domain name zapping threat by Internic

[Shifter]

> From cypherpunks-errors at toad.com  Mon Jun 24 22:57:09 1996
> Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by portal.stwing.upenn.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA03496 for <shifter at portal.stwing.upenn.edu>; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 22:57:07 -0400
> Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA00890 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 16:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: from cygnus.com (cygnus.com [140.174.1.1]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA00878 for <cypherpunks at toad.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 16:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: from netcom13.netcom.com (vznuri at netcom13.netcom.com [192.100.81.125]) by cygnus.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA21314 for <cypherpunks at toad.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:07:22 -0700
> Received: from localhost (vznuri at localhost) by netcom13.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom)
> 	id OAA00824; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:05:58 -0700
> Message-Id: <199606242105.OAA00824 at netcom13.netcom.com>
> To: cypherpunks at toad.com
> cc: vznuri at netcom.com
> Subject: domain name zapping threat by Internic
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 14:05:57 -0700
> From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri at netcom.com>
> Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com
> Precedence: bulk
> 
> 
[intro deleted]
> 
> 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 at portal.stwing.upenn.edu

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2

mQCNAzF+qeMAAAEEALdaUpOTi8EtNjZMA9URTXGmQq1NPdyRSx2JXhQ7Q8Yz9qxU
q3tqRtlydRqp37VPmygibGB8eS7RptqolTlYvrVMHXSDcZjKpgpZA9d+3rCKUaLM
F9Hvltl2EafIEspVoNUYahpdXof4oMjs2sKGzJO8aDwyM34pRaicZR8SZJz9AAUR
tClTaGlmdGVyIDxzaGlmdGVyQHBvcnRhbC5zdHdpbmcudXBlbm4uZWR1Pg==
=Eucp
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----