1. The World Wide Web refers to hypertext files and other documents accessible over the Internet using specialized software and communications protocols.

2. NSI operates the registration services functions of the InterNIC, or Internet Network Information Center. Registration services for domain names in the "two-letter" top-level domains -- i.e., country-specific domains -- are not performed by NSI nor at issue in this case.

3. Plaintiff asserts violations of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Her due process claim is based upon Defendant's ties to the federal government, however, and therefore the Fifth Amendment alone is applicable.

4. The complaint was sent to NSI by Alan Goldman, system administrator for Glenlacher Computer Services Corporation. Goldman's declaration is set forth in Appendix C following this Opinion.

5. "Hold" status means that the domain name is unavailable for use or registration by any party.

6. Jon Postel, Domain Name System and Delegation, Network Working Group Request for Comments no. 1591, Mar. 1994.

7. The only provision in RFC 1591 regarding domain name disputes is the following:

In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the rights to a particular name, the registration authority shall have no role or responsibility other than to provide the contact information to both parties.

The registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark status. It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating anyone else's Trademark.

Id. at 6.

8. To date nearly 2,000 RFCs have been published; of these, less than 30 have been formally designated as "Internet Standards." None of the RFCs mentioned in this Opinion has been formally designated an Internet Standard.

9. RFC 1032 states that "the administrator of a domain is responsible for the actions of hosts within his domain." M. Stahl, Domain Administrators Guide, Network Working Group Request for Comments no. 1032, Nov. 1987, at 3. As administrator of the ".com" top-level domain, NSI has a legitimate interest in policing the conduct of hosts registered therein.

10. Sally Hambridge, Netiquette Guidelines, Network Working Group Request for Comments no. 1855, Oct. 1995, at 5. The opening paragraphs of RFC 1855 state as follows:

Status of This Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document provides a minimum set of guidelines for Network Etiquette (Netiquette) which organizations may take and adapt for their own use. As such, it is deliberately written in a bulleted format to make adaptation easier and to make any particular item easy (or easier) to find. It also functions as a minimum set of guidelines for individuals, both users and administrators. This memo is the product of the Responsible User of the Network (RUN) Working Group of the IETF.

Id. at 1.

11. Id. at 5.

12. The Cooperative Agreement was awarded pursuant to the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, 31 U.S.C.  6305 (1994).

13. NSF continues to pay NSI fees for domain name registrations in the ".edu" and ".gov" top-level domains.

14. NSF Cooperative Agreement No. NCR-9218742, amend. 4 (Sept. 13, 1995).

15. Mike St. Johns, FNC's Role in the DNS Issue, Paper Presented at the Harvard University DNS Workshop (Nov. 20, 1995).

16. Also somewhat questionable in this case is whether the Plaintiff had any property interest at stake. Domain names have been bought and sold as if they were property, and one reason NSI began charging annual registration fees was to deter speculation in domain names. Plaintiff introduced evidence that the Internal Revenue Service has auctioned off domain names, and that NSI has transferred domain registrations in accordance with the results of such auctions. The Registration Agreement, however, clearly states that registration confers no rights to a particular domain name. In any event, we need not reach this issue because we find no governmental action.

17. Plaintiff urges this Court to evaluate NSI's parent company, defense contractor Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), in determining whether NSI is a governmental actor. SAIC purchased NSI in March 1995. Plaintiff presented evidence that 85% of SAIC's business is derived from contracts with the U.S. government, and that its board consists primarily of former U.S. intelligence and defense officials. Among other projects, SAIC runs the FBI's Interstate Identification Index and manages tax data for the IRS. We do not find these facts relevant in determining whether NSI's conduct in maintaining Internet registration services constitutes governmental action.