Received: (qmail 4673 invoked by uid 524); 21 May 1999 11:17:33 -0000 Date: 21 May 1999 11:17:33 -0000 Message-ID: <19990521111733.4672.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> From: "JZP" To: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov Subject: RE: .us domains In-Reply-To: > I disagree with the idea a predefining zones and new zones managed by > "delegate-wannabees". With an open system is see more choices. Can you please define this "open system"? Pardon me for using a term that came across as derogatory; that was not the intent. See also my further explaination from yesterday AM; how are there fewer 'choices' in my thumbnail proposal? [Yes, it grew up from a strawman. :-) > Stone decides to get into networking. So will they register: > stone.network.us > stone.networks.us > stone.networking.us > stone.net.us [using patterns of .US should be avoided.] > stone.nets.us > stone.thenetwork.us > stone.anetwork.us > stone.ethernet.us > stone.cat6.us > stone.networksolutions.us(hehe) > > I can add more but you get the point. > Let the stone company register as many names as they feel they need... > domains aren't free. To make sure there is a cost have a requirement > that all contact info must be current. None of this speaks toward the DNS being used as a directory service, and it just adds to the potential for end-user confusion. The point of my use of the strawman Stone hardware company, who already has 'stone.hardware.us' and 'stone.invention.us', was to ask the questions of arbitration and ambiguity when Stone Internetworking, who already has stone.(COM/NET/ORG) and has 'stone.network.us' [under the hypothetical unmanaged system] winds up butting heads with Stone hardware. And what about the Stone family geneology network, opearting in the US as "Stone Network (US)" who thought 'stone.network.us' was the perfect name for them? If 'stone' can invent and SLD they like, what motivates them to invent any? What motivates them to prevent the COM/NET/ORG problem happening in US and there being a 'run' on SLDs as in COM? Your statement that 'domains cost money' is handwavaing; COM/NET/ORG domains cost money, and we see plenty of "grab everything relevant" rushes which are decried as unfair (in this forum as well as others). Why perpetuate something people hate? Further, my suggestion allows for many managament and fee structures at the SLD; by your "domains cost" statement, I suppose you believe there is no room for free domains, like the K12 registry I run for MA? Or the SLDs my friends and associates share under our "gweep.net" domain? Again, I'm not dictating management at the SLDs -except the default 'starter' SLDs- and therefore do do disallow any 'open' SLD, as indicated in my post yesterday. Does anyone have information regarding any other 'open' TLDs with a large population to service, other than COM/NET/ORG? I would venture that TO and CC are poor examples as their populations are small and appear to not have the "territoriality" the US does (among other differences of which I am surely unaware). There are interesting problems wrt managing the functioning of the namespace in terms of nameserver delegation, registry servers, and transaction managers that should be examined as part of anyone's "open" proposal. Joe http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/pgp.txt crimson@sidehack.gweep.net * jprovo@gnu.ai.mit.edu * jzp@rsuc.gweep.net Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions." RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / AAC / FnB / Usenix / SAGE . Received: from [206.5.17.2] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 3.03.0018/1.acsd) with ESMTP id wa013282 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 07:35:50 -0400 Message-Id: <4.2.0.37.19990521072318.00aad4d0@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.37 (Beta) Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 07:35:58 -0400 To: "JZP" ,us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: RE: .us domains In-Reply-To: <19990521111733.4672.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_41266658==_.ALT" --=====================_41266658==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Joe, >If 'stone' can invent and SLD they like, what motivates them to invent any? >What motivates them to prevent the COM/NET/ORG problem happening in US and >there being a 'run' on SLDs as in COM? Your statement that 'domains cost >money' is handwavaing; COM/NET/ORG domains cost money, and we see plenty >of "grab everything relevant" rushes which are decried as unfair (in this >forum as well as others). Why perpetuate something people hate? Further, Considering there are now nearly 5 million registered in those domains; and conversely rather notable complaints in many countries about their rigid "country" domain stifling Internet development, it's apparent that what is perceived a "problem" or "hated" by some, seems to be widely appreciated by others. >my suggestion allows for many managament and fee structures at the SLD; by >your "domains cost" statement, I suppose you believe there is no room for >free domains, like the K12 registry I run for MA? Or the SLDs my friends Your geographic oriented business could just continue to exist under the US domain concurrently with an open approach. Isn't this exactly what Canada is doing? --tony --=====================_41266658==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Joe,

If 'stone' can invent and SLD they like, what motivates them to invent any?
What motivates them to prevent the COM/NET/ORG problem happening in US and
there being a 'run' on SLDs as in COM?  Your statement that 'domains cost
money' is handwavaing; COM/NET/ORG domains cost money, and we see plenty
of "grab everything relevant" rushes which are decried as unfair (in this
forum as well as others).  Why perpetuate something people hate?  Further,

Considering there are now nearly 5 million registered in those
domains; and conversely rather notable complaints in many countries
about their rigid "country" domain stifling Internet development, it's
apparent that what is perceived a "problem" or "hated" by some, seems
to be widely appreciated by others.

my suggestion allows for many managament and fee structures at the SLD; by
your "domains cost" statement, I suppose you believe there is no room for
free domains, like the K12 registry I run for MA?  Or the SLDs my friends

Your geographic oriented business could just continue to exist
under the US domain concurrently with an open approach.  Isn't
this exactly what Canada is doing?


--tony --=====================_41266658==_.ALT-- . Received: (qmail 7405 invoked by uid 524); 21 May 1999 13:00:08 -0000 Date: 21 May 1999 13:00:08 -0000 Message-ID: <19990521130008.7404.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> From: "JZP" To: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov Subject: RE: .us domains In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.37.19990521072318.00aad4d0@mail.netmagic.com> > >If 'stone' can invent and SLD they like, what motivates them to invent any? [snip imy re-statement of one aspect of the COM/NET/ORG problem] > Considering there are now nearly 5 million registered in those > domains; and conversely rather notable complaints in many countries > about their rigid "country" domain stifling Internet development, it's > apparent that what is perceived a "problem" or "hated" by some, seems > to be widely appreciated by others. You're looking at a small slice of that picture, just the 'demand' side of the economics equation. COM/NET/ORG are perceived as (and for all intents and purposes ARE) a "must have", with little other choice for business needs. We could waste time analyzing this and other reasons behind the demand, as well as when the bubble will burst, but I'd rather not. I do want to make sure that pointing at what is essentilly "the only game in town" and claiming they must be doing something right is specious at best. You appear to be under the mistaken impression that I'm arguing not to change the US structure at all. I am arguing to change it to support current and future needs, not JUST the immediate "rush on domains". I would hope that would be a trivial argument on which to gain concensus. > Your geographic oriented business could just continue to exist > under the US domain concurrently with an open approach. Isn't > this exactly what Canada is doing? To be blunt: Canada has a small population, both individual and corporate. It's issues of scale are on the order of a large US state's, not the US. I'll say once more, there's nothing inherent in what I'm suggesting that is _contrary_ to an open approach, just the desire to manage our TLD and not make it, the _root_ of our ISO CC, wide-open. A registrar-application system much like the CIRA one is what I'm suggesting for SLDs; if I haven't made myself clear, then perhaps I need to step back and draw up a formal proposal to be a working document. I'm trying to seek concensus and the ability to balance out the needs and demands of everyone. Isn't anyone else interested in building a concensus? Joe http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/pgp.txt crimson@sidehack.gweep.net * jprovo@gnu.ai.mit.edu * jzp@rsuc.gweep.net Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions." RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / AAC / FnB / Usenix / SAGE .