nanog mailing list archives
Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
From: Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:32:59 -0700
On 06/19/2011 19:31, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:22:46 -0700 From: Michael Thomas<mike () mtcc com>that's a good question. marka mentioned writing an RFC, but i expect that ICANN could also have an impact on this by having applicants sign something that says "i know that my single-label top level domain name will not be directly usable the way normal domain names are and i intend to use it only to register subdomain names which will work normally."Isn't this problem self regulating? If sufficient things break with a single label, people will stop making themselves effectively unreachable, right?alas, no. if someone adds something to the internet that doesn't work right but they ignore this and press onward until they have market share, then the final disposition will be based on market size not on first mover advantage.
I think you're going to see 2 primary use cases. Those who will do it anyway, either because they are ignorant of the possible downsides, or don't care. The other use case will be the highly risk-averse folks who won't unconditionally enable IPv6 on their web sites because it will cause problems for 1/2000 of their customers.
If it will make $YOU (not nec. Paul or Michael) feel better, sure produce an RFC. Shout it from the housetops, whatever. You're not going to change anyone's mind.
Meanwhile, David is right. Further pontificating on this topic without even reading the latest DAG is just useless nanog-chin-wagging. Completely aside from the fact that the assumption no one in the ICANN world has put any thought into this for the last 10+ years is sort of insulting.
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Current thread:
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs, (continued)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jeremy (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Paul Vixie (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jeff Kell (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jay Ashworth (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs David Conrad (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Paul Vixie (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Michael Thomas (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Paul Vixie (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Doug Barton (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Paul Vixie (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Doug Barton (Jun 19)
- future revenue at risk vs near term cost ratio Mike Leber (Jun 19)
- Re: future revenue at risk vs near term cost ratio Doug Barton (Jun 20)
- Message not available
- Re: future revenue at risk vs near term cost ratio Tim Chown (Jun 20)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 20)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Tony Finch (Jun 20)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 20)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Tony Finch (Jun 21)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 19)
