North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Namespace conflicts
In message <[email protected]>, Shawn McMahon writes: > > >--1ccMZA6j1vT5UqiK >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Disposition: inline >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:10:09AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >>=20 >> In my area of NJ, virtually every town's "obvious" .com domain names were= >=20 >> grabbed by one of two competing would-be service providers. They had=20 >> absolutely no town-specific content -- but if the town wanted a Web=20 >> site, they had no choice but to deal with these folks. I have no major= >=20 > >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. I chose a bad example, and folks are missing the point. I picked town names because it was a glaring case that I knew of personally -- but we've all seen similar behavior in "legitimate" .com space. 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. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
|