Date: 1/30/98 7:31am
Subject: dns suggestions
Perhaps you might consider using the suffix .chat for chat room
sites, and .hp or .php for personal home page or home page,
I am glad you are seeking to improve the internet.
From: "Smitty" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 1/30/98 9:17am
Subject: Revision of Domain Name Registration
I am opposed to a significant structural change in the domain name
registration process...I find it interesting that the shortsighted proposal
that deals with "widespread complaints" about cost make no reference to a
significant reason the fees were generated in the first place. Prior to
the fees, an individual could register hundreds of names, and then sell
them at "market price" with no downside risk. This fee system was a means
of curtailing a practice that served only the entrepreneur and clogged the
As for current implantation of the system, I can think of few systems in
place anywhere that are more efficient for the end user. A fully automated
system provides registration in a few minutes, and updates the database
system on the same day. I don't have to spend my time worrying if I got
the best deal for my clients, I can have their name online the following
day in most cases, and all of this for a price equivalent to a 20 word
classified ad in a major city newspaper...
...What's worse than a single government entity managing a business
function like this? The government deciding how to get more people
involved and make the system more competitive.
Leave it as it is. It's not nearly as "broken" as the instigators of this
action would have us believe.
From: Pat Lynch <email@example.com>
Date: 1/30/98 11:17am
Subject: comments about proposed DNS
I seriously have a big problem with this. Not because its not a good
structure, but the US government is trying to get control in an
The US gave up control when they gave up the beginnings of the Net to
educational institutions, then the educational institutions gave up
control when they handed it to commercial entities.
If any governement should control these aspects of the internet, it should
probably be the United Nations, or even some coalition of international
countries involved in the internet, maybe housed in Switxerland, home of
the World Wide Web. The US government has no right to interfere at this
point, they gave up those rights years ago.
Patrick Lynch, Systems Administrator, Network Engineer
From: "page" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 1/30/98 11:58am
Subject: Internet Domain Site Names
Leave the situation alone. The current method works fine. What is not
needed is another govenment agency run with my tax dollars taking away from
private industry a function they are performing admirably at no cost to the
public. Network Solutions provides this service just fine, charging only
the people and corporations that use the service a reasonable price for it.
From: "Ted Tatchio" <email@example.com>
Date: 1/30/98 12:22pm
Subject: Comments on Plan
The problem with the proposed expansion of the basic domains is that
many sites are already using the new de facto naming convention. Look
at my e-mail address for example. It is becoming increasingly more
common for URLs to be based on the two character country code - and in
the US it is becoming common for the two character state code to be
incorporated. The other observation is that for WWW pages, the initial
field is usually wasted (since most web URLs begin with WWW). Why not
start using the first field for the "organization type" and allowing the
last 2 or three fields to be geographically related to the site.
For example: NTIA's URL would be:
Ted A. Tatchio, Internet User!
Date: 1/30/98 12:48pm
Subject: How to be a name register business owner
If I want to be in business to provide domain names for other company, what
are the requirements?
King K. Yu (firstname.lastname@example.org)
From: Randy Bush <email@example.com>
Date: 1/30/98 12:58pm
Subject: comments on http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnsdrft.htm
The title misleads one to believe that this is just about domain names, the
most contentious area, as opposed to internet governance in general.
I will not indulge my personal opinions on matters of policy and structure,
so I merely have a few problems possibly worth mentioning.
> 4.to coordinate the development of other technical protocol parameters as
It's not the development of the parameters, but rather their registration
and identification that is done by IANA..
> The job of policing trademarks could be considerably easier if domain name
> databases were readily searchable through a common interface to determine
> what names are registered, who holds those domain names, and how to
> contact a domain name holder.
Sadly, such facilities have been abused as sources of mailing lists for
spammers. Can they be shielded from such abuse in some way?
> We seek comment on whether registries should be required to resolve
> disputes within a specified period of time after an opposition is filed,
> and if so, how long that period should be.
It is not clear that registries can resolve disputes. One interpretation is
that they are merely the medium through which a contested service mark is
published, and it is the 'real-world' mechanisms such as the courts which
must resolve the disputes.
> At the time of registration, registrants could agree that, in the event of
> a trademark dispute involving the name registered, jurisdiction would lie
> where the registry is domiciled, where the registry database in
> maintained, or where the "A" root server is maintained.
But the other contesting party is likely not registering, so we do not have
their concurrence on venue. E.g. when I register TSCHIBO.YUM and specify
the venue is California, where the primary server for . and for YUM reside,
the trademark holder, which happens to be a large German purveyor of coffee,
has not concurred and is disadvantaged. I.e. this allows the more likely
intentional violatoir choose the venue.
CC: Jon Postel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 1/30/98 1:03pm
Subject: If it ain't broke...
30 Jan 1998
Sirs: If the Internet ain't broke, why fix it?
I like the way it works now. Please DON'T mess it up.
Date: 1/30/98 1:45pm
Subject: DOMAIN NAMES
The allowing of multiple private organizations will eventually result in chaos
and duplication of resources. Business and the public could and eventually
would be hostage to a private organization. Yes it would be "non-profit" but
non-profits are not always what they seem.
Domain names are proving to be as important to the country in more ways than
the Mnetary system. Yet We have a well fuctioning Federal Reserve Board
If you do Domain names similar to that, you may be on to something.
Do not forget, some site has to look at each domain extension. If someone
keeps adding or changing those. web ane eventually economic caos could result.
thank you. a Domain name reseller.
From: Matti Siltanen <matti@fugue.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Date: 1/30/98 2:46pm
Subject: A PROPOSAL TO IMPROVE...(green paper)
You are giving TOO much power to trademake holders.
There has been numerous cases of abuse of power by
trademark holders regarding domain names.
Often the larger more well financed company
can bully a smaller company by legal threats
into giving up a rightfully owned domain name.
This is NOT right. This is NOT just.
let's take an example - O'Reilly (trademark
by O'Reilly and Associates in the usa) can
be used by a small company "O'Reilly plumbing"
and registers as oreillyplumbing.com, or
someone with the last name oreilly registered
as oreilly.com years before O'Reilly and Associates
servers one of those nasty legal letters.
(now, if they were to buy it from the original
company, thats a different story.)
From: Dan Curran <email@example.com>
Date: 1/30/98 3:07pm
Subject: internet names comments to DISCUSSION DRAFT 1/30/98
since the draft was not summarized well, i can't tell whether it is
still proposed to have new suffixes..
i am steadfastly against the idea of new suffixes, for the simple reason
that all of the new
suffixes (.web, .store, etc.) are all essentially what should be .com
addresses and it will
create massive confusion. Other reasons i am against:
1. It degrades current owners of popular .com domains that took their
risk, got their
names and or paid big bucks for them
2. All companies with deep pockets will simply buy every other suffix
with their current
3. The public will face massive confusion and branding will be
impossible, so one will not
know whether to go to coke.com, coke.web, coke.store, etc.
I am all for privitizing and opening up to competition, but not adding
these new suffixes.
From: "Peter J. Dockendorf" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 1/30/98 3:42pm
Subject: national infrastructure & internet maintainance
1. >(Reuters)- The Clinton administration released Friday its
long-awaited plan for
>phasing out U.S. government involvement in running the Internet's naming
>and address system.
>...with the U.S. government still participating until Sept 30, 2000, at the
>latest, the plan said.
I believe the federal government should remain as involved in the internet maintainance
as it is with Interstate Highways and other national infrastructure items.
BCD Multi Media
From: Curt Howland <Howland@Priss.com>
Date: 1/30/98 4:07pm
Subject: 1/30 Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses
I wish to comment on the 1/30 Technical Management of Internet
Names and Addresses paper.
Where in the Constitution is the US Government granted the power
to interfere in the affairs of the Internet? The only reason that
this communications medium has grown so quickly is because no
government has interfered.
By interfering with the natural evolution of this communications
medium, the American government is preparing to ruin it. Didn't
the "Communications Decency Act" ruling teach you beurocrats
anything, or are you so paranoid for your jobs that you need to
go out and CREATE PROBLEMS?
This plan should be scrapped in its entirety.
From: "Hardy, Patrick" <Harpa06@mail.cai.com>
Date: 1/30/98 4:24pm
Subject: A PROPOSAL TO IMPROVE TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT OF INTERNET NAMES AND ADDRESSES
In discussion draft 1/30/98, it is stated that:
"The new corporation's processes should be fair, open and
pro-competitive, protecting against capture by a narrow group of
stakeholders. Its decision-making processes should be sound and
transparent; the bases for its decisions should be recorded and made
publicly available. Super-majority or even consensus requirements may be
useful to protect against capture by a self-interested faction. The new
corporation's charter should provide a mechanism whereby its governing
body will evolve to reflect changes in the constituency of Internet
stakeholders. The new corporation should establish an open process for
presentation of petitions to expand board representation. "
I would like the new governing body in it's decision-making process, to
publicize the decisions it must make before making their decision. In
other words, I would like to see the new governing body publicize all of
their given options, give the public a defined timeframe to have their
say, and then from the response of the public, I would like the new
organization to make a decision and make the decision public. This will
allow everyone a chance to say what they want on a given issue.
For the creation of new gTLDs, I feel that the new overall governing
body should conduct a public vote as to what new gTLDs should be added
to the already existing list. Each newly proposed gTLD should have an
explanation as to why it should be added to the system. This will avoid
constant modification of the gTLD list.
In the section:
"Mechanisms that allow for on-line dispute resolution could provide an
inexpensive and efficient alternative to litigation for resolving
disputes between trademark owners and domain name registrants. A swift
dispute resolution process could provide for the temporary suspension of
a domain name registration if an adversely affected trademark holder
objects within a short time, e.g. 30 days, of the initial registration.
We seek comment on whether registries should be required to resolve
disputes within a specified period of time after an opposition is filed,
and if so, how long that period should be. "
I feel that registries should be required to resolve disputes within a
specified time period after an opposition is filed within 60 days. This
should be more than enough time to settle a dispute between a trademark
holder and a registrant.
I would also like to suggest a new generic gTLD ".service" for service
1-516-342-5224 x2343 / x7090
Date: 1/30/98 5:22pm
Subject: INTERNET NAMES PROPOSAL
January 30, 1998
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th & Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230
RE: Internet Domain Names Proposal & Communications Decency
As a concerned parent, I don't want my young children inadvertently accessing
sexually explicit Internet sites. SurfWatch and other programs can't keep up
with the sneaky ways the porn operators hide their sites.
One adjunct to your plan might be to add a ".SEX" suffix and enact federal
legislation that ALL sexually explicit sites (current and future) be required
by to use it.
William T. Sautter <email@example.com>
American Technology Ventures, Inc.
951-2 Old County Road, M/S 255
Belmont, CA 94002
From: Kristen Martinsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 1/30/98 5:26pm
Subject: Internet Discussion Draft
To whom it may concern:
The current proposal to form an independent, non-profit organization to
control such aspects of the internet as have been mentioned in the
January 30th web-based draft seems to me to be a worthwhile direction
for inquiry, but I wonder if too much power is not being given to
corporations to determine how it will develop in the long run. For
instance, it is stated that "the new corporation should hire a chief
executive officer with a background in the corporate sector to bring a
more rigorous management to the organization than was possible or
necessary when the Internet was primarily a research medium." As long
as the corporate sector is defined to include people with experience
working in non-profit organizations, this is an appropriate direction to
take. I am, however, worried that it may be interpreted or intended to
mean that they should have experience in a profit-oriented business
environment, and I am not as convinced that this is the right approach
This is of special concern because a few paragraphs later only two out
of seven members set aside to represent internet users are reserved for
people outside of the business community. From my experience on the
internet, I believe that this number is unfairly disproportionate, and
that it will be used to cement the hold businesses are already trying to
establish over the internet. I would suggest that since everyone who
has an interest in the internet will necessarily also have an interest
in making sure that it runs well, that a system in which there is a more
equitable distribution of power is needed. This is especially true
because one of the things which is most exciting about the internet is
that it provides a medium in which people can express their views freely
and cheaply, instead of having their views handed to them by the few
elite who already control television and traditional print media.
A far preferable system, in my opinion, would be one in which four of
the seven seats were set aside for people representing education,
non-profit organizations, and individual end users, of which each group
would be represented by not less than one and not more than two
members. Commercial organizations would still have three seats in which
they would be represented, but would be more easily controlled in the
event that what they were trying to accomplish was not in the best
interests of, if not everyone who uses the internet, then at least a
large majority of it's users. In the event that they became
underrepresented, this could, perhaps, be renegotiated with the consent
of the other members of the board. Note that in this plan, commercial
organizations are still better represented than any other group, but are
no longer potentially MORE powerful than all the other groups put
together. I believe that for this endeavor to be successful in it's
stated goal, of forming "a representative, not-for-profit corporation to
manage the coordinated functions according to widely accepted objective
criteria," it is crucial that commercial organizations not be given the
power to control even such a seemingly small portion of the internet.
Power is power, and whatever the initial intent of the organization, the
potential exists, under the current plan, for expansion only in
directions which benefit the business community in the event that only a
few of the other members agree with them. We must do what we can now to
prevent later abuses from occurring, and while I appreciate the idea of
requiring super-majority or consensus requirements to accomplish
anything, I am not convinced that, given the present structure, it will
be enough of a safeguard to ensure that the decisions which need to be
made for the good of the internet community as a whole will actually be
made. It might, in fact, be counterproductive, since they would still
be powerful enough to block decisions from being made unless they got
what they wanted.
I agree that it is important that registries be held on a non-profit
level, not only because of the potential for cost-changes in which
people will be harmed if they try to change registries but also because
there is always the potential for one corporation to become much more
powerful than others in the industry, especially where technology is
concerned, and there seems to be little need for taking such a risk. In
recent years, it seems that technology is its own excuse for
unofficially monopolizing a market. It should be the goal of anyone
undertaking such a venture as the creation of an organization to control
any aspect of the internet to ensure that it is as difficult as possible
to do this. At present, I believe that the market-driven registry
system could very possibly be taken advantage of by existing
technological corporations to establish firmer control over the
internet, while less wealthy businesses would be locked out of the
competition to establish their own registries and forced to apply to the
richer corporations, having few other viable alternatives, if any.
I do not think that the registries themselves should be required to
resolve disputes, since they would have an interest in deciding in favor
of a large corporation which might bring them more business in the long
run, as opposed to a smaller business or even an individual who doesn't
have the same commercial potential. I would suggest following the usual
laws and statutes regarding trademark infringements as they apply to the
area in which the registry is domiciled unless both parties agree on a
second place as being preferable, allowing it to be settled in the
courts if neccessary, as being more unbiased than the registries
themselves. At the very most, registries should provide access to an
independent arbitrer or mediator. The registry, if it has taken
reasonable precautions to ensure the rights of tradeholders, should not
be held to any further responsibility.
If a corporation is worried about people using it's trademarks, it may
attempt to buy up all the possible variations. Otherwise, I would
suggest that in cases where it becomes an issue, the people maintaining
the pages be asked to post a disclaimer along the lines of, for example,
"This page is not officially related to McDonald's restaraunts in any
way, shape or form." There should not be too many objections to this.
gTLD's you might consider could include .ind (independent users-- pages
not connected with organizations or commercial enterprises), .fun (games
and otherwise fluffy pages) and .sex (it's here, make it visible so we
can avoid it if we want to!). However, making .us available for
commercial use is questionable. In the event that it does occur, it is
important that there still be some way to determine government sites,
possibly through the use of such possible combined taglines as .gov.us.,
or something similar. In the event that such alternatives are made
available, I have no problem with the idea of commercializing it or
otherwise expanding its use.
Overall, I believe the plan to be a good one. I do think that the
influence of corporations should be limited to such an extent as is
necessary to ensure that everyone who uses the internet is represented,
but as long as suitable precautions are taken, it has the potential to
do great things for the expansion of the internet as an even more viable
method of communication.
Univeristy of California, Davis
From: Karen Arp <email@example.com>
Date: 1/30/98 5:31pm
Subject: I am sick!
To Whom it may concern:
I am SO SICK of the Clinton administration with his adultery, lies,
cocaine addiction, he has had the most corrupt administration ever the
past six years! Can nobody have the guts or moral capacity to stand up
for truth and righteousnses??? HOw come Clinton has not been impeached
yet?? why will nobody do anything?? HAs this country been totally
morally degenerated NOONE will stand up for truth? I DEMAND AN
ANSWER!!!!!!!!!Has no one read there bible in Romans?? has nobody ever
heard of "righteousness" Or just that "they exchanged the truth of God
for a lie." I AM SICK OF IT! I will try everything in my power to get
clinton resigned from office, he is sick, perverted, evil..i want
NOTHING that bad to stay in office!
From: Kris Gautier <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 1/30/98 5:45pm
Subject: WIPO's Madrid Protocol
I am concerned that the European Union (EU) will have an unfair
advantage over the United States as the TLDs and international trademark
laws are merged. As the world's economies become more and more
dependent upon the proper functioning of the Internet's TLDs, the
synergies of a united Europe and WIPO's enforcement of "the Madrid
Protocol" would put US companies and US-based Internet users at a clear
Mississippi Department of Education
Systems Network Manager
From: Jim Roche <JROCHE@CAUSE.ORG>
To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 1/30/98 6:23pm
There's great information on your "Technical Management of Internet
Names and Addresses" page, but I'd like to offer a word of advice about
the colors on the page. It's not a good idea to use red and blue against
each other in any color scheme. The eye focuses on different colors and
since red and blue are at opposite ends of the visual spectrum, the eye
is constantly challenged to determine which of the two colors to focus
on. The end result is a flickering effect, that can be quite distracting
for some. Also, there is less contrast between these two colors than
with some other combinations. All things considered, this makes for
difficult reading, which defeats the purpose of having the information
there in the first place.
Just a thought...
Director, Publishing & Communication Services
4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E
Boulder, CO 80301
From: Marc Ferrera <email@example.com>
Date: 1/30/98 7:20pm
Subject: To become a "registrar"
I know that in march expire the NSI contract, I wonder how can we become
"Registrar" company in order to register .com .net domain names.
Is it possibel register others like .kid and why the limit of
Thanks for your time, I hope from you soon
Date: 1/30/98 7:32pm
Subject: Internet Reconstruction
Please forward to me at the above address any and all information re:
proposals regarding reconstruction of the internet.
Thank you. Email to firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: 1/30/98 8:36pm
Dont design a web page with red letters on a blue background. It is extremely
difficult to read without causing headaches and eyestrain.
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <email@example.com>
Date: 1/30/98 8:59pm
Subject: New TLD's
The draft is very near flawless.
VRx has been operating a TLD/root server and domain name
registry since 1996 and welcomes consideration
and scrutiny to be one of the 5 new regiatrars
unser this plan.
Could you please acknowledge this email?
Date: 1/30/98 9:15pm
Would like to know more about Government and Internet. Also, how it is
Porno messages can cut in on established Chat Rooms, how these nuts can
send 10 or 12 line messages cutting all other messages out, how people can use
such vulgar 4 letter words with no restrictions, and why monitors are not
right for reporting and admonishing these dillies and something being done
these infractions. Shades of CB Radio!!
Thank you for your ear.
Date: 1/30/98 10:33pm
Subject: Domain Names
I'm seeking some advice and I'm hoping you may be able to help me. Some time
ago, I registered 23 Domain Names, all golf industry related. I used a friends
company to do this. I have only received some correspondence, which lists my
address but the name as Richard Harrison at Cyberworks, which is not my name.
My fear is that I will miss renewal notices or important info regarding my
Domain Names. I have listed a few below to give you a reference point. I would
appreciate any advice you could offer on having these put in my name if they
are not already.
From: "Jim Byron" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 1/30/98 11:28pm
Subject: Comments to Internet Draft
Choosing the CEO for such a critical new non-government/non-profit
corporation, should be focussed on the NSI team that has successfully
boosted the internet into the mainstream of communication in our schools,
businesses, etc.! This government contractor has done a tremendous job for
the Department of Commerce and those individuals responsible, should be the
ones the Department "taps" to carry this wonderful technology into the
I am in no way connected to NSI and am only a part time internet user, but
I am very impressed by how far and fast this new medium has come.
Please consider these individuals first and I m sure they will bring both
experience and desire to form such an exciting new corporation.