### Number: 48 From: "Steve & Kelly Longsworth" email@example.com> To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns) Date: 7/5/97 11:03pm Subject: Control of DNS As an Active duty Army SYSADMIN with my own Domain Controller I have no problems what-so-ever with the current Naming Conventions. They allow for standardized naming conventions and are easily understandable. The .mil / .gov / .com / .edu /........ is an intuitive convention, However if the .com crowd want to fight over who gets the "really HOT" names let them and let them control (i.e. sell or lease) them with a percentage of the proceeds being returned to those who built the original backbone of the entire system. A mandated pricing schedule would prevent gouging and or exorbitant prices (i.e. first come first served for $X.xx per name) /S/ Steven W. Longsworth SFC, USA Systems Administrator 504th Military Police Bn. ### Number:49 From: "TERRENCE FITZPATRICK" TLFP@msn.com> To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns) Date: 7/5/97 10:17pm Subject: Internet domain names Please people, listen carefully. Neither the Internet nor the World Wide Web is broken so please DON'T TRY TO FIX IT. Stay on it, if you like, but stay out of it. It's not yours to mess with. It belongs to the people of the world. Terrence FitzPatrick TLFP@msn.com ### Number:50 From: "Alex M. Hochberger" firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "'email@example.com'"
Date: 7/5/97 2:30pm Subject: Domain Names Allow competition for the top level domains. Require the root registers to point to one another, and allow multiple organizations to support TLDs. There may be a way to only allow one company to use one TLD (for technical reasons), but even that could be avoided. Lets bring the costs down and increase competition to allow more TLDs and easier names to remember. Alex Hochberger Citrix Systems, Inc. Pine Crest School '97 M.I.T. '01 ### Number:51 From: "Andrew B. Cencini" firstname.lastname@example.org> To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns) Date: 7/5/97 1:24pm Subject: Request for Comments Hello, I am responding regarding the recent request for comments regarding domain name administration. In my humble opinion, I feel that the methods, standards and practices of assigning TLD's, as well as the overall administration of domain names, is far behind the current paradigm of technology on the Internet. I will focus my opinions solely on the current administration of domain names in the United States - more specifically, the ".com, .net, .org, .edu, and .us" domains. Also, my comments will reflect my feelings towards how the registries have handled the management of public domain records. First, I feel most strongly about how poor a job that NSI (The InterNIC) has done in their administration of domains, as well as how arcane the standards and policies are that they use as "guidelines." The InterNIC, being a private commercial organization, under government contract, has a threefold obligation. First and foremost, they have a commitment to their customers, without whom they would be nonexistant. Secondly, they have a commitment to helping manage the Internet in a way which would most benefit the organizations and users of it. Lastly, they have a responsibility to satisfactorily complete the above requirements, as well as meet the conditions put forth by the NSF in their cooperative agreement. Note, that clearly there is no single body of interest that must be satisfied here, but rather a commitment to many groups of people. CLearly, in my many experiences with the InterNIC, I have found my dealings to be frustrating, maddening, and, quite frankly, to be excessively slow. One could compare the service of the InterNIC to the judicial system - it's slow and it rarely works. If the InterNIC was in the business of registering domains for free, then one could not complain. As was said in Shakespeare's great play, Hamlet, "Ay, therein lies the rub." The InterNIC charges a fairly outrageous fee of $100US per domain for 2 years of "service." As a consumer, and as a member of the Internet community, I feel more than justified in receiving service, promptly and courteously, in return for my compensation of $100. I have received no such "service" or courteous treatment in my experience with InterNIC. The solution? Well, that is difficult to determine. Clearly, the InterNIC should be used as an example of what "not to do" when managing a domain registry. Their database services, customer services, and assignment/dispute services are not really services, but more a haphazard "system" by which more energy is spent "maintaining" the system, than actually serving customers. A new domain registry would have the following properties, and their contract should require, amongst many other things, that these stipulations are met: 1) A clear, current policy for the assignment of domains is established, in plain English, and an appeal policy that is swift yet thorough is in place for the rare case in which two parties wish for the same domain. 2) A fee structure consistent with the level of service is in place. 3) An online registration system that is user-friendly, simple to use, and much more thorough "where it counts" so far as validation is concerned regarding the usage requirements of the domain. 4) Said registration system is available on a high-speed connection to the Internet, and is publicly accessible through many means 24x7. The site, even during peak hours should not be excessively slow or down. 5) The database administration and design should be done logically and thoughtfully, keeping in mind the considerations of the customer while allowing easy administration. 6) Simple and intuitive tools through which the database may be searched by many criteria while maintaining the highest of confidenatiality 7) Courteous and prmpt service by phone, email or other means of communication 8) A wide variety of easy, common payment options, including check, credit card and digital cash ONLINE. One of the above stipluations raises one other issue regarding the InterNIC's operation which I must personally comment on. The current system of assigning universities only to the "edu" domain is stupid and inconsiderate. Also, the policy of allowing "free" domains in the edu TLD is quite silly. Recently, I applied for an "edu" domain for a high school with which I now am doing some Internet work. All of the schools in the area of equal merit have an "edu" domain, and we assumed we would be given the same. To make an extremely long and angering story short, after 6 months of form-letters and, quite frankly, rude and demeaning correspondence from various InterNIC representatives, we appealed to the IANA, who rendered a decision in virtually 48 hours following our final submission to them. In the end, the IANA, whom I feel have done an excellent job managing and overseeing many aspects of the Internet, overturned one of their own RFC's in favor of our case. That RFC, which was written 3 years ago, is what the InterNIC uses as a "guideline" as ***** (name witheld) from the InterNIC repeatedly told us as we were repeatedly turned away, despite the large case in which such a "guideline" must be reconsidered. By not allowing schools in general to be registered in the edu domain (currently, less than 5000 are in the edu domain, last time I checked), it somehow reduces the integrity of the institution by considering it as an "organization." It would be much like requiring an ISP to register in the "com" domain since they also sell T-shirts touting their services. Given that also all of the adjacent "org, com and net" domains were taken by "domain pirates" selling those domains, we had no other domains. It seemed that the InterNIC did no such research to verify that information, but rather suggested an alternate "org" domain name which also was in use (and was quite ugly, to boot). In short, that policy should be seriously re-evaluated given the current trend of Internet affairs. All in all, had I a choice of domain registries, I would never have dealt with the InterNIC. Enough said. Be my comments registered above. One final parting comment would be about the management of the US domain. While the management of the US domain is a bit arcane, and could use a touch-up so far as policy administration goes, I found the people I worked with to be some of the nicest most generous, conscientious people who were knowledgeable about their work, and made every possible effort to assist in my requests. I found I even learned from some of my correspondences! I feel that the registrars of the US domain, (doing the job for FREE, nonetheless) are doing a superb job, and deserve more funding and a policy upgrade. I apoligize for the long-winded and rambling note, but thank you for registering my comments. Cheers, Andrew Cencini Cencini Computer Services email@example.com ### Number:52 From: Frank firstname.lastname@example.org> To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns) Date: 7/5/97 12:38pm Subject: Domain Names. Open bidding in each state of the U.S. and have multi companies involved in the Domain process. The cost of a Domain Name should not be more than $10. per person or business. ### Number: 53 From: "David E. Johnson" email@example.com> To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns) Date: 7/5/97 11:43am Subject: comment on upcoming internet changes The internet began with scientists and government entities and consequently is incredibly secular. It now seems to be fueled by business interests. It would be refreshing if the powers that be could create a domain name or category that is exclusively for the religious community. David E. Johnson ### Number: 54 From: "David_H" firstname.lastname@example.org> To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns) Date: 7/5/97 11:06am Subject: Domain Names Yes you should add more names. And add something like .PER for personal names (private individuals) And all Domain names should be """"FREE""""" - or at most a one time processing fee of 'not' more that $10.00. - Somebody is making millions off of us, and is not really fair, partly because there is no compition. Any name that is a registered trademark with the US or other country's trademark office should automatically have the right to that name. (maybe with the extention, '.REG' , for registered. Thank you ### Number: 55 From: mark2 email@example.com> To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns) Date: 7/5/97 11:02am Subject: domain names Stay out of it. The Government has NO place being involved in this and many more issues. STAY OUT. STAY IN BUGET. LEAVE AMERICA ALONE, WE ARE FINE WITHOUT YOU. MARK GIERT 407 ABNER CRUZE RD KNOXVILLE TN 37920 ### Number: 56 From: Mark Lautenschlager MarkL@pobox.com> To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns) Date: 7/5/97 8:54am Subject: Domain name issue Gentlemen, My input on this matter is simple. I am a consumer of Internet services, not a supplier. I am only interested in one matter--how easy is it to find the site you're looking for on the Net? Right now, if I am looking for a company's web site, it's a safe bet that "www.company name goes here.com" will yield positive results. When these new top-level domain names are introduced, will I have to try .web and .info, also? If you make the Internet more difficult to navigate, you will stifle its growth. Adding more top-level domains is fine, but you MUST PROVIDE SOME EASY WAY FOR USERS OF THE INTERNET TO FIND THE SITE THEY ARE SEEKING. If such a mechanism cannot be devised, then leave the present system alone. Thank you. ### Number: 57 From: Matt firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "'email@example.com'" firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 7/5/97 4:38am Subject: Internet Domain Name Comments To Whom it May Concern: I am a 27 year old Software Test Lead at Microsoft in Redmond, Washington. I first started messing with the net on a Linux box 4 years ago. Here are my recommendations: Don't be US centric. Make all URLs have a country specifier. Let companies choose their designator. Maybe Australia wants to be OZ and not AU http://company.com.us ftp://company.com.oz URLs should not contain protocol specfic information. Take out the www/ftp etc. Let the server look at the protocol and redirect as necessary. http://www.company.com.us really says it twice doesn't it? Figure out more nets. net, com, edu, mil, why not lib (for library), lab (for research lab). Com really needs to be broken out. GET ISPs OUT OF COM and put them into NET. COM is for COMpanies. NET is for companies that provide NET access. If you need any major problems solved, just let me know. I have a pretty darn good sense of the right way to do things ;) -Matt http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/5444/ ### Number: 58 From: Ian Ellis email@example.com> To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns) Date: 7/5/97 3:39am Subject: Domain name registration cost. $50 per year seems exorbitant - especially for a monopoly. Who chose that amount? Although $50 may be a sneeze in a bucket to McDonalds, small companies and groups are hit much harder. ### Number: 59 From: "Michael McLeod" firstname.lastname@example.org> To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns) Date: 7/5/97 1:18am Subject: domain names the federal government should help set laws regarding the internet however with reguard to who handles a cental regestry of names i would like to see a commission funded strictly from registrations made up of members of various countries kind of like the UN but for the internet domain names would be purchased and renewed thru this agency and laws and regulations and other areas of interest to the web would be placed as there role also though there recomendations would not be law the should be able to provide Congress and other fed agencies with recomendations that might become law and in that process also request responses at a central regestry where by votes could be tallied from the internet public as to yea/nay votes on any recommendations they will pass along to congress via the agency their by allowing a public vote and only one vote per regestered domain name. as well as a general vote at large to get a response from the internet communit(users) ### Number: 60 From: Joyce email@example.com> To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns) Date: 7/5/97 12:18am Subject: Domain Names and IP's I was reading someone's entry that said to make all XXX pages with the extension .xxx That is a great idea, and could be less cumbersome to make Programs to cut out the site, by simply telling it to block all sites marked .xxx It would also be easier to have more Internet Protocols other than zzz.zzz.zzz.zzz where zzz is a number in the range of 0 to 255. As we know, A lot of people (mostly ISP's) purchase a Full C. So they have say 199.73.4.zzz. They take up 256 of the IP's and probably do not even use them all. There has to be an easier way of managing IP's. Possibly to increase zzz from 255 to 999? If that is in any way possible than it would be helpful. 07-08-97