The following questions are intended to provide structure and form a starting point for the discussion among the panelists and audience at Session 2.4. Background information is given below to provide a context for the questions and the discussion.

1. 
   a) As the Internet has its origins, development, infrastructure and major investment in the U.S., is it not appropriate that NewCo be American and that the Board contain numerous American representatives, and that effective control of the DNS should remain in the U.S.?
   
   b) Is it therefore not reasonable, that if we have one international dispute resolution system and the preponderance of the world is going to use .com, if it comes down to conflict of laws, that such system should be grounded in U.S. law?
   
   
2. 
   a) Should there be an international domain name dispute resolution system that comprises an efficient, online, inexpensive alternative to traditional litigation and which overcomes the problems associated with multi-jurisdictional conflicts of laws issues?
   
   b) Should there be an international Internet intellectual property Treaty or Memorandum of Understanding that covers domain names and other IP disputes to facilitate the implementation and administration of a dispute resolution system as outlined in a) ?
   
   
3. 
   Are domain names truly different? Are they sui generis, or are they merely just another form of trade-mark? (i.e.: are all these discussions merely a "flash in the pan" - are the types of disputes we are currently experiencing in relation to trade-marks and domain names all going to be resolved satisfactorily using national trade-mark and unfair competition laws?)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

4) Brief History of the Internet

The origins of the Internet trace back to at least 1969, when the United States established a decentralized computer network (DARPANET) intended to provide reliable communications for the U.S. military and Department of Defence, even in the event of partial destruction through military hostilities. The academic community quickly realized and took advantage of the staggering implications of the Internet for free and instantaneous information exchange between scientists and researchers. By the mid-80's, the National Science Foundation (NSF), an agency of the U.S. government, began funding creation of new research networks all linked together into a high speed network which eventually replaced the U.S. Department of Defence network. Gradually, other similar developing networks around the world were also linked up to NSF’s network, creating the Internet as we know it today. Commercialization of the Internet began to occur in the early 1990's, when NSF granted an exclusive contract to Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) to register domain names in the generic top level domains. In 1993, there were less than 10,000 registered domain names. By 1996, this had grown to over 300,000 registered domain names, and by 1997, the number had more than tripled again. NSI is currently registering between 100,000 to 200,000 domain names monthly. In addition to the generic top level domains, each country has its country code domain name. Without exception, the registrars and registry structures in individual countries are more or less voluntarily administered, and again, with few exceptions, the country top level domains are not nearly as popular as .com.

Currently, commerce on the Internet is estimated at $ 5 - 7 billion per year, and the market size is said to double every 18 months. By early in the next century, the Internet will probably represent approximately $ 50 billion in sales.

5) Important events in the change in DNS Governance - 1996 to present

Issues related to Internet use and access include problems involving dissemination of hate literature, child pornography, security, copyright and other intellectual property rights, most notably trade-marks. Until now, the preponderance of intellectual property disputes in the context of trade-marks and domain names have involved cybersquatting, cyberpiracy - and more recently metatags and hyperlinks. In the United States, there is a large and ever-increasing body of jurisprudence developing on these issues, such that they are becoming well (if not completely) defined in that country. Other recent jurisprudence in the U.K. and elsewhere indicates that cybersquatters and cyberpirates can be effectively dealt with by finding such conduct unlawful under national unfair competition and trade-mark laws.

There remain a number of undecided questions of law in many countries where little or no litigation involving domain names has taken place. Therefore some basic questions with respect to the interface between trade-mark law and domain names remain unsettled in many countries. (See AIPPI Q143)

In light of the foregoing, one important question is how big a problem are intellectual property issues on the Internet? To date the answer seems to be that IP issues are not of overwhelming importance given the ratio of disputes to Internet users. This is so even in the United States where the heaviest volume of cases has occurred, and notwithstanding the recent surge of international publicity surrounding trade-mark / domain name conflicts. Part of the reason for the widespread interest in such conflicts was that they highlighted the inevitable tension that was caused by the Internet’s shift in focus from purely academic to primarily commercial. This was exacerbated by NSI’s virtually non-existent initial dispute policy for .com, where domain name disputes occurred most frequently. In response to widespread international criticism and the fact that NSI was sued virtually every time a domain name conflict occurred, NSI’s dispute policy was redrafted several times. The current policy is still not considered ideal, moreover the uncertainty created by the numerous revisions has attracted further criticism.

In September 1996, with little more than one year to go of NSI’s monpoly, IAHC / IPOC was formed at the initiative of the ISOC and at the request of IANA, which manages the root of the DNS. IAHC consisted of eleven members representing a relatively broad range of interests both substantively and geographically, including representatives from WIPO, INTA and ITU. WIPO was approached to assist IAHC/IPOC in the development of an internationally acceptable process for the administration and expansion of the top-level DNS to succeed NSI / IANA. The result was the Generic Top Level Domain - Memorandum of Understanding (gTLD-MoU) which established an international Council of Registrars (CORE) with harmonized standards, a plan for the introduction of seven new gTLDs, and a formal dispute resolution process using Administrative Challenge Panels (ACPs) to be administered online under the auspices of WIPO.

WIPO held international consultations in Geneva in May and September 1997 (attended by Jonathan Cohen on behalf of FICPI), as well as further online consultations, on which basis several drafts of the Rules and Guidelines respecting ACPs were developed. Each successive draft responded quite significantly to comments and criticism received from around the world, including recommendations on each draft by FICPI, and by late 1997 a viable dispute resolution process, albeit one that required still further refinement, had been developed.

Despite all the time, effort and international input in respect of the IAHC / WIPO gTLD-MoU initiative, on January 30, 1998 (not unexpectedly) the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the United States Department of Commerce released a Green Paper that proposed an alternative to the IAHC / IPOC / WIPO initiative which focused almost exclusively on the technical aspects of Internet governance after the expiry of NSI’s monopoly. The purpose of the Paper was to set forth a plan to implement the U.S. government’s stated intention to withdraw from and privatize Internet governance. The key aspect of the U.S. proposal was that management and control of the DNS was to remain in the U.S. and be administered through a not-for-profit corporation (NewCo) to be located in the U.S. However, the Board of Directors was to comprise members from around the world representing a wide spectrum of interests. Plans to add further gTLDs, as well as the institution of a comprehensive international Internet dispute resolution system were clearly rejected. The reality of the situation, i.e.: the origins of the Internet, source of capital investment and location and control of the majority of the root servers all being in the United States, resulted in the Green Paper effectively ending the IAHC / IPOC / WIPO initiative. (A summary of the Green Paper appears in Appendix I).

Prior to the drafting of the Green Paper, no significant international consultation on the scale of that conducted by WIPO had taken place other than hearings in the U.S. A request for comments on the Green Paper was issued to which FICPI responded. Our recommendations are summarized as follows:

1. NSI’s contract should be extended for at least a further six months to one year in order to preserve the .com status quo during the period of uncertainty in other areas;
   
   
2. Representatives of the Department of Commerce should contact POC and WIPO, to determine if the two proposals, which represent somewhat polarized approaches to the problem, cannot be reconciled in some way;
   
   
3. The Department of Commerce should contact the Registrars of ISO country codes in all countries, to see if they can somehow be linked to the proposal;
   
   
4. A series of meetings or discussion groups should be organized, to which representatives of the intellectual property community, the telecommunications community and members of the Internet community, together with the ISO country code Registrars, WIPO representatives and any other parties considered to be interested be called to discuss specific topics and seek specific recommendations, including:

- the cost and format of alternative dispute resolution of domain name and possibly other Internet disputes,

- the precise criteria required for obtaining a domain name,

- an effort to determine if some international consensus can be reached regarding famous marks and how they should be dealt with, with respect to TLDs,

- a careful and in depth look be taken at the problems involved in jurisdiction and enforcement in relation to domain names and intellectual property infringement on the Internet (given that the vast majority of Internet community members are no longer American)

NSI’s contract was extended until the end of September, 1998 and on June 5, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce released its White Paper. This document took into account some of the criticism received in response to the Green Paper, but there was little change with respect to the main issues (the changes set out in the White Paper are also summarized in Appendix I). One change of note is the provision for the formation of an initial Interim Board of Directors to run NewCo and, among other things, develop policies for the selection, appointment and election procedures of the final Board, as well as studies relating to the expansion of TLDs.

According to the timetable in the White Paper, the implementation of the significant elements of the U.S. proposal, namely the incorporation of NewCo (frequently referred to rather tellingly as the "New IANA") in the U.S. and the selection of its Interim Board of Directors was to take place by the end of September, 1998. This left little more than three months for such sweeping changes to be effected. A flurry of international meetings and consultations ensued as concerned stakeholders scrambled to use the brief allotted time to formulate positions and recommendations.

Most Recent Developments

One of the main currently ongoing consultation processes is that of WIPO. In dismissing the importance of trade-mark/domain name conflicts, the White Paper had defined WIPO’s role as merely that of advisor on the narrow issues of cybersquatting and cyberpiracy. Accordingly WIPO was asked to undertake a study of these issues with a view to providing recommendations to the Interim Board of NewCo. In response, WIPO has initiated a series of RFCs (Requests for Comments), in which it is seeking international input on a range of issues far broader than that set out in the White Paper, including the question of what the international Internet community considers WIPO’s role to be in the new system, and the steps that WIPO should be taking in respect of these issues.

RFC-1 was issued on July 8, 1998 with a deadline for comments at the end of August. The received comments (including that of FICPI) have been posted on WIPO’s website (www.wipo.org). RFC-2 is currently in the comment solicitation stage and the deadline for responses is the end of October. This will be followed by a third RFC.

Concurrently, WIPO has also appointed an international panel of experts which is presently conducting a series of regional hearings and consultations on the issues which were determined to be within WIPO’s mandate by the response to RFC-1. The list of experts as well as the schedule of regional hearings, which extends into early spring of 1999, is posted on WIPO’s website. The first two such consultations have already taken place, in San Francisco (September 23) and Brussels (September 29) respectively. As of the time of writing, transcripts of these meetings had not yet been posted on WIPO’s website.

Progress of NewCo Implementation

In the U.S., IANA and NSI have been working together to formalize arrangements for NewCo in accordance with the provisions of the White Paper. Following a series of draft Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws which were each subjected to and revised according to public comment (on an accelerated timetable), a not-for-profit corporation known as ICAAN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) has been incorporated in California with a head office in Los Angeles. On October 2, 1998, IANA submitted a proposal to the Secretary of Commerce for his review, outlining the details of ICAAN’s incorporation, the list of individuals who have agreed to serve on the Interim Board of Directors and enclosing the Articles of Incorporation and proposed Bylaws. The proposal states that the Board has not been formally elected yet, nor have the Bylaws been adopted pending review by the Secretary of Commerce. Of particular significance is that of the nine proposed Interim Board members, at least three, possibly four individuals are from the U.S.

FICPI’s Activities in the DNS Reorganization Process

Submissions re: WIPO’s Draft ACP Guidelines and U.S. Department of Commerce Proposals

As detailed above, FICPI has been active in the process from the beginning, including representation by Jonathan Cohen at WIPO’s 1997 Consultative meetings in Geneva, and the submission of recommendations for the successive drafts of the ACP Rules and Guidelines, and the Department of Commerce proposals.

Joint U.S. - Canada - U.K. Meeting at Mont Tremblant - July, 1998

At the meeting at Mont Tremblant, Jonathan Cohen and Helmut Sonn personally reported to the EXCO with respect to what FICPI’s role in the process should be. A panel discussion on trade-marks and domain names was also held at that meeting.

FICPI Meeting on Domain Names - Washington D.C. - September 19, 1998

As a consequence of the suggestions made by Mr. Cohen and Mr. Sonn at Mt. Tremblant, a meeting was organized in Washington by Mr. Cohen, Mr. Sonn and John Orange, which was attended by the following representatives:

NSI       Phil Sbarbarro
WIPO     Christopher Gibson
AIPLA    Mark Partridge, M. Kirk
AIPPI     Dennis Prahl
Nominet UK  Dr. William Black
USPTO    Tim Trainer
Industry Canada  Brian Dillon
ECTA      Paul Fields
GTE Service Corporation  Len Suchyta
AT&T / ICC   Marilyn Cade
MCI / INTA   Susan Anthony
Bell Atlantic   Sarah Deutsch
Virtual Networks  John Graves
Bell Communications
Research, Inc.     Nicholas Lordi, Jr.
The Regis Group  Marc Chinoy, Mark Lardieri.(facilitators)

This broadly representative group was asked to develop recommendations in response to a series of questions relating to WIPO’s role in the new DNS administration, the adequacy of existing national laws to deal with domain name / trade-mark conflicts on the Internet, the possibility of an international cooperation or treaty to resolve the situation and the role of the new not-for-profit corporation. (The text of the questions and meeting agenda comprise Document EXCO/IT98/CET/1106 at page CET(70)).

One purpose of the Washington meeting was for FICPI to obtain input from other IP groups in order to better formulate its own position. A second objective was to determine whether the potential exists to form a permanent liaison of major IP organizations, such as AIPPI, AIPLA, INTA etc. that would come together in developing recommendations for steps to be taken as the process for DNS administration evolves. Such a cooperative effort could extend in the future to other intellectual property issues on the Internet.

The meeting was well received and constructive, and it was unanimously agreed by all attendees that a second meeting should be planned. 

WIPO Consultation Process

FICPI has made submissions to WIPO in response to RFC-1, which are included in these Working Papers as Document EXCO/IT98/CET/1104 at page CET(38). A submission should also be made by FICPI on RFC-2, the deadline for which is October 31, 1998.

Brief Summary of the U.S. Dep’t of Commerce Green Paper (dated January 30, 1998) with changes by White Paper (dated June 5, 1998) in italics

by: Dr. Victoria Carrington June 11, 1998

PRINCIPLES FOR A NEW SYSTEM

1. Stability- US government should pull out of the Internet number and address systems without sacrificing stability
   
   current technical management not viable in the long run, needs to be improved as soon as possible, but not so fast as to destabilize the Net
2. Competition - success of the Internet depends on the maintenance of the current decentralized system which emphasized individual freedom and innovation, and this is best done with competition driven market mechanisms
   
   
3. Private, bottom-up coordination- where technical administration requires coordination, flexible private, rather than cumbersome government, control is preferable
   
   
4. Representation - need international input in decisionmaking
   
   - has not changed
   
   TWO GROUPS OF NAME / NUMBER FUNCTIONS
   
   
5. Those to be coordinated by a representative, not for profit corporation
   
   management of number addresses
   management of root server network (on a policy level at least)
   maintenance / dissemination of addressing protocol parameters
   authority to say when new TLDs can be added
   
6. Those to be privatised
   
   the system for registering SLDs and management of TLD registries
   
   registration should be competitive, registries probably should not
   
   - has not changed

THE NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION

would have a CEO with corporate background

funding from domain name and IP registries

US government would gradually transfer control of IANA functions and root systems to it by Sept/98, but policy oversight until Sept/2000

diverse, balanced board to represent key Internet stakeholders and users - 15 members: 3 from the regional registries (RIPE, APNIC and ARIN), 2 from IAB, 2 from domain name registries and registrars, 7 from "user" group, CEO

transparent decision-making, decisions open to public etc

will act as standard-setting body

- this has essentially not changed too much: there were submitted comments about composition of the board not being broad enough, i.e. trade-mark holders not adequately represented, but the response was essentially that you simply cannot represent everyone

- representation issues can be addressed later, and the 7 "user" seats can reflect additional types of interests, although they really only meant to suggest a guideline for Board composition

- now recommends starting the corporation with an Interim Board with full access to legal counsel in corporate, competition, IP and Internet law - these people will not be on the final Board, but will work out a system for electing the Board members from appropriate international groups, such as the ones in the original plan

- BUT: who are these people? They are now saying that the "private" sector is to be responsible for the formation of the corporation and its Interim Board without US government involvement, but who exactly is the private sector? The US private sector?

- they kept the time frame intact

CREATION OF NEW gTLDs

did not have enough information yet to be sure how to proceed (when the Green paper was drafted)

recommended 5 new gTLDs at outset

although many parties want to be in the registry or registrar business, the US should ideally wait until the new corporation has been established before setting out a plan for competition

- however, this would take at least until September 1998, and it is preferable to introduce competition into the DNS earlier, during the transition to the new corporation, according to the following plan laid out in the Green Paper

the U.S. government now no longer believes it should set out a plan or criteria for competition among registries and registrars - this is more appropriate for the corporation to do

in general, the U.S. still supports competition, but it has completely pulled out of setting it up

the U.S. government also now states that it doesn’t believe any new TLDs should be introduced pursuant to its own initiative - this responsibility too should be that of the new corporation

TRADE-MARK DILEMMA

trade-mark holders should be given the same rights they have in the physical world

on-line dispute resolution mechanisms as inexpensive & efficient litigation alternatives

suggestions:

temporary name suspension if trade-mark owner responds shortly after registration of a name

jurisdiction concerns: registrants must agree that disputes over their name are to be settled in the registry’s jurisdiction, or where the database or the "A" root server is maintained

"clearing" trade-marks, especially famous ones across a range of gTLDs

instead of a "monolithic" trade-mark dispute resolution process, each registry should have minimum dispute resolution process

study of the effects of new gTLDs and dispute resolution processes on trade-mark and IP right-holders, results to be used by the corporations in deciding how to proceed

registries should indemnify the corporation against legal expenses

- sets out criteria for the following:

1) Minimum Application Requirements and up to date ownership info

- expanded contact info

- certification as to entitlement and intent to use

2) Searchable Database Requirements

- certain info to be included in all registry databases and available to everyone that has Net access

3) ADR of Domain Name Conflicts

- readily available, convenient process without registrar involvement

- registries/registrars to abide by the results of the process or decision of court of competent jurisdiction

- temporary suspension if objection to registration raised within 30 days of domain name registration

the comments predominantly disagreed with the registries having varying dispute resolution measures, albeit with certain common criteria - a uniform approach was preferred

temporary name suspension at the request of a trade-mark owner was also unpopular and was seen to unnecessarily expand trade-mark owner’s rights

expectedly, only U.S. commenters liked the idea of voluntarily attorning to U.S. jurisdiction - pretty well everyone else did NOT

so, now the U.S. government says it will seek international support to ask WIPO to develop uniform dispute resolution process to recommend to the corporation

specifically, they are now saying that they are not trying to resolve jurisdiction problems in these policy papers

they now concede that having parties subject themselves to a neutral ADR process, such as that of WIPO, will be less controversial than requiring attornment to a specific national jurisdiction

the new corporation’s dispute resolution (that is binding on registrars and registries) should be limited to cybersquatting and cyberpirating, not situations where legitimate competing rights are involved, which should go to the appropriate court - BUT how can this be determined in advance without going through some form of process? Is not a hearing of some form required to determine the existence of cybersquatting, or legitimate rights? Essentially they are just passing on the issue without really doing anything meaningful on this very important question

- they do provide the other following suggestions in the white paper though:

• 1. Domain registrants pay registration fees at the time of registration or renewal and agree to submit infringing domain names to the authority of a court of law in the jurisdiction in which the registry, registry database, registrar, or the "A" root servers are located - again, how will "infringing" be decided before having a hearing on the question? Presumably, registrants will not voluntarily assume the status of infringer!
  
  
• 2. Domain name registrants would agree, when registering or renewing, to abide by processes adopted by the new corporation that exclude, either pro-actively or retroactively, certain famous trade-marks from being used as domain names (in one or more TLDs) except by the designated trade-mark holder (who will determine, and by what criteria, which marks qualify as "famous"?)
  
  
• 4. Nothing in the domain name registration agreement or in the operation of the new corporation should limit the rights that can be asserted by a domain name registrant or trade-mark owner under national laws

THE TRANSITION

- lists 6 steps to be taken to implement the suggestions in this paper:

1) establish and choose board of the new corporation - which is now specifically stated to be the private sector’s responsibility

2) form membership associations for a) registries & registrars and b) Net users - this is not really mentioned in the new paper

3) US government and IANA to agree on transfer of IANA functions to new corp - to be done after the private sector establishes the new corporation

4) US government and NSI to agree on how NSI is to evolve into one competitor among many registries, and level playing field established

5) new corporation must establish processes for determining whether an organization meets the transition period criteria for prospective registries and registrars - not specifically addressed or changed

6) set out process to make root server system management more robust and secure, and transferring it from U.S. government to new corporation - U.S. government is to cooperate with IANA, NSI, IAB and other relevant organizations (both public and private) in studying the problem of improving the root server system, and its recommendations are to be implemented during the transition phase by the corporation when it develops a security strategy for DNS management and operations

both the U.S. government and the private sector have to take certain steps during the transition phase - i.e. the private sector has to actually set up the corporation and its Interim Board - once that’s done, the U.S. government can work with the corporation in transferring administrative functions to it

The NSI Agreement

- what should go into the ramp down agreement between the U.S. government and NSI:

1) NSI to completely separate its registry and registrar businesses - NSI to continue to operate .com, .net & .org on a fully shared registry basis - NSI will transfer .edu to a not-for-profit entity

2) During the transition, NSI will make it technically possible to share the registration of its TLDs with other Registrars as soon as possible

3) NSI gives U.S. government a copy etc. of all data, software and licenses to other IP generated under the cooperative agreement, for use by the new corporation for the benefit of the Net

4) NSI will turn over control and management of the "A" root server and the root server system when U.S. government requests it

5) NSI agrees to meet registries’ and registrars’ requirements

the plan still calls for the cooperative agreement between the U.S. government and NSI to ramp down in order to introduce competition - NSI is to agree to take certain actions to facilitate this and recognize the new corporation and its role in implementing and administering the domain name system - the new plan is not quite as specific as the green paper, however

The .us Domain

- presently administered by IANA, but has a very cumbersome locality-based system

- U.S. government will start working with the private sector and state/local governments to simplify and make it more attractive

- no change

- the white paper also states explicitly, that the U.S. Department of Commerce has now determined (as a matter of administrative law requirements and in response to public comment), that all it really should do is issue a general statement of policy, instead of imposing substantive regulatory provisions, which is what it initially set out to do in its Green Paper - therefore, the white paper is not a substantive rule, has no mandatory provisions, and does not have the force or effect of law

List of Acronyms

ACP - administrative challenge panel

ccTLD - country code top level domain

CORE - Council of Registrars

DNS - domain name system

gTLD - generic top level domain (.com, .org, .net, .gov, .edu, .mil and .int)

gTLD-MoU - Generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding

IAHC - International Ad Hoc Committee

IANA - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

ICAAN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Addresses and Numbers (NewCo)

INTA - International Trade-mark Association

IPOC - Internet Policy Oversight Committee (succeeded by POC - see below)

ISOC - Internet Society

ISP - Internet Service Provider

ITU - International Telecommunications Union

NSI - Network Solutions, Inc.

NTAI - National Telecommunications and Information Administration (of the U.S. Department of Commerce)

POC - Policy Oversight Committee (successor of IPOC)

TLD - top level domain

Prepared by: Jonathan C. Cohen, with the assistance of Dr. Victoria Carrington

The contract between the U.S. government and NSI which established NSI’s monopoly over the gTLDs and was scheduled to expire at the end of September, 1998 has been amended as of October 7, 1998 to extend the contract until September 30, 2000. This amendment to NSI’s contract was purportedly made to comply with the provisions of the White Paper which set out the actions to be taken by the U.S. government, NSI, IANA and the private sector during the transition period which would gradually transfer DNS management and management functions to the private sector (NewCo).

The amendment has already attracted criticism for seeming to extend NSI’s monopoly for two more years, especially in light of the wording of the White Paper which referred to the "ramp down" of NSI’s cooperative agreement by the U.S. government. However, the fact remains that NewCo is still not in a position to take over the DNS management or addressing functions currently under the control of NSI. In addition, other tasks to be undertaken by NSI during the transition, such as the development of a shared registry system (as a consequence of which NSI would become one competitor among many) and an enhanced searchable database containing domain name registration data, still remain to be done. Further, it is clearly important to the stability of the Internet to have a concrete arrangement in place pursuant to which the root server system continues to be maintained during the transition period, until NewCo is able to take over this responsibility from NSI.

Accordingly, the amendment specifies a timeline for the development of a Shared Registry System that would permit multiple registrars (other than NSI) to provide registration services within the gTLDs and which would see the first 5 new accredited registrars making registrations in .com, .net and .org by March 31, 1999 (Phase 1). Phase 2 involves the expansion of the new system by June 1, 1999, with all licensed accredited registrars having access to registry services by October 1, 1999. NSI’s proposals for the enhanced searchable database are to be submitted to the U.S. government by November 1, 1998.

The amendment further specifies that both the U.S. government and NSI recognize NewCo, and that as the U.S. government gradually turns over DNS responsibilities to NewCo, NSI’s corresponding obligations under this cooperative agreement will be terminated or covered in a contract between NSI and NewCo where applicable.

The practical effect of this amendment to NSI’s contract is that we now have a more definite idea of the time frame available for consultations and formulation of recommendations to be submitted to NewCo and/or NSI in respect of all the issues canvassed earlier in this paper, as well as an indication of when the appropriate time is to make submissions concerning particular issues.