Hmm.. so when do you think we'll see ISP IP block auction?
-dorian
I was under the impression that address blocks weren't transferable. Did
I miss that part of class?
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 16:19:12 -0800
From: domains@mrls.com
Subject: ISP Domain AuctionThe following internet domain names are hereby submitted for auction to
the highest bidder:astrology.com apparelservices.com britishtrade.com
businesssfinancing.com cambodia.com canadatrade.com
checks.com closeouts.com czechoslovakia.com
deutschland.com diets.com egypt.com
exerciseequipment.com exporttrade.com finland.com
giftwares.com golfequipment.com guatemala.com
greatbritain.com guadalajara.com homebasedbusinesses.com
importtrade.com jerusalem.com koreatrade.com
mailinglists.com manufacturing.com maritimeworld.com
mexicotrade.com moneymanager.com moneysources.com
nicaragua.com norway.com oceanshores.com
offprice.com offpriceclothes.com pageants.com
pilgrimage.com ports.net poulsbo.com
puertorico.com riverrafting.com romania.com
sanpedrosula.com seniorcitizens.com shipping.net
skiresorts.com snohomish.com soulmate.com
sweaters.com teenager.com teenagers.com
tegucigalpa.com thailandtrade.com usedfurniture.com****************************************************************************
Offers begin at $100.00 per domain.
Final bids must be received by 03/31/96 11:59pm PDTTo submit a bid on one of these domain names, return this mail or visit
http://brokeragent.com.
My personal opinion is that the IANA should recommend that the InterNIC
simply unregister the names.
randy
randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) writes:
>
> My personal opinion is that the IANA should recommend that the InterNIC
> simply unregister the names.
>
> randy
I second that, especially for the country names.
Daniel
> randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) writes:
>
> My personal opinion is that the IANA should recommend that the InterNIC
> simply unregister the names.
>
> randyI second that, especially for the country names.
Well, this is because it is not into your pocket? I think it is totaly
legit what the guy is doing. He bought the names, paid for it, and can do
whatever he wants with it. He has the RIGHTS! You guys forced him to pay
for it, now you pay for your stupidity to ask money for domain names, not
for the registration effort.
Mike
No. I'll bet he _hasn't_ paid for it.
I'll put $20 on my hunch that all of the names will be un-registered
anyway because he refuses to pay the InterNIC's fee imposed last year.
Domain Name: CZECHOSLOVAKIA.COM
Record created on 29-Jul-95.
Domain Name: CHECKS.COM
Record created on 26-Apr-95.
His apparent plan to get all these free domain names and sell them off has
been thwarted by the InterNIC's policy. It's the InterNIC policy which
has caused him to want to sell all of these.
Just let the public forum where that was posted know that they'll expire
anyway when the InterNIC doesn't receive money from him.
/cah
ok, I did not have that background on this particular one.
However, even with the paid there had been recently a posting of
someone registering thousands of names (however not of widespread
commercial use that one, it was all under the belt line).
The point I wanted to raise is, that INternic is asking money for
registration of names, not for the registration act.
If I would want to register 200 names, I pay 200 names. We had the
discussion here on what to do with copyrighted names. See Pluto: planet
or Disnay character, let Nasa (guess tehy have pluto) and disney fight.
Well, they won't. And I guess the consensus was that domain names are not
infringing with registered trademarks (I can call my dog goofy without
paying disney a royalty, or am I wrong there?).
Now we have one to show up and barter names, like the scheme: I register
what Unilever wants before them and sell it back. Big deal to me, may he
be happy. However, a corporation could (not here of course) decide that a
definitive termination measure for $30k is cheaper than talking to the
individual ( ;-] ).
Shouldn't we here see how we get our act together, e.g. peering (why in
this community are there people not peering, putting up 'rules' etc, when
peering would just make everyone happy since the routing landscape is way
simpler when there are lots of direct links), and of course, the same
always: instead of creating unnecessary friction to put into the address
allocation mechanism a measure to satisfy building up ISP/NSP businesses.
I agree that there might some people need more restrictive routing, but
restrictions must always be implemented in a way not to create injustice
or even only extra problems.
Well, the prefix-filtering policies of the unnamed ISP you mention above
is definitely a problem. However, I don't see it as a problem for me,
because most ISP's are sensible enough to route that kind of traffic.
I look at it as a problem for customers who use that unnamed ISP. Those
customers should contact their providers and pressure them to get
alternative links (or, in the case they are a direct customer of this unnamed
ISP, change to another provider or obtain another link and become
multi-homed).
I think that right now, we shouldn't be too concerned with "CIDRize or
DIE!". At this point, we should be helping other entities out--you're
not FORCING them to renumber by making their networks non-routable
within one organization--you're screwing your customers out of optimal
connectivity to any particular site.
The Internet has gotten too much away from the original purpose, to share
information. It has gone to a vast commercial marketing symbol, where
most companies really don't care about other entities--"Why should we
help this group? They're customers of ISP X!"
Now, if there's a sincere need to filter, say, because you still use
AGS+'s with CSC/3's and 16 MB of RAM and your poor 1988-age equipment
can't handle it, then fine...
/cah