"As of July 2, 2013, .nyc has been approved by ICANN as a
city-level top-level domain (TLD) for New York City"
As places like that see $186,000 as small change, I wonder
what other countries (much less the cities within them)
like .nu, .sb or .vu will do? For them this is an
astronomical number. Someone's about to hit a financial
home run reminiscient of the tech-stock bubble...
I haven't read enough, but what's to stop speculators
paying the $186,000 then charging the tiny countries
mors when they are able to make the purchase? Please
don't suggest arbitration because that only increases
the cost to those countries.
Who's going to buy .nanog?
Who's going to buy .ietf?
etc.
Did icann have any financial requirements to get .icann?
As places like that see $186,000 as small change, I wonder
what other countries (much less the cities within them)
like .nu, .sb or .vu will do? For them this is an
astronomical number. Someone's about to hit a financial
home run reminiscient of the tech-stock bubble...
No countries were obliged to apply. Both country codes and country names
were excluded from the new gTLD process. Actually, they couldn't even
apply, as they are considered ccTLDs.
I haven't read enough, but what's to stop speculators
paying the $186,000 then charging the tiny countries
mors when they are able to make the purchase? Please
don't suggest arbitration because that only increases
the cost to those countries.
Who's going to buy .nanog?
No one in this round. May be in the next one.
Who's going to buy .ietf?
No one, excluded from the process by ICANN.
etc.
Did icann have any financial requirements to get .icann?
There really should be a kinder introduction to those who lack basic
clue than to attempt to read the last version of the DAG, even for the
American Legally Literate.
Someone who has more than just ICANNatitude (in either of the usual
senses) should do a standup at the next {$NETTECH} meet and 'splain
policy and business, can the bits and vod them out on the *OG lists.
Then we could discuss the merits, such as they are.
All new gTLDs are required to be DNSSEC-signed. The requirement only
applies to the parent zone, unless registry policy dictates otherwise, so
we can expect many more DS records in the root but a similar DS rate for
2LDs to other gTLDs, likely to be less than 1%: http://scoreboard.verisignlabs.com/percent-trace.png
In the evolution of the DAG I pointed out that both the DNSSEC and the
IPv6 requirements, as well as other SLA requirements, were
significantly in excess of those placed upon the legacy registries,
and assumed general value and availability with non-trivial cost to
entry operators, some of whom might not be capitalized by investors
with profit expectations similar to those that existed prior to the
catastrophic telecoms build-out and the millennial dotbomb collapse.
The v6-is-everywhere and the DNSSEC-greenfields advocates prevailed,
and of course, the SLA boggies remain "elevated" w.r.t. the legacy
registry operator obligations.
"Sensible" may be subject to cost-benefit analysis. I did .cat's
DNSSEC funnel request at the contracted party's insistence and I
thought it pure marketing. The .museum's DNSSEC funnel request must
have, under the "it is necessary" theory, produced demonstrable value
beyond the technical pleasure of its implementer.
Anyone care to advance evidence that either zone has been, not "will
someday be", significantly improved by the adoption of DS records?
Evidence, not rhetoric, please.
#insert usual junk from *nog v6 evangelicals that .africa and .eos
(Basque Autonomous Region) must drive v6 adoption from their
ever-so-deep-pockets, or the net will die.
Anyone care to advance evidence that either zone has been, not "will
someday be", significantly improved by the adoption of DS records?
Evidence, not rhetoric, please.
I dunno. Can you point to parts of your house that have been
significantly improved by fire insurance?
I'll bite. What's the *actual* additional cost for dnssec and ipv6
support for a greenfield rollout? It's greenfield, so there's no
"our older gear/software/admins need upgrading" issues.
You'll let me know there is no place where v6 is not available, and
while you're at it, why .frogans (I've met the guy, has to be the
least obvious value proposition I've come across) needs to accessible
to v6ers before, well, er, that .com thingie.
"DNSSEC No clue necessary" ... so all those guys and gals out there
selling training are ... adding no necessary value at some measurable
cost?
> I'll bite. What's the *actual* additional cost for dnssec and ipv6
> support for a greenfield rollout? It's greenfield, so there's no
> "our older gear/software/admins need upgrading" issues.
You'll let me know there is no place where v6 is not available, and
while you're at it, why .frogans (I've met the guy, has to be the
least obvious value proposition I've come across) needs to accessible
to v6ers before, well, er, that .com thingie.
Well give that .com thingie is IPv6 accessable and has DNSSEC there
is nothing we need to let you know. And yes you can get IPv6
everywhere if you want it. Native IPv6 is a little bit harder but
definitely not impossible nor more expensive.
; <<>> DiG 9.10.0pre-alpha <<>> ns com @a.gtld-servers.net -6 +dnssec
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 18176
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 14, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 16
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available
;; ANSWER SECTION:
com. 172800 IN NS a.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS f.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS h.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS k.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS b.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS m.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS c.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS d.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS g.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS i.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS l.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS j.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN NS e.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 IN RRSIG NS 8 1 172800 20130709042103 20130702031103 35519 com. G9bZIBIFL0MacyGQ9rgx+eFSnp/j11x/OoXJ30ADzYqffm/if68R1DYs v0fA4vqf3NQsUoonSO7t6tCh4Fl5OV/oju0BYXukXOn7bvpiA7Ij+B7H UoSyybVZRsRk4Q4d6t7EJ/gohL/p9B4BFOIiQ1gDIa8dAUzCUOXXo59j Oks=
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
a.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.5.6.30
a.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:503:a83e::2:30
f.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.35.51.30
h.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.54.112.30
k.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.52.178.30
b.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.33.14.30
b.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:503:231d::2:30
m.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.55.83.30
c.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.26.92.30
d.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.31.80.30
g.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.42.93.30
i.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.43.172.30
l.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.41.162.30
j.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.48.79.30
e.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.12.94.30
Well, for starters there's whole truckloads of surplus gear that you
can't get for pennies and use successfully.
Surplus IPv6 capable gear has been around for a long while now.
Remember most gear has had IPv6 for over a decade now. A lot of
gear that ISC got given for IPv6 development was on it 2nd or 3rd
repurposing before we got it nearly a decade ago.
Well give that .com thingie is IPv6 accessable and has DNSSEC there
is nothing we need to let you know. And yes you can get IPv6
everywhere if you want it. Native IPv6 is a little bit harder but
definitely not impossible nor more expensive.
And this was true when the v6 and DEC requirements entered the DAG?
Try again, and while you're inventing a better past, explain how
everyone knew that it would take 6 revisions of the DAG and take until
3Q2012 before an applicant could predict when capabilities could be
scheduled.
The one thing you've got going for you is that in 2009 no one knew
that almost all of the nearly 2,000 applicants would be forced by
higher technical and financial requirements to pick one of a universe
of fewer than 50 service providers, or that nearly all of the
"developing economies" would be excluded, or self-exclude, from
attempting to apply. So the basic diversity assumption was wrong.
Why are the people who don't follow the shitty process so full of
confidence they have all the clue necessary?
>
>