domain name zapping threat by Internic

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

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

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

An entity claiming to be Shifter wrote:
: 
: 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.
: 

Except of course schmoe.org.  Primary name service is usually provided
by the organization's own nameserver.  The secondary name server should
(as per the rfc whose number I forget at the moment) be on a separate
network segment.  Anyone who lists a machine from root-servers.net as their
primary needs to learn a bit more about DNS.  Root servers exist to provide
an authoritative starting point for recursive lookups, they do not provide
name service for anything other than top level domains (com. edu. net. etc.).

The NIC has the power to remove domains based upon it's authority among 
the root servers.


- -- 
    Mark Rogaski   | Why read when you can just sit and |      Member
  GTI System Admin |         stare at things?           | Programmers Local
  wendigo@gti.net  | Any expressed opinions are my own  |     # 0xfffe
 wendigo@pobox.com | unless they can get me in trouble. |     APL-CPIO


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMdAhfg0HmAyu61cJAQEWkQP7BFtGrStaG/ly+xl0T1u079tEM2loUGEk
MEDkFzOtHr9kTbab+fKrNwsG23M+PEpB6YIr3QUpfFgByf8jCthUJj7uqtZ952wz
iVnGMMgSE1xBMPKEAVqeJcpqzboHQP01URaPsHoya/ybLXtfQR0RUsydnMIOeEbc
c2f3LNaLzpM=
=oAeG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

An entity claiming to be Shifter wrote:
: 
: 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.
: 

Except of course schmoe.org.  Primary name service is usually provided
by the organization's own nameserver.  The secondary name server should
(as per the rfc whose number I forget at the moment) be on a separate
network segment.  Anyone who lists a machine from root-servers.net as their
primary needs to learn a bit more about DNS.  Root servers exist to provide
an authoritative starting point for recursive lookups, they do not provide
name service for anything other than top level domains (com. edu. net. etc.).

The NIC has the power to remove domains based upon it's authority among 
the root servers.


- -- 
    Mark Rogaski   | Why read when you can just sit and |      Member
  GTI System Admin |         stare at things?           | Programmers Local
  wendigo@gti.net  | Any expressed opinions are my own  |     # 0xfffe
 wendigo@pobox.com | unless they can get me in trouble. |     APL-CPIO


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMdAhfg0HmAyu61cJAQEWkQP7BFtGrStaG/ly+xl0T1u079tEM2loUGEk
MEDkFzOtHr9kTbab+fKrNwsG23M+PEpB6YIr3QUpfFgByf8jCthUJj7uqtZ952wz
iVnGMMgSE1xBMPKEAVqeJcpqzboHQP01URaPsHoya/ybLXtfQR0RUsydnMIOeEbc
c2f3LNaLzpM=
=oAeG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 25 Jun 1996 09:53:17 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:

>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?

	Then no one would use them for DNS service.  Back when the NIC first
started charging for services I remember seeing a message from someone who was
going to attempt to make another root name service, but I haven't heard much
about it since.
	Since the NIC charges $100 per registration, you can bet there will be
some legislation somewhere along the line.  They must be makeing 5000-10000%
profit.



Greg Miller: Programmer/Analyst
DOS -- A user friendly version of UNIX.
gregmi@mis.net
http://grendel.ius.indiana.edu/~gmiller/

On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Shifter wrote:

> 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).  

even that was questionable, there were a rash of copyright infringements 
a couple of years ago.. the legal holders of the names that were taken 
had to go to great lengths to get the name, and sometimes could not.. i'm 
sure you've heard of the toys-r-us vs. roadkill-r-us domain dispute, and 
how microsoft.com finally `persuaded' micros0ft.com to give it up..

at any rate - has anyone tried out that new f-secure by the folks who 
brought us f-prot? "military strength internet encryption".. seems to be 
an encrypted telnet, but i can't replace our server to test it..

				bri..

--bdodds@jyacc.com
brian dodds, systems administration, jyacc, inc. wellesley, ma 
--617.431.7431x125
opinions expressed within are not necessarily my own or anyone elses..

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

>>>>> "Vladimir" == Vladimir Z Nuri <vznuri@netcom.com> writes:

Vladimir> surprising not to see any discussion on this here..

Vladimir> this is a very intersting development. all kinds of news reports
Vladimir> are talking about the internic zapping 25,000 DNS addresses.
Vladimir> I wonder how this will turn out.

Vladimir> I saw in an article a claim, I think, that the internic now
Vladimir> charges $100 "rent" per year for a domain. this is really
Vladimir> amazing to me, because this has totally changed from a
Vladimir> one-time only fee, if correct.  is that correct?

Not even close.


[ URL ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/domain-template.txt ]        [ 09/95 ]

******************* Please DO NOT REMOVE Version Number ********************

Domain Version Number: 2.0

**************** Please see attached detailed instructions *****************

******** Only for registrations under ROOT, COM, ORG, NET, EDU, GOV ********
 ...
A domain name registration fee of $100.00 US is applicable.  This charge
will cover the $50.00 maintenance fee for two (2) years.  After the two
year period, an invoice will be sent on an annual basis.


If that's not rent, what is?
-- 
steve@miranova.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread for $250/hour.
Andrea Seastrand: For your vote on the Telecom bill, I will vote for anyone
except you in November.

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there already a method to bypass the NIC registration fee?  I thought 
one could use the international method for addressing.  You know, something like *.phx.az.us (for a site in 
Phoenix, Arizona, United States).  As far as I know, there isn't the fee that is charged for non location-based 
addressing.  (Although, I'd rather have a regular address)


Ben