On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Daniel Kalchev <dan...@digsys.bg> wrote: > > > On 13.09.14 17:54, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote: >>> On Sep 11, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: >>> >>>> for the time being, and perhaps for a long time to come, the >>>> people who call the presence of .PROD a bug and/or depend on its absence >>>> as a feature, outnumbers and will outnumber the people who call it a >>>> feature or who will call its absence a bug. >>> >>> How do you measure that? This is a serious question, one that affects DNS >>> operators. If you have a way of determining how many enterprises are >>> negatively affected as a new gTLD rolls out, that would be very useful >>> information. >> >> >> My advice to enterprises is to consider the following: >> >> Let the value to your enterprise of resolving the new domains be X >> Let the value at risk due to resolving the new domains be Y >> Let the cost of disabling new domain resolution be Z >> >> If Y > X-Z then the obvious choice is to turn off resolution of new domains. >> >> Since X and Z are both zero the choice is obvious. >> > > However nice this sounds in theory, the reality is that you can never > tightly control name resolution. Of course, you could try to control it, > and that attempt too has it's costs, which you should add to the right > part of the expression.These costs are far from zero.
I can't see what the difficulty or expense would be in freezing the members of the root zone to the CC zones plus the original 7. The quarter million dollar domains are purely parasitic. They add no value and they will add no value until the cost comes down to the $5 that they should have cost in the first place. _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
