New Domain System Starts To Take Shape

From: Russell Nelson http://russnelson.com
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:48:13 -0400 (EDT)

A few interesting statistics about the three-letter second-level .us domain names:

There are 47952 possible three-letter/digit/dash names.

Of them, 8886, or 18% of these names have already been taken[1].

Of them, 7404, or 15% of these names are owned by just 20 companies.

Of them, 2705, or 5% of these names are owned by a single company.

There are 17576 possible three-letter names.
Of them, 7968, or 45% of these names are already taken.

djf.us, (David J. Farber) is already taken.
rnn.us, (Russell N. Nelson) is already taken.
abd.us, (Alan B. Davidson) is already taken.
Woe unto anyone who wants a .us vanity domain!

[1] based on the existance of NS records in the .us zone.
--

The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
United States Senate

The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate

The Honorable W.J. "Billy" Tauzin
U.S. House of Representatives

The Honorable John D. Dingell
U.S. House of Representatives

April 29, 2002

Dear Chairman Hollings, Senator McCain, Chairman Tauzin and Rep. Dingell:

We are writing to express our grave concern over recent developments in the .us Internet domain. Last week, unbeknownst to most Americans, a major "sell-off" was held for domain names in .us, such as churches.us. Thousands of names - many of which are of significant public interest - were sold off based on flawed policies developed with almost no public input or public accountability. We urge you, as part of your oversight responsibilities, to hold hearings investigating this matter.

The .us domain is America's one and only country code - a uniquely American resource and public asset on the Internet. While .us has not been widely used by consumers to date, the Commerce Department's decision to delegate the domain to a new operator last year held out the promise to reinvigorate .us and make it more useful to individual and business users. It also held out the promise of a place on the Internet directly related to US activities, where, for example, American churches might register a name in churches.us or where American consumers could find non-profit groups in charities.us.

Policies for .us must be developed in a way that includes the interests of American Internet users. Many of the companies that competed for the .us contract committed to building structures of outreach and representation for that purpose. NeuStar, the company ultimately granted the .us domain, itself promised to "develop open policies and procedures with a high degree of responsiveness and accountability to the usTLD community."

That promise has not been met. Among the most serious causes for concern in last week's sell-off of .us names:

• The public was virtually unaware of the .us sell-off. The American Internet community is the world's largest and most active, yet, with the exception of dedicated name speculators and other savvy buyers, the general public was almost entirely uninformed about the .us redelegation and re-opening. This lack of awareness permitted .us to become a lucrative business opportunity for those "in the know" at the expense of the public good.
• The policies set for .us harm the public interest. The preliminary ground rules for .us have a critical impact on American consumers. However, NeuStar has crafted rules without consultation with, or even notice to, most consumers. Nearly all registration occurs on a "first-come/first-served" basis, with the exception of a "sunrise" period for trademark holders (one of the few public policy requirements made by the Department of Commerce). In the absence of controls, the first-come/first-served policy has led to an Internet "land rush" for the most desirable names and a general lack of structure in .us.
• The .us "reserved name" policy is arbitrary and deeply flawed. NeuStar did prevent the registration this week of 51,922 domains on its "reserved names" list, presumably to achieve some future public purpose or avoid conflicts. But this controversial list was created behind closed doors and ignores a number of important public interests.

For example:

Many valuable names were unreserved, and were snapped up by private parties who may not recognize, or who may seek to profit from, their public importance. For example, names like church.us, nonprofit.us, yellowstone.us, music.us, freespeech.us, bank.us and even art.us were not reserved. They are now in the hands of private parties, removing hopes of creating a more structured use of those names, and giving those parties control over how valued American institutions or assets are perceived online.

NeuStar's plans for some reserved names, such as work.us or person.us, are unknown, and the public had no voice in their selection.

Some politically significant names were reserved but not others. Both georgewbush.us and laurabush.us were reserved, but tomdaschle.us and trentlott.us were not and are now registered to name speculators. military.us was reserved but not customs.us (now registered to a speculator). And though tax.us is reserved, environment.us was not (now registered to a speculator).

• American consumer interests have been largely excluded from the .us policy process. Although NeuStar agreed in its contract that the diverse American Internet community would be included in policy-making for .us, that has not been true to date. A "Policy Advisory Council" was announced only just last week, and has apparently not been consulted on any of the major policy decisions already made for .us. Moreover, that Council is heavily skewed away from individual consumer interests, with only one identifiable consumer voice (the American Library Association, which also represents legacy library users) appointed. As constituted, the Council is dominated by commercial and operator interests.