Analysis: A 12 point alternative to the new Top Domains

The existing proposals for expanding the number of top level domains effectively died at the end of June, with the RFC [Request For Comments] issued by the US Commerce Department, soliciting input from the public on the issue of domain name expansion.

With the recent falling out between AlterNIC and eDNS, and all the problems associated with truly "alternate" domains [mainly problems of recognition, as the vast majority of name servers across the 'Net do not recognize alternate domains], there is currently no viable system for expanding the top level domains.

As I outlined in a recent response to the RFC issued by the Commerce Department, there is no need to expand the number of top level domains. The current shortage of domain names stems mainly from excessive domain name speculation, and a lack of imagination by many companies and individuals.

The following changes will ensure that the current domain naming system can be transformed into a viable future-proof system. At the same time, they should help to safeguard the rights of domain name holders and the owners of intellectual property rights, and curb domain name speculation.

1) Increase in annual charge for domain names
The annual charge for domain names should be increased from $50 to $100. This increase would be used to fund improvements in the name server network, and to contribute towards the new body to be formed for resolving domain name disputes. This would have the effect of curbing domain name speculation, while having only limited effects on legitimate organizations. It should be made explicitly clear that this increase in charges should not be reflected in an increased profit margin for the organizations tasked with running the domain name registries. This
increase could be phased in, and applied from the date at which each domain name is up for renewal.

2) Increased accountability for registries
Registries should be required to make public details of how many domain names have been registered, how much they have taken in payments and how much has been spent on each activity and service relating to domain names. The maximum profit margin for a given registrar should be capped by an agreement.

3) Division of responsibility for top domains
The .com, .net and .org top domains should be administered by separate
registries.

4) Complete liberalization of .org and .net domains
The .org and .net domains should be fully liberalized, acknowledging the
loosening of InterNIC's policy towards those names so that they are placed on an equal footing with .com names. These names would be made available to all parties as long as no intellectual rights are infringed.

5) Realignment of .us domain
The .us domain should be realigned along the lines of the .uk domain in the United Kingdom. This could involve the formation of a "sub-top" domain such as .co.us, which would be exclusively reserved for use by companies that can provide proof of their incorporation. This would mimic the process that was in use until recently for .co.uk names, in which companies are required to provide proof of their corporate status. [This procedure has now been rescinded for .co.uk names, possibly due to market forces, but is still in place for .plc.uk and .ltd.uk names] This would reduce the number of trademark disputes, and practically eliminate domain name speculation in the "new" domain.

6) Modification of domain payment system
The current terms of payment for domain names should be modified to demand payment up front, coupled with a faster method of domain name registration to effectively issue names as soon as payment becomes available. The current 90-day "grace period" for payment makes it too easy for domain name speculators to hang onto names without payment.

7) Modification of domain renewal policy
The current domain renewal policy should be modified to demand payment before the expiration of the previous period. Reminders could be sent to the owner of the domain name 8 weeks and 4 weeks before the current "ownership term" expired. Domain names that remain unpaid for when their term expires would be immediately returned to the pool of unused domain names.

8) Formation of new body to handle intellectual property disputes
An international body should be formed to handle intellectual property disputes according to a rapid, rigidly defined process. Trademark holders and parties with similar valid claims to given domain names, no matter the country of origin of such claims, should be given priority for domain name issuance. However, when two or more parties possess valid claims for a given domain name, such as conflicting trademarks issued in different countries, the domain name rights should remain with the original registrant. First come, first served in other words. Subsequently the parties could negotiate privately some form of agreement to resell the domain name, but this would be left up to market forces. Retrospective claims should be outlawed i.e. a party cannot apply for a trademark after a domain name has been issued to a different party, then parlay that trademark into a ruling that the domain name must be handed over.

9) Protection of rights of existing domain name holders
Domain name holders should not be penalized for any action taken against them until such a time as any dispute is resolved. The current policy of placing the domain name in question on "hold" until a problem is resolved does not inspire confidence in the arbitration process.

10) Levy of charge on parties involved in domain name disputes
A [fixed] charge should be levied on BOTH parties in a domain name dispute. This charge would be set relatively low, but high enough to discourage casual speculators. A sum such as $500 might be an appropriate level. The winner of the arbitration process would have this charge refunded, and the charge levied on the loser would be used to fund the organization responsible for arbitration. An organization subject to arbitration would have the option of relinquishing a claim before the matter is deliberated to avoid the possibility of forfeiting this charge.

11) Simplification of domain name transfer process
The transfer process for domain names should be simplified. Speculators and other parties willing to abide by the new more stringent requirements should not be penalized in attempting to profit from domain name sales. Domain names should be recognized as a commodity, and as such, as having a value set by the market and the laws of supply and demand.

12) Increased public awareness
The role and function of the domain naming system, together with current policies, regulations and limitations should be presented in a non-technical and readable manner and this information should be widely disseminated.

In the short term, the changes outlined above will ensure that existing underutilized names become freed up as quickly as possible, and stem the panic surrounding the domain name issue that is leading companies to snap up as many domain names as they can afford. In the long term, they will increase the pool of available domain names, reduce excessive speculation, ensure that the infrastructure behind the domain name system receives adequate funding, simplify the domain name registration process to remove any mystery for "ordinary" internet users and protect the rights of intellectual property holders. No new domain names will be required, simply a redistribution and a change of focus for the existing domain names.