From: "Jim Fleming" <>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/15/98 7:03am

Subject: Fw: NTIA request for comment on theUS Domain

-----Original Message-----

From: Jim Fleming <>

To: steve <>; us-dom-adm@ISI.EDU

<us-dom-adm@ISI.EDU>; Jon Postel <postel@ISI.EDU>

Cc: <>;




Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 5:49 AM

Subject: Re: NTIA request for comment on theUS Domain




>How can the Department of Commerce expect people

>to invest time and energy in this process given the DOC

>track record with the Green/White Paper process ?


>If you couple that track record with the NSF's track

>record on mis-managing the InterNIC Cooperative

>Agreement, it becomes more unlikely that people will

>participate with U.S. Government agencies in trying to

>develop solutions. This is partly because the U.S.

>Government operates in the same manner as the IANA.

>The information is expected to flow IN, there is little or

>no INTERACTIVE discussion on the Internet, and then

>policies are pontificated. In some cases the policies

>swing 180 degrees in direction from one month to

>the next depending on which clueless person is writing

>the documents.


>Since I am devoting my time and energy to IPv8, there

>is no need to respond to the DOC request for help in

>shaping the direction of the .US TLD. In the IPv8 plan

>all TLDs are created equal and are not owned by

>governments or government contractors like the IANA.

>TLDs are managed by a group of Trustees that step

>forward to provide stewardship for the TLD. If those

>stewards can not manage the TLD or make decisions

>then they FIRST seek help from their "neighborhood".

>In the case of the .US TLD, that neighborhood could

>include trustees from the following TLDs. The stewards

>of the .Z TLD and the .CALIFORNIA TLD would have

>the most responsibility. If they are not able to help, then

>the .US stewards would expand the neighbor-net until

>they find enough people to help.





>1:42 IOWA




>1:45 Z (Single Letter TLD)

>1:46 US (UNITED-STATES) <------------------------------









>1:54 GOV


>As a member of the .GOV domain, you are quite a distance

>from the .US domain. With all of the good people that manage

>other TLDs closer to the .US TLD, it seems likely that help

>would come from those closer to the situation. In fact, I

>would think that the .Z and .CALIFORNIA TLD trustees would

>be able to resolve everything, at least from an IPv8 point

>of view. The U.S. Government does not need to be the

>policeman of the world of TLDs. The Internet community is

>more than capable of managing itself.


>Thanks for your time...



>Jim Fleming

>Unir Corporation -



>-----Original Message-----

>From: Jon Postel <postel@ISI.EDU>

>To: us-dom-adm@ISI.EDU <us-dom-adm@ISI.EDU>

>Cc: <>

>Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 5:10 PM

>Subject: NTIA request for comment on theUS Domain




>>----- Begin Included Message -----


>>Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:34:23 -0400

>>From: Karen Rose <>

>>To: postel@ISI.EDU

>>Subject: .us RFC




>>Thank you for offering to bring to the attention of the .us registrar

>>community the Commerce Department's Request for Comment (RFC) on the

>>.us domain.


>>As you know, on August 3, 1998, the National Telecommunications and

>>Information Administration (NTIA) at the Department of Commerce issued

>>a RFC on the future enhancement and administration of the .us domain

>>space. The Commerce Department is requesting public comment on these

>>issues to further explore how management and administration of .us

>>could be optimized or enhanced to encourage increased registrations in

>>the .us name space. The RFC poses specific questions related to the

>>future of .us administration including, how names should be assigned

>>under .us, the type of entity that should administer .us, and the role

>>of the States and localities in domain name registration, among



>>The Department of Commerce is seeking comments from a broad range of

>>interests on these issues, including comments from State and local

>>governments and current .us registrars. The RFC is available for

>>public inspection at Electronic comments may

>>be sent to or may be mailed to attn. Karen Rose,

>>NTIA-OIA, 14th and Constitution Ave., NW, Room 4701, Washington, DC

>>20230. The deadline for submitting comments to this RFC is September

>>3, 1998. All comments received will be posted on NTIA's home page.




>>----- End Included Message -----





From: Tom von Alten <>

To: "''" <>

Date: 8/15/98 10:31am

Subject: Comment on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space

1.How should the present geographic structure of .us be extended or

modified? What changes should be made in RFC 1480 or the posted policies for .us?

We have two letter state identifiers for postal codes; seems like a logical way to provide a useful second level. I'm not familiar enough with RFC 1480 to comment on that part.

2.What are the benefits and costs of different options for allocating second-level domains under .us? How should the allocation of such second-level domains be decided and administered? What should be the terms of delegation?


3.Specifically, should special-purpose second-level domains be created under .us? What are the benefits and costs of creating particular special-purpose domains (e.g., industry-specific, credentialing, zoning)? How should such domains be created and administered? Are there reasons to map names and other addressing and identification systems (e.g., postal addresses, telephone numbers, longitude and latitude, uniform resource numbers or others) into .us?

I like the idea of having a second-level domain that contains information,

and "by state" seems logical enough.

4.Alternatively, should .us be treated as an unrestricted top-level domain like .com or should one or more specific second-level domains such as or be used for unrestricted assignment of domain names (as in .com)? How should such unrestricted domains be administered and by whom?

I guess we already have that in .org .net and .com, eh? Why use .us the same way?

Questions 5 through 11 are all good ones, but I don't feel qualified to comment. Good luck!


Tom von Alten


From: "John H. Yates" <>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(usdomain)

Date: 8/15/98 10:13pm

Subject: keep the government away from my email addresses!

Why would we want the bureaucratic, inefficient, poor customer service Postal Authority to have anything to do with our email addresses?

BETTER IDEA: ask the phone companies to add an email address field to

their phone books, printed and on-line, and allow privacy just like

unlisted numbers.

Giving email addresses to those that can't read them is INSANITY! Can

you imagine the wasteful infrastructure that would generate. (of course, you

probably have... can we all say "job security"?) I can just see them figuring out how to

charge for different "classes" and figuring out how to delay the email so you get what you

pay for! Ugh!!!

Frankly, I am hoping for the day the Postal Service falls by the wayside

because of the Internet. They should keep their grubby, inefficient hands off it!

If it happens, let me be the first to use an email filter to send all

email addressed to me at a .us address to the trash can, unread. I'll make an autoreply that

will say, sorry, wrong address, use my work or ISP address please, and resend.