[ back on list ]
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 05:34:53PM -0400, Jerry B. Altzman wrote:
There was a HUGE one about that domain name between Nissan Motors and
some computer consultant named Nissan (a Hebrew name) in NC.
vis http://www.nissan.com/Lawsuit/The_Story.php
I don't know exactly how to
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 06:36:06PM +0100,
Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
It makes the public suffix list project harder, but so long as the
list of TLDs changes reasonably slowly, it shouldn't become
Phil Regnauld (regnauld) writes:
John Levine (johnl) writes:
d) 280
# dig @f.root-servers.net axfr . | egrep 'IN[[:space:]]NS' | awk '{ print $1
}' | sort -u |wc -l
281
Interesting extract from a transcript of tICANN board meeting in Paris.
It doesn't say much about what was
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 06:47:30PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
Trailing dots in email addresses are a syntax error.
In fact, Mutt (1.2.5) permits the trailing dot, and delivers the mail,
and all the intervening MTAs (I only tested local mail on my
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 02:45:55PM -0700,
Roger Marquis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 31 lines which said:
The difference between '[a-z0-9\-\.]*\.[a-z]{2-5}'
If this is a regexp for the current root zone, it is
wrong... (.museum and the test IDNs, whose punycode encoding
contains
Terribly stupid question, but one aproppos to this thread.
If my company pays for and registers a new TLD, let's
call it smtp for grins, and I create an A record for smtp.
in my top level zone file, how will users outside my company
resolve and reach that address?
If they simply use smtp as the
Matthew Petach (mpetach) writes:
If they simply use smtp as the hostname, most of the
current resolver libraries will append the local domain
name, so that instead of reaching my A record for smtp,
they'll end up trying to reach smtp.their.domain.
Actually, that's a good point --
John Levine (johnl) writes:
d) 280
# dig @f.root-servers.net axfr . | egrep 'IN[[:space:]]NS' | awk '{ print $1 }'
| sort -u |wc -l
281
(with . itself)
On Jun 30, 2008, at 12:36 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
If my company pays for and registers a new TLD, let's
call it smtp for grins, and I create an A record for smtp.
in my top level zone file, how will users outside my company
resolve and reach that address?
I suspect the assumption is that no
It seems to me that there are technical reasons to try and
block .local, and maybe some other potential TLDs,
but that for .exe, .smtp, and other choices that confuse current
browser implementations, a warning note is
about all the registrant can expect.
Of course, it would not surprise me
On Jun 30, 2008, at 1:53 AM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
But considering the amount of flag waving and Caution: Wet
Floor signs ICANN placed when it rolled out something has
harmless as the IDN tests in the root, I'm surprised that they
haven't thought about all the
David Conrad (drc) writes:
1) The new gTLD stuff hasn't gotten as far as the point where the testing
of IDN stuff started.
Mhh, ok :)
2) ICANN (or rather, the technical side of ICANN staff) has thought about
this and there is a 'technical evaluation' phase of the application
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Terribly stupid question, but one aproppos to this thread.
If my company pays for and registers a new TLD, let's
call it smtp for grins, and I create an A record for smtp.
in my top level zone file, how will users outside my company
resolve and reach that
Matthew Petach (mpetach) writes:
That was amusing. Firefox very handily took me to a search
results page listing results for the word museum, none of
which was the actual page in question.
... and Safari took me to www.museum.com.
Thanks for all the pointers! I guess I won't be
In the usual way. Try typing this into your browser's address bar:
http://museum/
That was amusing. Firefox very handily took me to a search
results page listing results for the word museum, none of
which was the actual page in question.
Gee, it works fine for me in Firefox 2.0.0.14.
On Monday 30 June 2008 17:24:45 John Levine wrote:
In the usual way. Try typing this into your browser's address bar:
http://museum/
That was amusing. Firefox very handily took me to a search
results page listing results for the word museum, none of
which was the actual page in
On Jun 30, 2008, at 12:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:55:53 EDT, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET said:
220 Sending HELO/EHLO constitutes acceptance of this agreement
Even in a UCITA state that has onerous rules regarding shrink-
wrapped EULA
terms, I think you'd have a very
Tony Finch wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I am very curious of what tests a security-aware programmer can do,
based on the domain name, which will not be possible tomorrow, should
ICANN allow a few more TLDs.
It makes the public suffix list project harder, but
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 09:05:41AM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
In the usual way. Try typing this into your browser's address bar:
http://museum/
That was amusing. Firefox very handily took me to a search
results page listing results for the word museum, none of
which was the actual
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 06:47:30PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Matthew Petach wrote:
Or should I always ensure that resolvers reach my domain explicitly by
including the trailing dot in all uses, so that my email would be
given out as [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the hopes that
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RFC 2822 3.4 punts the components of dot-atom to STD 3/13/14.
STD 13 is RFC 1035, which, in 2.3.1, suggests (but does not impose) a
standard for domain name literals which appears to expand to a pattern
which does not
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Jean-François Mezei
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With all the phishing shananigans, you'd think the folks outside of
microsoft who would strive to avoid features that could bring you to
unwanted destinations and they should just stick to feeding your host
name
Scott Weeks wrote:
How'd you do that? I use FF on FreeBSD, but parhaps there're similar
settings.
Since a few people asked.
in the url line: about:config
This is the magic incantation that gets you a page with just about all
configuration settings.
you can serach for a particular setting
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:02:33 -0400
Jean-François Mezei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To get a button to easily enable and disable javascript:
http://prefbar.mozdev.org/
While I do use prefbar, for dealing with Javascript I much prefer
NoScript, since that gives me per-site control.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:53:06PM +0200,
Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
not even thinking of all the nice security issues which come along
(home, mycomputer and .exe etc anyone ?
This requires serious elaboration. How could you use a domain in
.exe
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:37:34PM -0500,
Frank Bulk - iNAME [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 37 lines which said:
...which is why it might be a strategy to blacklist all new TLDs (if
this proposal gets through) and whitelist just .com, .net, etc.
Interesting. I do not know if this
On Jun 29, 2008, at 5:45 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:53:06PM +0200,
Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
not even thinking of all the nice security issues which come along
(home, mycomputer and .exe etc anyone ?
This requires
This requires serious elaboration. How could you use a domain in
.exe to actually attack someone? (No handwaving, please, actual
study.)
I think it would be the other way around - I would assume that that
was a near worthless TLD, as it
would come with a built in DOS : If I had
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 01:32:05PM -0700,
Roger Marquis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
Security-aware programmers will now be unable to apply even cursory
tests for domain name validity.
I am very curious of what tests a security-aware programmer can do,
based on
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:24:48AM -0700,
Scott Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 32 lines which said:
what problem is ICANN trying to solve with this
proposal? What about the current system that's broken, does this new
system fix?
ICANN is simply responding to demand. Some
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
This requires serious elaboration. How could you use a domain in
.exe to actually attack someone? (No handwaving, please, actual
study.)
I think it would be the other way around - I would assume that that
was a near worthless TLD, as it
would
]
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 11:32 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
snip
We already see this in the email world, where a self-appointed cartel
like the MAAWG can decide technical rules and policies, bypassing both
IETF and ICANN. Even if only one half
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, John Levine wrote:
We already see this in the email world, where a self-appointed cartel
like the MAAWG can decide technical rules and policies, bypassing
both IETF and ICANN.
As an active participant in both the IETF and MAAWG, and a former
member of the ICANN ALAC, I can
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am very curious of what tests a security-aware programmer can do,
based on the domain name, which will not be possible tomorrow, should
ICANN allow a few more TLDs.
The difference between '[a-z0-9\-\.]*\.[a-z]{2-5}' and
'[a-z0-9\-\.]*\.[a-z\-]*'
You do have a choice if you're not concerned about the deliverability of
your e-mail. Remember, the Internet remains a group of service
providers/organizations/subscribers that voluntarily work together and can
choose what goes in or out. And so if they decide not to receive traffic
from
If you test that the TLD exists... it will still work.
Only if A) you are always online with B) reliable access to the
tld's nameserver/s, and C) can deal with the latency. In practice
this is often not the case.
Even under the most wildly optimistic scenarios, it's hard to imagine
new TLDs
* Jeroen Massar:
Some people are going to get very rich over this. I hope that they
drown in the money just as the Internet will drown in all the crap
TLD's, not even thinking of all the nice security issues which come
along (home, mycomputer and .exe etc anyone ? :)
.exe abd .com are
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 01:40:03PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:22 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Well, at least the new TLDs will promote DNS-based cruft filtration.
You can
already safely ignore anything with a .name, .biz, .info, .tv suffix,
to
name just the worst.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 08:41:28AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
this is analogous to the gossip that most spam comes from china, asia,
nigeria, or whomever we like to be xenophobic or racist about this week.
measurement shows the united states to be the largest single source of spam.
Globally,
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:24:48AM -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
more to the point ... what problem is ICANN trying to solve with this
proposal?
Oh, that's quite straightforward: insufficient registrar revenue.
---Rsk
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
this is analogous to the gossip that most spam comes from china, asia,
nigeria, or whomever we like to be xenophobic or racist about this week.
measurement shows the united states to be the largest single source of spam.
The US is also the largest single
Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Jeroen Massar wrote:
thinking of all the nice security issues which come along (home, mycomputer
and .exe etc anyone ? :)
.exe has the same security properties as .com
not exactly, as a lot of users know that there is something like a
.com domain. they
Owen DeLong (owen) writes:
Whether some choose to do that or not, I believe that the point is that:
1.Nobody is FORCING them to do so.
Trademark law is forcing you to - you have to make reasonable attempts
to actively defend your trademark. Of course, no-one forces you
Rich Kulawiec (rsk) writes:
Best practice is refuse all mail that comes from any host lacking rDNS,
since that host doesn't meet the minimum requirements for a mail server.
No, that's utterly stupid. You're excluding countries which have
poor infrastructure or clueless ISPs
On Jun 27, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Jean-François Mezei wrote:
But my uneducated opinion is that this current project appears to let
the .TLD loose and this will result in top level domains being
meaningless, without any trust.
Given the complexity of the new gTLD process, I think it safe to say
On Jun 27, 2008, at 8:59 PM, WWWhatsup wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
With that said, personally, I agree that more attention should be
spent on the welfare of the registrants. Unfortunately, given I work
for ICANN, my providing comments in the RAA public consultation along
those lines would be a
On Jun 28, 2008, at 4:19 AM, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Jeroen Massar wrote:
thinking of all the nice security issues which come along (home,
mycomputer
and .exe etc anyone ? :)
.exe has the same security properties as .com
not exactly, as a lot of
On Jun 28, 2008, at 6:48 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 01:40:03PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:22 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Well, at least the new TLDs will promote DNS-based cruft filtration.
You can
already safely ignore anything with a .name,
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 01:56:53PM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote:
Rich Kulawiec (rsk) writes:
Best practice is refuse all mail that comes from any host lacking rDNS,
since that host doesn't meet the minimum requirements for a mail server.
No, that's utterly stupid. You're excluding
Phil Regnauld wrote:
Requirement ? What requirement ? There's no requirement for
reverse DNS for email in any RFC.
As a practical matter, I've found that sending out email from a
host without rDNS doesn't work: too many sites bounce the mail.
It will not come as news to
with division?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: David Conrad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:50 AM
To: WWWhatsup
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's
Box of new TLDs)
On Jun 27, 2008, at 8:59 PM, WWWhatsup
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 06:18:44PM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote:
Rich Kulawiec (rsk) writes:
I don't see a problem with not accepting mail from clueless ISPs or their
customers. The requirement for rDNS has been around for decades.
Anyone who's not aware of it has no business running a
On 6/28/08, Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 06:18:44PM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote:
Rich Kulawiec (rsk) writes:
...
And given that any estimate of hijacked systems under 100 million is
laughably out-of-date, it's a best practice to blacklist ALL such IP
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 01:12:39PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
Those two statements of yours directly contraindicate each other.
No, they don't. Outbound relays (which are presumably used by client
systems presenting appropriate authentication) know the identity of
user presenting credentials.
Some people are going to get very rich over this.
How do you know this? Judging by the past experience of TLDs
there will not be a rush of customers but there will be a rush
of people trying to make a buck. In such a scenario, nobody
makes much money unless they somehow link the TLD product to
And no, companies *aren't* forced to pay for another domain name
just because a new TLD appears -- they aren't doing it *now*
Oh yes we are
Looking at bbc.org and bbc.tv suggests that you are not.
--Michael Dillon
There are probably some variations based on the zone,
languages, IDN'ability, etc., but it certainly is a good idea
to be bankofamerica.* for reasons that I think are obvious to
most of us.
To make it hard for your customers to figure out whether a URL
is legitimately owned by the bank?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] i'rta:
There are probably some variations based on the zone,
languages, IDN'ability, etc., but it certainly is a good idea
to be bankofamerica.* for reasons that I think are obvious to
most of us.
To make it hard for your customers to figure out whether a URL
is
Balazs Laszlo wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] i'rta:
There are probably some variations based on the zone, languages,
IDN'ability, etc., but it certainly is a good idea to be
bankofamerica.* for reasons that I think are obvious to most of us.
To make it hard for your customers to figure out
On Jun 26, 2008, at 9:20 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
Two years ago I posed the question here about the need for TLDs
(http://www.mcabee.org/lists/nanog/May-06/msg00110.html).
This all should have been solved by allowing those who
wanted/applied for TLDs to be granted them back in
See pages 17 - 20 of
https://par.icann.org/files/paris/gTLDUpdateParis-23jun08.pdf
See pages 22 - 25 of
https://par.icann.org/files/paris/gTLDUpdateParis-23jun08.pdf
I think that this is a good read as well, especially the comments by Dave
Wodeley, Susan Crawford, and Wendy Seltzer.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Shultz wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
On that note, it will be very interesting to see who manages to register
the *.sucks TLD, and what they do with it.
Well, I guess this shoots in the foot Microsoft's name server best
practices of setting
On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:20 AM, Jon Kibler wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Shultz wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
On that note, it will be very interesting to see who manages to
register
the *.sucks TLD, and what they do with it.
Well, I guess this shoots in the foot
R. Irving wrote:
/lurk
Thank you people doing all the ICANN politics for destroying the
Internet.
You know, last time someone ( Robert Metcalfe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Metcalfe) prophesied the death of
the Internet, when it didn't
come true... we made him eat his words. You up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:20 AM, Jon Kibler wrote:
Jeff Shultz wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
On that note, it will be very interesting to see who manages to register
the *.sucks TLD, and what they do with it.
Well, I
Martin,
I wasn't that impressed with Dave's remarks, but I heard them rather
than read them, which may have made a difference. I agree with your
views on the substance and spirit of Susan's and Wendy's statements.
This -- the new GTLD process -- was originally scheduled to get to
completion
@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri Jun 27 10:57:15 2008
Subject: Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
Martin,
I wasn't that impressed with Dave's remarks, but I heard them rather
than read them, which may have made a difference. I agree with your
views
Pandora's Box of new TLDs
Martin,
I wasn't that impressed with Dave's remarks, but I heard them rather
than read them, which may have made a difference. I agree with your
views on the substance and spirit of Susan's and Wendy's statements.
This -- the new GTLD process -- was originally scheduled
And no, companies *aren't* forced to pay for another domain name
just because a new TLD appears -- they aren't doing it *now*
Oh yes we are
Looking at bbc.org and bbc.tv suggests that you are not.
We used not to, bbc.org and others are why we started. We
did have bbc.tv for a
Some people are going to get very rich over this.
How do you know this? Judging by the past experience of TLDs
there will not be a rush of customers but there will be a rush
of people trying to make a buck.
You might enjoy my blog entries about the .TRAVEL domain:
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html
The SNR in the gtld WG was very low, which I think may have been an
influencing factor.
Yeah, it was dominated by a bunch of small-scale amateur greedy
speculators, while the solution was ICANN which is dominated by a
bunch of
Well, at least the new TLDs will promote DNS-based cruft filtration. You can
already safely ignore anything with a .name, .biz, .info, .tv suffix, to
name just the worst. If only there was a way to get the cruft to move over
into the new ones...
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:05 PM, John Levine [EMAIL
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:16:52 PDT, Ken Simpson said:
On that note, it will be very interesting to see who manages to
register the *.sucks TLD, and what they do with it.
Oooh -- dibs on that one. And .some, so you can register awe.some,
trouble.some, and fear.some. And .ous, which would
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:01:23 EDT, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Mezei?= said:
Finally, will there be any performance impact on DNS servers around the
world (thinking of caching issues) ?
It should be almost identical to the current performance impact on the second
level DNS servers that have
On Jun 27, 2008, at 8:22 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Well, at least the new TLDs will promote DNS-based cruft filtration.
You can
already safely ignore anything with a .name, .biz, .info, .tv
suffix, to
name just the worst. If only there was a way to get the cruft to
move over
into
Hey, please don't ignore .tv. No cruft from me, at least.
The two letter country codes are a swamp all of their own, with no help
from ICANN.
I hear that Tuvalu approximately doubled its GNP the year they sold the
rights to .tv.
R's,
John
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Well, I guess this shoots in the foot Microsoft's name server best
practices of setting up your AD domain as foo.LOCAL, using the logic
that .LOCAL is safe because it cannot be resolved by the root name
servers.
Who wants
Dear Lou;
On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:21 PM, Lou Katz wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Well, I guess this shoots in the foot Microsoft's name server best
practices of setting up your AD domain as foo.LOCAL, using the
logic
that .LOCAL is safe because it
On 27 Jun 2008, at 02:13, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Ken Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Oooh -- dibs on that one. And .some, so you can register awe.some,
trouble.some, and fear.some. And .ous, which would allow humm.ous,
seri.ous, fabul.ous, etc..
Somebody on /. mentioned .dot,
On Jun 27, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Bill Nash wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Scott Francis wrote:
perhaps somebody with more insight can explain the rationale to me
(DRC?) - is there a purpose served here aside from corporate/legal
interests?
It strikes me as fomenting another gold rush. The notion
David Conrad (drc) writes:
Other folks believe that anything that reduces the effective monopoly
VeriSign has (through .COM and .NET) would be a good thing. This view
holds that by increasing the number of top-level domains, you increase the
opportunities for consumer (that is, domain
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Jon Kibler wrote:
Well, I guess this shoots in the foot Microsoft's name server best
practices of setting up your AD domain as foo.LOCAL, using the logic
that .LOCAL is safe because it cannot be resolved by the root name servers.
.local is also used by MDNS. (Nice interop
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Jeroen Massar wrote:
thinking of all the nice security issues which come along (home, mycomputer
and .exe etc anyone ? :)
.exe has the same security properties as .com
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dotat.at/
TYNE DOGGER FISHER: SOUTH OR SOUTHWEST
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:44:35AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
On 27 Jun 2008, at 11:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about .dot? I'd like to set up a hostname of
dotdot.dashdashdashdot.dot
To my mind, Tony Finch owns you all :-)
http://dotat.at/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I believe
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:49:41PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
For example: the .info TLD is completely overrun with spammers, to
the point where many people, including me, have simply blacklisted the
whole thing.
The irony that MailScanner's domain is mailscanner.info is absolutely
deafening.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:01:23AM -0400, Jean-Fran?ois Mezei wrote:
Does anyone know how if the new gTLD system will still give some veto
power to some people over some domain names that are morally objectable
to some people ?
I am not thinking of only .SEX but perhaps also .GOD .GAY .ALLAH
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:23:28PM -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
that's exactly my point! it's _not_ reliable, but it's the behavior
that the average user has come to expect. If we can't even guarantee
reliability with the small handful of TLDs currently in use, when we
start introducing
of the Internet.
.local should be reserved.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Finch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 12:21 PM
To: Jon Kibler
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Jon Kibler wrote:
Well, I guess
Phil Regnauld wrote:
As business models go, it's a fine example of how to build demand
without really servicing the community.
Of all the ways new tlds could have been implemented this has to be the
most poorly thought out. Security-aware programmers will now be unable to
apply even cursory
Hi,
On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:22 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Well, at least the new TLDs will promote DNS-based cruft filtration.
You can
already safely ignore anything with a .name, .biz, .info, .tv
suffix, to
name just the worst.
Does this actually work? The vast majority of spam I
On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Bill Nash wrote:
I'd rather see ICANN spend time on current problems instead of
making new ones.
Out of curiosity, what are the problems you feel ICANN should be
spending its time on?
Regards,
-drc
On Jun 27, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
The process ensures that too few new TLDs will be created for
it being a threat to VeriSign
This remains to be seen, at least from my perspective. I have no idea
how many TLDs are going to make it through the gauntlet or
On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Scott Francis wrote:
If we can't even guarantee
reliability with the small handful of TLDs currently in use, when we
start introducing arbitrary new ones to anybody that can pay, I'm
concerned that it's going to make user support even more of a headache
I might
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:49 PM, David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Scott Francis wrote:
If we can't even guarantee
reliability with the small handful of TLDs currently in use, when we
start introducing arbitrary new ones to anybody that can pay, I'm
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill
Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I agree with Scott, I'd rather see ICANN spend time on current problems
instead of making new ones.
Did you express that opinion to the Paris meeting?
[Not an attack on you specifically, but as this process has been ongoing
for
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:04:19 EDT, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Mezei?= said:
Say I am a pastry chef, and I pay $40 per year for pastry.com, I got
it because I signed up early and now cherish my domain name. I am a
small business.
But now, some rich guy can come in and bid for .pastry
On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Scott Francis wrote:
what little assurance we have that e.g. bankofamerica.com is the
legitimate (or should I say, _a_ legitimate) site for the financial
institution of the same name becomes less certain when we have e.g.
bank.of.america, www.bankofamerica.bank,
On Jun 27, 2008, at 1:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
Phil Regnauld wrote:
As business models go, it's a fine example of how to build demand
without really servicing the community.
Of all the ways new tlds could have been implemented this has to be
the
most poorly thought out.
Oh, no. There
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Bill Nash wrote:
I'd rather see ICANN spend time on current problems instead of making new
ones.
Out of curiosity, what are the problems you feel ICANN should be spending its
time on?
For starters, has Verisign ever
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Bill Nash wrote:
Except for domain registrars, who are only really a registrar when they make
a mistake that could cost your entire commercial enterprise.
Edit: s/when/until/
Beer:30.
- billn
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
