|
Any organization that is in charge of something as outspoken, worldwide, and diverse
as the Internet should, I believe, be a non-profit organization itself. Therefore,
I propose the following points - - If a charge is assessed for the registration
of a domain name, it should be done only in the amount absolutely necessary to keep
DNS boxes around the world updated with the most recent list. If necessary, I'm sure
plenty of volunteer programmers, DBA's, and network admins will be glad to assist
in this. It's worth the trouble to have a free internet.
- With the coming age
of IPv6 (in spite of Microsoft) the quanitity of IP addresses will be greatly reduced.
With the shrinking problem of IP scarcity, there should also be a decreased need
for competitive measures for naming, thus an overall reduction in the costs of domain
name registration overall, regardless of other implementations.
- A different
pricing scheme should be applied to different domains, such as free access to .org,
lowered cost to .net, and full price to .com. However, in light of the number of
currently free domains, such as .can (under certain restrictions, yes) it seems odd
that the United States, which historically has replaced .us or .usa with .com, should
continue to charge through a private company.
- No change should be retroactive,
except reduction in the cost of "subscriptions" if a cost is maintained. (And this
should be automatic, unlike cell phone plans in the US.)
- Most of us really don't
care about the actual domain used by a web address: a .net might as well be a .com,
or a .org a .net, a .uk, or a .cc. Therefore, we might as well simply eliminate any
distinction, and allow companies and individuals to choose the extension that makes
the most sense from their own point of view.
- As a different method of preventing
hogging (considering that cost has not, historically, prevented corporations from
effectively buying large tracts of internet landscape) I propose a more effective
measure: one major name per application per business. Yahoo.com, for example, uses
a name-routing system to allow "my.yahoo.com" to be any of more than ten servers,
all of which register as my.yahoo.com. This is different from their other services,
such as mail.yahoo.com. They have not attempted (that I know of) to buy my.yahoo.net,
because the single name is sufficient. Any business that finds that it is =not= sufficient
to have one name per service has a bad marketting plan anyway. The exact method of
implementation, of course, remains to be discussed.
- The main service we expect
from a system such as yours is an equilibrium-maintenance between large companies
and smaller organizations or individuals: this has not been done, as the decision-maker
has been money. A fairer system would be to continue paying you, through registration
fees, for you to maintain a system as suggested above, allowing more domain names
to be available, cleaning up the 'net from all of its symbolic links, aliases, and
fakes (webcralwer, etc.)
Thank you. I look forward to using a service that actually
makes sense from the point of view of its users, the world.
|
|
|