Discuss mailing list

[Travis McCrea <me AT travismccrea.com>]

I agree with everything you say--- mostly :P

I said above that *MY* new standard of voting for a new TLD is if the
person can show how that TLD might be used. I am not encouraging it to
be some rule that is passed...  It will simply be part of my own voting
criteria. The same rule of thumb applies to the charter... I don't think
we should have a rule that bans a charter that says "no illegal
activities" I am just going to vote against them, and I will encourage
others to as well.

What if there was someone who signed up for a .bzh TLD and then the
owner goes missing and the server goes down or something... we have a
person without a TLD until it gets noticed. Of course, this can happen
with a TLD with 500 people on it all the same, but it's LESS LIKELY to.
If I have a project that no one is using (or very few people are)... I
am more likely to forget about it and go onto something else. Plus if
there are 500 users on that TLD if something goes wrong we will know
about it sooner and can quickly work to resolve (lol pun) the issue. 

I am not just saying "let's not vote for this because it doesn't have a
chance to be popular" I am saying "I wont vote for it, because it has
greater odds of getting ignored" 
On Sun, 2011-09-18 at 13:22 +0200, Psilo wrote:
> I disagree.
> 
> I think, OpenNIC, as a non-profit organization, which is trying to change
> the way internet TLDs are managed today, by creating an alternative and more
> open solution, shouldn't set up arbitrary rules like this.
> 
> In my opinion, there are two things that I think should become a "good
> practice" for OpenNIC.
> 
> First, about the vote for new TLDs. I agree that voting for the decision is
> a good thing, but one shouldn't make his decision based on "I like it or
> not". I think we just have to write some clear rules, and vote based on
> whether we think the new TLD charter respects the rules or not. This would
> be more fair.
> 
> Note that we can create some "TLD suspension rules" such as  "OpenNIC should
> be able to contact the TLD manager easily", "the TLD root DNS must be
> reliable", "some domains have to be registered and pointing to valid IP
> addresses", etc. Then if a TLD like BZH breaks one or several of these
> rules, we can vote to suspend the TLD, and give the TLD manager a grace
> period before we remove it from OpenNIC...
> 
> Now, about the TLD charters. I really think that one shouldn't decide of
> what is allowed or what is forbidden based on his personal feelings. Clear
> rules can state that the purpose of a domain should be, for example, promote
> the "Breton culture" for BZH, or host a website in this language. But I
> disagree with charters stating "illegal activities are forbidden, such as
> ...". Firstly because the laws are different in every countries, and even a
> lawyer couldn't write a list of illegal activities that would be applicable
> worldwide. Second because this list often contains activities that are
> clearly not illegal, such as P2P or porn. Third, because a TLD organization
> has never been sued for an illegal website. That would be nonsense. Fourth,
> because laws, habits and opinions do change over time. And fifth, because it
> is not necessary to tell people that an illegal activity is illegal.
> Seriously...
> 
> I think OpenNIC has the opportunity to show that TLDs can be managed in a
> different, more responsible, and more open way. Don't ruin everything by
> saying things such as "we should put more consideration towards whether we
> individually would ever use a domain in the new zone, rather than only
> considering if we agree with the concept behind the proposal".
> 
> Regards,
> Psilo.
> 
> 
> 2011/9/18 Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net>
> 
> > Yes, I have to agree with the principle behind this!  Perhaps when we vote
> > for new TLDs, we should put more consideration towards whether we
> > individually would ever use a domain in the new zone, rather than only
> > considering if we agree with the concept behind the proposal.  With this 
> > in
> > mind, the votes would probably show more accurately if there will be any 
> > use
> > of the TLD beyond what the original owner wants to set up.
> >
> >
> > On 09/17/2011 08:01 PM, Travis McCrea wrote:
> >
> >> It's like a web forum... if you have TOO MANY different forums and
> >> categories then you actually will reduce the activity in general. I
> >> would say we try to cut the fat as much as possible and get people using
> >> those TLDs and once we have a TLD that really is going to succeed then
> >> we will launch that.
> >>
> >> For my new voting criteria on new TLDs I want the proposer to explain
> >> their plan to get 20 websites on their TLD. If they can show a good
> >> plan, or show 20 websites that have already said that if there was a
> >> certain TLD they would use it... then I will vote in favour of it.
> >>
> >>  ______________________________**_________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss AT lists.opennicproject.**org <discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org>
> > http://lists.darkdna.net/**mailman/listinfo/discuss<http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part