Return to Proposed Revisions to NSI Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: unordained
Date/Time: Fri, March 2, 2001 at 3:10 AM GMT
Browser: Konqueror/2.0 using X11
Score: 5
Subject: New proposal


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., for example, uses a name-routing system to allow "" to be any of more than ten servers, all of which register as This is different from their other services, such as They have not attempted (that I know of) to buy, 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.


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy