The issue of securing domain names on the Internet has been a hot topic of debate and controversy over the past two weeks. Domain names are the unique addresses given to site creators on the Internet so there is no conflict on the network.

These unique names usually end in ".com''(commercial), ".org''(organisation), ".edu'' (education), ".net'' (Internet service provider) among others, or with an acronym signifying a country. For example you can get a `.bm' ending for Bermuda if you register your site address through The Bermuda College.

There were very few problems, other than the giant one of copyright, until the Internet grew in popularity. Now the world is concerned addresses under the current registration system are going to run out.

The US, European countries and private individuals are all in the tizzy over what at first seems like an arcane topic. Why should you care? First you should care if you're a company: especially a large company. Who controls the domain name game could potentially drive your company trademark name off the Internet. You could be lost in cyberspace if you can't be easily found.

Secondly, you pay for domain name registration and maintenance. Competition could drive down the price and open up better service. Lastly the spirit of the Internet is the freedom to roam and call yourself what you want. People are afraid that once an international registration body is set up, the organisation would in effect become the Big Brother of the Internet.

Last week the Clinton administration released a plan under which the US Government would phase out its involvement in the running the Internet's naming and address system.

The plan would turn management of the system over to the private sector, and also ease the shortage problem of names by creating five new top-level domain names.

Currently the monopoly for registering the most coveted Internet addresses ending in ".com'', ".org'' and ".net'' is held by Network Solutions Inc., a Virginia company which has engendered a lot of criticism for the way it guards against other companies from creating new names.

Network Solutions exclusive contract to register new names expires this year.

The White House plan would allow the company to maintain control of the domain database but allow competitors to add new names.

Network Solutions is a publicly traded company.

Under the plan a non-profit corporation, run by Internet organisations and users from around the world, but based in the US, would take over management of the numerical address system underlying the naming system.

However others complain the plan would basically keep control of the world's cyberspace naming system in the US.

The Council of Registrars (CORE) (at www.domaindirect.com) has stuck its foot in the door by claiming the proposed process would be dominated by US interests. CORE's self-interest is that it wants to be the organisation which runs the naming system.

Then there is the rogue International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) which has been attempting to create its own domain name system in Geneva. One of IAHC's proposals was to create the top-level domain of ".firm''. Those in the US believe such a domain would jeopardise US companies' trademark rights.

Amusingly CORE is a faction of IAHC. Into the fray steps The European Commission which is taking a broader view of the issue. The Commission is set to adopt a proposal today which would call for global cooperation in settling sticky legal and technical issues like domain names.

The European Union would then formally propose an international communications charter to be drawn up by the end of 1999 which in general would deal with jurisdictional issues ranging from data protection and copyright to taxation and pornography.

Of course the pundits have weighed in by claiming this proposal could also lead to another layer of bureaucracy and government control of the Internet.

The Commission says it just wants international co-operation and not a supervisory body. International co-operation is needed to decide which country has jurisdiction if a lawsuit is filed against a company for putting misleading information on the Internet. Co-operation is also needed to resolve the conflict of two companies with the same name in different countries trying to sell over the Internet using the same name.

Perhaps the fear of a supervisory body for the Internet is preventing a solution to the problems arising on the network. The White House proposal smacks of an imposition on the rest of the world and only deals with part of a larger issue. The European one seems to be on the right path but is so amorphous that it could take years to find a solution.

Some sort of supervisory body is needed to resolve these issues which can only become more problematic the longer they're allowed to fester. There are too many self-interested parties putting out propaganda right now. A supervisory body with the broadest range of membership seems to be the right way to get some sort of consensus going.

The salad days of the Internet are over. A worldwide supervisory body is not too radical a solution for the mature phase.

Tech Tattle is a weekly column which focuses on technological developments and computer industry issues. Please call Ahmed at 295-5881 ext. 241 or 238-3854 if you have any ideas for topics.