Discuss mailing list

[Dominique Rehborn <dominique AT boxnet.eu>]

On 08/16/2011 04:05 PM, Alex Nordlund wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Dominique Rehborn <dominique AT boxnet.eu> 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/16/2011 01:19 PM, Alex Nordlund wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Dominique Rehborn <dominique AT boxnet.eu> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> please folks read the charter yourself and get a proper picture of
>>>> what's behind it. There are unexplainable fears here which i simply
>>>> cannot see.
>>>
>>> I see them pretty clearly and unfortunately I agree with Travis on this 
>>> point.
>> care to explain? Because nobody yet did properly. i wonder if i could
>> have feedback of someone who actually sponsors a TLD and thus facing
>> those issues which might raise up, some people on the other hand just
>> see one side of the story, and that's kind of sad.
> 
> I sponsored .bbs until my server was unfit for it.
> But here's my summary then, I will quote the charter with ~~~.
> 
> ~~~
> NIC domains can be registered by any individual or for an entity by an
> individual/natural person. Registrations may be challenged at any time
> if they are not held by an individual or if the holder cannot prove an
> outside relation justifying reservation of the name, to prevent
> "Cybersquatting". further exceptions are listed below.
> ~~~
> 
> Does this mean that if I can't prove an outside relation to the name,
> I risk losing my "general purpose" domain?
yes and no, that strongly depends.
there are a few cases i would like to explain further:

if the holder has registered a name space which is clearly an
established brand name and the party in question is requesting the name
space, the party would have to get validated (individual and entity), if
not obvious include proof of the creation date of the brand name in
question, if everything is positive regarding the dispute the holder
will be informed about the process and in any case get time to comment
on, but this case will end in suspension of the domain.

in example:
you could loose: google.box, cocacolagroup.box
you wouldn't loose: fruits.box, orange.box, apple.box, banana.box

if the holder has registered a name space which in near future a third
party claims to be the proper owner of due to creating a trademark, the
date comparison of first registration of the name space and creation
date of the trademake will make this easy to determine.
in this case the holder will never be bothered.

if a holder has registered a full real name as a name space, it is not
required to be validated to obtain the name space, since this would just
consume time where it isn't necessary.
if another individual is now requesting this name space, opening a
dispute questioning the named "outside relation", the individual would
first have to proof that his real name is indeed the name space in
question, if positive the holder would get an information about the
dispute and get time to consider validation of his person.
if the holder can proof that it is his real name, the holder will be
immune against name space disputes for good.

if a street name, planet or any other kind of name that is too common to
claim it your own to be registered and disputed, there will probably not
be any process at all, but a short search which results in the obvious
"too common".

i clearly exclude words in the dictionary, if you taken them, their are
99% yours - there's the exception for when a site is only parking the
name space for ages.

that's a few vague cases, not even examples, of "cybersquatting" and
it's process of the dispute.

keep in mind this is not supposed the daily bread of the service but a
try to sort out issues properly.
> 
> ~~~
> Activity
> NIC reserves the right to remove any domain not resolvable for more than
> a week.
> ~~~
> 
> I see the reason behind this and it makes sense, but it's perfectly
> possible for a website to be down for a week without anything special
> happening.
websites can be down, name servers shouldn't be down for more than a few
hours, but it's not about the week but the possibility to weed out zombies.
> 
> 
> ~~~
> Non-Profit clause
> As this TLD is made available not for profit, domains (including
> subdomains) may not be transferred for compensation.
> ~~~
> 
> Do you really need this if you restrict people to 10ish domains?
only users have restrictions, members dont. (it says anyone who uses the
service is a member, but thats wrong by definition since as a member you
require to be able to vote, which you don't necessarily if you only use
a service and didn't make an account at the site)

that was just a thought to get people not just use OpenNIC but more
involved.
> Is it general purpose if I'm not allowed to sell it?
you lost me here.
it's all non-profit so far at OpenNIC, there might be changes, or
charter/TLDs that allow this or even require you to pay for a namespace
and that probably isn't even a bad thing for people who cannot afford
all of their server costs, but i am not going to charge anyone ever for
a .box, thus i would like nobody to gain any profit off it either.
purpose is what you have content wise, there is no deeper meaning what
you could possibly do with a .box but register and use it for your own
purposes.
i may possibly open access to the API at some point so other sites could
as well offer .box to be registered and managed at their place, thus you
could monetize it by offering your nameservers for the zones,  but this
clearly excludes paymant for the name space itself and is in far future
tho'.
> 
> 
> ~~~
> Prohibited contents and behavior
> to limit a larger spectrum for abusive behavior the following is
> strictly forbidden, legitimate complaints regarding these activities
> will result in suspension and revocation of all appropriate domains:
> ~~~
> 
> This is the section I think sparked the most (dis)interest.
> 
> ~~~ • general contents/activities considered illegal. this includes
> but is not limited to:
> 
> ~~~ ∘ cracks/warez/malware/botnets/honeypots
> I'm not allowed to run a honeypot? seriously?
> How far do you stretch this? If I run a kind of honeypot to trap
> spammers keeping them away from my legitimate service on the same
> machine, do I risk losing my domain?
if it is, as you state, legitimate, no. if someone is getting hurt by
your honey pot, can proof it and starts a dispute, then you will receive
the details.
but this is not a restriction to any kind of service at all, (this is
why the torrent row has been removed completely) - it is in fact about
contents.
> 
> ~~~ • SEO/marketing websites
> I do marketing, I've tried to teach people about SEO, does that mean I
> can't put my website under this tld?
> Is my purpose not general enough?
if you do marketing then you sure know the difference between a site
that teaches about SEO and one that is only build for backlinks, thus
spamming our everyday lives with useless information.
i think we can easily determine such cases, if it's too hard for me
alone to decide it would be up to the community.
> 
> ~~~ • pornographic, racists/extremist contents
> The last part I agree with. Do you mind pornography? I don't.
no i don't, people should be able to express free in any way.
BUT there are cases that do not belong in public, so .porn would be a
superb alternative, it's just like the back room of a store, but in the
front, you want groceries only really.
pornographic is really not general but a specific topic including lots
of categories and subcategories.
> 
> ~~~ • torrent tracker
> Torrent trackers are not necessary illegal, I use torrents to
> effectively distribute large amounts of data, does that mean my site
> isn't allowed?
im getting a feeling you have an old copy, thats just awesome.. im not
going to change any answers since they stil apply, you should checkout
the proper version tho.
> 
> ~~~
> Big Business clause
> corporations, large enterprises (>50 employess) and financial entities
> are not allowed to expand their business under a NIC TLD for now. In
> case of a registered trademark, it is possible for the responsible to
> send a request to have their name registered by NIC and suspeneded
> definitively or http forward to a given URL.
> (This process requires verification, any cost created by this process
> will be covered by the responsible in question).
> ~~~
> 
> Any cost? We're not allowed to make money on it but you're expecting
> cash from corporations?
yes, huge loads of cash, like 50 cents for an envelope that i send
including a verification code. this isn't even required in most cases
since validation can take place over an existing website, ns, or even
email..
> How is it general use if you're locking out the business world?
again, update - "for now" it states, the updates is more clear..
> How much do you reckon this cost might be?
a hundred doll hairs.
> 
> I may be strongly against capitalism, but I do not see how you can
> exclude them from a party just based on that.
again, the proper version is to be read, not a complete exclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Dominique Rehborn <dominique AT boxnet.eu> 
> wrote:
>> if there are now arguments to be found which changes the charter, there
>> has to be another vote, and i have a feeling there will be endless
>> changes, because in a democracy you just simply can't make everybody
>> happy. this will clearly result in nothing.
> 
> The odds of that are small, I don't think I've ever seen a discussion
> change the charter.
> Pretty much the same things are being brought up now as previously.
> But then again, I'm pretty blind.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Dominique Rehborn <dominique AT boxnet.eu> 
> wrote:
>> please raise a valid point if you reply. thanks.
> 
> So hostile~
just frank.
thanks for your effort.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> //Alex
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dominique Rehborn - dominique AT boxnet.eu