A highly complex organization subject to multiple points of access and pressure, the U.S. government acted, or rather reacted, as an intermediary for diverse and often conflicting interests. Because the constituencies to which it responded were deeply divided, its main objective was to get rid of the problem without creating serious political liabilities or yielding too much control to foreign interests.

A profit-making firm controlling 70 percent of the global market for domain name registration, it wanted to establish a stable property right over its generic top-level domains or, barring that, to prolong its special market position as long as possible.

Encompasses the original ARPANET elite, the IANA, the Internet Architecture Board, and other leading hierarchs of the IETF, and the founders and staff of RIPE-NCC and AP-NIC. The technical community wanted to maintain its historical control over the Internet's name and address spaces. It also developed an economic interest in DNS management as a source of support for its activities. Overlaps with (4) and (6).

Administrators and engineers of government-subsidized research and education networks. Organized nationally around organizations like EDUCAUSE in the United States or science and technology and education ministries outside the United States. Overlaps with the technical community through the Internet Society and the National Science Foundation, and had a similar interest in maintaining the status quo in administrative control of the Internet.

Major trademark holders opposed expansion of the name space and demanded more effective and inexpensive ways to monitor domain name assignments and enforce their claims of exclusive rights over specific names . Representative groups were INTA, FICPI, MPAA, AIM, and WIPO.

Organized around GIP, ITAA, WITSA, and the International Chamber of Commerce, these companies were primarily interested in fostering stable, predictable administration of the Internet while retaining private sector control. Many were also major trademark holders and placed high priority on theintellectual property protection agenda. Included IBM, MCI, AT&T, AOL, France Telecom, and Deutsche Telekom.

Businesses seeking entry into the domain name market. This grouping was split into two distinct and opposing stakeholders: CORE registrars -smaller, mostly non-U.S. businesses seeking entry into the commercial market for .com, .net, and .org registrations as registrars and as co- owners of a global, shared registry. Allied with the Internet Society and against Network Solutions; claimants to new TLD strings- small entrepreneurs and maverick technical people who created their own top-level domains and registries, and attempted to support them in non-IANA root server confederations. Both groups wanted competitive entry into the market, but promoted different ideological and policy agendas .

Smaller-scale ISPs and their trade associations, including CIX and ISP/C in the United States, Euro-ISPA, APIA. As consumers of IP addresses lower on the chain than the larger infrastructure providers in (6), this group had an interest in a stable, accountable assignment authority and was concerned with getting a seat at the table for its constituents.

A highly diverse group encompassing large-scale, private sector nonprofit consortiums in Germany and England, quasi-commercial TLDs in island territories , and registries run by government science and technology ministries. All held de facto property rights to TLD strings and had incentives similar to Network Solutions', except that there was no hostility or rivalry between them and the technical community. Included Domainz (NZ), CENTR, APTLD, IATLD.

Organized public interest groups saw in the domain name wars threats to freedom of expression and a dangerous expansion of intellectual property rights. Included DNRC, EFF, CPSR, ACM, ACLU.

ITU and WIPO responded to organizational imperatives to incorporate Internet governance functions into their mission. The European Commission and a few key national governments, notably France and Australia, similarly wanted to secure for themselves a seat at the decision-making table, but were also concerned with countering U.S. economic and political dominance of the Internet, and with asserting rights over specific names and registries.