From: Lou Zirko <lzirko@c2.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 06:51:09 +0800
To: vznuri@netcom.com
Subject: Re: domain name zapping threat by Internic
Message-ID: <199606251505.IAA22490@infinity.c2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

To: shifter@portal.stwing.upenn.edu, vznuri@netcom.com,
 cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Tue Jun 25 10:05:06 1996
The policy implemented about 10 months ago was for a $100 fee to register 
new domain names.  This was good for two years.  Current domain holders 
were to be billed $50 each year to maintain their domain names.  The 
billings for the current domain name holders are now just beginning to be 
sent.


> > I saw in an article a claim, I think, that the internic now charges
> > $100 "rent" per year for a domain. this is really amazing to me,
> > because this has totally changed from a one-time only fee, if
>  correct.
> > is that correct?
> 
> There was never a "one-time" fee.  You could register as many domains
>  as
> you wanted whenever you wanted (as long as you weren't violating a 
> trademark or something like that).  Usually people with domains would
>  run 
> into charges because they needed someone else (usually an ISP) to run
> authoritative nameservers for their domain.
> 
> > 
> > I wonder if people are going to try to find a way to "route around"
> > this action by the internic... one wonders if this is just the first
> > in a series of actions by the new spook owners. (SAIC)  essentially,
> > if someone wanted to implement a tax or a way to control the internet,
> > the NIC would be an excellent place to start.
> > 
> > I wonder if the NIC has legal authority to yank DNS address like
> > they are doing. it seems one could take them to court and have
> > a pretty good argument that people who run DNS servers are free
> > to run them however they want, and that ultimately this is what
> > determines how routing on the internet is supported, not some
> > overseeing agency like the NIC.
> 
> Nothing stops anyone from running their own name server.  However, the
>  root
> servers are what 99% of the nameservers out there point at.  No one is
>  going
> to use dns.joe.schmoe.org as their primary nameserver.
> 
> 
> > 
> > it seems to me that now would be a brilliant time for someone
> > to introduce a "non NIC registration service" that sets up an
> > alternate DNS that guarantees that members will never be charged
> > money. of course that's what the DNS "sort of" started out as...
> 
> And then there could be competition, which could potentially create
>  some
> bad scenarios.  What if one registration service refused to propagate
>  their
> domains to other registration services?
> 
> -- 
> 
> Shifter
> shifter@portal.stwing.upenn.edu
> 
> 

Lou Zirko                                (502)383-2175
Zystems                                  lzirko@c2.org
"We're all bozos on this bus" - Nick Danger, Third Eye

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1

iQEVAwUBMdAATctPRTNbb5z9AQFEBwf/choEdkykN2+DGEBWGAUsD2uuk++cWqff
v2Kc9Kks7PmihspD7iq5X0l64a5ly2oYGk6aG/dKIr+rHnc+G3Nsd/LeczdTwfku
7iRLjWFNzq720m/XSkia4ho03+jFd090azKKqJb4w5sIu3n3xVSJRLczO8ofIsZg
gsk9QjcGfA2ZJlcIsgi4NMyaGSTtM7rdGfNafQ7CXFBfjlOlv+wfe/7Kpz/dLZZD
Ex7TS8Fgr2CA515F+6e3CkROKesn0EXLn087WTkwbNIWsreaJy4EPJxOXbz+KDN+
SuRfvKpQNSgHC0Q+m6JAuZnxLZcU1lZNSe7+DItAz7k0gwzgJVx80Q==
=W4NF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----