From: "Marcus A. Davis" <marcusad@mail.utexas.edu>

To: <usdomain@ntia.doc.gov>

Subject: Comments

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 <albrooks@llnl.gov>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/6/98 2:12pm

Subject: Enhancement of the .us Domain space

Reference: Docket #980212036-8172-03

Greetings,

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

people.

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

allow that)

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

number.

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.

Thanks,

Alan Brooks

Livermore, CA

###

From: rl <artk_12@artlover.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

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

e-mail.

rl Sandoval

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.

rlS

###

From: "Blewer, Ronnie" <blewerg@MissionCritical.com>

To: "'usdomain@ntia.doc.gov'" <usdomain@ntia.doc.gov>

Date: 8/6/98 1:36pm

Subject: Comments on .us domain disposition in Word 97' format

<<internet.doc>>

Thanks for your accessibility,

Ronnie Blewer, MCSE, CISSP

Mission Critical Software

blewerg@missioncritical.com

Voice: 713/548-1727

###

From: "Fallon, Gary" <Gary.Fallon@researchresources.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

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

responsibilities until:

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" <kmartin@infoteam.com>

To: "usdomain@ntia.doc.gov" <usdomain@ntia.doc.gov>

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

iQCVAwUBNcp1ZogkIyfe0NPFAQG5ggP9GXiMp5o0avrZ1c7ZRc2AVCn29kSxeq77

C7EzsdTxvOXOusBXFSrpT65pkiKXAaINN2haXre0OoJ5X5rq4wcJnGuOp28gXp53

ct+w0JMPxQmCnNpfJmIlBr7esC3kE2ZNcJBNFIJEFdAs3m80IrqV1XjRo5aYzfnW

bfmsPKsehAI=

=qJ0a

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

###

From: Patricia Markley <markley@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/6/98 11:05pm

Subject: Comments

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.

Best regards,

Pat Markley

###