[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 141 (Friday, October 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S12155]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             NEXT GENERATION INTERNET RESEARCH ACT OF 1998

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted that last night the Senate 
took up and passed H.R. 3332.
  I first introduced my domain name study bill, S. 1727, on March 6, 
1998. It was cosponsored by Senator Ashcroft on May 21, 1998 and passed 
the Senate on June 26, 1998 as an amendment to S. 1609, Senate 
legislation to authorize the Next Generation Internet program. The 
House passed a very similar domain name study bill on September 14, 
1998 as part of H.R. 3332, its legislation to authorize the Next 
Generation Internet program. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported 
out a substitute amendment to S. 1727 on September 17, 1998 that was 
identical to the domain name study language that is in H.R. 3332. Now, 
with the Senate passage of H.R. 3332, the domain name study language 
will be presented to the President for his signature into law.
  The Leahy/Ashcroft domain name study legislation that is incorporated 
into H.R. 3332 authorizes the National Research Council (NRC) of the 
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the 
effects on trademark rights of adding new generic top level domain 
names (gTLDs), and related dispute resolution procedures.
  When I first introduced this bill in March, it was, in part, a 
response to the Administration's Green Paper released on January 30, 
1988, on the domain name system (DNS), which suggested the addition of 
five new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs).
  Although adding new gTLDs, as the Green Paper proposed, would allow 
more competition and more individuals and businesses to obtain 
addresses that more closely reflect their names and functions, I was 
concerned as were many businesses, that the increase in gTLDs would 
make the job of protecting their trademarks from infringement or 
dilution more difficult. In addition, increasing the number of gTLDs 
without an efficient dispute resolution mechanism had the potential of 
fueling litigation and the threat of litigation, with an overall 
chilling effect on the choice and use of domain names.
  The Green Paper properly raised the important questions of how to 
protect consumers' interests in locating the brand or vendor of their 
choice on the Internet without being deceived or confused, how to 
protect companies from having their brand equity diluted in an 
electronic environment, and how to resolve disputes efficiently and 
inexpensively. It did not, however, answer these complex and important 
questions. Dictating the introduction of new gTLDs without analyzing 
the impact that these new gTLDs would have on trademark rights and 
related dispute resolution procedures seemed like putting the cart 
before the horse.
  The Leahy/Ashcroft domain name study bill is intended to put the 
horse back before the cart. We should understand the effects on 
trademark rights of adding new gTLDs and related dispute resolution 
procedures before we move to add significant numbers of new gTLDs. 
Since its introduction in March, groups such as ATT, Bell Atlantic, 
Time Warner, the International Trademark Association, the Information 
Technology Industry Council, the Motion Picture Association of America, 
the Domain Name Rights Coalition, and the American Intellectual 
Property Law Association, amongst others, have endorsed this 
legislation reflected in the Leahy-Ashcroft domain name study bill.

  The Administration's White Paper, released on June 5, 1988, backed 
off the Green Paper's earlier suggestion to add five new gTLDs. 
Instead, the White Paper proposes that the new corporation would be the 
most appropriate body to make decisions as to how many, if any, new 
gTLDs should be added once it has global input, including from the 
study called for in the Leahy-Ashcroft domain name bill. Specifically, 
the White Paper calls upon the World Intellectual Property 
Organization, inter alia, to ``evaluate the effects, based on studies 
conducted by independent organizations, such as the National Research 
Council of the National Academy of Sciences, of adding new gTLDs, and 
related dispute resolution procedures on trademark and intellectual 
property holders.''
  I commend the Administration for the deliberate approach it has taken 
to facilitate the withdrawal of the U.S. government from the governance 
of the Internet and to privatize the management of Internet names and 
addresses. We should have a Hippocratic Oath for the Internet--that 
before we adopt any new regimen that affects the Internet, we should 
make sure we are doing no harm to this dynamic medium.
  In order for the WIPO study to be able to evaluate the effects, based 
on studies conducted by independent organizations, such as the NRC, of 
adding new gTLDs and related dispute resolution procedures on trademark 
rights, the Leahy/Ashcroft domain name study legislation in H.R. 3332 
instructs the NRC to release an interim report that can be considered 
before the release of the March 1, 1999 WIPO study. I believe it 
beneficial, however, for the final report of the NRC to still be 
released after the WIPO study, so that the NRC can take into account 
the results and recommendations offered by the WIPO study and offer its 
comments on the WIPO study.
  One might ask whether the NRC report is necessary, given the fact 
that WIPO will also be doing a study. I believe that the answer is a 
resounding ``yes''. Since the Internet is an outgrowth of U.S. 
government investments carried out under agreements with U.S. agencies, 
major components of the DNS are still performed by or subject to 
agreements with U.S. agencies. Examples include assignments of 
numerical addresses to Internet users, management of the system of 
registering names for Internet users, operation of the root server 
system, and protocol assignment. although U.S. government management of 
the Internet's most basic functions will soon be phased out, it is 
still not clear who will be running the new nonprofit corporation 
which, according to the Administration's White Paper, will oversee the 
domain name system. Moreover, the U.S. leads the world in the creation 
and dissemination of intellectual property. Given the U.S. interests 
that are at stake and the uncertainty in who will run the domain name 
system and how it will affect U.S. stakeholders, I think it important 
that a U.S. entity examine the issue of adding new gTLDs and related 
dispute resolution procedures on trademark rights. As important as it 
is for WIPO to benefit from an objective U.S. entity's perspective on 
this matter, I also think that an objective U.S. entity should be 
tasked with considering whatever recommendations are issued by WIPO.
  I am therefore pleased that the Senate passed H.R. 3332 last night 
with the Leahy/Ashcroft domain name study bill.

                          ____________________