It appears that Warren Kumari <[email protected]> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Warren’s meta-comment -[ Please read this ]- >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >I believe that there is still an open-mineshaft problem around Internet >domain namespaces - what exactly they are, what is the DNS namespace, how >one determines the boundaries of the space, how one switches namespaces, >etc. We've take a few cracks at this nut — a partial list includes the IAB >ENAME workshop, SUDN problem statement, drafts from Suzanne and Ed, the >pain around .onion (a fuller list is in [0]) -- but we haven't actually >solved it. ...
Having read your message and largely agreed with it, my suggestion is that we declare defeat and give up. People come to us asking to reserve "good" names for them. As I said a few messages ago, I think we could reserve random TLD strings like .vhqnckwp without too much trouble, but nobody wants those. They want memorable three or four letter strings. For better or worse, allocating memorable strings is ICANN's job. While I have my doubts about the details of the process, they do have a process, and it's allocated over 1200 TLDs. It is not cheap, but ICANN says they set the price to cover costs and again, while again I have some doubts about the details, it's clearly the right order of magnitude since they have spent about 85% of what they collected. I don't see any benefit from us short circuiting their evaluation process. When we have tried to do something about memorable TLD strings, it has not turned out well, viz. .corp, .home, and .mail. (We are lucky that the Allium Growers Promotion Board doesn't want .onion.) Given the history of failure, I think the sensible thing to do is to stop, which means closing the Special-Use Domain Names registry. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
