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:

On Fri, Jun 05, 1998 at 12:05:58PM -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote:

...

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?

-- Steven J. Sobol - Founding Member, Postmaster/Webmaster, ISP Liaison -- Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail (FREE) - Dedicated to education about, and prevention of, Unsolicited Broadcast E-mail (UBE), also known as SPAM. Info: http://www.ybecker.net

On Sun, Jun 07, 1998 at 08:10:09PM -0300, Chuck Gomes wrote:

...

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?

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.

On Sun, Jun 07, 1998 at 08:10:09PM -0300, Chuck Gomes wrote:

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?

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 -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com

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

At 23:58 6/8/98 -0400, you wrote:

...

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.

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]

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

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. Why should the Internet be require to stuff the whole world into little pigeonholes in violation of the laws of physics? -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

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. 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. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*

On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 12:34:56PM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

...

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 -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com

At 12:34 6/9/98 -0700, you wrote:

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?

Let's remember for a moment that not all net.users are net.savvy. I think the TLDs SHOULD have a logical category structure. If I'm trying to find an educational institution, I'd expect to find it in the .edu TLD, a commercial organization in .com, etc. As I recall, that's the entire purpose in naming the TLDs as they are. While there's no real NEED for TLD consistancy, it certainly makes life easier and allows for differentiation between, for example only, Liberty.edu (being Liberty University) and Liberty.com (Liberty Mutual Insurance). 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]

On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Dean Robb wrote:

Let's remember for a moment that not all net.users are net.savvy. I think the TLDs SHOULD have a logical category structure. If I'm trying to find an educational institution, I'd expect to find it in the .edu TLD, a commercial organization in .com, etc. As I recall, that's the entire purpose in naming the TLDs as they are.

Let's remember that not all net.users and net.resources are located in north.america. And that not all net.names are registered with the same.nic. I think its time you opened your eyes a.bit. matt.ghali --matt@bikkle.interq.or.jp------------------------------------------- Matt Ghali MG406/GM023JP - System Administrator, interQ, Inc AS7506 "Sub-optimal is a state of mind." -Dave Rand, <dlr@bungi.com>

On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 11:35:08PM -0400, Greg Simpson wrote:

Call me a whiner, but I still believe if .com is taken, you shouldn't take the .org unless you're truly nonprofit.

.org was never meant as a domain for nonprofits; it was meant as a catchall to be used when your organization didn't fit into .com, .net, .edu or .gov. -- Steven J. Sobol - Founding Member, Postmaster/Webmaster, ISP Liaison -- Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail (FREE) - Dedicated to education about, and prevention of, Unsolicited Broadcast E-mail (UBE), also known as SPAM. Info: http://www.ybecker.net

Is anyone else down here in Atlanta for Supercomm? Want to get together tonite -- Wednesday? Anyone here from Mindspring? I'd love to visit and get a tour if you're available either today or tomorrow morning/afternoon. If so, feel free to give me a call at 415 826 6000 (my PCS phone -- it works in Atlanta.) Wayne -- Wayne D. Correia Critical Path Inc. tel: +1.415.543.2800 CTO San Francisco, CA 94105 fax: +1.415.543.2830 InterNIC: (WAYNE-ORG) http://www.criticalpath.net cell: +1.415.826.6000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 FYI, The MITRE corporation is a non-profit research company, doing (primarily) research for the USAF. Phil (ex-MITRE employee #19950)

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Michael Dillon Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 9:53 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: WorldNIC

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

...

On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 11:53:42PM -0400, Steve Sobol wrote:

...

.org was never meant as a domain for nonprofits; it was meant as a catchall to be used when your organization didn't fit into .com, .net, .edu or .gov.

Do you have a reference for that Steven? It doesn't match what I remember...

The MITRE Corporation registered mitre.org in 1985 and the Aerospace Corporation registered aero.org in 1987. This idea that .ORG was only for non-profit organizations is an example of historical revisionism propogated by people who were not there at the time the TLDs were created.

-- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBNX6+zzW2hWRjwTVBEQJq8ACeJ7REJS2iTT5MN/WuFOwpqhsTNkAAnicu Pl1+n01Vb6E9pdyHyEk2dpby =D2LE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 09:53 AM 6/10/98 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

The MITRE Corporation registered mitre.org in 1985 and the Aerospace Corporation registered aero.org in 1987. This idea that .ORG was only for non-profit organizations is an example of historical revisionism propogated by people who were not there at the time the TLDs were created.

Well, if one draws ones references from "DNS and BIND" (First Edition) by Albitz and Liu, which is widely accepted as a definitive resource on DNS, on page 21, the refer to .org as "Non-commercial organizations, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org)". This is further propogated in the Second Edition on page 18. RFC 1591 which defines it as a miscellaneous TLD came along two years later. RFC 920 (1984) defines it for domains that don't fall under the .COM, .NET, .GOV, etc, singling out commercial entities for .COM exclusively. That kinda leaves .org for noncommercials by inference. Then again, there used to be a requirement to have OPERATIONAL name servers when registering a domain, but that seems to have gotten historically revised away also when $$$ entered the picture. But I digress... Damn revisionists anyways ...

-- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*

============================================================================= Eric Germann Computer and Communications Technologies ekgermann@cctec.com Van Wert, OH 45891 Phone: 419 968 2640 http://www.cctec.com Fax: 419 968 2641 Network Design, Connectivity & System Integration Services A Microsoft Solution Provider "Linux.. the choice of a gnutered generation." - brad@poofy.tbn.tm

At 09:53 6/10/98 -0700, you wrote:

...

...

.org was never meant as a domain for nonprofits; it was meant as a catchall to be used when your organization didn't fit into .com, .net, .edu or .gov.

Do you have a reference for that Steven? It doesn't match what I remember...

The MITRE Corporation registered mitre.org in 1985 and the Aerospace Corporation registered aero.org in 1987. This idea that .ORG was only for non-profit organizations is an example of historical revisionism propogated by people who were not there at the time the TLDs were created.

Oh, Lord, let's settle this. Anyone ever think of checking the *gasp!* pertinent RFCs?: RFC 1032 DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE November 1987 "COM" is meant to incorporate subdomains of companies and businesses. "EDU" was initiated to accommodate subdomains set up by universities and other educational institutions. "GOV" exists to act as parent domain for subdomains set up by government agencies. "MIL" was initiated to act as parent to subdomains that are developed by military organizations. "NET" was introduced as a parent domain for various network-type organizations. Organizations that belong within this top-level domain are generic or network-specific, such as network service centers and consortia. "NET" also encompasses network management-related organizations, such as information centers and operations centers. "ORG" exists as a parent to subdomains that do not clearly fall within the other top-level domains. This may include technical- support groups, professional societies, or similar organizations. Quite clearly, .net and .org are not intended to be catch-all TLDs for folks whose .com domain name choice is taken; they have specific organizational meanings. In this, as in so many other matters related to the RFCs, Network Solutions (and their progeny) flouts the 'rules' with impunity. As someone else pointed out, it *seems* that as soon as NSI was allowed to start profiting from registrations, the idea of following any RFCs that might interfere with the money flow fell by the wayside. 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]

Hello..

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?

well you are offering something you cant deliver... we are just about to register domains in 30 countries for 2 customers and a lot of NICs want a trademark proof, that this company has a trademark in this country.. second: often the company must have an address in this country... e.g you cant register a domain in the TLD of germany .DE if you cant provide an adddress in germany. what are you doing, if your customer doesnt have a "real" address in germany ? you have lost.... btw: the german NIC is a real desaster currently. To do this kind of job, you need a *lot* of letters, papers etc to complete it in all the interesting TLDs... Well every company can do their business, i think over 17.000.- is a lot of money...but everybody can decide to get to Worldnic or not :-))) Winfried