Congressional Panel Focuses on DNS Future

By Louise Arnheim

What began as a set of routine hearings by a House panel late September ended with allegations worthy of an international spy thriller.

On September 25th and 30th, the House Basic Research Subcommittee held hearings on the future of the Internet domain name system (DNS). The two hearings were prompted, in part, by the March 1998 expiration of the National Science Foundation's contract with Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), the Herndon, VA., firm that now registers domain names.

The controversial testimony came on the second day of hearings when Andy Sernovitz, head of the Association for Interactive Media (AIM), alleged certain improprieties by the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC). With near universal agreement that the DNS be privatized, the IAHC was formed last year to study matters such as global registries and the development of additional generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs).

In December 1996, IAHC released a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) about the DNS transition; a document Sernovitz called a "poorly veiled attempt to take over the domain name system by the Internet Society [ISOC] and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority [IANA]" (Based at the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute (ISI)). The IANA has policy oversight over the DNS. Like Network Solutions, Inc., IANA is also a federal contractor, and has received funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Energy (DOE).

Sernovitz also said that the plan "creates unprecedented authority" for "a puppet organization controlled by Dr. Jonathan Postel [head of IANA] and Mr. Don Heath [President of ISOC]. Further, said Sernovitz, it "sets up its backers with total rule and veto power over an offshore corporation that has complete protection from legal authority, its own kangaroo trademark courts, all set up under the protection of the Swiss civil code." And, he alleged, in a serious breach of US policy, that IANA had allowed a US corporation, NetNames, to become the domain registrar for the Libyan government. Sernovitz also pointed out that NetNames' CEO, Anthony Van Couvering, is the head of IAHC's Policy Advisory Body (PAB).

Subcommittee members, however, seemed less concerned about conspiracy and more interested in the Clinton Administration's plans for the upcoming transition period; that is, the move to privatization. The key question before the subcommittee, said Rep. Charles "Chip" Pickering (R-Mississippi) was what role, if any, the federal government should, or would, play with regard to the transition. Pickering, who chaired both hearings, said the perceived absence of an Administration plan was already causing anxiety among Internet users regarding the medium's future stability.

Speaking on behalf of the Administration, Assistant Secretary of Commerce Larry Irving assured the Subcommittee that both the White House and Department of Commerce had given the DNS their highest priority. Irving cited three activities in particular: an interagency working group co-chaired by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); a Presidential directive issued July 1 (Administration's Framework for Global Electronic Commerce), and the Commerce Department's Request for Comment initiated the following day (see Docket No. 97061337-7137-01, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov, Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names). Of the 400 plus comments received in response, said Irving, there was widespread support for "private sector governance of, and increased competition in, domain name systems." There was also shared agreement, he said, for "the principle of globalism." Under questioning by Acting Subcommittee Chairman Pickering as to which federal agency, if any, should take the lead in the inter-agency process, Irving said Commerce was "ready to be accountable." "But in being accountable," he added, "we're making sure that we have a transparent and inclusive process."

As for NSF, Acting Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer Joseph Bordogna explained it was time for the foundation to move onto new Internet challenges. "The vast majority of domain registrants are commercial interests whose activities now go well beyond the research and education community that NSF is chartered to serve," said Bordogna in his written testimony. The Internet "is now the domain of the venture capitalist," Bordogna said, "not the adventurous academic." In the future, he said, NSF energies would be focused on the Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence program (KDI). He assured the Subcommittee, however, that NSF would aid in the DNS transition.

Rep. James Barcia (D-Michigan), the Subcommittee's ranking minority member, asked about technical issues involved in allowing multiple companies to provide registration services in the ".com" domain. Network Solutions, Inc. CEO Gabriel Battista replied that while the development of such technology would be "complicated," it could probably be accomplished within a year. However, he added, If a customer in the ".com" domain decides to switch registrars, how would the handoff be managed?

Subcommittee members were also concerned about the disposition of the Intellectual Infrastructure fund, now estimated at $30 million. Because of the tremendous growth in Internet domain names, Network Solutions, Inc. two years ago requested permission to charge registration fees for ".com" as well as ".net" and ".org" domain names. In amending the original contract, NSF required NSI to place 30% of fees collected into "an interest bearing account for the preservation and enhancement of the Intellectual Infrastructure of the Internet." Suggestions for using those funds range from refunding the money to using a portion of the fund for NGI- related DNS issues.

As this issue of Computing Research News goes to press, the Department of Commerce is expected to release its report on the DNS transition soon. While not wanting to "pre-judge" the final report, Irving said he anticipated Commerce would suggest the MoU be amended, or another vehicle drafted to "reflect the concerns about governance, dispute resolution, and trademark" raised by comments during the Department's proceeding.