealing and conduct rules based on good business practices and a code of conduct.  Such a structure may be necessary initially to ensure public confidence in the new guidelines, protect competition, and ensu
r
e network stability.  If they persist after the market renders them obsolete, however, they may - perversely - retard competition and competitors and service innovation.  Therefore, AOL proposes that ICANN formally designate a date to review the guideline
s after stakeholders have had the opportunity to review their experience.
\par
\par Since amendments to the guidelines may be needed from time to time.  ICANN should prescribe a process by which such changes can be made with public participation and comment.  Minor ministerial changes can be made internally.
\par
\par B)\tab }{\ul Accreditation should be extended to stabilize the system and reduce renewal costs}{
\par
\par ICANN proposes that the initial accreditation agreement should be renewed annually.  This term should be ext
ended to at least two years, the period for which registered domain names are valid.  ICANN should consider extending the term even longer for publicly traded companies since they are already subject to stringent financial and operational oversight by nat
i
onal securities regulators.  US securities laws require publicly traded companies to file quarterly financial reports or risk severe penalties and to share promptly with the public information about developments that could materially affect the company.
O
nce a registrar has qualified to register SLDs, there is little reason why they should reapply soon unless there is a material change in their financial or technological capabilities.  The term of the accreditation agreement should last at least three yea
rs for such registrars unless a case can be made for more frequent scrutiny.
\par
\par Furthermore, such companies should be permitted to submit copies of their regulatory filings and press releases to satisfy their application and accreditation obligations.  This w
ould reduce the cost of accreditation, expedite the approval of registrars, and promote competition.
\par
\par {\pntext\pard\plain\ul\cgrid \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 C)\tab}}\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx720{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls3\pnrnot0\pnucltr\pnstart3\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta )}}\ls3\adjustright {\ul
The protection of intellectual property rights should be strengthened}{
\par }\pard \widctlpar{\*\pn \pnlvlcont\ilvl0\ls0\pnrnot0\pndec }\adjustright {
\par The commercialization of the public Internet has heightened the tension between
 the navigational and advertising uses of the DNS.  This potential and actual conflict will grow as the number of users and DNS registrations increase.  The proposed guidelines are sensitive to the needs of trademark owners and foresee the possibility of
strengthening IPR safeguards.
\par
\par The World Intellectual Property Organization will soon issue a report on the DNS that proposes to enhance dispute resolution procedures to protect trademark holders.  If WIPO is agreeable, ICANN and WIPO should consider jointl
y sponsoring conference to develop additional measures to protect holders without adversely affecting the DNS registration system.
\par
\par {\pntext\pard\plain\ul\cgrid \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 D)\tab}}\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx720{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls3\pnrnot0\pnucltr\pnstart3\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta )}}\ls3\adjustright {\ul
Dispute resolution should be timely and conclude expeditiously.}{
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par The proposed guidelines would direct any disputes arisi
ng under accreditation agreements to an appropriate international arbitral body.  A court in Los Angeles, California would have exclusive jurisdiction over litigation.  The dispute resolution guideline Section IV.13 should establish a parameter for resolv
ing disputes to prevent unreasonable and costly delays.
\par
\par Similarly, it would be advisable to have a uniform deadline for resolving SLD disputes.  This would limit disruptions in a registrar's operations and ensure that registrants and third parties have expedited access to a hearing.
\par
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {E)\tab }{\ul ICANN should establish a limit in which to conclude the application and accreditation processes
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {\ul
\par }{Currently the proposed guidelines set open-ended application and accreditation procedures.  It is theoretically possible for ap
plications to be delayed indefinitely.  In order to promote timely consideration, promote efficiency, and encourage competition, AOL proposes that ICANN require that applications and accreditation of registrars be completed within 30 days after submission
 so that registrars can be chosen to participate in the testbed commencing on April 25, 1999.
\par
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {F)\tab }{\ul Escrowed data should be limited to records of transactions involving a customer, registrar and registry administrator.
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par Question 19 asks whether all registrar
electronic records covering dealings with customers should be subject to a data escrow requirement.  Such a requirement is excessive and would involve potentially valuable customer information.  The purpose of the escrow requirement is to protect customer
s in the event that a registrar goes out of business.  The only relevant information in that event would be information about a registrar's transactions with a registrar.
\par
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {G)\tab }{\ul Registrars should be free to charge differing prices and offer differing services to best serve a competitive registration services market.
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par ICANN correctly excludes price controls to enable customers to enjoy a wide variety of features, services, and prices.  In response to Q47 and Q48, ICANN should refrain from regulating prices and s
ervice offerings.  It should instead allow the markets to function and to allow consumers to chose the service and price they determine meets their needs.  Such controls would be diametrically opposed to the reasons for privatizing the DNS and substitute
the dead hand of one monopoly for that of another.
\par
\par {\pntext\pard\plain\b\cgrid \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 IV.\tab}}\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx720{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls4\pnrnot0\pnucrm\pnb1\pnstart4\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}\ls4\adjustright {\b
Guidelines for the Selection of Registrars for the SRS Testbed}{
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {\ul
\par }{
The testbed will be limited to five registrars which apply for and receive accreditation.  Participation in a testbed could confer advantages on the five that other registrars do not receive.  Before the SRS is deployed, non-participants should have full
a
ccess to the testbed results both through the individual registrars and in an official ICANN meeting.  AOL recommends that Section V be modified to include such a requirement and that ICANN schedule a technical informational meeting before the planned dep
loyment date.
\par }}