Paul, On Jul 17, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > yes, but not with .ALT, which is a politically desirable gTLD name, and > which allows the connotation of "alternate DNS". i suggested .EXTERNAL > because nobody will ever want it as a gTLD and because its connotation > is unambiguously "not DNS".
Given many of the names that were applied for, I would be quite hesitant to make assertions about what people would or would not want (or what would or would not be politically desirable) for new gTLDs in future rounds. After all, we were talking about .FOO in this thread... > seriously, i wouldn't object to warren's draft if the string he chose > hadn't been .ALT. I suspect any name chosen would have proponents and opponents based on their own assumptions and biases. Looking at the technical requirements, we'd probably want a string that would be unlikely ever to be requested and which wouldn't be significant/controversial to any particular subset of the community. A quarter-baked idea: perhaps instead of a single label that (may or may not) has significance of English, we could go with up to 26 'non-DNS' labels, i.e., .A ... .Z? Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
