nanog mailing list archives

Re: NSI and competition to RIPE and APNIC


From: Carl Oppedahl <carl () oppedahl com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 09:50:48 -0400

At 10:22 AM 05/12/97 CDT, Stan Barber wrote:

Carl writes:

And the outcome of all this affects every Nanog member.  It affects every
network operator, every ISP, every sysop.  It affects the 1.2 million
owners of the 1.2 million domain names in COM and NET and ORG.  Every
network operator, every SIP, every sysop, every domain name owner, should
pay attention to all of this and speak up.

Carl, I don't think there are 1.2 million domain name registrants as many
domains (like CyberPromo, for example) has registered multiple domains names.

Nowadays, taking annual fees into account, the number of parties owning
thousands of domain names is dropping quickly.  Okay, so let's say it is a
ten-to-one ratio (which it's not, I believe it is more like 1.5 to one)
then the number of domain name owners would still be 120,000.  And those
120,000 owners should still be speaking up, in the absence of which things
may happen that they won't like later.

That being said, there is already an alternative in the county code domains.
There, the policies are different (though not necessarily better) than NSI.

That is no comfort at all, none whatsoever, to someone who has invested
years of time and sweat and energy and money in a COM domain name.  If the
answer is, "Hey, you don't like NSI's domain name policy?  So give up your
domain name and start over again in a two-letter domain!" then it is no
answer at all.

That's not to say that the exising gTLD infrastructure does not need to
evolve. It must. I agree with you that those who are domain name registrants
in the current gTLDs have a stake in this evolution and should express a
thoughtful and constructive opinion on how this evolution should take place.
Unfortunately, some who have expressed opinions have chosen not to be 
either thoughtful or constructive. I think some operators have been reluctant
to participate because of this. 

As I am sure you are also aware, the present structure of the .US domain is
unworkable for any business that is located in more than one state, or for
any business that thinks it might ever move from one state to another.
There ought to be a .com.us, for example, and at present there isn't one.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Current thread: