UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------
x  
  :  
PGMEDIA, INC.,    
d/b/a NAME.SPACE, :  
     

Plaintiff,
:  
   
v. :

97 Civ. 1946 (RPP)
     
NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. and :  
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION,
 
 
:
 
Defendants.

 
  :  
--------------------------------------------------------------- x  

 

 

PLAINTIFF PGMEDIA’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

 

 

Of Counsel: BLUMENFELD & COHEN

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON
1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 700

    & GARRISON
Washington, D.C. 20036

1285 Avenue of the Americas
202-955-6300 (ph)
New York, New York 10019 202-955-6460 (fax)
212-373-3000 (ph)  

212-373-2628 (fax)
 
 

Attorneys for Plaintiff pgMedia, Inc.

   
Dated: May 14, 1998  

 


TABLE OF CONTENTS

          Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
iii

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1
STATEMEMENT OF FACTS 3
  A. The Internet 3
 

B.
The NSI Monopoly and NSI’s Relationship to NSF 5
  C. NSI’s Refusal to Deal With pgMedia 7
 

D.
The Effect of NSI’s Refusal to Deal On pgMedia and On Competition 10
  E. The Relief Requested 13
ARGUMENT       14
  I. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE SETTLED STANDARDS APPLICABLE IN THIS CIRCUIT 14
  II. PGMEDIA WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY IF THIS COURT DOES NOT ISSUE A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 14
  III. PGMEDIA IS SUBSTANTIALLY LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS OF ITS "ESSENTIAL FACILITIES" ANTITRUST CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT NSI 15
    A. NSI Has Denied Plaintiff Access to the Root Server, A Facility Essential for Competition in the Internet Domain Name Registration Market, Though Such Root Access is Plainly Feasible 16
      1.
NSI’s Monopoly Control of the Essential Facility
16
      2. pgMedia Cannot Practically Duplicate the Essential Facility 18
      3. NSI Has Denied pgMedia Access to the Essential Facility 18
      4. Access to the Root Server is a Technically Feasible 18
    B. NSI Enjoys No Express or Implied Antitrust Immunity 19
     

1.

There is No Express Antitrust Immunity for NSI’s Conduct 19
      2. NSI Cannot Legitimately Claim Any Implied Antitrust Immunity 20
      3. The Government Lacks International Jurisdiction to Restrict the Internet’s Root 21
  IV. PGMEDIA IS SUBSTANTIALLY LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS OF ITS FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT NSF 23
    A. TLDs and Domain Names Are Protected Internet Speech 23
    B. NSF’s Refusal to Add pgMedia’s TLDs to the Root Server Is an Unconstitutional Prior Restraint of Speech 24
CONCLUSION   25

 


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

  Page
CASES  
Abdul Wali v. Coughlin, 745 F.2d 1015, 1026 (2d Cir. 1985) 15

ACLU v. Reno, 929 F.Supp. 824 (E.D. pa. 1996), aff’d, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997)

3, 6, 23

Alaska Airlines v. United Airlines, 948 F.2d 536, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 977 (1992) 18

Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985)
16

Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963)
24

Bell & Howell: Mamiya Co. v. Masel Supply Co., 719 F.2d 42, 45 (2d Cir. 1983)
14
California v. FPC, 369U.S. 482 (1962) 20
Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) 24
Consumers Union v. Rogers, 352 F. Supp. 1319, 1323 (D.D.C. 1973) 24
Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online, Inc. 948 F. Supp. 456 (E.D. Pa 1996) 17, 18
Eugene Dietzgen Corp. v. FTC, 142 F.2d 321, 3229 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 730 (1944) 22
FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 749 (1978) 24
Gordon v. New York Stock Exchange, 422 U.S. 659 (1975) 20
Instellar Starship Servs., Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 983 F.Supp. 1331 (D. Or. 1997) 4
Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 1998 WL 180606, 1998-1 Trade Cas. ¶ 72,126 (CCH) (N.D. Ala 1998) 17-19
IT&E Overseas, Inc. v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., 747 F. Supp. 6, 11-14 (D.D.C. 1990) 22
Jack Kahn Music Co. v. Baldwin Piano and Organ Co., 604 F.2d 755, 762-63 (2d Cir. 1979) 14,15
Jackson Diary, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 72 (2nd Cir. 1979)(per curiam) 14
Jacobson & Co. v. Armstrong Cork Co., 548 F.2d 438, 44-45 (2d Cir. 1977) 15
Jessup v. American Kennel Club, 862 F. Supp. 1122 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) 15
Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky, 1998 WL 111676 (D.N.J. Mar. 6, 1998) 4
Kramer v. Pollock-Krasner Found., 890 F. Supp. 250, 257 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) 16
Long Island R.R. v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists et. al., 874 F.2d 901 (2nd Cir. 1989) 15
Loveridge v. Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc., 788 F.2d 914, 917 (2d Cir. 1986) 15
MCI Communications Corp. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1132-33 (7th Cir.). cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 (1983) 16
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 713 (1931) 24
New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) 24
Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971) 24
Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 822 F. Supp. 145, 150 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 14
Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 378-79 (1973) 21
Planned Parenthood of America v. Bucci, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338, *35-36 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) 23
Reno v. ACLU, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 2334 (1997) 23, 24
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919) 24
SF Hotel Co. v. Energy Investments, Inc., No. 97-1306, 1997 WL 79498 (D. Kans. Nov. 19, 1997) 3
Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341 (1963) 20
Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conf. v. United States, 471 U.S. 48 (1985) 22
Strobl v. New York Mercantile Exchange, 768 F.2d 22, 26 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1006 (1985) 20
Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc., 60 F.3d 27 (2nd Cir. 1995) 14
Thomas, et. al. v. Network Solutions, Inc. et. al., Civ. No. 97-2412, 1998 WL 191205 (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 1998) 6, 22
Twin Labs., Inc. v. Weider Health & Fitness, 900 F.2d 566, 569 (2d Cir. 1990) 16, 18
United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919) 18
United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966) 16
United States v. Philadelphia Nat’l Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 350-51 (1963) 20
United States v. RCA, 358 U.S. 334 (1959) 20
United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 225-27 (1940) 21
United We Stand America v. United We Stand, America New York, 128 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1997) 24
Williams Elec. Co. v. Honneywell, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 1225, 1231 (N.D. Fla. 1991) 21
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) 4
   
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS  
The Charitable Gift Annuity Antitrust Relief Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-63, 109 Stat. 687 (1995) 19
The National Science Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1861 19
The Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 16
15 U.S.C. § 17 19
15 U.S.C. §§ 631 et seq 19
31 U.S.C. § 6302 19
42 U.S.C. § 1862(g) 20
47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(2) 20
   
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS  
Written Statement of Ira Magaziner before the Subcommittee on Basic Research, House Science Committee (March 13, 1998) 6
   
OTHER  
2 Antitrust Law Developments (Fourth) 1132 (1997) 21
David Diamond, "Whose Internet Is It Anyway?", Wired, April 1998 5
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Notice of Inquiry, Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names, Docket No. 9070613137-7137-01 10
National Telecommunications & Information Administration, Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule, Docket No. 980212035-8036-01, 63 Fed. Reg. 8825 (Feb. 20, 1998) 10
H. Perritt, Law and the Information Superhighway §§ 2.26A. 2.30 (Cum. Supp. 1998) 1
K. Werbach, Digital Tornado: The Internet and Telecommunications Policy, Office of Plans and Policy Working Paper No. 29, Federal Communications Commission (March 1997) 4-6
R. Shaw, "Internet Domain Names: Whose Domain Is This?," in Coordinating the Internet 107, 116 (B. Kahin. & J. Keller eds. 1997) 7

 


 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------
x  
  :  
PGMEDIA, INC.,    
d/b/a NAME.SPACE, :  
     

Plaintiff,
:  
   
v. :

97 Civ. 1946 (RPP)
     
NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. and :  
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION,
 
 
:
 
Defendants.

 
  :  
--------------------------------------------------------------- x  

PLAINTIFF PGMEDIA’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN

SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff pgMedia, Inc. d/b/a Name.Space ("pgMedia"), by its attorneys, respectfully submits this memorandum in support of its motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), for a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from denying access to the Internet’s "root zone server," controlled and operated exclusively by defendant Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") as a result of its current, government-authorized monopoly on registration of Internet domain names.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This action concerns the deliberate actions of NSI to maintain its highly profitable monopoly in the market for registration of Internet domain names in certain generic Top Level Domains ("TLDs")1/ by preventing pgMedia, a new competitor in that market, from gaining access to the Internet’s most essential feature -- the ability of any Internet user, anywhere in the world, to reach any other computer connected to the Internet. This "universal resolvability" of Internet domain names is provided by the root zone server, a computer variously referred to as the "root," the "dot" and the "root server," controlled and administered by NSI pursuant to a so-called "cooperative agreement" with defendant National Science Foundation ("NSF"). Unable to add pgMedia’s TLDs to the root server, plaintiff cannot compete in the Internet domain registration market and, absent preliminary injunctive relief, will be irreparably harmed in the rapidly developing commercial Internet marketplace. See Sections I and II, infra.

The relief sought by pgMedia is limited and narrowly tailored. Plaintiff asks only that defendant NSI add pgMedia’s TLDs to the root zone server file, something that experts agree, and NSI has repeatedly conceded, raises no technical or functional barriers. Plaintiff does not challenge the legality of NSI’s monopoly over domain name registration, does not seek access to NSI’s proprietary information or technology, and is not asking to alter the status quo of NSI’s monopoly on registrations in the well-known ".com," ".org" and ".net" TLDs. Nothing in this motion threatens either the technical stability of the global Internet or NSI’s status as the monopoly provider of domain name registrations in the Internet’s current TLDs. Plaintiff challenges only NSI’s use of its market power to refuse to deal with competitors, not the legality of NSI’s monopoly in the first instance.

The relief sought against NSI sounds squarely in the settled "essential facilities" doctrine of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, an antitrust rule in place since 1912 which prohibits a monopolist that controls a facility essential to competition from denying reasonable, nondiscriminatory access to competitors. See Section III(A), infra. There is no exception in either Section 2 or the essential facilities doctrine for a monopolist that, like NSI, controls an essential facility by virtue of a government contract. To the contrary (and even if the "cooperative agreement" gave defendant NSF the right to control the root servers, which it does not) no statute authorizes defendant NSF to immunize NSI’s conduct from antitrust liability. See Section III(B), infra.

Moreover, because the Internet is a worldwide medium, the United States government lacks jurisdiction under international law to unilaterally restrict the use of global Internet resources, such as the root server and generic TLDs. Even if the United States and NSF had such authority, however, it is clear that TLDs and Internet domain names are a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. To the extent that NSI’s own actions may somehow be immune from civil liability due to its relationship with defendant NSF, then the relief requested in this motion is fully supported by the settled line of precedent precluding the United States government from engaging in "prior restraint" of constitutionally protected expression. See Section IV, infra.

pgMedia is more than substantially likely to prevail on its claims under the Sherman Act and the First Amendment. Competition is impossible for domain registrations using alternative Internet TLDs unless they are first included in the "bottleneck" root zone file controlled by NSI. No express or implied antitrust immunity shields NSI’s abuse of its monopoly power to refuse to deal with pgMedia. There is no question, as defendant NSI itself concedes, that expansion of the root server file is technically feasible and that domain names constitute protected First Amendment speech. The irreparable injury that defendants’ actions will cause pgMedia, the first substantial competitor to NSI in the Internet domain registration market, is clear because the product pgMedia sells -- Internet domain name registrations in new TLDs -- is virtually worthless without the universal interconnectivity that makes the Internet the global, seamless network that it is. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a preliminary injunction.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts relevant to this motion, as discussed in further detail in the accompanying declarations and the exhibits thereto, are neither complicated nor in material dispute.

A. The Internet

The Internet is a global network of computers,2/ each of which has its own unique address, that operates under a common set of protocols allowing the computers and their users to interact and communicate with each other. Garrin Dec. ¶ 3.3/ Because an Internet address is a relatively long string of numbers ( e.g., 13.42.987.65) that is difficult to remember, Internet users rely on domain names, memorable and sometimes catchy words corresponding to these numbers, in order to use electronic mail ("e-mail") and to connect to Internet sites on the World Wide Web.4/ But to engage in Internet communications, these domain names need to be translated into the actual numeric addresses (known as "IP numbers" since they use the "Internet Protocol") that identify each computer on the Internet. "These IP numbers are converted into a more user-friendly, letter based format known as a ‘domain name’ by specialized computers called ‘domain name servers.’" Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky, 1998 WL 111676, *1 n.3 (D.N.J. Mar. 6, 1998). The root zone server effectively functions as the "traffic cop" for this translation process, providing a single, authoritative set of references used by all domain name servers worldwide to convert, or "resolve," any Internet domain name into the corresponding numeric IP address. Garrin. Dec. ¶ 7.

A domain name "consists of two parts: a host and a domain." Interstellar Starship Servs., Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 983 F. Supp. 1331, 1335 (D. Or. 1997). Technically, the letters to the right of the "dot" are referred to as Top Level Domains ("TLDs"), while hosts -- computers with assigned IP numbers that are listed in specific TLD "registries" -- are known as "second-level domains." Garrin. Dec. ¶ 6. For the domain name "technologylaw.com," therefore, ".com" is the TLD and "technologylaw" is the second-level domain. TLDs are known as "top level" domains because they comprise the highest-order name space available on the Internet. Second-level domains, as well as third-level domains (such as "home.netscape.com"), are subsidiary to TLDs in the hierarchy of the Internet’s Domain Name System ("DNS").

The function of converting a domain name into an IP number is known as "resolving" the domain. Garrin. Dec. ¶ 8. Where a domain name cannot be resolved by a domain name server (a "name server"), Internet communication cannot take place. Other Internet users will be unable to connect to a Web site’s host computer registered in that domain and e-mail sent to users with that domain name will be returned as "undeliverable." In order to achieve "universal resolvability" of all domains, a single authoritative name server is needed, which functions as the "czar" of all other name servers on the Internet. Garrin Dec. ¶ 8. The "root," or the "dot," is thus the highest-level name server on the Internet. "The root of the Internet, referred to as the ‘dot,’ and the root servers connect domain names and IP numbers on the Internet."5/ This root server is controlled and operated, at the present time and since 1993, by defendant NSI.6/

There can be only one root server (or one set of consistent, coordinated root servers) for the Internet to achieve universal resolvability and for Internet users worldwide to enjoy the benefit of seamless interconnectivity. Garrin Dec. ¶ 7. NSI concedes that "[f]or the Internet to be connected and to function, there can be only one ‘dot’ and one set of root servers." NSI White Paper at 9. This single point of central authority, however, also creates a potential for abuse. "To a large extent, whoever controls the DNS -- and the root server, the holy temple in which all names are housed -- also controls the Internet." D. Diamond, Whose Internet Is It, Anyway?, Wired, April 1998, at 172. As noted below, NSI controls and administers the "holy temple" of the root server

B. The NSI Monopoly and NSI’s Relationship to NSF

Defendant NSF has a long relationship with the Internet. NSF supported development of the Internet Protocol and funded development in the mid-1980s of NSFNet, one of the high-speed computer networks that evolved into the "network of networks" that is now called the Internet. Digital Tornado at 13. Defendant NSI, a corporation listed on the NASDAQ exchange with a market valuation exceeding $60 million, operates the ".com," ".net," ".org" and ".edu" TLD registries pursuant to a contract, referred to as a "cooperative agreement" (the "Cooperative Agreement"), with NSF. This agreement, originally executed in 1993, was later amended and extended through September 1998. Only NSI is permitted to register second-level domains in these TLDs.

There is no question that defendant NSI has control of the root server and is responsible for the addition of all new TLDs on the Internet worldwide. NSI’s Chief Executive Officer has conceded, in contemporaneous antitrust litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, that:

The Company [NSI] has two business segments -- Domain Name Registration Services, its core business, and Intra-Net Consulting Services. The Company’s responsibilities with respect to the Internet Domain Name System ("DNS") include: (a) management of the Root.Zone of the Internet and the primary, or "A," root server; (b) addition of all new top level domains (TLDs) on the Internet worldwide.

NSI Battitsta Dec. ¶ 7 (Manishin Dec. Exh. 2).7/ There is also no question that NSF does not regulate NSI. Defendant NSF testified in the Washington, D.C. litigation that "NSF does not regulate NSI."8/ The NSI Battitsta Declaration in that case makes no claim that NSF controls NSI’s management of the root zone file or the addition of new TLDs. And according to NSI’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, NSI "is not currently subject to direct regulation other than federal and state regulation applicable to businesses generally."9/ This is in complete accord with the universally recognized view that no single entity or government controls or regulates the Internet.10/

Nothing in the Cooperative Agreement provides that NSF can direct NSI whether, when or in what number to add new TLDs to the root. The Cooperative Agreement expressly provides that, except for "imposition of a user based fee structure," such changes in the DNS system may be made by NSI without the approval or ratification of NSF.11/ NSF has explained that the Cooperative Agreement requires NSI to "follow the policy guidance of a non-governmental body, the Internet Engineering Task Force (‘IETF’) . . . in consultation with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (‘IANA’), another non-governmental entity."12/ NSF Mitchell Dec. ¶ 5. But there is no language in the Cooperative Agreement that requires NSI to follow the dictates of NSF in maintaining or administering the root servers. Indeed, the Cooperative Agreement provides flatly that "[t]o the extent NSF does not reserve specific responsibility . . . all such responsibilities remain with the awardee." Cooperative Agreement at § I, Art. 6.A. There is no "specific" reservation of responsibility for managing the root zone file or for adding additional TLDs in the Cooperative Agreement.

C. NSI’s Refusal to Deal With pgMedia

The Internet’s current TLDs include more than 200 "country code" TLDs, such as ".uk" (United Kingdom), but only six "generic" TLDs, such as ".com," that are not affiliated with any nation. This arbitrary limitation is a vestige of the historic genesis of the Internet as a scientific research network before today’s commercialization of the Internet. Garrin Dec. ¶ 6. There is growing market demand for new generic TLDs, a market that pgMedia entered in 1996. Garrin Dec. ¶ 18. Plaintiff has deployed a set of 13 name servers in six countries (Germany, Holland, Finland, the United States, Slovenia and Sweden ) and has registered thousands of second-level domains in more than 500 new TLDs. Garrin Dec. ¶ 9.

In order to compete in the market for Internet domain name registrations, however, pgMedia requires that these TLDs be listed in the root server controlled by NSI, because without access to the root, pgMedia’s second-level domains cannot be resolved by other Internet users. Garrin Dec. ¶ 16. There is no technical constraint on expansion of the root server file to include pgMedia’s TLDs. Defendant NSI has conceded publicly that "[t]here is no technical reason why the number of worldwide TLDs needs to be limited. . . . There can be as many TLDs are there are potential second- and third-level domains."13/

The reason why new TLDs are technically unlimited is simple. The root zone file is merely a text (ASCII) file of no more than 500KB in size, smaller than most popular computer applications, such as Microsoft Word, and far smaller than the current size of the name server files for current TLDs. For instance, the ".com" TLD presently has a name server file that comprises nearly two million second-level domains. Garrin Dec. ¶ 14. As NSI boasts, "[t]he current operation of the domain name registration system has demonstrated an ability to handle incredible growth,"14/ and "[d]omains are equally scalable at all levels of the DNS."15/ Accordingly, because these TLD name servers have proven easily capable of "scaling" to a huge size without any technical or functional degradation whatsoever, there is no question that the root server can support at least as many entries. Garrin Dec. ¶ 14.

Despite the lack of any technical constraint, defendant NSI has unilaterally refused to add pgMedia’s TLDs to the root zone file it controls. On March 11, 1997, plaintiff asked that NSI amend the root file to include pgMedia’s TLDs. pgMedia March 11, 1997 Letter, at 1-2 (Manishin Dec. Exh. 8). NSI rejected the request on the ground that it acted "under the authority and at the direction of the IANA." NSI March 12, 1997 Letter, at 2 (Manishin Dec. Exh. 9). Only after this lawsuit was initiated, however, did NSI seek corroboration of its actions by any third-party or the government. First, NSI wrote to IANA for confirmation that "NSI can only make changes to the Configuration File [i.e., the root zone file] at the direction of IANA." NSI March 27, 1997 Letter, at 1 (Manishin Dec. Exh. 10). IANA replied flatly that there is "no contract or other agreement that gives IANA authority over your client’s operations." IANA April 4, 1997 Letter, at 1 (Manishin Dec. Exh. 11).

Rebuffed in its efforts to have IANA sanction its refusal to deal with pgMedia, NSI then changed its tune. First, NSI explained in an April 17, 1997 public report that it favored "enhanced competition" in domain name registrations. NSI White Paper at 1. Nonetheless, NSI still refused to add pgMedia’s TLDs to the root server. Second, NSI for the first time claimed that the government, specifically NSF, is responsible for determining whether to add new TLDs to the root of the Internet. On June 10, 1997, NSI then wrote to NSF, purporting to seek NSF’s concurrence that NSI could accept applications to include new TLDs in the root zone file. NSI June 10, 1997 Letter, at 2 (Manishin Dec. Exh. 12)[confidential per stipulation; filed only under seal]. A "staff associate" at NSF replied that it was "premature" for NSI to add new TLDs until the government concluded a policy analysis of DNS, and directed NSI to "take NO action to create additional TLDs or to add any other new TLDs to the Internet root zone file." NSF June 25, 1997 Letter, at 1 (Manishin Dec. Exh. 13). NSF cited no statutory authority in this so-called "directive" to NSI, but rather indicated that "until NSF, in consultation with other U.S. government agencies, has completed its deliberations in this area," NSF was not "able to provide further guidance."16/

The federal government has been reviewing policy issues associated with the Internet DNS system. In July 1997, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") initiated a public inquiry to determine "what role, if any, [the U.S. government] should play [in] allocating and managing generic top level domains (gTLDs)."17/ Six months later, NTIA released a document -- commonly referred to as the "Green Paper" -- proposing that the root and root servers be "transferred" to a newly created, non-profit corporation.18/ Notwithstanding these proceedings, the statutes governing the Department of Commerce and NTIA do not confer jurisdictional authority over the Internet. There is no international treaty recognizing any power or right of the United States to restrict expansion of the Internet’s DNS system, and nothing in existing multilateral agreements governing telecommunications suggests that other sovereigns consent to unilateral U.S. authority. Perritt Dec. ¶¶ 20, 41-46.19/ Because TLDs are international "global commons" resources, and because the Internet is not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of any nation, this country lacks international legal authority to unilaterally restrict the introduction of new TLDs. Perritt Dec. ¶¶ 21-22, 48-49.

D. The Effect of NSI’s Refusal to Deal On pgMedia and On Competition

NSI’s refusal to add pgMedia’s TLDs to the "holy temple" of the root server has had just the effect one would expect from the central role of the root in maintaining universal resolvability, and thus interconnectivity, of all domain names. Customers of pgMedia registering second-level domains in plaintiff’s TLDs cannot be reached by other Internet users because these domains, which are not listed in the root zone file, cannot be resolved by other Internet name servers. Only if pgMedia individually negotiated with each of the scores of thousands of name server operators on the global Internet, something that is a physical and financial impossibility, for inclusion of plaintiff’s TLDs would there be any possibility that its domain names could be universally resolvable. Garrin Dec. ¶ 16. As a result, pgMedia has been seriously injured financially, has been unable to offer a commercially viable registration service in its TLDs, and has been unable to compete in the domain name market. Garrin Dec. ¶¶ 24-33.

The Internet domain name registration market is lucrative and rapidly growing. The market for domain name registrations is currently valued at approximately $150,000,000 annually. Garrin Dec. ¶ 18. The demand over the past year for domain names has exceeded 120,000 new registrations monthly. Id. Furthermore, the arbitrarily limited number of TLDs has created a severe shortage of desirable domain names in the ".com" registry, leading to substantial pent-up demand for alternative domain name resources. Mueller Dec. ¶ 13. Despite this rapidly growing market and increasing demand, however, pgMedia is unable to charge more than a nominal $25 fee for registration of second-level domains in its TLDs. pgMedia has been unable to promote, advertise or expand its services, has suffered from very high rates of customer dissatisfaction due to the inability to put its TLDs into actual use on the Internet, and has lost significant opportunities for increased capital investment and expansion. Garrin Dec. ¶ 25.

NSI’s refusal to add pgMedia’s TLDs to the root file also has caused adverse competitive effects in the market for Internet domain name registrations. Today, any firm desiring to compete with NSI must rely on NSI to register second-level domains in the ".com" and other generic TLDs, i.e., by "reselling" NSI’s registration services. This has severely limited price competition for domain names by making NSI’s fees a "floor" for all registrations, and by preventing other firms from offering different and improved services.20/ Plaintiff pgMedia, on the other hand, has pioneered technical innovations in domain registration offered commercially for nearly two years. For example, plaintiff was the first to provide on-line, real-time domain name registrations, during a period when NSI’s own registrations required nearly four weeks. Garrin Dec. ¶ 15.

NSI’s refusal to deal with pgMedia has thus served to maintain its ".com" monopoly by preventing competitors from registering domain names in other TLDs at different prices and with different services than offered by NSI. This has prevented price competition from eroding NSI’s inflated price for ".com" registrations and has made it impossible for NSI’s "resellers" to compete on the basis of service or technology improvements (i.e., through product differentiation). Garrin Dec. ¶ 19. By using its control of the root zone file as a means of precluding entry of other TLDs, NSI thus extends its government-authorized monopoly over ".com" to become a de facto monopoly over registrations in all generic TLDs. NSI’s actions have therefore harmed not only the plaintiff in this litigation, but also the public interest protected by the antitrust laws.

Furthermore, NSI has unilaterally violated NSF’s 1997 directive not to add TLDs to the root server. Since October 1977, at least 10 new TLDs have been added to the root by NSI. Garrin Dec. ¶ 14. This plainly demonstrates that NSI has substantial commercial discretion, unconstrained by NSF, in making changes and additions to the root zone file when it is in NSI’s interest to do so. These "country code" TLDs have been used by NSI and its partners to further advantage NSI in the marketplace and to increase barriers to entry, e.g., to offer second-level domains to the very market segment targeted by pgMedia, namely clients for whom the shortage of desirable ".com" domain names requires alternative TLDs. Many of these TLDs violate the IETF’s applicable rules (known as "RFCs"), despite NSF’s stated requirement that NSI accept "policy advice" from IETF and follow existing RFCs, by failing to maintain technical and administrative contacts in the country of origin. Compare Garrin Dec. ¶ 14 with NSF Mitchell Dec. ¶ 3.

Significantly, instead of adding plaintiff’s TLDs to the root server, and thus facing new competition, NSI has instead "partnered" with other private firms to offer country code TLDs as new "generic" TLDs. For instance, TABNet, one of NSI’s "Premier Gold Partners,"21/ offers second-level registrations in the ".cc" (Cocos Keeling Islands) and ".to" (Kingdom of Tonga) domains -- without regard to nationality -- to U.S. consumers, on the following basis:

There are well over one and a half million names currently registered in .COM. Most desirable names are already taken.

To relieve the chronic shortage of names in the .COM, .ORG, and .NET domains, TABNet is now making available the .CC and .TO top-level domain for web sites and email. Unlike alternative domain names, the .CC and .TO names are now fully operational in all name servers worldwide, exactly like the .COM names.

Manishin Dec. Exh. 18 (emphasis supplied). In short, NSI and its partners are now using lack of universal resolvability of "alternative domains" like plaintiff’s to commercialize new TLDs, for profit and in direct contradiction to NSF’s purported 1997 "directive" not to alter the root servers, while denying pgMedia the same right to compete.

E. The Relief Requested

The preliminary relief requested by plaintiff in this motion is narrowly tailored and extremely limited. Plaintiff asks that this Court take action to (1) prohibit defendant NSI from refusing to deal with pgMedia; (2) prohibit defendants NSI and NSF from continuing to refuse to add any of plaintiff pgMedia’s TLDs to the root zone server; and (3) require that NSI include pgMedia’s TLDs in the root zone server on such reasonable and non-discriminatory terms as the parties shall agree within 30 days, subject to the Court’s continuing jurisdiction. This relief is necessary to prevent irreparable injury to pgMedia from its more than one-year exclusion from the Internet domain name registration market as a result of defendant NSI’s unlawful use of it monopoly control of the essential facility of the Internet’s "root." However, the relief sought by pgMedia will have no effect on operation of the Internet or on NSI’s existing monopoly over registrations under the Cooperative Agreement. NSI and its partners will still have exclusive rights to register ".com" second-level domains, and all users of the Internet worldwide will still be able to reach any TLD included in the root servers. Such relief also will not affect the government’s plans to establish a policy framework for the DNS system, except that the government may not restrict TLDs and thus exclude pgMedia from the market.

ARGUMENT

I. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE SETTLED STANDARDS APPLICABLE IN THIS CIRCUIT

The standard for issuing a preliminary injunction in this Circuit is well-established. There must be a showing of "(a) irreparable harm and (b) either (1) likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief." Jackson Diary, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 72 (2nd Cir. 1979)(per curiam). A plaintiff may also be required to make a "substantial" showing of likelihood of success where "(i) an injunction will alter rather than maintain the status quo, or (ii) an injunction will provide the movant with substantially all the relief sought and that relief cannot be undone even if the defendant prevails at a trial on the merits." Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc., 60 F.3d 27 (2nd Cir. 1995). Under these standards, plaintiff is plainly entitled to a preliminary injunction.

II. PGMEDIA WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY IF THIS COURT DOES NOT ISSUE A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

"The Second Circuit has consistently held that ‘perhaps the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction is a demonstration that if it is not granted the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm before a decision on the merits can be rendered.’" Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 822 F. Supp. 145, 150 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). (quoting Bell & Howell: Mamiya Co. v. Masel Supply Co., 719 F.2d 42, 45 (2d Cir. 1983)).

NSI’s refusal to allow pgMedia access to the root server has already caused pgMedia substantial harm and, undoubtedly, will cause irreparable injury to pgMedia prior to the commencement of a trial. The denial of access prevents pgMedia from offering a viable commercial service because the essence of the Internet, universal interconnectivity, is unavailable for registrants of plaintiff’s second-level domains. So long as NSI refuses to add pgMedia’s TLDs to the root, pgMedia cannot compete in the Internet domain name registration market and will continue to suffer destruction of its business and good will. Jack Kahn Music Co. v. Baldwin Piano and Organ Co., 604 F.2d 755, 762-63 (2d Cir. 1979); Jessup v. American Kennel Club, 862 F. Supp. 1122 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).

Furthermore, given pgMedia’s precarious financial status -- a direct result of it inability to gain access to the root server and the resulting impact on its capital structure, cash flow and customer relations -- it is virtually certain that plaintiff will be forced out of business entirely without preliminary relief. Garrin Dec. ¶¶ 24-33. The law is settled that the complete obliteration of a plaintiff’s business can constitute irreparable harm. E.g., Loveridge v. Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc., 788 F.2d 914, 917 (2d Cir. 1986). The rapidly developing commercial realities of the high-technology industry make this rule even more appropriate in this case. On the Internet, "winners" frequently become successful rapidly after product introduction, and a firm’s inability to enter the market during the brief market window for a new service spells the difference between great success and total failure. NSI’s denial of access thus creates a very substantial likelihood that, absent provisional relief, NSI will permanently foreclose competition during the "window of opportunity" for new TLD domain name alternatives. Garrin Dec. ¶ 28.22/

III. PGMEDIA IS SUBSTANTIALLY LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS OF ITS "ESSENTIAL FACILITIES" ANTITRUST CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT NSI

A "substantial likelihood of success on the merits" means that, as a practical matter, a movant’s "cause is considerably more likely to succeed than to fail." Abdul Wali v. Coughlin, 745 F.2d 1015, 1026 (2d Cir. 1985). On the virtually undisputed facts of this case, as set forth above and in the accompanying declarations, there is no question that plaintiff is "substantially likely" to prevail on its Section 2 "essential facilities" claim against defendant NSI.

In order to establish liability under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, pgMedia must demonstrate only (1) monopoly control of an essential facility by NSI; (2) the impracticability of duplicating that essential facility; (3) a denial of use of the essential facility by NSI; and (4) "the feasibility of providing the facility." Twin Labs., Inc. v. Weider Health & Fitness, 900 F.2d 566, 569 (2d Cir. 1990); Kramer v. Pollock-Krasner Found., 890 F. Supp. 250, 257 (S.D.N.Y.1995). Each of these elements is clear on the facts of record, and NSI has no plausible immunity or antitrust defense sanctioning its denial of access to root zone server. Congress has not accorded antitrust immunity to NSI, NSF has no statutory authority to immunize private conduct from antitrust scrutiny, and the existence of the Cooperative Agreement, a contract between a government agency and NSI, is legally irrelevant as a defense to pgMedia’s essential facilities claim.

A.

NSI Has Denied Plaintiff Access to the Root Server, A Facility Essential for Competition in the Internet Domain Name Registration Market, Though Such Root Access is Plainly Feasible

Section 2 makes unlawful the acquisition, maintenance or use of monopoly power by anticompetitive or exclusionary means. E.g., Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985). The "essential facilities" or "bottleneck" doctrine, a type of monopolization claim, holds that a defendant may not use its monopoly power to deny competitors reasonable and non-discriminatory to a facility essential to competition. Twin Labs., 900 F. 2d at 569; MCI Communications Corp,. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1132-33 (7th Cir.). cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 (1983).

    1. NSI’s Monopoly Control of the Essential Facility

This litigation is a classic essential facilities case. NSI enjoys a monopoly in the Internet domain name registration market for all "generic" TLDs and, under any measure of market power (market share, barriers to entry, etc.), holds monopoly power, i.e., the power to "control prices or exclude competition." United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966). NSI’s monopoly is government-authorized, resulting from its exclusive contract with NSF to register domain names in the ".com," ".net." ".org" and ".edu" TLDs. NSI accordingly concedes that it physically controls the root zone file and is responsible for the "addition of all new top level domains (TLDs) on the Internet worldwide." NSI Battista Dec. ¶ 7.

This root file is without doubt an essential facility. It is undisputed that there can be only on "root" for the Internet. NSI White Paper at 9. Essential facilities are those that are not merely helpful to a competitor, but rather are "vital to the claimant’s competitive viability." Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online, Inc. 948 F. Supp. 456 (E.D. Pa 1996). The root file is vital to competition in "alternative" TLDs because without access to the root server, Internet communication cannot take place. The root zone file is thus the prototypical essential facility, absolutely indispensable for anyone seeking to compete in the Internet domain name registration market.

The seminal cases under the essential facilities doctrine illustrate how the NSI-controlled root server lies at the heart of competitive provision of DNS services on the global Internet. In United States v. Terminal R.R. Assn., 224 U.S. 383 (1912), the Supreme Court held that the defendant railroads, who controlled the only feasible terminal for cross-city railroad traffic, had to permit competing railroads access to that terminal. More recently, in MCI Communications v. AT&T, 708 F. 2d 1081 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 (1983), the 7th Circuit concluded that because AT&T’s former "Bell System" controlled the local communications facilities that were the only means for competitors to provide long-distance phone service, AT&T was required to grant MCI access to those facilities.

Just as access to a railroad terminal was needed in 1912 for competing railroad entrants and access to local telephone networks was required by long-distance competitors in 1983, so too is access to the Internet’s root server, the "holy temple" of DNS, essential for competing domain name registrants to offer the Internet’s most essential feature -- the ability of any Internet user, anywhere in the world, to reach any other computer connected to the Internet. There is nothing about the Internet or any other high-technology industry that makes application of the essential facilities doctrine problematic, and courts have imposed reasonable access requirements on dominant technology firms that control access to essential competitive resources. See, e.g., Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 1998 WL 180606, 1998-1 Trade Cas. ¶ 72,126 (CCH) (N.D. Ala 1998)(access to Intel’s microprocessor architecture, early-release samples and technical information required by Section 2).23/ Here, NSI’s power to exclude rivals from the root server file clearly provides it the power to "eliminate competition in the downstream market" of Internet domain name registrations. Alaska Airlines v. United Airlines, 948 F.2d 536, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 977 (1992). By its nature, an essential facility is "the one game in town." Twin Labs., 900 F.2d at 569. The root server, however, is not just the only game in town. In the global infrastructure of the Internet, the NSI-controlled root server and the root zone file are "one game" in the entire world.

    2. pgMedia Cannot Practically Duplicate the Essential Facility

A facility is essential if a competitor cannot practically duplicate it. That is plainly the case with the Internet’s root server, since for the Internet to function, there can be only one "root." Supra, p.4. For pgMedia to secure listings of its TLDs in the tens of thousands of name servers worldwide is not only a massive, uneconomical undertaking, id., but ultimately self-defeating. This sort of a "shadow" DNS root, duplicating the existing root server system, would destroy the very global interconnectivity that is the Internet’s distinguishing characteristic. Garrin Dec. ¶ 7. Unlike plaintiffs in other cases, e.g., Cyber Promotions, 948 F. Supp. at 460, where there have been alternatives to purported essential facilities that were almost as good as the real thing, the root server’s essential role cannot -- and should not -- be duplicated.

    3. NSI Has Denied pgMedia Access to the Essential Facility

This point is uncontested. pgMedia asked that its TLDs be added to the root in March 1997, and to date NSI has not listed a single one of these TLDs in the root zone file.

    4. Access to the Root Server is a Technically Feasible

Access to an essential facility must be "feasible." Twin Labs., 900 F.2d at 569. Again, this point is not disputed. First, as noted above, NSI and others have repeatedly and publicly admitted that there is no technical constraint on the addition of new TLDs. See also Garrin Dec. ¶ 14. Expansion of the root server to include pgMedia’s TLDs would have absolutely no effect on the functioning of existing TLDs or on the interconnectivity of the Internet. Id. Consequently, although some have voiced policy concerns if "too many" TLDs are added to the root, even if valid such policies are irrelevant as a legal matter (see Mueller Dec. ¶¶ 16-17) because there is no question that access to this NSI-controlled essential facility is feasible.

B.

NSI Enjoys No Express or Implied Antitrust Immunity

Although NSI has claimed as an affirmative defense that it "was and is acting in accordance with the directives of an agency of the United States government that possessed and continues to possess actual or apparent authority to give such directions to [NSI],"24/ defendant has no plausible immunity or defense to pgMedia’s Section 2 claim. NSI is not expressly immune from antitrust liability, and Congress has not delegated to NSF the power to grant antitrust exemptions. Implied antitrust immunity, strongly disfavored by courts, rests on the predicate of "pervasive regulation" that does not exist here. Finally, under settled U.S. antitrust law, NSF’s purported "directive" to NSI not to add new TLDs is completely immaterial, because the directions of government contracting officials are plainly not sufficient to exculpate a defendant from liability.

    1. There is No Express Antitrust Immunity for NSI’s Conduct

Congress can by statute exempt certain industries or conduct from the reach of the antitrust laws, and has granted express antitrust immunity in some limited circumstances.25/ But NSI makes no claim of express antitrust immunity, and there is nothing in the National Science Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq., or the statutory authority for government contracting, 31 U.S.C. § 6302, that authorizes NSF to accord antitrust immunity to NSI or to any other private party.

    2. NSI Cannot Legitimately Claim Any Implied Antitrust Immunity

In the absence of express congressional immunity, repeals of the antitrust laws by implication are "strongly disfavored, and have only been found in cases of plain repugnancy between the antitrust and regulatory provisions." United States v. Philadelphia Nat’l Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 350-51 (1963). Even where conduct is subject to the prior approval of an agency, such regulatory oversight does not, without more, exempt private parties from antitrust. United States v. RCA, 358 U.S. 334 (1959); California v. FPC, 369U.S. 482 (1962). Only where there is a pervasive regulatory scheme, one that imposes obligations necessarily inconsistent with antitrust, is implied antitrust immunity appropriate. Gordon v. New York Stock Exchange, 422 U.S. 659 (1975); Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341 (1963).

Implied antitrust immunity is found only where there is a "pervasive regulatory scheme," where an antitrust exemption is "necessary to make the [statute] work," and "even then only to the minimum extent necessary." Strobl v. New York Mercantile Exchange, 768 F.2d 22, 26 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1006 (1985). This predicate for a claim of implied immunity is absent in this case because, as both NSF and NSI admit, "NSF does not regulate NSI." NSF Mitchell Dec. ¶ 3; NSI S-1 at 12 (NSI not subject to regulation). NSF is chartered to "foster and support access by the research and education communities to computer networks." 42 U.S.C. § 1862(g). But the agency has no statutory authority to regulate either NSI in specific or the Internet in general. Indeed, Congress has elsewhere declared that it is the "policy of the United States . . . to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services unfettered by Federal or state regulation." 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(2).

The Cooperative Agreement does nothing to shield NSI’s conduct from antitrust liability. First, the plain terms of the contract grant NSI commercial discretion in determining whether and when to add new TLDs to the root server, as the Cooperative Agreement expressly contemplates that while a "user based fee structure" would require "the express direction/approval" of NSF, other "changes in the registration services, [such as] the use of alternate registration/numbering systems or schemes," would not. Supra, pp.6-7. Furthermore, where "NSF does not reserve specific responsibility," the agreement provides that "all such responsibilities" remain with NSI. Id. There is no reservation of "specific responsibility" for NSF to direct, control, approve or restrict expansion of TLDs on the Internet’s root server system.

Second, NSF’s purported 1997 "directive" to NSI under is legally irrelevant. "[G]overnment contracting officers do not have the power to grant immunity from the Sherman Act." Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 378-79 (1973); United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 225-27 (1940)("Though employees of the government may have known of these programs and winked at them or tacitly approved them, no immunity would thereby have been obtained."). Thus, "[i]t is no defense that federal officials know of, approved or induced the challenged conduct when such conduct was not undertaken pursuant to statutory authority." 2 Antitrust Law Developments (Fourth) 1132 (1997)(collecting cases).

The settled nature of this rule cannot be debated. In Otter Tail, one of the leading essential facilities cases decided by the Supreme Court, an electric power company with monopoly control over the facilities necessary to "wheel" electricity was required to provide wheeling access to potential competitors, 410 U.S. at 368, notwithstanding the fact that its contract with a federal agency included restrictions against the practice. Id. at 374-75. And in Socony-Vacuum, the Supreme Court held that a resale price maintenance scheme was unlawful under the antitrust laws even though it was approved by federal officials and was "consistent with the general objectives and ends sought to be obtained" by the agency’s statute. 310 U.S. at 227-28. In the absence at least of statutory power to compel private conduct, the review and even express approval of a federal agency is thus "irrelevant to the legality under the Sherman Act." Id.; Williams Elec. Co. v. Honneywell, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 1225, 1231 (N.D. Fla. 1991)(specific regulations giving federal purchasing officials authority to require contractors to engage in challenged practices).

Although NSF has asserted the power to control the Internet root server (and by implication the power to compel NSI’s private conduct), no such authority is granted by the National Science Act. And although the Cooperative Agreement has been amended six times since it was first executed in 1993, nothing therein provides that NSI must follow NSF’s "directives" with respect to management or administration of the root. Even if that were the case, the facts show that NSF does not in fact control NSI’s administration of the root server. As discussed in detail above, NSI has added more than 10 TLDs since NSF’s purported June 1997 "directive" that NSF "take NO action" with respect to the root, and is currently using these TLDs for commercial purposes while boasting that "alternative domains" are unworkable. Supra, pp.11-12. Thus, NSF’s clarification that its June 1997 "request" to NSI is actually a "directive" is precatory at best. Defendants "cannot avoid liability for their actions because requested by come public official to do so. . . . Only Congress can lift the restrictions which find expression in the Sherman Act." Eugene Dietzgen Corp. v. FTC, 142 F.2d 321, 329 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 730 (1944); Consumers Union v. Rogers, 352 F. Supp. 1319, 1323 (D.D.C. 1973)(President cannot grant antitrust immunity without statutory authority).

Defendants will undoubtedly cite Thomas v. Network Solutions Inc., Civ. No. 97-2413 (TFH) (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 1998), where the district court recently dismissed an antitrust claim against NSI based on what it termed the "federal instrumentality doctrine." Id., slip op. at 31. But the Thomas case involved a challenge to NSI’s monopoly, on the ground of an unlawful conspiracy with NSF, while in this case pgMedia is not challenging NSI’s existing monopoly. More importantly, the Thomas court incorrectly concluded that "[u]nder the federal instrumentality doctrine, private parties acting in compliance with a clearly articulated [federal] government program are immunized to the same extent as the government entity." Id. This is simply not the case.26/ Under the judicially-created "state action doctrine," states can provide antitrust immunity by articulating and actively supervising a policy of displacing market competition with regulation, e.g., Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conf. v. United States, 471 U.S. 48 (1985), but there is no federal analog to the state action doctrine under the antitrust laws. State action immunity is entirely separate from the question of whether "Congress intended to immunize a federal regulatory program from the Sherman Act’s proscriptions." Southern Motor Carriers, 471 U.S. at 57 n.21.

    3. The Government Lacks International Jurisdiction to Restrict the Internet’s Root

As discussed in detail in the declaration of Henry Perritt, there is no international treaty recognizing authority of the United States government over the Internet root server system. International law in fact precludes unilateral United States restrictions on TLDs, because constraints on these "global commons" resources would impair the sovereignty of other nations. Perritt Dec. ¶¶ 20, 41-46. At the same time, however, there is no conflict between international law and antitrust law, because application of the antitrust essential facilities doctrine achieves the result, required by international law, of rejecting a state-sponsored monopoly on TLDs. Id. ¶¶ 21-22, 48-49. Therefore, this Court may permissibly apply settled U.S. antitrust rules to the domestic conduct of a private U.S. company engaged in Internet commerce, fully consistent with international law.

IV. PGMEDIA IS SUBSTANTIALLY LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS OF ITS FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT NSF

If NSI is immune from antitrust liability by reason of defendant NSF’s "directive," then the government’s restriction on Internet TLDs must accord with the First Amendment. The Internet is "a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication" that receives heightened protection under the First Amendment. Reno v. ACLU, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 2334 (1997). By directing NSI not to add pgMedia’s TLDs to the root server, NSF effected a prior restraint on speech in clear violation of settled First Amendment doctrine.

A.

TLDs and Domain Names Are Protected Internet Speech

pgMedia’s new TLDs open the Internet to an unlimited source of personalized, unique second-level domains. These domain names constitute protected expression because they are not merely tools for resolving IP numbers, but convey communicative messages, including political views. Mueller Dec. ¶¶ 10-12. NSI itself asserts a First Amendment right as to domain names. Id. ¶ 10. And this Court has held that domain names are entitled to constitutional protection. Planned Parenthood of America v. Bucci, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338, *35-36 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (constitutional bar to trademark liability for domain name used as "communicative message").

Communicative messages have "an expressive purpose such as commentary, comedy, parody, news reporting or criticism." United We Stand America v. United We Stand, America New York, 128 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1997). The TLDs and second-level domain names registered by pgMedia include core political speech, in such domains as "for.president" and "for.mayor," satirical phrases such as "microsoft.free. zone," and personal expression such as "beyond.hope." Garrin Dec. ¶ 9; see Mueller Dec. ¶ 10. The evident communicative content of these domains must therefore be accorded the highest measure of constitutional protection.

B.

NSF’s Refusal to Add pgMedia’s TLDs to the Root Server Is an Unconstitutional Prior Restraint of Speech

The Supreme Court applies strict First Amendment scrutiny to government actions that effect a prior restraint on speech. Any prior restraint is judicially reviewed with "a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963). The Supreme Court has "tolerated such a system only where it operated under judicial superintendence," id., or where the proposed speech would fundamentally compromise national security, as in war time. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919). NSF cannot claim either of these extraordinary justifications or any other precedent for its actions.27/

Restriction of domain names on the Internet, even if a prior restraint were not involved, cannot meet constitutional scrutiny. Regulation of Internet speech must be supported with a "compelling" governmental interest that is directly advanced by a narrowly tailored regulation. Reno v, ACLU, 117 S. Ct. at 2346. A compelling interest is recognized generally in cases where the state exercises its police power to protect the health and safety of citizens, especially children. Id.; FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 749 (1978). There is no conceivable police power purpose with respect to Internet TLDs. Mueller Dec. ¶¶ 16-17.28/

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant plaintiff’s motion and enter a preliminary injunction precluding defendants NSI and NSF from refusing to deal with pgMedia and from refusing to add pgMedia TLDs to the Internet’s root zone server.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

BLUMENFELD & COHEN

   
Of Counsel: By:__________________________
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON Gary M. Cohen (GC-1145)
& GARRISON Glenn B. Manishin (GM-5135)

Daniel J. Leffell (DL-6803)

1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 700

1285 Avenue of the Americas Washington, D.C. 20036
New York, New York 10019 202-955-6300 (ph)
212-373-3000 (ph) 202-955-6460 (fax)
212-373-2628 (fax)  
 

Attorneys for Plaintiff pgMedia, Inc.

 

 

Dated: May 14, 1998


FOOTNOTES

1/ As discussed in the Statement of Facts, TLDs are the letters to the right of the "dot" in an Internet address. See generally H. Perritt, Law and the Information Superhighway §§ 2.26A, 2.30 (Cum. Supp. 1998).

2/ "The ‘Internet’ is a general term for the modern development of communications among the nationwide and indeed worldwide network of computers. ‘The Internet is not a physical or tangible entity, but rather a giant network which connects innumerable smaller networks of linked computer networks. It is thus a network of networks.’" SF Hotel Co. v. Energy Investments, Inc., No. 97-1306, 1997 WL 79498 at *3 (D. Kans. Nov. 19, 1997) (quoting ACLU v, Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 830 (E.D. Pa. 1996), aff’d, 117 S. Ct. 2329 (1997)).

3/ Citations in this memorandum to plaintiff’s supporting declarations will use the convention [Declarant Name] Dec. ¶ __, such as "Garrin Dec. ¶ 3."

4/ See K. Werbach, Digital Tornado: The Internet and Telecommunications Policy, Office of Plans and Policy Working Paper No. 29, Federal Communications Commission, at 18-19 (March 1997) ("Digital Tornado"). "The ‘Web" or ‘World Wide Web’ refers to the collection of sites available on the Internet." Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1121 (W.D. Pa. 1997).

5/ Network Solutions, Inc., "Secure Internet Administration and Competition in Domain Naming Services," at 9 (April 11, 1997)("NSI White Paper"). See Manishin Dec. Exh. 1. In technical terms, the root name server makes available a file, which identifies each TLD with a corresponding name server, that other name servers use to locate the information necessary to convert any domain name into the corresponding IP number.

6/ The root server actually operates as the top of a hierarchy of numerous "zone" root servers in different regions of the globe. NSI controls the primary root server (known as the "A" root server) and "populates" each of the "zone" servers with all TLD references on a daily basis. Garrin. Dec. ¶ 7.

7/ Declaration of Gabriel Battista, Chief Executive Officer, Network Solutions, Inc., at ¶ 3, Thomas, et al. v. Network Solutions, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 97-2412 (D.D.C filed Oct. 16, 1997)("NSI Battista Dec."). See Manishin Dec. Exh. 2. Defendant NSF admits that "the root zone files are maintained exclusively by NSI," but without explanation denies that NSI "was given exclusive control of the root name servers and the root zone file." NSF Answer to Second Amended Complaint ¶ 18. In contrast, the chair of the Clinton Administration’s electronic commerce working group testified to Congress that "[i]n order to obtain a level playing field, [the U.S. government] will seek agreement that NSI will . . . [t]urn over control of the ‘A’ root server." Written Statement of Ira C. Magaziner before the Subcommittee on Basic Research, House Science Committee (March 31, 1998) (emphasis supplied). See Manishin Dec. Exh. 3.

8/ Declaration of Donald Mitchell, Division Staff Associate, Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate, National Science Foundation, at ¶ 3, Thomas, et al. v. Network Solutions, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 97-2412 (D.D.C filed Oct. 16, 1997)("NSF Mitchell Dec."). See Manishin Dec. Exhibit 4.

9/ 1996 Securities Exchange Commission Form S-1 Filings of Network Solutions Inc., Registration No. 333-30705, Amendment No. 5, at 12 (emphasis supplied)("NSI S-1"). See Manishin Dec. Exhibit 5.

10/ Reno v. ACLU, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 2336 (1997)("[n]o single entity -- academic, corporate, governmental or non-profit -- administers the Internet"); Digital Tornado at 20 ("There is no entity or organization that governs the Internet.").

11/ "Possible future changes in the registration services provided under this Agreement may include, but shall not be limited to, the use of alternate registration/numbering systems or schemes and the imposition of a user based fee structure. However, in no case shall any user based fee structure be imposed or changed without the express direction/approval of the NSF Program Official." Cooperative Agreement at § I, Art. 3.G (emphasis supplied).

12/ The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority <http://www.isi.edu/fiv7/iana/>, operated by the University of Southern California, is responsible for allocation of IP numbers used on the Internet, i.e., "the assignment of unique parameter values for Internet protocols." RFC1700 <http://ds.internic.net/ rfc/rfc1700.txt>. "[A]s all Internet insiders know, IANA is a small group of people. . . [and] IANA policy is essentially defined by John Postel, one of the Internet’s great pioneers." R. Shaw, "Internet Domain Names: Whose Domain Is This?," in Coordinating the Internet 107, 116 (B. Kahin. & J. Keller eds. 1997).

13/ Network Solutions, Inc., Response to the Department of Commerce Notice of Inquiry on Internet Administration, at 15 (Aug. 18, 1997) ("NSI 1997 DNS Comments"). See Manishin Dec. Exh. 6. John Postel, who operates IANA, agreed in comments that "[t]here are no technical problems with increasing the number of gTLDs, the scalability of the DNS system in technical terms is not an issue." Comments of John Postel, ISI/IANA <http://www.wia.org/pub/postel-dnsnoi-comments.html>.

14/ Comments of Network Solutions, Inc., Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses, at 1 (March 23, 1998) ("NSI 1998 DNS Comments"). See Manishin Dec. Exh. 7.

15/ NSI 1997 DNS Comments, at 15.

16/ After a July 1, 1997 status conference, NSI again wrote to NSF, asking whether the June 25 correspondence was intended to be a "directive" or merely a "request." NSI July 10, 1997 Letter, at 1 (Manishin Dec. Exh. 14). NSF responded on August 11, 1997 that it considered its June 25 correspondence to be a directive. NSF August 11, 1997 Letter, at 1 (Manishin Dec. Ex. 15). Subsequently, plaintiff pgMedia amended its Complaint to join NSF as a party defendant and to add a claim for relief arising under the First Amendment. On October 2, 1997, NSF opined that "Network Solutions, Inc. -- as administer of the root zone -- is not authorized to take direction from any entity other than the National Science Foundation with regard to the functions that Network Solutions, Inc. performs under the cooperative agreement." See Manishin Dec. Exh. 16, at 2.

17/ National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Notice of Inquiry, Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names, Docket No. 9070613137-7137-01 <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dn5notic.htm>. NTIA is an agency of the Commerce Department.

18/ National Telecommunications & Information Administration, Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule, Docket No. 980212035-8036-01, 63 Fed. Reg. 8825 (Feb. 20, 1998)("Green Paper").

19/ NSI appears to agree that the role of the government with regard to TLDs and the root zone server has no formal, codified basis in United States law. "NSI received written instruction from NSF on October 2, 1997 to accept direction only from the NSF under the Cooperative Agreement relative to management of the ‘A’ root server. Some operators of other root servers do not acknowledge the NSF’s authority. NSI recommends that the U.S. government publicly assert its authority over the root zone system in the final version of the Green Paper." NSI 1998 DNS Comments, at 3 (emphasis supplied).

20/ NSI admits that the addition of new TLDs to the root server "could result in significant competition for domain name registrations, including competition on the price charged by the Company for domain name registrations." NSI S-1, at 11.

21/ NSI announced recently that it would seek to "maintain [its] position as [a] global leader for registration services" by "growth through partnering." D. Telage, President NSI, "The New Commercial Internet: Where do we go from here?" (March 1998). Manishin Dec. Exh. 16, at 3. One of these initiatives is NSI’s "Premier Gold Partners" program, under which its domain name partners "receive customized support from dedicated account managers [and] customized reports that enhance their back-office support functions." Manishin Dec. Exh. 17.

22/ Harm to the public is also a component of irreparability. Long Island R.R. v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists et. al., 874 F.2d 901 (2nd Cir. 1989). NSI’s denial harms the public interest by unjustifiably limiting choices for TLDs and by creating an unnecessary scarcity in the market for domain names. As a result, consumers are faced with few or no competitive alternatives, high prices, and an absence of incentive for innovation and improved service quality. Garrin Dec. ¶ 15. Except for the minor inconvenience of adding making a "text edit" to the root zone file -- something that can be accomplished with a simple "cut and paste" computer command -- NSI will in no way be harmed by the grant of preliminary relief. See Jacobson & Co. v. Armstrong Cork Co., 548 F.2d 438, 444-45 (2d Cir. 1977)(harm to plaintiff’s good will and customer base outweighs inconvenience to defendant). Accordingly, pgMedia plainly has established "serious questions" going to the merits and a "balance of hardships" tipping decidedly in its favor.

23/ The essential facilities doctrine, an exception to the typical antitrust rule that even monopolists may unilaterally refuse to deal with competitors, United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919), is designed to prevent a monopolist from using its market power to "eliminate competition in the downstream market." Alaska Airlines v. United Airlines, 948 F.2d 536, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 977 (1992). It was applied by the Court in the Intel case to deny the dominant source of personal computer "chips" the power "to wield absolute power over who will and who will not be allowed to participate" in a segment of the high-end computer industry. Intel Corp., 1998 WL 180606 *3.

24/ Defendant NSI’s Answer to Second Amended Complaint, Sixth Affirmative Defense, at 9.

25/ See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 17 (exempting agricultural organizations); 15 U.S.C. §§ 631 et seq. (limited exemption for certain collective activities engaged in by small businesses); Charitable Gift Annuity Antitrust Relief Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-63, 109 Stat. 687 (1995)(immunizing agreements among tax-exempt entities to fix prices on charitable gift annuities).

26/ The Court in Thomas was apparently led astray by an earlier decision, issued by District Judge Stanley Sporkin, that misread Southern Motor Carriers and coined the phrase "federal instrumentality doctrine," terminology never articulated or applied by the Supreme Court. Thomas, slip op. at 31 (citing IT&E Overseas, Inc. v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., 747 F. Supp. 6, 11-14 (D.D.C. 1990)).

27/ See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 713 (1931)(accusing public officials of crimes); Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971)(accusing private parties of racism); New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)(publishing stolen national security documents), where in each case the prior restraint was unconstitutional.

28/ Even if pgMedia’s TLDs are "commercial speech," NSF’s prohibition is still constitutionally infirm. pgMedia’s TLDs and second-level domain names are neither unlawful nor misleading. NSF cannot demonstrate any legitimate governmental interest in restricting new TLDs, certainly not the "substantial" interest required to justify prohibiting all commercial speech by means of any alternative domains. Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).