From: chris.liljenstolpe@SSDS.com (Christopher Liljenstolpe)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 06:02:37 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: domain name zapping threat by Internic
In-Reply-To: <199606242105.OAA00824@netcom13.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <31cffb3e.3418543@denver.ssds.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Greetings,

	Actually, it has been InterNIC policy (for better or worse) to
do this since they talked about charging.  The fee structure is:

1) New registrations cost $100 for two years
2) Renewals cost $50 for one year

Anyone could put in a record for a dead domain in their nameserver, if
they wanted to, the InterNIC can't tell you what you can and can't do
(nor will they), however:
1) It would only benefit you and the people who use your nameserver
for their resolver
2) If the InterNIC re-issued that name to another entity, you would
not be able to access that entity
3) You would be breaking the hierarchical nature of the DNS space

The InterNIC feeds all of the root name servers for the 5 common (US)
TLD's.

There has been a large amount of talk about alternative root name
spaces.

My guess is that you will never see a free one however, as equipment
has to be bought and maintained, staff hired (I don't want my root
name space managed by someone who is only available on weekends or
evenings - I don't know about anybody else), space provided, net links
funded, etc.  This is what the InterNIC is supposedly spending the
money on (as well as trying to limit the explosion of TLD registries).

	-=Chris

On Mon, 24 Jun 96 14:05:57 -0700, the sage "Vladimir Z. Nuri"
<vznuri@netcom.com> scribed:

>
>surprising not to see any discussion on this here..
>
>this is a very intersting development. all kinds of news reports
>are talking about the internic zapping 25,000 DNS addresses.
>I wonder how this will turn out.
>
>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?
>
>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.
>
>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...
>
>sigh.
>
>
>Subject: Internic removing Domain names
>
>The news media is anouncing that the Internic will delete 25,000 domain 
>names that have not paid their registration fees Monday.  How will this 
>work?  If someone is using one of these Domains and has DNS entries to 
>find them what can the Internic do to disable the Domain? Won't the 
>existing DNS services keep them working?
>
>Glenn York
>
>


--
   ( (   | (               Chris Liljenstolpe <Chris.Liljenstolpe@ssds.com>
    ) ) (|  ), inc.        SSDS, Inc; 8400 Normandale Lake Blvd.; Suite 993
   business driven         Bloomington, MN   55437; 
 technology solutions      TEL 612.921.2392  FAX 612.921.2395   Fram Fram Free!
 PGP Key 1024/E8546BD5     FE 43 BD A6 3C 13 6C DB  89 B3 E4 A1 BF 6D 2A A9