Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?

[Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner () nic-naa net>]

i won't comment on your experience, having no direct knowledge. why you 
comment on mine is uninteresting.

-e

On 10/20/14 9:03 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 10/20/14 7:47 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> > having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the
> > .us zone, i differ.
>
> The plan I outlined was discussed about 2 years after Neustar took 
> over management, and TMK was never actually discussed with Neustar.
>
> > as i recall, having done the research, in the year prior to the ntia's
> > tender some six people held some 40% of the major metro area subordinate
> > namespaces. to my chagrin, relieved by a notice of termination days
> > before my stock in the company vested, the winner adopted a
> > "orange-black" model, deprecating the namespace's existing hierarchical
> > registration model for a flat registration model.
>
> Yes, but the locality-based name space still exists. I used to hold 
> some names under it, but gave them up when I moved out of state. 
> Meanwhile, several states actively use their name space. But ...
>
> > the registration process model for .us is dissimilar to the registration
> > process models of .edu, .mil and .gov, as are the contractors to the
> > government.
>
> ... none of this is relevant to the proposal at hand. Neustar manages 
> the domain on behalf of the USG. There is nothing preventing them from 
> changing the way it is used, and the 10 year period I proposed takes 
> runout of existing contracts into account (since EDU, GOV, and MIL 
> would need continued operation during that period anyway).
>
> Doug