U.S. To Re-Administer .US Domain Space

PacketMaster writes: "The United States Commerce Department is accepting proposals to change how the .US domain is administered and registered. Basically they want to know why the .US domain is unpopular, what can be done with it, and who should administer it. According to this AP story on CNN.com even the U.S. Postal Service didn't want anything to do with .US. The request for comments on the changes is here. The .US domain is governed by RFC 1480. It sounds like they want to rekindle interest in the .US domain. I think this change is interesting because I wanted to register in the .US domain earlier this year. The organization that holds the administration function for my geographic 3rd level domain wanted $40 a year to register my 4th level domain. I got a .net cheaper elsewhere but I wouldn't have minded a .US if it was cheaper or free like many .US's are and also shorter -- www.domain.city.state.us anyone? Many other countries give out domain.ccTLD or domain.com.ccTLD; why can't the U.S.?"

Comments

Simple reason why it's unpopular...

[Reality Master 101]

Yes, the length of them is detrimental to their use, but I don't think that's the primary reason.

The big reason is that they're geography based. There are very few uses to which geography is relevent to a web site. I'm not going to use it for my company; what if I move it? I'm not going to use it for a personal address; again, what if I move?

The only reasonable use I can think of to a geography-based address is, surprise!, the government for a particular city, where the geography makes sense to include in the URL. Other than that, including the geography just makes no sense.

--

Re:Simple reason why it's unpopular...

[memfree]

Another reasonable use is for local businesses. For example, I generally don't care what bands are playing half-way 'round the globe. I care about who's coming to my home town. If there was fairly reliable adherence to the stated system of: LocalClub.city.state.country, or even LocalClub.[music|other heading].city.state.country.

Then, users would learn the system, and search engines could easily filter by region. Whatever your interest, you'd be able to locate local links more easily. Since this is not typically done, none of the small-time sites that could benefit seem interested in sticking their necks out for hard-to-remember addresses.

New Partitioning Scheme

[pryan]

I propose we eliminate all domains and create two: .stupid and .smart. Then I can block everything in .stupid.

We can use a Slashdot style moderation scheme to decide who goes in .stupid and in .smart. Of course by doing so, Slashdot runs the risk of being put in .stupid. <ducks>

Re:Why we can't give out free domains.

[tux42]

From http://www.nic.us/overview.html#Cost:

Currently, there are no fees charged by the US Domain Registry for delegating a .us domain name.

Some administrators of delegated domains do not charge for registering a host in the US domain in their locality, and some do. There is no requirement that domain names be free, only that any charges be fair and applied equally to all customers.

In the past, managers provided the nameservers and registration services for localities (and other branches of the US domain) for free. Some people came forward to provide this public service, and it was very much appreciated.

Many locality names in the US domain are delegated to small companies. These companies need to charge a small fee to set up and maintain the database and run the nameservers to support this service.

Re:Partitioning by Geography is Stupid

[Nethead]

A host is a host
from coast to coast.
But no one will contact a host that's close.
Unless the host
that isn't close
is busy, sunk or dead!

Follow the Tuvalu example

[toh]

Perhaps the US govt should sell the .us namespace to the highest bidder, based on the convenient presence of the English word "us". That toy company with the weird Cyrillic name would pay a pretty penny for starters, but there are endless possibilities in the "with" second-level alone...

The odd thing is that I'm only half-joking.

.com.us .org.us

[Andrew Dvorak]

Sounds like a great opportunity for the standard .com.us and .org.us .. and *ENFORCE* it!

• And, of course, those with trademarks could not register nor boot others from .org domains.
• .org.us would be for those with recognized not-for-profit status
• .com.us would be for commercial organizations and those whose registration dates predate any trademarks have priority to the domain.
• .gov.us -- hey! maybe we could rid the world of the .gov domain?! ;)
• .edu.us -- OH! an even better idea than .edu! And people *MUST* be an educational institution!
• .net.us would be for internet providers and other public networks. These people should not have .com.us unless they demonstrate that they provide services aside from *ANYTHING* having to do with network services
• .pc.us - would be for private citizens to register their own web sites.
• .prop.us - Would be for those wishing to spread propaganda. For example, we could have a site designated for MPAA.prop.us . This would make it not only easier for the MPAA to spread propaganda, but for us to identify such material!

We must absolutely distinguish between the private and commercial realms!

Sometimes the Web *is* geographic.

[Apuleius]

Say I run Ed's Diner in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
And say it becomes necessary for me to set up a site with my menu and hours and the such. And I want a domain name.

But eds-diner.com is taken.

And I don't want to drive people nuts with
ed-s-diner.com.

I could settle for eds-diner.cambridge.ma.us.
Because for me, the Web is geographic, at
least in this context.

So let's hope the .us digraph becomes more
accessible. It does have a niche it can fill.