Hi,

> On 16. Aug 2022, at 16:32, David Conrad <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> On Aug 15, 2022, at 7:07 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> 
> wrote:On 16/08/2022 03:01, John Levine wrote:
>>> Right. If it's FCFS, I am sure I am not the only person who will be
>>> waiting at the gate with thousands of preemptive registrations.
>> Why?
> 
> Because they believe (or are convinced) there is or will be profit in it. My 
> experience has been that the majority of folks who are getting Unstoppable 
> Domains TLDs haven’t the slightest clue what they are or why they’re not 
> particularly useful.  And they’re paying actual money, not merely (say) 
> copying a document and changing a few words or wading through mind-numbing 
> technical process. They are speculators and if the cost of obtaining the 
> “asset” is below what the projected/potential value may be, then they’ll 
> “invest”.
> 

That is exactly why IMO the namespaces under .alt must have a technical merit 
and this merit gives the protocol a shot at a (or a few based on the technical 
design) (free) name under .alt.
It should not be possible to get such a name in the registry without a 
technical justification (e.g. a spec that proposes a new way of doing name 
resolution). No political or policy considerations necessary.
And this is why there must be a registration policy and process.
This merit needs to be established, yes. And I think it should be done through 
review by the IETF or the ISE.
And yes, there is a reason why this sounds a bit like a RFC6761 SU-TLD, because 
the motivation makes sense to me.

I also do not believe that IETF or ISE will be swamped with drafts... I do not 
see any indication why this would be the case.
In fact, you currently have a whopping 1 draft on your table. And nobody in 
line as far as I can see.
There are only a handful of (alive) proposals regarding alternative names and 
not all of those strike me as projects that will consider this at all anyway.

BR
Martin

> Regards,
> -drc
> 
> 
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to