From: Amanda Pontious <apontious@hughes.net>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/9/98 1:48pm

Subject: Re: Enhancement of the .us Domain Space

My husband and I have only been on the net a short time. We enjoy the

net and all it offers. However, we never anticipated having our email

address published. To us this is a private thing and should stay that

way. This is a very bad idea.

We get enough mail with just our own correspondence and is would be a

burden to be getting our bills etc., not to mention all the people that

would start sending email just to sell stuff we don't want. It would be

as bad as telemarketers and probably worse.

This is a bad, disagreeable and unpleasant idea and we are totally

against it. It would make it easier for spammers and people who like to

make trouble and mischief, malicious and otherwise.

Al and Amanda Pontious

###

From: james baney <james_baney@yahoo.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/9/98 5:42pm

Subject: .us domain

Outstanding idea! I believe its a great start to universal email.

Even though the majority of americans do not have access to the

internet. Its a great way to think ahead

==

From James

Yada Yada Yada

###

From: Matt Grosland <grosland+@cs.cmu.edu>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/9/98 4:39am

Subject: .us domain comments

To Whom It May Concern:

The .us domain is simply a reservoir of resource waiting to be

utilized. I am not educated in how beneficial using this resource would

be, though I imagine that any container of space concerning the Internet

would be most useful.

My main concern, as a citizen of the United States, is how the

administering, regulating and maintaining of this resource will be

handled.

I cannot emphasize the following enough: THE GOVERNMENT (federal,

state, or local) SHOULD NOT PLAY ANY ROLE IN THE ADMINISTERING,

REGULATING AND MAINTAINING OF THE .US DOMAIN.

It is clear to me that besides placing an extremely undue tax burden on

the public, it is also extremely unnecessary. The Clinton

Administration has made it clear that they believe that 'everybody

should have e-mail' and they plan on providing the people with that.

However, in the private sector e-mail is free from places like Yahoo and

Hotmail. If the Government takes the .us domain, they will use it for

something the people already have. It will waste our hard-earned money,

and will not progress the country one bit.

In addition, the Government has demonstrated without debate that they

are too inefficient and incompetent to handle country-wide issues that

extend to localities. The amount of taxpayer money that would be spent

on creating the necessary committees, staffing, purchasing the

infrastructure and its installers, debating about policy, will be

gargantuan at best.

It is therefore my opinion that the Private sector should have full

governance over all issues involving .us domain.

Thank you for your time,

Matt Grosland

SCS Facilities

Carnegie-Mellon University

###

From: "Jeff Studley" <jna@ez2.net>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/9/98 1:12pm

Subject: USdomain initiative

My wife and I are against the expansion of the .us domain name strutcture as outlined on the cnn website. To have the USPS have their hands on our electronic business will only lead to increased rates for a service we get free now through our ISP.

We do not wish to do business over the internet as security issues will always be present. We feel there will be a higher rate of ID theft and general prying into our lives. As well, in time if there is a strong sway towards ecommerce and such, it would only be a matter of time that the security of all we take for granted (electricity, gas, water, phone, air traffic control and more) could be breached by eterroism and the whole system can be shut down in one fell swoop.

JnA

jna@ez2.net

###

From: Ray Timmons <lists@aik.tec.sc.us>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/9/98 7:19pm

Subject: Docket No. 980212036-8172-03

RE: Docket No. 980212036-8172-03

My primary concern with the proposal is the two year Colleges

that presently are required to use the .us domain. A couple of

suggestions are to move the two year Colleges back to the .edu

domain, or to create a new domain for them.

Please do not ignore the two year colleges using the .us

domain.

Ray Timmons

ISM Director

Aiken Technical College

###

From: Max Khat <maximaniac@hotmail.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/9/98 4:19pm

Subject: Comment on the Postal=email address

Please see the attached comments, in a plain ASCII file.

In case the attachment is damaged, the comments are repeated below:

Dear DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:

Until the Department of Commerce persuades the US Senate and the

House of Representatives to pass some laws banning the sending of

unsolicited email, all this proposal would do is give me YET ANOTHER

EMAIL ADDRESS TO BE SPAMMED! It would be a matter of days before some

sleazeball put them all on a CDROM and sold them to advertisers.

Here's the problem - with a clearly identifiable geographical email,

many local businesses would feel it's OK to try to attract customers,

after all, the US government is in the process of making it OK to send

SPAM if you jump through a few hoops.

Unfortunately for me, there are nearly 500 pages of business listings

in the Phoenix area phone book, with about 300 business per page. That's

enough to guarantee me 300+ email ads per day. It would also make the chances

of my seeing any government announcement or real bill sent to that address

absolutely ZERO.

Yes, ZERO. ABSOLUTELY ZERO!

I would not use any such address unless it could be GUARANTEED

spam-free, with severe penalties for misuse. Flogging would be my choice of

penalties, but I would settle for stiff fines of $100-500 per email, payable

directly to the recipient of the SPAM, with jail time of one day per email sent

for those who are unable to pay the fines.

Stephanie Goble

738 W. Portland

Phoenix, AZ 85007

###

From: "mud" <mud@infomagic.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/9/98 9:34pm

Subject: US post office and email

Leave the government out of it for now. It will just be another way of revenue generation. Let the private sector handle email systems. It is working very well right now for countless millions of email transfers daily and doesn't cost a cent over our access costs.

If you guarantee total and complete FREE access and usage, I will be glad to re-evaluate my position.

P. Davis

Attached is a copy in Word97 format

Leave the government out of it for now. It will just be another way of revenue generation. Let the private sector handle email systems. It is working very well right now for countless millions of email transfers daily and doesn't cost a cent over our access costs.

If you guarantee, in bold print, total and complete FREE access and usage, I will be glad to re-evaluate my position.

P. Davis

Flagstaff, Arizona

###

From: "Stephen Marmon" <smarmon@concentric.net>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/9/98 11:12am

Subject: Request for Comments on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space

NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Docket No. 980212036-8172-03

Request for Comments on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space

AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice, Request for Public Comment

I would urge that .us be placed under the control of the United States

Postal Service and that all persons and businesses that have postal delivery

addresses be assigned email addresses with .us, using Zip+4.

Thus my address would be smarmon@20816-2350.us

I believe that this universal system would be of great benefit to all

parties, providing "permanent" addresses, ability to change addresses via

Postal Service change of address systems, and enhancement of email

availability.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen J. Marmon

5124 Baltan Road

Bethesda, MD 20816-2350

301-229-4224

smarmon@concentric.net

###

From: Robert Stempler <stempler@earthlink.net>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/9/98 6:46pm

Subject: Interest .us domain by Post Office

I am against the post office or any government agency directly handling

email on the internet or directly regulating it's processes.

First, the internet is so yoong, and yet so many people have reasonably

reliable access through inexpensive paid services or even though services

like Juno.Com, which offers a free email service. Combine this with the

free computer access offered at universities and some public libraries, and

we have universal access to all who want it. While many may argue that

internet must be well regulated, such self-regulation is in process, and

does take time to develop. If the private sector is not allowed to

complete this process, we will never know and never allow free enterprise

to provide an efficient system at no cost to taxpayers.

Second, I am against the government getting involved in regulation of

speech and the publication of address lists. The proposals I have seen

suggest tying email address with other mailing addresses. This is so

dangerous to everyone's right to privacy, and is entirely unnecessary. For

decades, the phone books have been privately handled, without government

intervention, the same would be true for email addresses. Also, with such

information in the hands of a few bureaucrats, there is a likelihood for

abuse, at least from hackers who are able to break into such public data

bases. Furthermore, there is the possibility that bureacrats will begin to

monitor content and sensor it.

Let the private sector keep full control, within reasonable limits. Save

the government billions of dollars, and keep out of one of the best growth

industries.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Stempler

Southern California

###

From: <stucka@bellsouth.net>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/9/98 6:26pm

Subject: .us TLD should stay private

Kind folks,

I'd like to express my displeasure at the idea that the .us TLD be

taken over by the Postal Service.

The reasoning and justification of the idea are flawed, as are the

motivation. As such, I'd simply love to comment on the 11 questions for

discussion, but I'm afraid that by even doing so I'd be making the

Department feel as if it should be the responsible authority for the .us

TLD.

I cannot, and will not, advocate this action.

To whit:

- One of the reasons cited for the move is a shortage of names in the .com

hierarchy. .com has run out of names for several reasons: the rapid growth

of the internet, the idea that even foreign countries can have common

addresses without having consumers' impressions hindered by geographic

locale, and the large base of companies already extant. A move to the .us

domain would be less attractive to business precisely because of its

geographic restrictions and wouldn't open up the name space nearly as much

as plentiful other proposals out there.

- Another question is of motivation. I see little reason for the Postal

Service's proposal other than a power grab; where there compelling

motivations, then the debate might be open to whether USPS is the ideal

candidate for TLD managing.

- The IANA, but virtually all accounts, has done a fair and thorough job

of managing the .us TLD. In alignment with my above comment, I fail to see

why an organization lacking a credible customer service record should

forcibly take over one that is doing a good job.

- The .us domain is less attractive to commerical users not because of the

IANA, but because the .us domain is simply less attractive due to its

association with geographic restricts.

Mike Stucka / stucka@bellsouth.net / 306 Rhodes Lane, Griffin, GA 30224

###

From: Jerry L Poppenheimer <terrenet@compuserve.com>

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

Date: 8/9/98 5:25pm

Subject: Postal Service e-mail

The concept to involve the Post office in the internet is the worst idea

that any government agency as ever come up with. Turning a service that

"works" over to the post office to mess up, is just ludicrous.

The internet works because government has refrained from getting involved,

knowing that it would only bring chaos.

Jerry Poppenheimer

###