From: MR CAMDEN DELONG <PKVC32A@prodigy.com>
Date: 3/11/98 11:12am
Subject: comments on discussion draft
Dear Mr. Magaziner,
My name is Kent DeLong. I am an avid Internet user and have a number
of two and three word domain names in the ".com" locations. Please
consider my comments:
#1- I consider your draft to be well thought out and balanced with
#2- I consider the current system of domain names to be working well.
I do NOT consider that the current system is running out of names.
#3- There is NOT a need for new top level domains. Those who think
there is this need, are people who want to be involved in the
registrations of these new names (for profit) or those who want a
premium, single word, top level domain name to compete with a ".com"
#4- Because of the number of letters available, there are plenty of
word combinations available on the current system of top level
domains. Additional top level domains would only confuse the current
system and confusion is the factor that will derail the growth of the
internet faster than any other negative factor.
#5- Critics who contend that the U.S. government is taking too
aggressive a role in this transition to a purely private sector
control of the Internet do not understand the historic role of the U.
S. in the Internet development. In fact, this "control" of the
transition is completely justified and ultimately to the benefit of
the future of the Internet.
In summary, please go slow on the transition to new top level domain
names...I believe they are not needed at all because of the large
number of two and three word domain names available which are still
in great availability. Staying with just the top level domains we
have now, would cause far less confusion on the Internet during a
time that confusion avoidance should be an absolute priority.
Finally, consider how long we were able to stay with "800" telephone
numbers before we had to transition to the "888" system. Not
everyone got a "1-800- (one word)" but the system worked well...There
are far more possibilities with the current system of top level
domains because of the larger number of combinations. No one can get
a one word address anymore but there are still millions of two and
three word addresses available out there...in fact, an address as
common as "collegedegree.com" was just registered this week...that
Thanks for your consideration of my note and your envolvement in this
Kent DeLong M.D.
voicemail (909) 777 9246
<Prodigy Distribution List>
From: "Gregory Cunningham" <GCunningham@smtp.csinet.org>
Date: 3/11/98 2:59pm
Subject: Comments regarding expansion of domain name extensions.
As a businessman who owns both trademarks and domain names, I believe the addition of these new domain name extensions will be a disaster.
Now, even though I own both the .org and .com versions of my trademarked name, I'll have to worry about someone reserving the same name using any of a number of new extensions. This will only lead to greater numbers of trademark infringement suits.
If "xyz" is already a registered trademark, how is allowing somone to set up business as xyz.store going to be of value? Its availability is only going to mislead them into thinking the name is available.
It won't help consumers, either. It's bad enough trying to remember how to exactly spell the name in an URL, without having to try half a dozen extensions before you get it right. why do we need more? A commercial business is a commercial business. .com plus a unique name is all that's necessary. We have government, lilitary, education, and non-profits covered already, and it works fine. Adding more extensions will make things harder for everyone.
Gregory B. Cunningham
Dir. New Business Development
601 Madison St.
Alexandria, VA 22314
1-800-689-2900 Ext. 780
CSI '98 - 42nd Annual Convention & Exhibit
Baltimore Convention Center * Baltimore, Maryland
June 25-28, 1998 * (800) 689-2900
From: Chris Wellens <email@example.com>
Date: 3/11/98 11:03am
Subject: March 9 document by Karl Auerbach
I have read the submissions on the Technical Management of
Internet Names and Addresses.
I agree with the submission on March 9th by Karl Auerbach.
However, I note that you include the full text on all the email
submissions, but for Mr. Auerbach's you have included
instructions for accessing it, rather than the text. Don't you
think you should provide the full text (not hyperlinks) for all
the submissions so as to be objective and impartial?
--==--==--==- Chris Wellens President & CEO
==--==--==--= Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Web: http://www.iwl.com/
--==--==--==- InterWorking Labs, Inc. 244 Santa Cruz Ave, Aptos, CA 95003
==--==--==--= Tel: +1 408 685 3190 Fax: +1 408 662 9065