Discuss mailing list

[Zach Gibbens <infocop411 AT gmail.com>]

We did our due diligence, they metioned it themselves, they have some 
involvement with the group trying to get it into ICANN, they saw this as a 
way to
Promote the idea with ICANN dragging their feet for a long time (I think I 
recall somebody saying years, but not too sure on that)
Their plans were for ICANN approval in the long run, so that wouldn't have 
been much of an issue

How long do we have to talk about a thread till somebody gets the message, 
reads it and fixes it, and how long does it take to read it and say, 
whoops your right, it's broken, I'll fix it ASAP, how long has it been down, 
over 5 days, that might be premature, I'd be thinking 7-10 (for a vote to 
remove to start) but when the vote closes in 15 days (10 for the vote, 5 for 
this thread) is that enough time, if we waited for 60 days, why was that 
enough time

it looks poorly on the group to have servers that don't respond, looks poorly 
to have to change /etc/resolv.conf (or equavilant) every so often, becuase a 
server is offline or b0rked.
I honestly think we should have this as a policy, if your server is 
unresponsive for one week, and an admin is unresponsive for one week, (maybe 
a week is too long, maybe it's too short) we should have that be the immidate 
reason to drop a server, and talk about hosting it on another tier1 or 
dropping it.

Is there a Tier 1 op that'd rather carry it than drop it?


On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:25:54PM -0600, Jeff Taylor wrote:
> I'm not trying to imply any sort of time constraints here.  The
> issue here is that the original administrator has apparently
> abandoned the TLD, there has been no actual use of the zone since it
> was created, and there has been no interest shown in keeping the TLD
> alive.
> 
> On top of that, it appears we did not perform due diligence in
> allowing this TLD in the first place, as there appears to be
> activity within ICANN to initiate the TLD themselves.  I find
> several references on google to a Munich conference next week to
> discuss the addition of the zone, and even some registrars taking
> pre-registrations for domains under BZH.
> 
> If the zone goes live on ICANN, we would be forced to take a vote on
> which one we want to support.  While its true that I initiated this
> vote in an attempt to eliminate an unsupported zone, the fact
> remains that there also appears to be no interest by anyone else in
> using it.  Compare this with zones like .indy and .parody... Sure
> there is very little interest in them, but there is SOME interest,
> and there are a few domains registered and used.
> 
> 
> On 09/19/2011 02:18 PM, Brian Koontz wrote:
> >
> >I personally believe this is a premature motion, and will be voting
> >"no."  It sets a bad precedent, that OpenNIC is for some reason under
> >a time-based mandate to remove seemingly unused TLDs as soon as
> >possible.  I simply do not see how this build up OpenNIC's credibility
> >in the community.
> >
> >   --Brian
> >_______________________________________________
> >discuss mailing list
> >discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> >http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss