US government to overhaul the Net

Get ready for the first major organisational overhaul of the Internet since its inception.

Last Friday, the US government offered a draft proposal (available at www.ntia.doc.gov) which would completely alter the way Internet domain addresses are assigned. In addition, it suggested five new top-level domain (TLD) names - the short suffixes, like .com, at the very end of domain addresses, like www.irish-times.com.

Within the next half year, Web users will likely be seeing Net addresses which end in .web, .store or .firm.

In Europe, most individuals or organisations applying for Internet addresses get one which ends in a country designation as the TLD - Ireland is .ie, Britain is .uk and Germany .de, for example. That's because each country oversees the registration of its own Internet addresses; there are more than 200 "country-code" TLDs.

But in the original home of the Internet, America, .us, is not used. Instead, a number of generic TLDs - such as .com, .net,

.org, .edu, .gov - are assigned according to the type of organisation requesting addresses. Non-profit organisations get .org, educational institutions get .edu, government bodies get .gov and so forth.

The most common domain, .com, has proliferated to the point where some new method of subdivision was deemed necessary. Anything from the largest multinational corporation to an individual college student currently falls under the .com designation. Non-US companies, including many in Ireland, increasingly register for the .com domain as well, as they often feel it gives them equal footing with larger competitors - or just sounds more international.

Back in the early days of the Internet, the US government handled the registration and assignation of domain addresses. But as the Net expanded out of the narrow government, research institution and university realm, some of those tasks were transferred to the private sector, specifically, into the hands of one company, Network Solutions Inc of Virginia, which manages the generic TLDs.

And that has been the source of much politicking and Internet bickering for several years. While managing domains can be an administrative nightmare, with the growing disputes about who owns the right to copyrighted names like Toyota or Guinness, it also sets NSI's pockets jingling. At present it costs $100 to register a domain address for two years and it has registered 1.5 million domain addresses so far. (However, 30 per cent of registration fees go to a general fund to support the domain name system, or DNS.)

Many other companies - including several which feel domain name registration for a global Internet should not be monopolised by the US - would like to get a slice of this particular pie. One small company was so incensed by NSI's control of the system that it hacked into NSI's Website last summer and posted protest pages. An NSI employee trying to remove the pages inadvertently sent through instructions which disconnected a significant part of the Web for hours, causing chaos for Net users. And now the company's CEO is being pursued by the FBI for sabotage. Feelings run pretty strong regarding this issue.

The US government's proposal to allow a small number of other companies to serve as "registries", or administrators of top-level domain names, and a much larger number to act as "registrars", or the people you go to acquire a domain name, have already met with opposition. Also under debate are the five proposed domain names.

One consortium, the Geneva-based Council of Registrars (CORE), has worked for months on an alternative registration system (at www. ntia.doc.gov) which would offer seven rather than five new domains and approaches the administration tasks differently. CORE representatives say they are ready to roll out their system next month - whereas the US government is talking about September to begin with, and a final transfer of responsibility in 2000.

Many observers worry that the US proposal, which basically allows for a private sector but non-profit approach for the registries, and a free-market tussle for business between the registrars, scatters the administration of the Net in ways which could endanger its stability. On the other hand, most agree that some dispersal of management is needed.

Finding a balance - and deciding how much of a hand the US government should have as it finally shifts the administration of the Internet fully off its shoulders - will be a challenge. And, in true Netizen tradition, your ideas are welcome. Both papers are posted so that you can send your reactions.

Karlin Lillington is at klillington@irishtimes.ie