No. Just, no.
No. Just, no.
too late... someone sign up for .nanog!
Yeah. Maybe ICANN needs its own special TLD: .idiots?
You just learned about this now?
well, crap. That's all I have to say
In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned on NANOG in the last 6
months or so; where should I have seen it?
More things on heaven and earth Horatio ...
Is that the local networks pcname, or the gTld pcname?
Are we going to have to start using a specially reserved .local gTld?
Niagara Wireless Internet Co.
New TLDs have been discussed now for over a decade. Press (both technical and popular) on ICANN activities have ratcheted up significantly recently, particularly with the approval of .XXX (which was recently discussed here on NANOG: http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-March/034488.html). Not blaming/accusing, just surprised this would be a surprise. I guess I've been living in the layer9 cloud too long....
Just an example, it has hit main stream media http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/17/who-runs-the-internet/
Or you could have gone to one of the many free iCANN meetings where you can hear about this till your ears go blue. It has only been a topic for discussion for about 10 years but of course if it's not on NANOG it can't be true.
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.
If ICANN continues this stupidity, perhaps it will finally be feasible for
an alternate DNS root to gain a following? Although that would lead to a
fractured DNS system, which really isn't in the best interests of anybody.
There has been a lot of work put into this. I suggest you start looking at the application guide book http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/dag-en.htm
If folks have been debating about this for 10 years then you can be assured the concerns of a messy internet have been brought up.
Don't tell me folks will have an existential moment about IDN's and gTLD.
No, of *course* ICANN didn't give any engineering thought to it. Cause the
engineers? Are all *here*. And David Conrad's apparently the only guy
who's heard about it.
On a related topic, the US DoJ recently wrote a letter suggesting that DNS registry/registrar vertical integration might not be a good idea (from an anti-trust perspective).
FFS, David. I didn't say "new gTLDs". I said, rather specifically,
"commercial gTLDs", IE: gTLDs *proprietary to a specific commercial
And no, I had not heard *any noise* that anyone was seriously considering
this up until this announcement.
Yeah, 'cause it's not messy & confusing already....
The Internet is a business, ICANN wants money (despite their non-profit status - check out how much the execs get paid).
Companies want $FOO. They get $FOO, because they PAY FOR THE INTERNET. Without them, we all don't have jobs.
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 chamber. Trust me when I say we are the minority. Most people think very differently, and we better accept that if we hope to affect things outside our little group.
From: "Zaid Ali" <email@example.com>
Just an example, it has hit main stream media
The issue we're presently discussing *is not mentioned in that article*.
Or you could have gone to one of the many free iCANN meetings where
you can hear about this till your ears go blue. It has only been a
topic for discussion for about 10 years but of course if it's not
on NANOG it can't be true.
Notwithstanding that, globally resolvable valid DNS names *with no dots
in them* are going to break a fair amount of software which assumes that's
an invalid case, and that is in fact a *different* situation, not triggered
by the expansion of the *generic* gTLD space.
So, like DRC, your response isn't to my actual point.
And before that, a need for a comprehensive economic study http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/msg00013.html
See a pattern?
Y'know, I thought I'd covered that point in my DNS NOI comments (now, lo,
14 years old:
but as it turns out, I had apparently confused "registrar" and "registry" --
not as mortal a sin then as it would be now -- so I can't actually point to
an answer to that question.
I do *have* an answer: yes; separating them is a good idea. I appeared to
have the opposite answer in those comments; I was miscalling a registry
a registrar, which is why it looked like that.