Re: com.google how did they do that

2015-04-03 Thread Jaap Akkerhuis
Evan Hunt writes: > On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 09:46:16PM -0500, Grant Taylor wrote: > I > think I saw a tweet with a figure around $185,000 US Dollars. > > I > wonder if that is on the low side. > > I believe that's the fee to apply, per domain. Proof of ability to > provision and run a re

Re: com.google how did they do that

2015-04-02 Thread Evan Hunt
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 09:46:16PM -0500, Grant Taylor wrote: > I think I saw a tweet with a figure around $185,000 US Dollars. > > I wonder if that is on the low side. I believe that's the fee to apply, per domain. Proof of ability to provision and run a registry business to ICANN specification

Re: com.google how did they do that

2015-04-02 Thread Grant Taylor
On 04/01/2015 06:57 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote: I'm sure it was not cheap. I think I saw a tweet with a figure around $185,000 US Dollars. I wonder if that is on the low side. -- Grant. . . . unix || die ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/lis

RE: com.google how did they do that

2015-04-02 Thread Lightner, Jeff
they do that -Original Message- From: Reindl Harald Organization: the lounge interactive design Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 2:44 PM To: "bind-users@lists.isc.org" Subject: Re: com.google how did they do that >Am 01.04.2015 um 20:42 schrieb Thomas Schulz: >> As

[OFF-TOPIC] RE: com.google how did they do that

2015-04-01 Thread Stuart Browne
.ibm, .cisco, .apple, .google, .sucks, .melbourne and many hundreds of others have been applied for and hundreds already delegated into the root. '.hp' was deemed too short (must be at least 3 characters). See https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus for the new TLD's

Re: com.google how did they do that

2015-04-01 Thread Mike Hoskins (michoski)
-Original Message- From: Reindl Harald Organization: the lounge interactive design Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 2:44 PM To: "bind-users@lists.isc.org" Subject: Re: com.google how did they do that >Am 01.04.2015 um 20:42 schrieb Thomas Schulz: >> As of the tim

Re: com.google how did they do that

2015-04-01 Thread Barry Margolin
In article , Jan-Piet Mens wrote: > > I'm sure it was not cheap. > > Peanuts compared to their buying .app for $25m. [1] Here's a list of the > other TLDs they've got so far: [2] Some of them sound like more April Fools jokes. > > > Brace yourself! There are many here now, and more coming.

Re: com.google how did they do that

2015-04-01 Thread Jan-Piet Mens
> I'm sure it was not cheap. Peanuts compared to their buying .app for $25m. [1] Here's a list of the other TLDs they've got so far: [2] > Brace yourself! There are many here now, and more coming. The list of delegated strings [3] increases almost daily, yes. (And I can't stop laughing.)

Re: com.google how did they do that

2015-04-01 Thread /dev/rob0
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 02:42:04PM -0400, Thomas Schulz wrote: > As of the time I am sending this, you can point your browser > to http://com.google and get a web page. How did they get > com.google to resolve? I'm sure it was not cheap. Brace yourself! There are many here now, and more coming.

Re: com.google how did they do that

2015-04-01 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 01.04.2015 um 20:42 schrieb Thomas Schulz: As of the time I am sending this, you can point your browser to http://com.google and get a web page. How did they get com.google to resolve? .google is just another new TLD signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___

com.google how did they do that

2015-04-01 Thread Thomas Schulz
As of the time I am sending this, you can point your browser to http://com.google and get a web page. How did they get com.google to resolve? Tom Schulz Applied Dynamics Intl. sch...@adi.com ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-us