From: Bill Forsyth <bforsyth@mindspring.com>
To: Karen Rose <usdomain@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 8/8/98 5:14pm
Subject: Universal email addresses
Keep the government out of the email
allocation and registration business.
We're all doing fine without you.
-Bill Forsyth
###
From: "Joey Coyle M.D. (Ph.D. candidate)" <cojcoyle@pop3.ihc.com>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 3:45am
Subject: Most Important
Make SPAM illegal to the .us domain, otherwise it will fail. If you do
this, I will switch today.
thank you,
Tired of 20 spams a day
Joey Coyle
###
From: Ed Heraux <edh@mail.ggg.net>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 2:52pm
Subject: Thumbs-down on the Postal Service's proposal
Ms. Rose-
Although I, too, look forward to the day when electronic access to the
Internet is universal, I strongly oppose the government or any government
institution placing itself at the forefront of making this goal a reality.
The long-term goal of the government having the ability to send bills,
bulletins, etc to any and every individual electronically just expands each
individual's responsibility to his/her e-mail. Presently no one is
responsible for the contents of their e-mailbox to any extent that they
have not brought upon themselves. I *choose* to do some of my banking
online. I *choose* to do some of my business over the Internet and keep in
touch with clients and contacts through e-mail. I am currently free to cut
either of those channels off at will. If the government provides me with an
e-mail account, it can be expected to send me both important and
potentially unimportant e-mail. Individuals need the ability (actually, the
_right_) to accept and reject e-mail "buddies" who have access to them. I
would rather not let the government into my life any further than it
already is (through phone lines and regular mail), much less give it yet
another way of keeping track of me. My postal address is enough.
I do applaud President Clinton's ability to compromise, both promoting
universal Internet access while not csmiting the USPS, especially in light
of its growing loss of business because of electronic correspondence's
growth in recent years. However, these proposed actions would expand the
territory in which individuals would have to defend their rights to privacy
and free speech. Individuals must _always_ be given the choice of whether
to participate in additional forms of communication. Please do your best to
block this recent proposal to the Commerce Department.
Thank you,
-Edward Heraux, taxpayer
###
From: "Justin Mahn" <gabrill@mail.tcac.net>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 9:26am
Subject: Request for Comments on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space
1.. How should the present geographic structure of .us be extended or
modified? What changes should be made in RFC 1480 or the posted policies for
.us?
a.. It would make sense to me to expand the current zip code plus
four system. My zip code plus four already indicates my national, state,
and approxamate street location. You could add another three or four digits
to that to get my exact physical location to get a unique e-mail address to
coincide with my unique physical address.
b.. It would also make sense to sponsor a government translation
engine designed to translate the two address together. ie "Justin Gabriel
Mahn, 2433 Brophy Ave #1, Fayetteville, AR 72703-3405 =
justinmahn@2433-1.72703-3405.us".
2.. What are the benefits and costs of different options for allocating
second-level domains under .us? How should the allocation of such
second-level domains be decided and administered? What should be the terms
of delegation?
a.. Benefits would be drastically reduce paper and thereby tree
usage from mail. Costs would include government security on mail and
figuring out how to use such mail as legal documents. That would be tricky
as keeping a master record of all such documents would be seen as big
brother, while any other way to submit electronic documents could be easily
duplicated.
3.. Specifically, should special-purpose second-level domains be created
under .us? What are the benefits and costs of creating particular
special-purpose domains (e.g., industry-specific, credentialing, zoning)?
How should such domains be created and administered? Are there reasons to
map names and other addressing and identification systems (e.g., postal
addresses, telephone numbers, longitude and latitude, uniform resource
numbers or others) into .us?
I do believe that such an infrastructure will eventually be created,
barring world catatrophe, and the sooner we get a jump on it, the faster we
will master the specifics. And yes I do believe that the .us domain is
property of the government and should be used to the government's best
interest, that being the best constitutionally allowed service to the
people. That would put this proposal under the domain of the US Post office
and the FCC?
Specific company domains to indicate content like the adult site
porncompany.adult.us sounds like a great idea to me.
4.. Alternatively, should .us be treated as an unrestricted top-level
domain like .com or should one or more specific second-level domains such as
.co.us or .com.us be used for unrestricted assignment of domain names (as in
.com)? How should such unrestricted domains be administered and by whom?
I believe that domain names for companies should be tied into the
copyright and trademark laws. Variations of a name would be acceptible but
only the company that registers it's company name and domain name equivalent
should have rights to use that specific spelling.
5.. How should conflicting proposals and claims to manage or use .us
subdomains be resolved? Who should have responsibility for coordinating
policy for .us over the long term? What public oversight, if any, should be
provided?
As in the last question, company names, already registered and unique
within their geographic scope, should be tied to domain names, and every
registered domain name should fall under the geographic suffixes that bound
its legal liability. ie pornsite.adult.us or pornsite.adult.ar.us if the
company is not licensed to practice busisness beyond the borders of the
resident state.
6.. What rules and procedures should be used to minimize conflicts
between trademarks and domain names under .us? Should this problem be
treated differently at international, national, state, and local levels?
Should special privileges be accorded to famous trademarks, such as a right
to register directly under .us or a procedure to preempt the use of the
trademark in a range of subdomains?
7.. What role should states play in the allocation and registration of
their respective subdomains? Should commercial names be permitted under
states as third-level domains? Or should such third-level domains be limited
to special categories such as domestic corporations or other state-licensed
entities? Should states and localities operate registries and accept
registrations directly? To what extent should state policies be coordinated
and through what mechanisms and procedures?
States should be allowed to come up with their own systems for
allocating resources, as they have always done.
8.. How well has the system of delegating third-level domains
(localities) to private registrars on an exclusive basis worked? How could
it be improved? Should registrars be accountable to their delegated
localities (just as country-code registries are accountable to national
governments)? Should registrars be limited to a single jurisdiction? Should
multiple competing registrars be able to register under any local, state, or
special-purpose domain under .us as in the plan proposed for generic
Top-Level Domains?
This question is beyond me.
9.. How should the operation of the .us registry be supported? Should
uniform registration (and renewal) fees be instituted? Should registrars
contribute to the operation of the registry?
Since I propose that the .us registry be combined with the Post Office,
FCC, and trade commissions, I also propose that the funding come from all
these sources in proportions equal to their usage of the system.
10.. What are best management and allocation practices for country-code
domains? What practices should be emulated or avoided?
Also beyond me.
11.. By what type of entity should .us be administered? Private,
governmental, or quasi-governmental? For profit or not-for-profit? What are
the advantages and disadvantages of using one type of entity (private,
public, for profit, not-for-profit) over the others?
I think this would fall under either governmental or quasi-governmental
for regulation purposes.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to me.
Justin Mahn
###
From: "Gilbert Whitehead" <gibw@servcom.com>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 2:39pm
Subject: E-mail proposal.
My, God, I surely do not look forward to having my computer loaded with a
large daily load of incoming e-mail! I, and, many others like to keep our
addresses semi-private and under our control and not passed out at random.
###
From: Gordon McCraw <gwmc@earthlink.net>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 1:03pm
Subject: .us
1) It should not. No changes are required.
2) Since the Commerce Department is trying to get involved, the costs
will be exhorbitant and unjustifiable. Leave USC alone and let them do
what they've been doing.
3) See #2. No, there is no justification for mapping names and other
identification systems into .us. This is just another invasion of
privacy on the part of Big Brother.
4) These domains should remain unrestricted and administered as they are
now. There is no justification for governmental intrusion into a process
which works quite adequately.
5) Conflict resolution is already built into the mechanisms involved.
There is no justification for "public oversight" (e.g. B. Brother).
6) God, save us from attorneys....
7) There is no justfication for Federal involvement to the extent
implied. Certainly, there is no justification for state involvement.
Should the Internet be reduced to a gaggle of squabbling 3rd world
provincialities?
8) Again. Save us, Lord, from attorneys...
So much for "specific" responses. This whole thing constitutes nothing
more than mental masturbation in anticipation of increasing governmental
control over the Internet. I think our govenment needs to focus more on
basic services than such intrusions into our privacy. The Postal Service
already knows how to find me. Anyone who wants to can find me on the
Internet. Anyone can have an email address; it only requires minimal
effort. So, please don't try and spoon feed the American public. Those
who are sufficiently motivated will become computer literate. For those
who don't care, there's no reason to be establishing mechanisms for
hardcopy relay of the email that fails to interest them in the first
place.
###
From: Jim Grace <hgrace@juno.com>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 1:05pm
Subject: E-mail Addressing by the Post Office
Dear Federal Creator:
I can't believe the arrogance and stupidity of the Federal
Government's attempt to take over every aspect of one's individual life.
reference Docket No. 9802120368172-03
Enchancement of the . us Domain Space
(exactly as it appears on your website)
E-mail addresses for all citizens is appalling and would create
the largest congestion of junk mail ever thought possible, yet never
imagined.
Why should I as a business person ever send another piece of junk
mail through the Post Office if I can simply E-mail.
Next up a chip in every persons ear as a form of identification.
Get a life and leave E-mail alone!!!!!!!!!!!
QUIT PANDERING TO BUSINESS AND DO SOMETHING FOR THE CITIZENS OF
THIS COUNTRY.
IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO BUT ASSIGN E-MAIL ADDRESSES TO EVERY
CITIZEN THEN YOU SHOULD RESIGN YOUR POSITION, YOU'RE
STEALING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim Grace
###
From: "Jack Beglinger" <jackb@magicnet.net>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 8:39pm
Subject: Request for Comments on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space
My comments are short.
1) This is a small step in the right direction. It nice to see that
United States is finally willing to be a worldwide team player.
2) .com should be turned over to the United Nations, and they should
administrate that resource in line with International Copyright and
Trade Mark Laws/Treaties. This will allow International Companies a
single stop to get the domain names they need. Similarly .gov and .org
should be UN based, i.e. International.
3) .com.us, .gov.us, .org.us, and .net should be created and current
United States based .com, .gov, .org, and .net be moved there. All
others should be move to their counties' 'dot' names. The new
.com.us, should be administrated by US government department
responsible for Trade Marks and Copyrights. Since the only companies
with the US trademarks, like Coke-Cola, should be in this space.
4) .com.fl.us, .com.ca.us, etc should be created and handled by each
state, again only allocating names to registered corporations.
5) Lastly, aligning postal codes, telephone numbers and .us would be
great help. First it will help stop scams were the victims are told
to call a 1-809 number to find out that it offshore. Second it free
up value phone numbers by making small geographical locations. An
idea in this line of thought would be use the 5 digit zip code and
'us'. An example: .32837.us be 'dot' address, US-32837 postal zip
address and 1-32837-xxx-xxxx be the phone number.
Thank you for reading
Jack Beglinger
3351 Timucua Cir
Orlando, FL US-32837
###
From: John Benevelli <jaben56@earthlink.net>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 8:28am
Subject: Enhancement of the .us Domain Space
I do not believe the US postal service should not get involved in
electronic mail. This should be left free to the citizens. As with all
government operated entities there will be a charge down the line.and an
ever increasing one e.g. mail service
###
From: john <john@unt.edu>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 1:25pm
Subject: Comments on national email address
I am against such a plan; if implemented, I believe electronic junk mail
(spam) will be much more prevalent than it is today. I have a firm stance
against electronic junk mail. In an area where I receive several hundred
mail a day, every junk mail takes time that I do not have. The other
electronic mail is usually work related. Forcing another address and making
it national then enabling companies to use it as they will is lunacy.
----------------------------------------------
John Booth
Computer Support Specialist
Arts & Sciences Computing Services
University of North Texas
phone: (940)565-4498, campus extension 4498
Internet: john@unt.edu
GroupWise: cas.po7.john
###
From: Don Justice <justiced@chesapeake.net>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 1:19pm
Subject: Questions for Public Comment
Questions for Public Comment
While the public is free to comment on any issue related to the .us
domain space, the Department is particularly interested in receiving
input from the questions provided below:
1.How should the present geographic structure of .us be extended or
modified? What changes should be made in RFC 1480 or the posted policies
for .us?
Ans: No expertiese in this area.
2.What are the benefits and costs of different options for allocating
second-level domains under .us? How should the allocation of such
second-level domains be decided and administered?
What should be the terms of delegation?
Ans: Administration should be vested with the USPS.
3.Specifically, should special-purpose second-level domains be
created under .us? What are the benefits and costs of creating
particular special-purpose domains (e.g., industry-specific,
credentialing, zoning)? How should such domains be created and
administered? Are there reasons to map names and other addressing and
identification systems (e.g., postal addresses, telephone numbers,
longitude and latitude, uniform resource numbers or others) into .us?
Ans: It seems logical that the second-level domain shoud be the
existing zip code of the addressee, since this infrastructure is already
in place. Then the individual address would become the existing USPS
address, i.e. (in my personal case)
Donald.Justice.1168WhiteSandsDr@20657.us
4.Alternatively, should .us be treated as an unrestricted top-level
domain like .com or should one or more specific second-level domains
such as .co.us or .com.us be used for unrestricted assignment of domain
names (as in .com)? How should such unrestricted domains be administered
and by whom?
Ans: Same as the answer to 3.
5.How should conflicting proposals and claims to manage or use .us
subdomains be resolved?
Who should have responsibility for coordinating policy for .us over
the long term? What public oversight, if any, should be provided?
Ans: All administration and oversight should rest with the USPS, as it
now does for regular mailing addresses.
6.What rules and procedures should be used to minimize conflicts
between trademarks and domain names under .us? Should this problem be
treated differently at international, national, state, and local levels?
Should special privileges be accorded to famous trademarks, such as a
right to register directly under .us or a procedure to preempt the use
of the trademark in a range of subdomains?
Ans: These issues are not a factor if the .us domain is used exclusively
for USPS addressing.
7.What role should states play in the allocation and registration of
their respective subdomains?
Should commercial names be permitted under states as third-level
domains? Or should such third-level domains be limited to special
categories such as domestic corporations or other state-licensed
entities? Should states and localities operate registries and accept
registrations directly? To what extent should state policies be
coordinated and through what mechanisms and procedures?
Ans: The several states should not be involved. This should be an
exclusive pervue of the USPS as mailing addresses are at the present
time.
8.How well has the system of delegating third-level domains
(localities) to private registrars on an exclusive basis worked? How
could it be improved? Should registrars be accountable to their
delegated localities (just as country-code registries are accountable to
national governments)? Should registrars be limited to a single
jurisdiction? Should multiple competing registrars be able to register
under any local, state, or special-purpose domain under .us as in the
plan proposed for generic Top-Level Domains?
Ans: The sole registrar should be the USPS
9.How should the operation of the .us registry be supported? Should
uniform registration (and renewal) fees be instituted? Should registrars
contribute to the operation of the registry?
Ans: The .us registry should be supported exactly as the USPS is
presently supported. User fees for mailing via this medium should be
paid by the sender, with a fee structure similar to the existing USPS
fee structure.
10.What are best management and allocation practices for country-code
domains? What
practices should be emulated or avoided?
Ans: The same management and allocation practices that exist for regular
postal service at the present time.
11.By what type of entity should .us be administered? Private,
governmental, or
quasi-governmental? For profit or not-for-profit? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of using one type of entity (private,
public, for profit, not-for-profit) over the others?
Ans: The same quasi-governmental organization that presently exists,
namely the USPS. There is no need to "reinvent the wheel" nor to add a
mail management infrastructure in addition to the one that the USA has
at the present time.....
Donald B. Justice, 1168 White Sands Drive, Lusby, MD 20657-2016
###
From: "Bill Halterman" <rhitman@northlink.com>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 11:22pm
Subject: The government should not become involved in the process of electronic mail addresses, except to reg
The government should not become involved in the process of electronic mail addresses, except to regulate the process. Many people will never access email, and I would trust a governmental mail box less than my current ones.
Bill Halterman
###
From: "Shervin Pishevar" <SPishevar@CivicSource.org>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 11:37pm
Subject: People can get bills from existing email
People can get free email already and get their bills at those addresses. Why increase the cost of government by trying to administer this? Just focus on increasing citizen's access to the internet and increasing security so that bills can be sent and payed thru email. Do R&D but please leave this to the private domain.
###
From: <STU6828@aol.com>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 10:47pm
Subject: US DOMAIN
I AM OPPOSED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES INCLUDING THE
NTIA AND OR THE US POSTAL SERVICE USING THE us domain FOR PRIVATE OR
PERSONAL E-MAIL ADDRESSES. TO MY WAY OF THINKING THIS REPRESENTS JUST
ANOTHER GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO THE PRIVATE LIVES OF THE CITIZENS.
FURTHERMORE, JUST BECAUSE A DOMAIN ISNT BEING FULLY UTILIZED IS NOT AN EXCUSE
TO USE IT. OTHER MEANS CAN BE FOUND TO RELIEVE ANY CONGESTION OR PROBLEMS
WITH THE CURRENT SITUATION.
###
From: Suzanne <Suzanne@kickassdesign.com>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 8:36pm
Subject: Postal Service sponsored spam?
According to this description of the government's proposal to enhance the
.us domain name published on CNN.com, it sounds as it the Postal Service is
trying to come up with yet another way to flood our mailboxes with junk
mail. PLEASE!!! I get plenty of spam email without help from the Postal
Service!
>The idea is to connect physical and electronic addresses using the
> nation's Internet "country code" -- the top-level ".us" domain. Then a
> company or government agency, for example, could send bills or
> bulletins to your electronic mailbox as well as your home.
> The administration said the move would "accelerate and universalize the
>growth of electronic commerce," according to the Postal Service.
Let's try to keep ecommerce confined as much as possible to the World Wide
Web, where participation is voluntary. Most everyone who already has email
access is deluged with unsolicited commercial e-mail. The last thing we
need is for the Postal Service to encourage more spam attacks. If the U.S.
government is going to involve itself with e-mail, I'd prefer to see
legislation prohibiting spam rather than government-sponsored attempts to
encourage it. Don't we already get enough junk mail via the Postal Service
already, without efforts to sponsor more?
Thank you.
Suzanne Stephens, Dave Stephens Design; Ashland, Oregon
541-552-1190, 541-1192 http://www.KickassDesign.com/
CyberCircus Grand Prize Winners http://www.thecybercircus.com/
Web Page Design for Designers: http://www.wpdfd.com/wpdres.htm
Clip Art: http://www.freeimages.com/artists/
###
From: "Terence Yee" <terryyee@erols.com>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/8/98 10:06am
Subject: Request for Comments on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space
Dear NTIA -
My proposal for enhancement of the .us domain space, in conjunction with
comments made by President Clinton on August 7 regarding the subject, is as
follows:
1) Since so many Americans move every year, linking ".us" ids to physical
addresses would be a logistical nightmare, since it would require continual
maintenance of a database linking US Citizens to their physical address, to
their ".us" address.
2) My proposal would be to link ".us" ids to every US Citizen's SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER, the one identifying factor that everyone has that will not
change throughout a person's life.
3) For example, my new id could be: terenceyee@#########.us
Wouldn't that be pretty simple?
Sincerely, Terence Yee
###
From: Sherman Dorn <dorn@typhoon.coedu.usf.edu>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)
Date: 8/9/98 2:44am
Subject: Comments on .us TLD in ASCII
From:
Sherman Dorn
14309 Ravenwood Lane
Tampa, FL 33618-2029
My answers to the questions follow
Question 1. The .us hierarchy should remain roughly the same for
organizational entities tied to a geographical location. (For a more
detailed description of minor changes, see question 3.) For some
companies and DEFINITELY for individuals, however, tying domain names to
a geographical hierarchy would be inappropriate. Especially considering
the lofty ideal of providing everyone with e-mail, tying personal e-mail
to geographical location would seriously hamper those who move
frequently. Keeping track of forwarded physical mail is hard enough for
the U.S. Postal Service to manage. Ask anyone who has changed ISP's
frequently what it's like to notify people of changed e-mail addresses,
and you'll see the problem with automatic geographical locations.
One could devise several "pseudo-geographical" hierarchies for
individuals and corporations. One might be a "birthplace" hierarchy.
For individuals, that would be the place they were born (or first place
lived in the U.S.), and for corporations the location they were
originally chartered in (and though mergers might create some problems,
large businesses would assume DNS registration and other costs as part
of merger/reorganization administrationcosts). Another (only
appropriate for individuals) might be residence at one's 18th birthday.
The problem with both of these involve privacy issues, especially for
anyone who was institutionalized at the "origin" point of the hierarchy
or have backgrounds where privacy is especially important to her or
him.
The key principle, I think, is that individuals who acquire a domain
location/e-mail address in a .us hierarchy should not have to change it
every time he or she moves. A once-only domain name/e-mail address is,
by far and away, the most person-friendly way to run a hierarchy.
As far as the logical system of naming is concerned, see my answer to
question 3.
Question 2. As long as a reasonable working compromise is adopted
regarding trademark issues (with some quick resolution process), and a
national standard for certain sub-domain levels is adopted (see answer
to Question 3 below) allocation could either be centralized or
distributed to states (except for the corporate and individual
sub-domains). Benefits and costs of allocation in the .us second-level
domains should be the same as the issues for domain-name allocation in
general.
Question 3. The issue is not second-level domains, specifically, but a
system of Nth-level domains and a recursive system for assigning those
domains in a reasonably consistent manner. In a geographical system,
one logical way of running things, apart from national corporations and
individuals, might be in the following sort:
[specific name or set of names].[type of organization].[county/parish].[state].us
This would require some minor renaming. For example, Nashville's public
library domain name would change from
waldo.nashv.lib.tn.us
to
waldo.nashv.lib.davidson.tn.us
That's not very problematic. I would at ALL costs avoid allowing
geographical divisions below the county level. New York state, for
example, has townships, cities, and villages with noncontiguous
borders. If you allow such, what would be the domain name for an
organization in the city of Rye and village of Mamaroneck? If you get
it wrong, the superintendent of the Rye Neck school system will be at
your throat! (There's also a town of Mamaroneck.)
As explained above, postal address or other strict geographical
locations may be useful for relatively permanent institutions like
schools but NOT for individuals or corporations who move.
Question 4. Only two unrestrcited top-level sub-domains should be new
-- one for corporations (co.us) and one for persons (person.us maybe or
some abbreviation?). Again, as long as some technical standard is
adopted that allows for a once-only domain name/e-mail address, the
method and type of administration should have the same issues as those
of Internet domain-name addresses in general.
Question 5. As long as those administering allocation of domain names
agree to follow a set standard for allocation (whatever that is), and
are explicitly FORBIDDEN from developing additional standards without
proposing them first in a public arena, I do not think the procedures
and rules for settling conflicts or use of subdomains will be worth the
effort to fine-tune immediately (as opposed to working it out in the
long term). More problematic is the possibility for anarchy in the
(il)logic of subdomains.
Remember, there's a National Electrical Code, which licensed
electricians must know, but the enforcement of it will always vary.
I think, though, that public involvement in creating a national standard
for domain names is absolutely necessary.
Question 6. Using the .us domain should simplify conflicts about
trademarks and domain names, as it should fall squarely within U.S.
commercial code. The issues are the same as those regarding domain
names in general, and the same rules and procedures should apply,
excepting that a person or organization signing up for a domain-name
under the .us hierarchy should explicitly acknowledge that conflicts
over trademarks will be settled under U.S. law. The definition of
general usage may need to be changed slightly to accommodate the
rapidly-growing commercial Internet world.
Question 7. As described above, I see no problem in a recursive system
of registration including commercial names as third- or nth-level
domains, as long as the organizations understand the administrative
difficulties they may encounter in moving geographically and adding new
domain names.
Question 8. There is a certain amount of anarchy in the .us domain (as
there is in many domains) that does not exist in many other countries'
domains. I would favor having registrars' being responsible to the
state or (for person and corporation sub-domains) to the federal
government. Exclusivity may not be necessary with a strict geographical
coding system for permanent institutions like libraries, schools,
municipal government, and so forth.
Question 9. I would favor uniform registration fees depending on how
deep into the domain a registrant is. Someone asking for dorn.co.us
should have to pay a higher fee for the more visible name than
dorn.hoaghospital.birth.orange.ca.us
I have no answer to question 10.
I have no answer to question 11.