[35483] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Namespace conflicts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Saint skullY the Dazed)
Fri Mar 9 16:04:29 2001
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:46:56 -0800
From: Saint skullY the Dazed <skully@netlsd.org>
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010309064656.A654@netlsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20010309201051.84F7435C42@berkshire.research.att.com>; from smb@research.att.com on Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 03:10:51PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 03:10:51PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> >Bull. Where is it written that towns MUST have a .com address?
> >
> >Those towns had .townname.nj.us available to them for FREE.
> >
> >They chose to use .com, they chose to have the problem. It's about choices.
>
> But if you want to beat on my original point -- as I and others have
> noted, the townname.nj.us domains were also grabbed by speculators. In
> other words, that wasn't an option, either. I haven't tracked the
> process failure or the policy failure that gave rise to that situation,
> but it's very real. I live in Westfield -- try www.westfield.nj.us.
> Then try some neighboring towns -- Kenilworth, Cranford, Fanwood,
> Summit, and more.
Nowhere in ISI's regulations have I seen that a city is entitled to
have cityname.state.us. That's what ci.cityname.state.us is for,
and AFAIK there is no way for you to register anything under
ci.cityname.state.us unless you're affiliated with that city's government.
IMO, it makes sense to do that.
