From: "Marcus A. Davis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 15:04:35 -0500
It seems to me that linking an e-mail to a physical location, administered by the US Postal system, would create an excessive amount of unneccesary work. In my opinion, a better scheme for universal access would be to attach a .us domain address to individuals -- who retained portability regardless of their physical US address.
If we can assign SSN's to all citizens, why could we not also assign (or allow for "pick-up") a .us domain address?
From: Alan Brooks <email@example.com>
Date: 8/6/98 2:12pm
Subject: Enhancement of the .us Domain space
Reference: Docket #980212036-8172-03
I am commenting on item #3 regarding the creation of special purpose,
second (or greater) level domain names for the .us TLD. My recommendation
is that the .us domain be uniquely used for addressing people.
It is clear, I believe, that electronic ommunication is going to be an ever
growing part of our future. This makes having a unique identifier for each
of us a useful, and pehaps necessary, tool for our future interaction. We
currently all have a unique Social Security Number, which could possibly
become the basis of a unique electronic identifier.
I would certainly welcome a unique identifier that could be used with any
internet service I chose. Finding a unique 'username' for each of the
internet services I access has become rediculous. I recently logged onto
the New York Times web page and discovered that I had three usernames
linked to my e-mail address. It is a service I use infrequently so when I
couldn't remember the name I gave them the last time I simply created a new
one. I am sure I am not unique.
There are those who will scream that this is an Orwellian invasion of their
privacy. They don't have to use the identifier they are given, as many
don't use their SSN. I don't have a problem with that. But I would like
to have just one identifier.
The question then becomes the method of implementation. In the present
context, should the .us TLD be used for this purpose. The present domain
naming system give computers an address, not people. The domain name
identifies a computer and then the e-mail address identifies a person at
that computer. This is what the US Postal Service' addressing system does.
I am Alan.Brooks@1581.Oslo.Livermore,CA.USA. This works fine until I move
and it takes months for the system to catch up. This is because the system
is a paper based system designed to facilitate sorting and distribution by
Sorting and distribution by computer, because of their vastly greater
speed, permits inefficiencies that would be intolerable if done by people.
Use of our SSN as an identifier would require that every nameserver in
every subnet have the SSN for every person in the US and their electronic
address in a database so that electronic communication ccould be properly
routed, and this would have to be updated on a regular basis. At the rate
computer capabilites are increasing this is almost plausible.
A more efficient method would be to break people into subgroups with
nameservers for each subgroup, similar to the addressing for computers
today. Because people move around a lot more these days sub-grouping by
physical location makes little sense (although this is what the Postal
Service will propose, with them administering the system. Please don't
I suggest using birthdate for the subgrouping under the .us TLD. I would
be 12345.27.nov.1941.us (that is the 12,345 person registered who was born
on 27 November 1941 in the USA). Your Personal Internet Number would be a
number shorter than your phone number and your birthday. Alpha aliases
could easily be allowed, in fact, the probability of a repeated name on a
given day is so low that acutal names could usually be used. I would be
AlanBrooks.27.nov.1941.us, forever. When a woman marries her alias
changes. If you wanted to make a little money to fund the system Iyou
could sell me TheBigKahuna.us for a ridiculous price, maybe on an annual
basis. For a little less I could be TheBigKahuna.1941.us. The computers
wouldn't care, it's just another alias that gets translated into a binary
Note that the current 8-bit address would have to move up to a 16 or 32-bit
one, which is probably coming anyway. There would then be government or
non-profit organizations that would administer the year, month, day
'subnets'. The 'day.month' could be replaced by day of the year but most
of us don't think of ourselves as being born on the 330th day of 1941.
Computers would still be addressed as they currently are (with .gov, .com,
.org, etc.) but the .us domain would be uniquely used for addressing people.
From: rl <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8/6/98 10:11pm
Subject: E-mail/Snail mail
How would you guarantee the privacy of e-mail in this system? I for one
do not trust that the encryption would be strong enough to prevent unauthorized viewers or
snoops from reading my mail. The strong point of snail mail is that it
is covered in a paper wrapper, is decentralized (at least with respect to a discrete attempt to scan
mail), and is reliable. Power outages do not take my mail to never-never land, but they do my
3543 Dunedin Drive, Suite 104
Chesapeake, Virginia 23321-5022
That is my street address, make that looooong street address. Will an
electronic version be any longer?
Given the Clinton administrations zeal for massive federalization of the
least little aspect of life I fear that this is one such attempt.
From: "Blewer, Ronnie" <blewerg@MissionCritical.com>
To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8/6/98 1:36pm
Subject: Comments on .us domain disposition in Word 97' format
Thanks for your accessibility,
Ronnie Blewer, MCSE, CISSP
Mission Critical Software
From: "Fallon, Gary" <Gary.Fallon@researchresources.com>
Date: 8/6/98 7:04pm
Subject: NO! to Post Office
It is a bad idea to let the U.S. Post Office take on any additional
1. They are completely spun off from the Federal Government
2. Laws protecting their monopoly are eliminated
Then, any business decision they make will be at the expense of their
shareholders. Besides, e-mail welfare will not work any better then any
other of the federal welfare programs created.
From: "Kenn Martin" <email@example.com>
To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Date: 8/6/98 11:32pm
Subject: Docket No. 980212036-8172-03
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This proposal is a very bad idea. If it passes, spammers will
inundate the system with UCE. If it passes, we will immediately ban
all mail to and from the .us domain.
Kenn Martin 606.335.7233
InfoTeam Lexington http://www.infoteam.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Patricia Markley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8/6/98 11:05pm
I would like to request that the standard US email address given out by
the Post Office does NOT allow for bulk mailing by advertisers.
The burden of removing junk mail from a user's email delivery box needs
to be placed upon the advertisers and the US Postal Service. At present
despite requesting I be removed from these listings on an annual basis,
I still receive an onerous amount of unrequested mail.
Those who wish to be inundated with offers, sweepstakes, etc can
subscribe to these services at a fee or free depending upon the bulk
advertiser's willingness to subsidize their business activities.
Individual citizens should not be subjected to the massive amounts of
junk mail currently delivered through the US Postal system unless they
have asked for that information.
More importantly, since electronic delivery of this information will
make it necessary to increase the storage capacity of the Postal
Service, I further suggest that these additional storage and delivery
costs be subsidized by bulk mailers and not by taxpayer dollars.
Thank you in advance for your review of this request. I appreciate your
willingness to solicit feedback from the public.