> 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
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM, John Levine 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, you'd als
>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 h
> 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 objectio
> 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 h
> 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
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,
b
> 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 avera
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Ray Soucy 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 it.
Or .inc?
On Jun 21, 2011 10:57 AM, 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 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
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-tech
And you are to be complimented on your diligence in this respect, Eric.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:21 PM, 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 ...
>
>
--
--
- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Andrews"
> 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, Gmai
I wonder what sort of money .wpad would be worth...
> 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 operat
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 d
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 Securit
In message , 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 accepting a certain amount of ambiguity.
> Naked
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
>> 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,
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 a
(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
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
On 6/18/2011 4:14 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
If the USG operators said "sorry, the DOJ anti-trust rules don't
allow us to serve a zone with .HONDA and .BACARDI", why would the
the pressure be on them rather than on ICANN? Nobody outside the
ICANN bubble cares about more TLDs.
I think the most i
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 r
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
> > reco
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 a
>> 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 lea
> 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 ther
On Jun 20, 2011, at 2:35 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> Randy Bush 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 study (see
c
>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 v
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
On 18 Jun 2011, at 09:22, Owen DeLong 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.
--
f.anthony.n.finch
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
Matthew Palmer 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,
makita, dewalt, b
Randy Bush 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 tell you,
both
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.,
Simple hostnames as, global identifiers, were supposed to cease
to work in 1984.
Can you point out where that is stated?
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
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 <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 searc
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
(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 2
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 08:22:17PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Paul Vixie"
>
> > 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
- Original Message -
> From: "Paul Vixie"
> 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 sa
In message <21633.1308527...@nsa.vix.com>, Paul Vixie writes:
> Jay Ashworth 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 q
Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> 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 insecure
On Jun 19, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Paul Vixie"
>
>> David Conrad 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. T
Jay Ashworth 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 looks up http:
- Original Message -
> From: "Paul Vixie"
> David Conrad 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
> > p
David Conrad 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:
http://www.icann.org
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
publi
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 9:55 AM, John Levine 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 public unha
>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
unhapp
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
> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
> From: Owen DeLong
> 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'
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
>>>
>>> MacDonald
In message <201106180718.p5i7irbe020...@mail.r-bonomi.com>, Robert Bonomi write
s:
>
> > Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
> > From: Owen DeLong
> >
> > MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules,
> > right?
&
On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:04 AM, George B. 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 registrations to
On Jun 18, 2011, at 12:18 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
>> From: Owen DeLong
>>
>> MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules,
>> right?
>>
>> Well... Which MacDon
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 singl
On Jun 17, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>> 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 an
On Jun 17, 2011, at 8:39 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>> 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
>>
> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
> From: Owen DeLong
>
> 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 Sup
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:04 AM, George B. 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 registrations to provide me
> with a million dollar a year income stream
David Conrad wrote:
>Jay,
>
>On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> and the root operators may throw
>> their hands up in the air if anyone asks them to have anything in
>their
>> zone except glue -- rightly, I think; it's not a degree of complexity
>> that's compatible with the requ
Jay,
On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> and the root operators may throw
> their hands up in the air if anyone asks them to have anything in their
> zone except glue -- rightly, I think; it's not a degree of complexity
> that's compatible with the required stability of the root zon
>so did anyone have a question or is my epistolary stylistic genius sufficient
>as topic of general interest?
Hi. How does ICANN seem to be reacting to the flaming arrow that the
DOC shot in front of them?
Also, the DOC letter refers to a European Commission letter from Tuesday,
which I can't fi
>Well... Which MacDonald's?
ICANN has a 350 page draft applicant guidebook on their web site that
explains the barococo application and evaluation process here:
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm
Please do NOT download it or read it, since actual knowledge is so
much less fun
On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:13 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> Why do you think there is an ASO?
> To coordinate numberspace issues between the IANA and the RIRs.
I believe the original intent was that the various SOs would provide their
input on how policie
>> [...] I don't mind new TLDs, but company ones are crazy
>> and going to lead to a confusing and messy internet.
are either "confusing" or "messy" the best rationals for declining
either or both of corporate names or trademarks?
are these (corporate naming and trademark registration as gene
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Aw, Jeezus.
>
> No. Just, no.
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 registrations to provide me
with a million
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
TLD to make things simpler/neater... :-)
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> 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 Systems
> 4. MacDonald and Madison
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> 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 anyone asks them to have anything in
> > their
> > zone exce
On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Joel Jaeggli"
>
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 tim
On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>> That won't stop them from building zone files that look like this:
>>
>>
>> @ IN SOA ...
>> NS ...
>> ...
>> A ...
>> ...
>> www A ...
>> ...
>>
>> Sure, they'll advertise www
>> so did anyone have a question or is my epistolary stylistic genius
>> sufficient as topic of general interest?
> ... and he talked for 45 minutes, and no one understood a word that he said.
i'm happy to leave the reportage and issue analysis to those better informed.
you look to be someone b
- Original Message -
> From: brun...@nic-naa.net
> howdy all from a cold room 100km north of the equator.
>
> > ...
> > That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic
> > on point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language ...
> > ...
>
> i'm reading this from the me
howdy all from a cold room 100km north of the equator.
> ...
> That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic on
> point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language ...
> ...
i'm reading this from the meeting room where the generic names supporting
organization council is meet
Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> That won't stop them from building zone files that look like this:
>
>
> @ IN SOA ...
> NS ...
> ...
> A ...
> ...
> www A ...
> ...
>
> Sure, they'll advertise www.apple, but, you better believe that
> they'll take whatever lands a
On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:13 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?
>
To coordinate numberspace issues between the IANA and the RIRs.
>>
On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:09 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> On Jun 17, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
http://apple/ is going to break a bunch of shit.
>>>
>>> All fully qualified domain names have a trailing dot so that you know
>>> where t
In a message written on Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 08:25:28PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> Perhaps we could get an update to the relevant RFCs.. clarifying that
> only NS records may be dotless in the root namespace?
>
> As in -- No hostnames A, MX, or CNAME at the TLD level.
I suspect some are alrea
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
> not
> for the ASO/NRO side of things.
Because th
On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "David Conrad"
>
>> 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,
>>
>> E
On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> http://apple/ is going to break a bunch of shit.
>>
>> All fully qualified domain names have a trailing dot so that you know
>> where the root is. At least as parsed internally by your resolver
On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:36 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> 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 us
- Original Message -
> From: "Joel Jaeggli"
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > http://apple/ is going to break a bunch of shit.
>
> All fully qualified domain names have a trailing dot so that you know
> where the root is. At least as parsed internally by your resolve
> "J" == Jeremy writes:
J> well, crap. That's all I have to say :(
Didn't you mean .crap ? ;-/
-JimC
--
James Cloos OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
On Jun 17, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"
>
>> 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
- Original Message -
> From: "David Conrad"
> 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
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 exis
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Jay Ashworth 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 records may be do
- Original Message -
> From: "Joel Jaeggli"
> >> 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
> > the
On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "John Levine"
>
>> 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
>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
- Original Message -
> From: "David Conrad"
> "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 Property Sta
- Original Message -
> From: "John Levine"
> 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, yes, I've b
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
