Discuss mailing list

[Peter Green <peter AT greenpete.free>]

You can suggest it, of course.

But I don't accept that your three ideas are the only ones, or right.

Peter

On March 12, 2014 1:53:50 PM GMT, "John Kozlowski (ShofarDomain.com)" <John.Kozlowski AT ShofarDomain.com> wrote:

Peter,

 

Than may I suggest option 1.

John Kozlowski
	http://ShofarDomain.com Email: John.Kozlowski AT ShofarDomain.com

 

From: discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org [mailto:discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org] On Behalf Of Peter Green
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:52 AM
To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
Subject: RE: [opennic-discuss] [ICANN] New gTLDS, first conflict

 

Possibly all well in theory, but I don't see any of your ideas happening any time soon in the 'real' world...

Peter

On March 12, 2014 12:43:02 PM GMT, &quo t;John Kozlowski (ShofarDomain.com)" <John.Kozlowski AT ShofarDomain.com> wrote:

Peter & everyone else,

 

Once a TLD is started, it should not be abandoned since there are people who depend on it.

 

The issue of ICANN offering a “sanctioned” TLD when one already exists in an alternative root can be addressed in multiple ways.

1.       Give up. (not recommended)

2.       Fight back with lawyers (not recommended)

3.       Provide a reasonable technological answer.

 

From the end user’s perspective if he queries “a.ing” and it is registered only at an OpenNIC TLD the right response should be returned.  If he queries “b.ing” and it is only registered at the ICANN TLD then again the right response should be returned.  Only if “c.ing” is registered at both does it become more difficult, but numerous solutions can be offered if the technology is in hand to handle the first two situations.

 

The problem is the DNS tools as they are today do not address this situation well.  Change the tools and we have a reasonable technological answer.

 

My approach is to replace the DNS resolver at the client or ISP to allow querying multiple roots, thus ShofarDomain’s rootless domain system.  It would be great to see others on a similar path.

 

Another approach is to update the software at the TLD so that it does the work described above.  However this is not a complete solution since it works only if the TLD is queried with the full domain name.  If a query comes for just “ing” then there are in reality two or more conflicting responses.

 

The bottom line is not to give up on “.ing” or any other low usage or idle TLD.  If we do, we prove ourselves to be unreliable and not worthy of new people.  Secondly answer the issues with technology not lawyers or giving up.

 

Respectfully,

John Kozlowski

http://ShofarDomain.com Email: John.Kozlowski AT ShofarDomain.com Phone: +1 (423) 716-6432 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ShofarDomain Twitter: https://twitter.com/ShofarDomain YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/ShofarDomain

 

From: discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org [mailto:discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org] On Behalf Of Peter Green
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:19 AM
To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] [ICANN] New gTLDS, first conflict

 

>Let's not worry about it - drop the tld from our root,

That's not very nice to hear as a user of an .ing domain.

>The way we are going now, this is a loosing battle.

It is if we dicide it is! Though I admit, I am not the one that will have to do that fighting.

>It's pretty much already lost.

So, has anyone contacted the E.F.F?

A few of us aske d yesterday but have had no reply, does that mean the answer is no?

Peter

--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org

--
Wanged from my Kaiser by a mischievous pixie!

Please use P.G.P. if at all possible, thanks. My key: http://www.greenpete.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/0xB3EF6739.asc