From: Amanda Wray <email@example.com>
Date: 8/5/98 1:50pm
I think it's a great idea...especially the part about printing out and
mailing e-mail to people who don't have computers yet, although how
would you deal with the postage issue, and what about privacy? It would
be very easy for a postal employee to read mail as it comes off the
printer, unless you had a machine that would automatically put the mail
into an envelope and seal it before anyone had a chance to look!
It could also add another layer of privacy. In other words, you could
"look people up" via their e-mail address and send them mail without
knowing where they live.
From: James Balliett <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8/5/98 1:25pm
Subject: US Domain Issue- Public Comment
I would like to comment on the .us issue as to if it would be
appropraite for the USPS to attempt to study the topic of managing the
.us domain for the US citizens in an effort to bring better access and
feasibility for a national system of electronic mail.
I encourage and strongly support any and all efforts of the USPS to
actvely pursue the issue of managing the .us domain name as means of
eventually setting up a national email system, where citizens can gain
an address, globally recognized. (mine could be jamieBalliett@MA.US
The day has come for the government to step in and map out a better
system for what has often been described as a, "vague assemblance of a
few million computers, loosely organized, where highly important, viable
information is exchanged". A reliable, government overseen system would
be productive, fast, it would save billions of tons of paper a year,
take minimal energy compared to todays USPS (plans, trucks), and most of
all, launch this country, as a leader, into the year 2000!
My great, great, great grandfather was William Fargo, a pioneer who
launched something called the Pony Express, where men on horses carried
letters to trains which grew and grew into what eventually became the
USPS. From private enterprise to public domain, once again we are
seeing the evolution of a means of communication.....and now the next
frontier is at hand!
32 Pine Ridge Lane
Orleans, MA 02653
From: "Baressi, Joe" <Joe.Baressi@CWI.CABLEW.COM>
To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8/5/98 5:34pm
Subject: .us domain
One of the great thins about the Internet is that it will eliminate
monolithic, inefficient, 19th century organizations such as the US
Postal Service. I therefore find the US Postal Service's "proposal" to
manage the .us internet domain highly amusing. I mean, does the Postal
Service really think that people aren't going to recognize this proposal
as an out-dated bureaucracy's last ditch effort to survive?
From: Terry Bellamak <email@example.com>
Date: 8/5/98 10:29am
Subject: request for comment on .us matters
1. NTIA requests comments from the public by September 3, but doesn't
publish the email address to send comments to. I've been all over this
website looking for it. It wasn't even in the NYT article today.
2. If this is an example of our esteemed bureaucracy in action (and I
think it is), this situation is a perfect example of why we need to keep
the Postal Service as far away from the internet as possible. Bone-headed
ideas, clumsily executed.
3. Making email addresses analogous to physical addresses defeats the
purpose (and beauty) of cyberspace. Currently, when you change physical
addresses, you don't need to change you email address. There is no reason
one should EVER have to change their email address. It should be
conceptually linked to the individual, not their IRL address. But I guess
the Postal Service is only capable of thinking in terms of zip codes.
Another reason to keep the the h-ll away from the internet.
Mr. Webmaster, please forward this to the appropriate NTIA elf. Thanks.
To: "NTIA" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8/5/98 4:41pm
Subject: Fw: Request For Comments on .us Domain
Enclosed are my comments on the USPS proposal. The document is in Word 97 format.
Comments on USPS Proposal to utilize the .us domain
Prepared for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
As a longtime user of the Internet, I am generally in favor of giving the United States Postal Service the authority to utilize the .us domain to establish universal email addresses.
The proposal does raise, however, a number of implementation questions that should be answered by the USPS.
Questions to be answered by the usps
The USPS should be required to deal with the following issues:
From: Dan Einstein <email@example.com>
Date: 8/5/98 12:57pm
Subject: .us domain space
The attached document is Word 7.0a for Windows 95
Date: 8/5/98 3:50pm
The proposed idea for an email us to be assigned to each person is a very good
idea. It permits a person to have information about bills sent to them when
they are on vacation or when they have moved. Often people do not have
computers but need to get information that is sent via the computer. I look
forward to an electronic .us address.
340 McKinley Ave
New Haven, CT O6515
From: Paul Goldstein <PaulGoldstein@iname.com>
Date: 8/5/98 12:37pm
Subject: .us domain comment
I think the idea is insane.
You want to create a database of actual physical addresses? Linked to email addresses on
The possibilities for security exploitations by hackers we've been reading about on the New
York Times Cybertimes is immense.
From: Jonathan Handel
Date: 8/5/98 4:24am
Subject: USPS .US plan
Mapping physical addresses to .us is a great idea. Make sure people can
also set up forwarding from the .us to their preferred email address if
From: Mike Jamison <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8/5/98 1:35pm
Subject: Domains & Porn
If you force all adult sites to use the "XXX" domain name you could
greatly reduce the issues surrounding porn on internet. It would be
easy for search engines and filter programs to avoid unwanted sites
without the need to additional legislation.
From: "Guy Donald" <email@example.com>
Date: 8/5/98 11:31am
Subject: .us domain name
You should do it like we do here in Australia, where only commercial
enteties have access to .com.au they must prove conclusively they own the
This allows most companies access to a domain name, especially if someone
else has taken the .com varient.
Also, all US government bodies should convert their .gov to .gov.us domain
names to distinguish the US government bodies from those of the rest of the
From: "Edward M. (Ted) Jennings" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8/5/98 1:43pm
Subject: Postal Service and ".us" domain
It seems silly to connect people permanently with an initial geographic location. If the initial assignment were not permanent, there would have to be a way to change addresses, and a huge forwarding-address registry.
Why not connect individuals with a domain number, one analogous to a telephone number?
Ten or eleven digits would be briefer than apartment or room-number specificity.
A forwarding-address register wouldn't be needed.
Social Security numbers might be even better, of course, but might not be accepted easily by the public.
I am reminded by the quip that followed when the Postal Service added made things better by adding four digits to the Zip code: "Gee, pretty soon they'll invent the street address."
From: David Lawrence <email@example.com>
Date: 8/5/98 7:32pm
Subject: Letter against administration of email by the U.S. Postal service
To whom it may concern:
The U.S. Postal service is one of the most bloated buracracies in our
The expansion of its control onto the internet is a desire recucitate
a branch of government that will wither with the internet's further
development. I shudder to think of how their imposition of
"infastructure" will clog a vital and expedient mode of
communication. It isn't broken so lets not drag the postal service in
and break it. The postal service just has its eye on the e-mail stamp
revenue as anyone with a computer today sends e-mail. We do this
because it is quick and cheap and we don't want to wait for days or
weeks for letters to be sent across this nation and the world.
Intervention into the internet by the postal service is something most
americans don't need or want. I'm content to take my chances with
posssible loss of privacy as it is a far lesser evil than government
intervention. Please, please, keep the postal service off the
David B. Lawrence
From: "Wayne Lynch" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8/5/98 3:35pm
Subject: Keep the U S Postal Service OFF the Internet !
From my 70 years with the mail man..... they need to get there ducks lined up on how to deliver the mail FIRST.....which as far as I have seen, is poor service and higher prices.
in the 1930's a one cent post card from Roper Kansas to Kansas City took 2 days ! today 1998 a 17 cent card takes 4 days !
Wayne Lynch email@example.com
From: "Carter Phillips" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8/5/98 11:03am
Subject: Enhancement of the .us Domain Space
I think the Postal Services proposal of establishing eleoctronic
addresses in the ".us" domain is a good idea beacuse it gives everyone
access to "email." However I have serious questions about privacy from
either private persons or governmental bodies being able to access
either the contents of the mail or the addresses of the parties sending
and receiving the mail.
I am also concerned about junk mail or SPAM. Perhaps there needs to be
some restrictions on the type of email that is sent. All email must have
a specific address, no "The occupant of" type of email.
J. Carter Phillips
11000 Froke Cedar Trail
Austin, Texas 78750-1113
800.759.8352 PIN 1384728
From: "Pozzerle, John @Hidalgo" <JPOZZERLE@phelpsdodge.com>
To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8/5/98 10:56am
Subject: Enhancement of the .us Domain Space
I don't really care how you do it, I just want the government out of it.
Every time the government gets in the act, we lose freedom or it costs
us money or both. Besides, because of the very nature of government,
its members don't need to be responsible for their actions. I don't
want a faceless government official to tell me what to do and/or how to
do it and that I have to pay for permits or licenses.
From: despotic neophyte <email@example.com>
Date: 8/5/98 2:00am
Subject: Re: .us domain
The domain serving the proposed .us email addresses should
unquetionably be managed by a private company. The United States Postal
Service is not in the business of email or electronic communications and
getting there would require costs that would excede estimations. A
universal system would be a great advancement, and the private domain
server which controls and operates these new email addresses should be
more than one. This could offer a great opportunity for new companies to
spring up in the telecommunications industry. If competition existed in
this matter, the process would undoubtedly run more efficiently and with
greater knowledge of what the citizens want from the service. Think of
it in similarity to the breakup of the US Postal Pagaging monopoly..
When private companies such as UPS and Federal Express were allowed to
enter the market, they offered new technologies, new and innovative
services which would have never been implemented had this service
remained under federal control.
Make the new .us addresses accessable by such companies as Fed Ex and
UPS.. It's the right thing to do.
Nicholas La Joie
From: Joseph Friedman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8/5/98 1:12am
Subject: Request for Comments on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space
In Response to the Department of Commerce, NTIA, Docket Number
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to present some recommendations on the future of the .US
domain, in response to the DOC/NTIA Request for Comments on this issue.
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
A. It should not be changed. Any changes to the structure of the .US
domain should be done leaving the existing structure as an alternative.
This is necessary for "backwards compatibility" with the organizations that
have already registered domains in the .US hierarchy. For practical
reasons the existing domains cannot be removed.
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
A. The only way any business or other organization will register a domain
in the modified .US, is if it is a second level domain (SLD), as opposed to
a 3rd level (i.e. ibm.co.us) or 4th level (i.e. ibm.armonk.ny.us). Why
should a business register a 3rd or 4th level domain in .US when they can
register a SLD in one of the new or existing gTLDs?
SLDs in .US should be registered with any American based registrar that
registers the gTLDs. Why start a new set of organizations to register SLD
in .US, when you can use the existing structure of registrars of the gTLDs?
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?
A. No. There is no reason or need for them, and likely if created they
will be sparsely used.
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 .co.us or .com.us be used for unrestricted assignment of domain names
(as in .com)? How should such unrestricted domains be administered and by
A. It should be treated as an unrestricted top-level domain like .COM.
Any other method will cause the new .US structure to be as obscure and
sparsely used, as is the current structure.
5. How should conflicting proposals and claims to manage or use .us
subdomains be resolved? Who should have responsibility for coordinating
policy for .us over the long term? What public oversight, if any, should be
A. It should be managed by the same organizations that will manage the new
and existing gTLDs (like .COM). Why create a new structure of
organizations when you will have an existing one in place? Registrations
for SLD in .US should be able to be done with any American based registrar
of the gTLDs, and the New IANA should set general policy for .US as it will
be doing for the gTLDs.
6. What rules and procedures should be used to minimize conflicts between
trademarks and domain names under .us? Should this problem be treated
differently at international, national, state, and local levels? Should
special privileges be accorded to famous trademarks, such as a right to
register directly under .us or a procedure to preempt the use of the
trademark in a range of subdomains?
A. Whatever way this issue is resolved in the discussions for the gTLDs,
use the same policy/dispute mechanism as is set up for the gTLDs.
7. What role should states play in the allocation and registration of
their respective subdomains? Should commercial names be permitted under
states as third-level domains? Or should such third-level domains be
limited to special categories such as domestic corporations or other
state-licensed entities? Should states and localities operate registries
and accept registrations directly? To what extent should state policies be
coordinated and through what mechanisms and procedures?
A. The states should play absolutely no role. This should remain entirely
a private sector/industry solution. Third level registrations are not
practical, and should not be registered under any new structure.
8. How well has the system of delegating third-level domains (localities)
to private registrars on an exclusive basis worked? How could it be
improved? Should registrars be accountable to their delegated localities
(just as country-code registries are accountable to national governments)?
Should registrars be limited to a single jurisdiction? Should multiple
competing registrars be able to register under any local, state, or
special-purpose domain under .us as in the plan proposed for generic
A. It has not worked very effectively in the sense that it isn't used by
many private sector entities (most public sector entities, outside of the
Federal government, must register in the current .US hierarchy). As such,
it should be continued as there is no reason to discontinue what is already
in place, and furthermore you can't take away the existing fourth level
domains (i.e. ibm.armonk.ny.us) that exist, as these institutions that are
utilizing them may have used them extensively and would not be willing to
9.How should the operation of the .us registry be supported? Should uniform
registration (and renewal) fees be instituted? Should registrars contribute
to the operation of the registry?
A. It should be supported in the same manner as the new and existing gTLDs
will be supported.
10.What are best management and allocation practices for country-code
domains? What practices should be emulated or avoided?
A. Emulate the models provided by the gTLDs, as these have been the most
successful TLDs. None of the ccTLDs compare to the demand or success of
11.By what type of entity should .us be administered? Private,
governmental, or quasi-governmental? For profit or not-for-profit? What are
the advantages and disadvantages of using one type of entity (private,
public, for profit, not-for-profit) over the others?
A. It should be administered by the same entities as will administer the
new and existing gTLDs. General policy should be set by the New IANA and
registrations should be able to be done with any American based gTLD
Conclusion: The best, most efficient, and most successful model, is those
presented by the gTLDs. Furthermore, there is no reason to create a
separate and distinct structure for policy and registration of the .US TLD,
when one will be in place for the other TLDs. Registrations in the .US TLD
should be a competitive process, as will be the case with the gTLDs.
Registrations should take place in the second level, as any other level
will discourage organizations from using it (they will just use one of the
gTLDs, where they can register a SLD).
The existing structure of .GOV and .MIL should be left intact. It is
serving its purpose well, and there is no reason to change it.
Consideration should be given to move State and Local governments use of
domain names from the current .US structure (stateagency.NY.US or
cityagency.CI.New-York.NY.US) to a more inclusive .GOV where every state
will have one SLD in .GOV (i.e. New Yorks would be NY.GOV) and it would
assign state agencies in the format of stateagency.NY.GOV and local
municipalities as cityagency.NY.NY.GOV. This seems to be a better format
than the existing structure for State and Local governments used currently
in the .US TLD.
It is my hope that you find use of the suggestions that I have offered.
From: Larry <email@example.com>
Date: 7/5/98 12:50pm
Subject: "us " domain assignment internet for individuals as suggested today by the U.S post office.
It would be far more efficient to embed a cyber-chip in the head of
everybody born. This would allow for the mobile tracking of everybody
thru wireless technology. Thus proving the prophesies of "brave new
world" and "Brazil"
Citizen Larry Dersh a loyal tax paying unit
From: Steve Smith <SSmith@xandex.com>
Date: 8/5/98 11:58am
Subject: comment on .us domain
I'd like to see the social security number used, e.g.
1234567890.us would be routed to a preferred address or held for pick up
at a USPS site. This has the advantage of reducing the use of the SSN
for secure identification.
I'd also like to see the junk mail issue addressed more in favor
of the public.
mail: 780 Holly Ave
Rohnert Park CA 94928-1479
From: Vicki Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8/5/98 4:17pm
Subject: Go for it!
This sounds like a great idea.
I hope you're considering how to handle the hierarchy of subdomains
94066.ca.us or sm-county.ca.us
Another question - what if someone moves? One of the annoying things about
the current physical mail and telephone system is that you are required to
get a new address when you move. That is, your postal address and telephone
number aren;t YOURS, they belong to your house/apt./office. Email is
something where your address can stay with you. That is, one's email
address should be tied top the PERSON not the SITE.
My preference would be for a permanent email@example.com which
I would keep even if I moved. After all, CyberSpace is not
three-dimensional! A proper lookup table could tie this to my physical
mail address to make life easier for the post office. I can already keep a
PO Box or a cellular phone or pager number, as long as I stay within a
pretty large radius of where I started out. This is the better system;
connectivity that isn't tied to physical location!
The answers to the above question will have a major impact on how to handle
the subdomains. Do you intend to keep thinking in an obsolete geographic
way? Or get some new ideas in place that aren't necessarily geographic, at
least not to a low level (I could deal with something at the granularity of
a state, or better yet a region; but please don't tie things down to my
street and apartment!)
Vicki Brown, firstname.lastname@example.org |\ _,,,---,,_
Journeyman Sourceror ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_
Scripts & Philtres |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'
http://www.cfcl.com/~vlb '---''(_/--' `-'\_)
P.O. Box 1269 San Bruno, CA 94066
From: "Dr. Eric Wickstrom" <email@example.com>
Date: 8/5/98 8:56am
The Postal Service proposal to provide internet addresses for all US
customers under the .us domain seems to me valuable and logical. It should
be supported and executed.
Good luck with your work.
Sincerely, Eric Wickstrom
Eric Wickstrom, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology and Immunology
Thomas Jefferson University
1025 Walnut St., Room 420
Philadelphia PA 19107
voice: 215-955-4578 fax: 215-955-4580
From: "sherman freiedman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 8/5/98 11:26pm
Subject: e mail by postal service
I think it,is a very good idea,and should be put into effect as soon as it can be done