Well I just asked the question during the Getting Ready panel at the
ICANN 41 meeting.
Q: How much on top of the $185K is required for a new gTLD
Answers:
It is hard to say, too many variables, biz plan dependencies, if the
string will be contended it can go to a more complex/costly process,
Well I just asked the question during the Getting Ready panel at the
ICANN 41 meeting.
keep in mind that the venues for asking precise questions for the
purpose of obtaining accurate answers of record are tdg-legal, or
the saturday gnso gtld hours (the kurt show).
Q: How much on top of the
keep in mind that the venues for asking precise questions for the
purpose of obtaining accurate answers of record are tdg-legal, or
the saturday gnso gtld hours (the kurt show).
Kurt Show that's a good one.
I was not expecting any elaborated response, just see if anybody on
that panel had a
Lets say I want to apply for .WINE with commercial purposes, then what
is a ballpark figure for the funds/investment required ?
My guess, it is way way above the $185K
assuming no defect in the application, necessitiating a second bite
at the apple, at cost (extended eval), and no objections
Lets say I want to apply for .WINE with commercial purposes, then what
is a ballpark figure for the funds/investment required ?
I wouldn't try it with less than a million bucks in hand. Beyond the
ICANN application nonsense, you'd also want to budget something for
running and promoting it for
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Lets say I want to apply for .WINE with commercial purposes, then what
is a ballpark figure for the funds/investment required ?
I wouldn't try it with less than a million bucks in hand. Beyond the
ICANN application nonsense,
My perception is that if you don't have access to ~$2M for that kind
of gTLD don't even waste your time.
you may want to consult with a practitioner in the jurisdiction of your
choice who does business organization and investor equity structures,
as the cost to acquire a right to contract for a
I was talking about public perception and the ability to change it
through marketing; not any actual security.
It's like the difference between .com and .biz, people don't
understand when something isn't a .com and don't trust it. When I
say people I'm talking about the average non-technical
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:39:00 MDT, Joel Maslak said:
I wonder what sort of money .wpad would be worth...
I was thinking .gbmh myself...
pgpRDYInukJWY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Or .inc?
On Jun 21, 2011 10:57 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:39:00 MDT, Joel Maslak said:
I wonder what sort of money .wpad would be worth...
I was thinking .gbmh myself...
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
I was talking about public perception and the ability to change it
through marketing; not any actual security.
It's like the difference between .com and .biz, people don't
understand when something isn't a .com and don't trust
I was talking about public perception and the ability to change it
through marketing; not any actual security.
It's like the difference between .com and .biz, people don't
understand when something isn't a .com and don't trust it. When I
say people I'm talking about the average
(Mark:)
Which just means we need to write yet another RFC saying that
resolvers shouldn't lookup simple host names in the DNS. Simple
host names should be qualified against a search list.
I don't see the problem. I'm happily running with a empty search
list for the last
On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:13 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I really don't think that namespace issues are part of the role for the ASO
AC.
Why do you think there is an ASO?
This is clearly a problem for ICANN's disaster-ridden domain-name side, and
In message 201106200739.p5k7dxhj071...@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl, Jaap Akkerhuis wr
ites:
(Mark:)
Which just means we need to write yet another RFC saying that
resolvers shouldn't lookup simple host names in the DNS. Simple
host names should be qualified against a search
Which is your choice. Lots of others want search lists. I've seen
requests for 20+ elements.
So they get what they ask for: Ambiguity in resolving the name space.
jaap
In message 201106200951.p5k9pmsw051...@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl, Jaap Akkerhuis wr
ites:
Which is your choice. Lots of others want search lists. I've seen
requests for 20+ elements.
So they get what they ask for: Ambiguity in resolving the name space.
jaap
There is no
Simple hostnames as, global identifiers, were supposed to cease
to work in 1984.
Can you point out where that is stated?
jaap
In message 201106201034.p5kayz2e008...@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl, Jaap Akkerhuis wr
ites:
Simple hostnames as, global identifiers, were supposed to cease
to work in 1984.
Can you point out where that is stated?
jaap
RFC 897.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas
Randy Bush ra...@psg.com writes:
what's new? how about the operational technical effects, like data from
modeling various resolvers' responses to a large root zone?
I think the proper model is popular TLDs, perhaps the traditional
gTLDs. As any (even former) decent sized TLD operator can
Matthew Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org writes:
And it only gets better from there... how many places have various cutesy
naming schemes that might include one or more trademarks (or whatever) that
someone might want as a TLD?
As it happens, I have a set of routers that are named { craftsman,
On Jun 20, 2011, at 12:14 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
So they get what they ask for: Ambiguity in resolving the name space.
There is no ambiguity if tld operators don't unilaterally add address
records causing simple hostnames to resolve.
EDU.COM.
Regards,
-drc
On 18 Jun 2011, at 09:22, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
In . lives a pointer to apple. consisting of one or more NS records and
possibly some A/ glue for those nameservers if they are within apple.
Don't forget the DS records containing the hash of Apple's DNSSEC KSK.
Tony.
--
Technical issues aside (and there are many...)
How long before we see marketing campaigns urging people to only trust
.band and that .com et. al. are less secure.
With a $185,000 application fee this tends to really kill small
businesses and conditions the public to favor ecommerce with the
How long before we see marketing campaigns urging people to only trust
.band and that .com et. al. are less secure.
An interesting question. There was a group that was supposed to work
on high security TLDs. I suggested that to be usefully high
security, the registry should make site visits to
On Jun 20, 2011, at 2:35 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Randy Bush ra...@psg.com writes:
what's new? how about the operational technical effects, like data from
modeling various resolvers' responses to a large root zone?
Yep. That is an area that has been identified as needing additional
With a $185,000 application fee this tends to really kill small
businesses and conditions the public to favor ecommerce with the
giants, not to mention a nice revenue boost for ICANN.
Would love to hear the dirt on backroom conversations that led to this
decision...
Hopefully there will
Simple hostnames as, global identifiers, were supposed to cease
to work in 1984.
Can you point out where that is stated?
jaap
RFC 897.
I see where it says that all of the hosts that existed in 1984 were
supposed to change their names to something with at least two
ray,
... only trust .band and that .com et. al. are less secure.
secure is not a well-defined term.
as the .com registry access model accepts credit card fraud risk,
a hypothetical registry, say .giro, with wholesale registration at
the same dollar price point but an access mechanism accepting
In message 77733847-fbf7-460a-ad30-08dc42dc3...@virtualized.org, David Conrad
writes:
On Jun 20, 2011, at 12:14 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
So they get what they ask for: Ambiguity in resolving the name space.
There is no ambiguity if tld operators don't unilaterally add address
records
On Jun 20, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
do you want to issue a RFC that bans search lists?
Personally, I think search lists are a mistake and don't use them. If you do
use them, then you are accepting a certain amount of ambiguity. Naked TLDs will
increase that ambiguity and would
In message 20110620190517.2242.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine writes:
Simple hostnames as, global identifiers, were supposed to cease
to work in 1984.
Can you point out where that is stated?
jaap
RFC 897.
I see where it says that all of the hosts that existed in
(Marka)
See RFC 1535. Yes, a mistake was made implementing search lists.
A RFC was issued to say don't do search lists this way.
Which RFC? What way?
It would be nice if you would say what you mean instead keep referring to
things the reader has to guess.
jaap
Paul Graydon wrote:
I've seen the stuff about adding a few extra TLDs, like XXX. I haven't
seen any references until now of them considering doing it on a
commercial basis. I don't mind new TLDs, but company ones are crazy
and going to lead to a confusing and messy internet.
I don't know
do you want to issue a RFC that bans search lists?
Personally, I think search lists are a mistake and don't use them.
You're in good company. It's hard to find a modern mail system that
allows abbreviated domain names in addresses. I just checked the mail
at AOL, Yahoo, Gmail, and Hotmail,
185K is just the application few, the process includes some
requirements to have a given amount of dough for operations in escrow,
add what you need to pay attorneys, experts
, lobbyists, and setup and staff a small corporation even if you plan
to outsource part of the dayt-2-day operations to a
In message b568f14d-2d30-4501-bac9-fb3b4125a...@virtualized.org, David Conrad
writes:
On Jun 20, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
do you want to issue a RFC that bans search lists?
Personally, I think search lists are a mistake and don't use them. If
you do use them, then you are
In message 201106202158.p5klwaxw088...@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl, Jaap Akkerhuis wr
ites:
(Marka)
See RFC 1535. Yes, a mistake was made implementing search lists.
A RFC was issued to say don't do search lists this way.
Which RFC? What way?
RFC 1535.
A Security
In message 20110620223618.2927.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine writes:
do you want to issue a RFC that bans search lists?
Personally, I think search lists are a mistake and don't use them.
You're in good company. It's hard to find a modern mail system that
allows abbreviated domain names
185K is just the application few, the process includes some
requirements to have a given amount of dough for operations in escrow,
add what you need to pay attorneys, experts
, lobbyists, and setup and staff a small corporation even if you plan
to outsource part of the dayt-2-day operations
I wonder what sort of money .wpad would be worth...
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
In message 20110620223618.2927.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine
writes:
You're in good company. It's hard to find a modern mail system that
allows abbreviated domain names in addresses. I just checked the
mail at AOL, Yahoo,
And you are to be complimented on your diligence in this respect, Eric.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:21 PM, brun...@nic-naa.net wrote:
this is still an area of active work, i was working on it ... yesterday
and the day before, today, and tomorrow and the day after tomorrow ...
--
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes:
I believe the root server operators have stated (the equivalent of) that
it is not their job to make editorial decisions on what the root zone
contains. They distribute what the ICANN/NTIA/Verisign gestalt
publishes.
yes. for one example, see:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes:
I believe the root server operators have stated (the equivalent of) that
it is not their job to make editorial decisions on what the root zone
contains. They distribute what the
Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com writes:
... and that the root wouldn't be affected by the sort of things that
previously-2LD now TLD operators might want to do with their
monocomponent names...
someone asked me privately a related question which is, if there's a .SONY
and someone's web browser
On Jun 19, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes:
I believe the root server operators have stated (the equivalent of) that
it is not their job to make editorial decisions on what the root
Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
OTOH, I can easily see $COMPANY deciding that $RFC is not in their
best interests and find the http://microsoft construct not at all
unlikely.
I realize that no responsible software vendor would ever deliberately
do something
In message 21633.1308527...@nsa.vix.com, Paul Vixie writes:
Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com writes:
... and that the root wouldn't be affected by the sort of things that
previously-2LD now TLD operators might want to do with their
monocomponent names...
someone asked me privately a
- Original Message -
From: Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org
inevitably there will be folks who register .FOOBAR and advertise it as
http://foobar/; on a billboard and then get burned by all of the local
foobar.this.tld and foobar.that.tld names that will get reached
instead of their TLD. i
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 08:22:17PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org
inevitably there will be folks who register .FOOBAR and advertise it as
http://foobar/; on a billboard and then get burned by all of the local
foobar.this.tld and
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules,
right?
Well... Which MacDonald's?
1. The fast food chain
2. O.C. MacDonald's Plumbing Supply
3. MacDonald and Sons Paving
On Jun 17, 2011, at 8:39 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules,
right?
Well... Which MacDonald's?
1. The fast food chain
2. O.C. MacDonald's Plumbing Supply
3.
On Jun 17, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
apple.com is a delegation from .com just as apple is a delegation from
.
apple. and www.apple. are *not* -- and the root operators may throw
their hands up in the air if
On Jun 17, 2011, at 8:47 PM, John Osmon wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:44:07AM -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
[...] I don't mind new TLDs, but company ones are crazy
and going to lead to a confusing and messy internet.
Maybe we could demote the commercial ones to live under a single
On Jun 18, 2011, at 12:18 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules,
right?
Well... Which MacDonald's?
1. The fast food chain
2. O.C
On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:04 AM, George B. geor...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I will get .payme and make sure coke.payme, pepsi.payme,
comcast.payme, etc. all get registered at the low-low price of
$10/year. All I would need is 100,000
In message 201106180718.p5i7irbe020...@mail.r-bonomi.com, Robert Bonomi write
s:
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules,
right?
Well... Which MacDonald's?
1
On Jun 18, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 201106180718.p5i7irbe020...@mail.r-bonomi.com, Robert Bonomi
write
s:
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 01:24:37 -0700
[[.. sneck ..]]
While that is true, there are several McDonalds registered in various
spaces that actually predate even the existance of Mr. Crok's famous
burger
i am not learning anything here. well, except maybe that someone who
normally has his head up his butt also had it in the sand.
what's new? how about the operational technical effects, like data from
modeling various resolvers' responses to a large root zone?
randy
I believe the root server operators have stated (the equivalent of)
that it is not their job to make editorial decisions on what the root
zone contains. They distribute what the ICANN/NTIA/Verisign gestalt
publishes.
That has always been the case in the past. Given the level of public
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 9:55 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
That has always been the case in the past. Given the level of public
unhappiness that the US Dep't of Commerce has with ICANN's plan to add
zillions of new TLDs, and noting that several of the root servers are
Speaking of some
run by agencies of the US government, who knows what will happen in
the future.
I'm not so sure volunteer root operators are in a position to editorialize
and for that to have a positive effect. ICANN could go down the
path of stating that this causes internet stability (due to operators
too late... someone sign up for .nanog!
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Aw, Jeezus.
No. Just, no.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
Cjeers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
j...@baylink.com
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 05:04:25PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Aw, Jeezus.
No. Just, no.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
Yeah. Maybe ICANN needs its own special TLD: .idiots?
--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mi...@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old sysadmin
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Aw, Jeezus.
No. Just, no.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
You just learned about this now?
Regards,
-drc
well, crap. That's all I have to say :(
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:16 PM, mikea mi...@mikea.ath.cx wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 05:04:25PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Aw, Jeezus.
No. Just, no.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
Yeah. Maybe ICANN needs its own special
- Original Message -
From: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Aw, Jeezus.
No. Just, no.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
You just learned about this now?
In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned
On 06/17/2011 14:23, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Conradd...@virtualized.org
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Aw, Jeezus.
No. Just, no.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
You just learned about this now?
In fact I did. I
: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 5:14 PM
To: Jay Ashworth
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
too late... someone sign up for .nanog!
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Aw, Jeezus.
No. Just
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
You just learned about this now?
In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned on NANOG in the last 6
months or so; where should I have seen it?
New TLDs have been discussed now for over
On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Aw, Jeezus.
No. Just, no.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
You just learned about this now?
In
On 06/17/2011 11:33 AM, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
You just learned about this now?
In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned on NANOG in the last 6
months or so; where should I have seen
If ICANN continues this stupidity, perhaps it will finally be feasible for
an alternate DNS root to gain a following? Although that would lead to a
fractured DNS system, which really isn't in the best interests of anybody.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.ukwrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:21 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Aw, Jeezus.
No. Just, no.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
You just learned about this now?
On a related topic, the US DoJ recently wrote a letter suggesting that DNS
On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 06/17/2011 11:33 AM, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
You just learned about this now?
In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned on NANOG in
- Original Message -
From: Joel Barnard jbarn...@nwic.ca
I hope they've considered what will happen if you go to
http://localhost/ or
http://pcname/
Is that the local networks pcname, or the gTld pcname?
Are we going to have to start using a specially reserved .local gTld?
No, of
- Original Message -
From: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
You just learned about this now?
In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned on NANOG in the
last 6 months or
On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 06/17/2011 11:33 AM, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
You just learned about this now?
In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned on NANOG in the
Original Message -
From: Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com
Just an example, it has hit main stream media
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/17/who-runs-the-internet/
The issue we're presently discussing *is not mentioned in that article*.
Or you could have gone to one of the
On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:21 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Aw, Jeezus.
No. Just, no.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
You just learned about this now?
On a related
- Original Message -
From: Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net
On a related topic, the US DoJ recently wrote a letter suggesting that
DNS registry/registrar vertical integration might not be a good idea
(from an anti-trust perspective).
On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Joel Barnard jbarn...@nwic.ca
I hope they've considered what will happen if you go to
http://localhost/ or
http://pcname/
Is that the local networks pcname, or the gTld pcname?
Are we going to have to
And no, I had not heard *any noise* that anyone was seriously considering
this up until this announcement.
Overhere it got mentioned in the local news paper a couple of times.
jaap
- Original Message -
From: Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net
As for calling ICANN stupid, thinking this will help fracture the
'Net, I think you are all confused. I think the NANOG community has
become (OK, always was) a bit of an echo chamber. Trust me when I say
we are the
- Original Message -
From: Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com
I have seen many NANOG folks at ICANN meetings discussing this and
also active on ALAC so David isn't the only guy. Also do a search on
the list and you will find threads dating back.
On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:33 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
You just learned about this now?
In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned on NANOG in the last 6
months or so; where should I have
- Original Message -
From: Fred Baker f...@cisco.com
Yes. Since ICANN was formed, they have periodically come to the IETF
to ask how many TLDs we thought the system could support. On the basis
of the SLD count (if example.com is a domain name and .com is a TLD,
example is an SLD)
Notwithstanding that, globally resolvable valid DNS names *with no dots
in them* are going to break a fair amount of software which assumes that's
an invalid case, and that is in fact a *different* situation, not triggered
by the expansion of the *generic* gTLD space.
Just to be sure I
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
FFS, David. I didn't say new gTLDs. I said, rather specifically,
commercial gTLDs, IE: gTLDs *proprietary to a specific commercial
enterprise*. http:///www.apple
The third message (by Eric Brunner-Williams) in the thread I referenced
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I hope they've considered what will happen if you go to
http://localhost/ or
http://pcname/
Is that the local networks pcname, or the gTld pcname?
Are we going to have to start using a specially reserved .local gTld?
No, of *course* ICANN
- Original Message -
From: John Levine jo...@iecc.com
I happen to agree that adding vast numbers of new TLDs is a terrible
idea more for administrative and social than technical reasons, but
this is the first you've heard about it, you really haven't been
paying attention.
John,
- Original Message -
From: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
Finally, because pancakes are calling, the very complainants of
squatting and defensive registration (the 1Q million-in-revenue every
applicant for an open, now standard registry places in its
bizplan), the Intellectual
This is the first I've heard of *the possibility of TLD registrars being
end-user internal/exclusive*.
People around ICANN have been arguing about the registry/registrar
split for years, and whether to have special rules for TLDs where one
party would own all the names. Really. If this is the
On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John Levine jo...@iecc.com
I happen to agree that adding vast numbers of new TLDs is a terrible
idea more for administrative and social than technical reasons, but
this is the first you've heard about it,
- Original Message -
From: Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm
That page doesn't appear to discuss the specific topic I'm talking about,
and for the 9th or 10th time, I *know* they've been talking about expanding
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
For me, the engineering problem remains *single-component FQDNs*. I
can't itemize the code they'll break, but I'm quite certain there's a lot.
Perhaps we could get an update to the relevant RFCs.. clarifying that
only NS
On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic on
point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language,
Eric's writing style does take a bit of getting used to, but I usually find it
enlightening (albeit occasionally in an
- Original Message -
From: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic
on point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language,
Eric's writing style does take a bit of getting
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
