Hmm.. so when do you think we'll see ISP IP block auction? -dorian ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 16:19:12 -0800 From: domains@mrls.com Subject: ISP Domain Auction The 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 PDT To submit a bid on one of these domain names, return this mail or visit http://brokeragent.com.
On Sun, 11 Feb 1996, Dorian Kim wrote:
Hmm.. so when do you think we'll see ISP IP block auction?
I was under the impression that address blocks weren't transferable. Did I miss that part of class? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clayton O'Neill Business--> Premier One Inc whatever@oneill.net clayton@premier.net http://www.oneill.net <--Personal http://www.premier.net
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 16:19:12 -0800 From: domains@mrls.com Subject: ISP Domain Auction
The 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 PDT
To 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
On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
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.
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
Daniel
---------------------------------------------------------- IDT Michael F. Nittmann --------- Senior Network Architect \ / (201) 928 4456 ------- (201) 928 1888 FAX \ / mn@tremere.ios.com --- V IOS
On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, mike wrote:
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.
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. On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Craig A. Huegen wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, mike wrote:
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.
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
---------------------------------------------------------- IDT Michael F. Nittmann --------- Senior Network Architect \ / (201) 928 4456 ------- (201) 928 1888 FAX \ / mn@tremere.ios.com --- V IOS
On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, mike wrote:
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
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...
Just make sure you contract with someone who can handle all the routes to be your default route / transit provider. Provider X, like many smaller ISPs, should just admit that their equipment or expertise is inadequate to route the entire Internet and contract with someone who can handle all routes.
Re the domain aucition, Randy Bush writes:
My personal opinion is that the IANA should recommend that the InterNIC simply unregister the names.
A quick perusal of the Internic policy for domain names states that "... as an express condition and material inducement of the grant of an applicant's ('Applicant') request to register a Domain Name, Applicant represents and warrants as follows: . . (b) Applicant has a bona fide intention to use the Domain Name on a regular basis on the Internet; . . " Interpretation is left to the reader. I couldn't find much else that speaks to this issue. While I'm in agreement with the sentiment to unregister the names, unless there has actually been a violation of a formal agreement, I think it would be a grave mistake for the Internic to do so. It would be a quick ride to the bottom of a very slippery slope. mb
participants (8)
-
booloo＠cats.ucsc.edu -
Clayton O'Neill -
Craig A. Huegen -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Dorian Kim -
jon＠branch.com -
mike -
randy＠psg.com