What's this deal about InterNIC forwarding all request to WorldNIC? If I
send in a (filled out) registration template to hostmaster@internic.net,
it's completed by InterNIC...
I think the real fraud is in WorldNIC and other registrars (like Netnames in
the UK) selling vanity names in country TLDs. IANA encourages this.
WorldNIC has an offer for $17,545 USD that will register a domain in all 72
TLDs (or 5 domains in all 72 TLDs for $87,725 USD)...
I'm CC'ing this to Chuck Gomes at InterNIC. I'd really love to hear
verification that this is true.
Mr Gomes? Care to provide comments on the possibility that NSI is defrauding
the Internet community with this plan?
It is obviously time (well, way past time, actually) for me to go make
a big hairy thing of myself on the domain policy lists; my NTIA NOI
comments, which in theory were part of the universe of info used by
Magaziner et al to come to their conclusions, harped on this point
heavily: you can't split the namespace horizontally (.com v. .firm v
.store) because people will do what Mindspring <loud growl> is
_encouragingg_ them to do: race to register their name in _every_
possibly TLD... which makes the whole thing useless.
Annoying as Jim Fleming is, he is running with an idea I also published
in those notes: .am, .fm and .tv. Vertical division of the namespace
(by industry or licensure, for example) will work, and is an excellent
idea. Otherwise, I'm considering proposing the abolishment of
non-geographic domains entirely.
And this is now entirely off-topic, and any replies will only be
entertained in email.
Cheers,
-- jra
Chris,
idNames, now a part of Network Solutions, offers registration in country code TLDs
for companies that would like to do that. Is that fraud? What am I missing here?
Chuck Gomes
Network Solutions
Steve Sobol wrote:
17,545 = $243 per domain.
Ok, not fraud in the strict sense of the word, but I wouldn't pay
$243 to get a name registered in a certain domain. It's way high.
Chris,
idNames, now a part of Network Solutions, offers registration in country
code TLDs
for companies that would like to do that. Is that fraud? What am I
missing here?
I am glad that Chuck Gnomes answers, and want to see what his further
answer to this is. One hopes that Batistia and Telage have finally figured
out that they can ignore questions like this only at their peril. They
have good people working for them and I think that there is likely to be an
answer that is reasonable... I hope so.... Not answering gives the
appearance of the very arrogance that has lead so much of the network
community to wish for their destruction. Perhaps as Becky and ira figure
out what to do with NSI, it is not too late for them to learn this
important question?
First, Chuck, please adjust your mailer so that it hard breaks lines at
about 72 characters, won't you?
Now that we've gotten _that_ cleared up 
I read both replies to this to make sure I didn't overlap first, and
I'm glad I did, since _I_ hadn't done the math yet. $243/domain is
quite a bit high, probably unconcsionably so, although I'm not here to
cast asparagus.
What _I_ take issue with (as most regular NANOG readers probably
already know) is this "the second level is really the first level"
bullshit that's being promoted by the unresponsible half of the
Internet world who are only in it for the money.
Domain Namespace is a natural resource, Mr. Gomes. There _is_ only one
root; there can only be one root. Thus, top level domains are scarce,
each one can only be used once. Encouraging people to register their
second level domain in _every available TLD_ is inane at best, and
horribly stupid at worst. This same sort of crap is why the government
has felt it necessary to step in and legally limit the taking of
natural resources in the physical world.
At least, _there_ the benefits people were trying unfairly to reap were
_tangible_. In the DNS namespace, all this does is confuse the "normal
users" (IE: everyone who isn't a geek like us to a faretheewell.
"Oh, cocacola.com is the same as cocacola.net, which is the same as
cocacola.co...? Why are the '.com' things there, then, at all?"
See how moronic this is?
There's some truly dumb stuff in the namespace, but this idea takes the
cake. If this is the best y'all people can do -- and yes, my finger is
pointing _straight_ at NSI, Chuck -- y'all deserve to have every last
thing you do regulated by government lawmakers who don't have a clue
about engineering _either_.
But don't take the rest of us down with you, ok? I think poking a
couple congressmen with a decent grasp of technology to get a full
audit of Net Sol's contract with the NSF might be interesting indeed...
but it would sure as hell make your life difficult.
Cheers,
-- jra
horribly stupid at worst. This same sort of crap is why the government
has felt it necessary to step in and legally limit the taking of
natural resources in the physical world.
My theory is that either Network Solutions is just looking for more ways
to make a buck...or they want to make domain registration and modification
such a three ring circus that the US government will decide that in order
to keep order on the net, the TLDs must be controlled by a single
authority. Since Network Solutions "owns" the current registration system
and databases, they'd be the natural choice for the one to be handed the
monopoly. Remember when domain registrations regularly took days or weeks
to happen? Do you really want to go back to that if Network Solutions
loses the monopoly, refuses to give up their setup, and some new company
has a few 15 year olds throw together a registration system?
"Oh, cocacola.com is the same as cocacola.net, which is the same as
cocacola.co...? Why are the '.com' things there, then, at all?"
For the fees, obviously. "Why should we settle for $35/year for
cocacola.com when we can get a hundreds or perhaps thousands per year by
selling the Cocacola company their name in .com, .net, .org, .us, and a
host of other and future TLDs?"
You say domain space is a natural resource.
Network Solutions agrees. They're going to start strip mining it and run
to the bank with the proceeds. Why should they care about the effects?
They're going to make boatloads of money.
See how moronic this is?
No Jay...you missed economics 101.
Unfortunately, the Network Solutions people spent all their time in
economics and forgot to attend ethics 101 and biology 101.
cocacola.com when we can get a hundreds or perhaps thousands per year by
selling the Cocacola company their name in .com, .net, .org, .us, and a
host of other and future TLDs?"
What about the "deeper meaning", ie, .org = nonprofit, .net = network
provider etc, .com = commercial?
Call me a whiner, but I still believe if .com is taken, you shouldn't
take the .org unless you're truly nonprofit.
-g
> cocacola.com when we can get a hundreds or perhaps thousands per year by
> selling the Cocacola company their name in .com, .net, .org, .us, and a
> host of other and future TLDs?"What about the "deeper meaning", ie, .org = nonprofit, .net = network
provider etc, .com = commercial?
Where have you been? Those meanings went out the window when they started
collecting money for domain registrations. Once upon a time, .net and
.org were processed by hand, and if they didn't think your explanation
justified a domain in the TLD requested, they'd NAK your registration and
tell you why.
Now we pay for it, and it's gone from being done by hand (or at least
human moderated) to fully automated. Hmm...
Back in early 1996, I had to really push and be somewhat creative to get a
particular .net registration through.
Call me a whiner, but I still believe if .com is taken, you shouldn't
take the .org unless you're truly nonprofit.
Well...most people go for .net before resorting to .org.
Well, their brass did. Check out their IPO filing sometime on EDGAR (I
don't have the URL handy)...Mr. Battista and Co. have incredible bonuses,
salaries and stock options, then double-dip by getting the SAIC share as
well. I personally consider them modern corporate raiders (remember them?
Buy a company, milk it, then break it up and sell the pieces) with the
Internet as their corporation.
Has InterNIC ever even gotten around to installing their off-site backups?
What do spammers and nails have in common? They're both intended for
hammering.
Dean Robb
PC-Easy
On-site computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]
Ironic, isn't it, that the very company charged with safeguarding and
controlling the major TLDs is the very company that destroyed their
usefullness?
When I did a registration dry run today at WorldNIC, it told me that my
chosen .com domain was taken, but offered me my choice of .net or .org.
Thank you, Network Solutions, for ruining the entire purpose of seperate
TLDs. Why don't you just toss them all, and everyone will register a .nsi
domain? For a suitably large fee, of course.
What do spammers and nails have in common? They're both intended for
hammering.
Dean Robb
PC-Easy
On-site computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]
"You're a whiner".
Actually, I concur completely. I _will_ give certain types of
non-network-infrastructure sites slack in ".net". "price.net", as a
site for a comparative pricing service site, for example.
But if any commercial enterprises are in .org, then NSI has (completely
unsurprisingly) been flouting it's own rules.
Again.
Cheers,
-- jra
Huh!? Do you think that commercial enterprises in .org is something new!?
I don't have the definitive answer as to when the first commercial
enterprise registered in .org but in 1993, an ISP in Toronto named
Internex Online registered io.org.
Why should the Internet be require to stuff the whole world into little
pigeonholes in violation of the laws of physics?
> But if any commercial enterprises are in .org, then NSI has (completely
> unsurprisingly) been flouting it's own rules.
> Again.Huh!? Do you think that commercial enterprises in .org is something new!?
I don't have the definitive answer as to when the first commercial
enterprise registered in .org but in 1993, an ISP in Toronto named
Internex Online registered io.org.
Ok. You've merely proven my point.
Why should the Internet be require to stuff the whole world into little
pigeonholes in violation of the laws of physics?
Answering that question is the purported purpose of the entire NOI
process the NTIA has just gone through. Alas, the work is being
shepherded by people who, in large part, are politicans and idiots,
rather than engineers, and _it is an engineering problem_.
How does providing different top level domains for different categories
of organizations "violate the laws of physics", Michael?
Cheers,
-- jra
It tries to confine objects to a single state whereas physics teaches that
the universe cannot be so neatly sliced and diced.
Of course, I could have simply asked the question that needs to be asked,
namely: why would anyone want a name to include a category anyway?
Your name, Jay Ashworth, gives no clue as to your education, your
training, your profession, your age, your race, your height. Why should an
Internet domain name be any different? The DNS needs to be hierarchical so
that a query can trace a path from the root of the DNS to find the IP
address belonging to a name. But why should the branches in the hierarchy
mean anything in particular in any given human language? Some people would
like to restrict .com to COMMON usage, .org to ORGASMIC providers and .net
to CLEAN content (net is French for clean), but I personally don't give a
damn and prefer a more diverse and chaotic system of naming.
You appear to have confused the DNS with a white pages type directory.
The DNS is categorized. If you want a non-categorized system, go build
one.
Aled
> How does providing different top level domains for different categories
> of organizations "violate the laws of physics", Michael?It tries to confine objects to a single state whereas physics teaches that
the universe cannot be so neatly sliced and diced.
Taxonomy isn't a physical science, is it?
Of course, I could have simply asked the question that needs to be asked,
namely: why would anyone want a name to include a category anyway?
Because people in different categories want "the same name". It's a
convenient divisor. DNS names are actually _addresses_, and can't be
expected to map one to one with names in the large; this is an attempt
to soften the impact of that problem.
But you already knew that, no?
Your name, Jay Ashworth, gives no clue as to your education, your
training, your profession, your age, your race, your height. Why should an
Internet domain name be any different? The DNS needs to be hierarchical so
that a query can trace a path from the root of the DNS to find the IP
address belonging to a name. But why should the branches in the hierarchy
mean anything in particular in any given human language?
Because that's the way people _think_? If I'm looking for the Coca
Cola Drinkers Club, it's obvious to someone who knows what the tags
_are_ that that will be at cocacola.org, not cocacola.com, Coke's
lawyers notwithstanding.
Some people would
like to restrict .com to COMMON usage, .org to ORGASMIC providers and .net
to CLEAN content (net is French for clean), but I personally don't give a
damn and prefer a more diverse and chaotic system of naming.
I know you made those up out of thin air, but still..
If you want a real answer as to how this should be done, ask a
librarian. And the fact that that's my recommendation should say
something all by itself.
Cheers,
-- jra
You've not been paying attention. When they started collecting money for
registrations, all the rules at to what's appropriate use of .com, .net
and .org went out the window.