>The distinction I'm making suggests why corp and onion seem different. They >are, in this >fundamental resolution nature.
I was under the impression that part of the problem with .corp was that there were a lot of SSL certificates floating around. The CAs are supposed to have stopped issuing them a while ago, but who knows. With regard to the theory that ICANN has said they won't delegate .corp, .home, and .mail, they've only said they're "deferred" and I just don't believe that ICANN has the institutional maturity to say no permanently. There are still 20 active applications for those three names, which means that ICANN is sitting on $3.7 million in application fees which they will presumably have to refund, as well as five withdrawn applications from parties who got partial refunds and would likely expect the rest of their money back, so we can round it to $4 million riding on selling those domains. Having been to various name collision and "universal acceptance" events, I have seen way too many people in and around ICANN eager to brush away technical issues if they intefere in the least with making money. You doubtless recall Kurt Pritz saying with a straight face that all TLD name acceptance problems could be cleared up in a couple of months. So this isn't an ICANN issue, it's an IANA issue. ICANN can't sell .corp, .home, and .mail for the same reason they can't sell .arpa or .invalid: they're already spoken for. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
