| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 22.06.96 17:42l 204 Lines 6995 Bytes #-10974 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_96_130C
Read: DG7DAH GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 96/130C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KCP<DB0CZ<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0PSC<DB0ACH<DB0ACC<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<
PI8APD<PI8GCB<PI8ZAA<PI8HWB<PI8VAD<PI8VNW
Sent: 960622/0129Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:18873 [Hoek v Holland] FBB5.15c
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA12082 ; Sat, 22 Jun 96 00:20:14 UTC
Received: from pa2aga-10 by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.60/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00009133 ; Sat, 22 Jun 96 01:16:50 MET
Received: from pa2aga-10 by pa2aga-10 (NET/Mac 2.3.60/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00005141 ; Sat, 22 Jun 96 01:08:36 MET
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 16:51:38 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_96_130C>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga-10
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 96/130C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
| E-Mail k5yfw@www.kelly-afb.org | by men of zeal, well-meaning |
| Business Telephone: (210)925-6081 | but without understanding. |
| | |
| | - Justice Louis D. Brandeis |
| | |
=======================================================================
In your message you write:
>
>
>
> James R. Hay wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
>
> JRH> Obviously the invoice which Brian received was generated
> JRH> automatically. I was under the (probably wrong) impression
> JRH> that domains previously registered were not subject to the
> JRH> registration fees.
>
> No, it will be $50 per year for everyone in COM, NET, or ORG.
>
> JRH> As an alternative, what would it take to get some form of
> JRH> top-level domain which isn't subject to interNIC's fees?
>
> We could declare ourselves our own country, I suppose. Perhaps there should
be
> a special top-level domain for truly international organizations.
>
> -- Mike
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 12:49:00 -0000
From: mikebw@bilow.bilow.uu.ids.net (Mike Bilow)
Subject: NIC billing for AMPR.ORG
Walt DuBose - K5YFW wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
WD-K> The MilNet is exempted from the charges.
COM, NET, and ORG are subject to charges. EDU is subject to charges, but is
subsidized by NSF. GOV and MIL may be exempt; if subject to charges, I'm sure
that some agency of government is handling these so that individual units do
not receive bills.
WD-K> I too see a "greater" problem if the NIC starts to charge
WD-K> individual IP addresses as they do the .org's.
This has been discussed on and off, but there are serious obstacles.
Obviously,
the bill for Net 44, if it ever arrives, will be a lot bigger than the bill
for
AMPR.ORG. Domains, unlike networks, are not a limited resource.
WD-K> This system (www.kelly-afb.org) is a government owned system
WD-K> operating outside the MilNet...we haven't been billed for this
WD-K> "yet" or at least I don't know that we have...I haven't
WD-K> received the invoice and I'm sure my Inet Provider would
WD-K> forward any "bill" to me.
Bills are sent to the billing contact (if any), the administrative contact,
and
the technical contact. New registrations have billing contacts, but old
registrations default the billing contact to the administrative contact.
WD-K> For Brian, could we re-register the AmrOrg domain in another
WD-K> country that doesn't require payment or do you suppose that
WD-K> other countries will follow the NIC's lead and start
WD-K> charging a "fee-for-service"?
AMPR.ORG really is not a U.S. domain in the same sense as most other
subdomains
of ORG. It was selected for mere convenience. Perhaps we should see if some
arrangement can be made for an international organization which is not
properly
said to be in any particular country, certainly a rare case.
WD-K> As a former contracting officer for the government, my
WD-K> precaution is, "you should always negotiate before paying any
WD-K> monies".
Have you ever tried talking to someone at Internic?
-- Mike
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:50:14 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Matti E Aarnio <mea@mea.cc.utu.fi>
Subject: NIC billing for AMPR.ORG
> From: mikebw@bilow.bilow.uu.ids.net (Mike Bilow)
^^^^^^^^^^^ I wonder if email to this gentleman works..
> James R. Hay wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
>
> JRH> Obviously the invoice which Brian received was generated
> JRH> automatically. I was under the (probably wrong) impression
> JRH> that domains previously registered were not subject to the
> JRH> registration fees.
>
> No, it will be $50 per year for everyone in COM, NET, or ORG.
>
> JRH> As an alternative, what would it take to get some form of
> JRH> top-level domain which isn't subject to interNIC's fees?
>
> We could declare ourselves our own country, I suppose. Perhaps
> there should be a special top-level domain for truly international
> organizations.
"INT" ? (Bill Manning <bmanning@isi.edu>)
Naeh, I would suggest feeding the bill to ARRL -- isn't that more
of their turf anyway ? If not, perhaps TAPR would sponsor us ?
> -- Mike
/Matti Aarnio <mea@utu.fi> OH1MQK
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 07:42:07 -0700 (MST)
From: Bob Nielsen <nielsen@primenet.com>
Subject: NIC billing for AMPR.ORG
On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, Brian Kantor wrote:
> The Internic is attempting to bill me $50 for renewal of the AMPR.ORG
domain.
Now we know why the Brits wanted to change to ampr.org.uk
Bob
----
Bob Nielsen Internet: nielsen@primenet.com
Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: w6swe@w6swe.ampr.org
AX.25: w6swe@wb7tls.az.usa.noam
http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 08:26:17 -0600 (CST)
From: jks@giskard.utmem.edu
Subject: NIC billing for AMPR.ORG
** Reply to note from Terry Dawson <terry@perf.no.itg.telecom.com.au> Wed, 19
Jun 1996 12:14:56 +1000
Brian, Terry, All...
Brian and Terry wrote:
> > + we could try to appeal to the Internic that AMPR.ORG is a special case
> > and we should get it for free, much as hams get allowances worldwide.
> > They might even make it a corporate donation.
<#2 deleted>
> > + we could find someone who is willing to handle the collection of
> > donations and pay them
> >
> > + we could each send one penny (or whatever the smallest coin of our
> > respective country is) individually to the Internic in payment
> >
> > + we could attempt to obtain a new domain name that isn't under the
> > aegis of the internic - in some other country, or maybe an international
> > domain, or the like
> Suggestions 2 and 4 would be fun, but not worth the hassle.
#2 would be a major hassle but #4 would be a really fun symbolic gesture
that would emphasize the democratic (dare I say near anarchic?? <G>) nature
of the domain to the folks at internic.
> Suggestion 1 would give us all a warm-fuzzy if it were successful.
I think well coordinated attempts at 1 and 4, followed by 5 with a
contingency backup of #3 would make our point, pay the bill, and perhaps
draw attention to the unusual status of AMPR.ORG at the same time.
To be continued in digest: tcp_96_130D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
