Discuss mailing list

[Riley Baird <riley AT openmailbox.org>]

Google is not trying to hide their affliliation with Charleston Road
Registry, afaict. On the Google registry FAQ page, they state:

----

Charleston Road Registry (CRR) is a subsidiary of Google. Because ICANN
requires that registrars and registries remain separate entities, and
Google is already an ICANN-accredited registrar, CRR exists as a
separate company from Google.

----

I am not sure what you mean by OpenNIC needing to renew the registration
of .ing. Where was OpenNIC supposed to register its domains?

On 24/12/14 10:40, David wrote:
> Riley
> 
>  Correct me, If I'm wrong, when you mention "The entity which filed the
> application for .ing is Charleston Road Registry, which is basically
> Google, but with a name change to meet ICANN policy"
> 
>  By changing the name into something more "Engineering" sounds to me it
> was more deliberate on their behalf.
> 
> Unless Google play off the correct cards of owner ship by waiting for
> the expiration date to happen, Then opennic efforts are fruitless.
> 
> Unless:
> 
> Is this blames directly on opennic, by letting time to roll bye on the
> renewing the registration of .ing?
> 
>  Did .ing date expired and Google knew this matter and just waited for
> it to mature. If there is any expiration date on the register for .ing ?
> 
> I believe in keeping .ing, and not running from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/24/2014 7:07 AM, Riley Baird wrote:
>> I doubt that the creation of .ing is intentionally trying to derail the
>> OpenNIC project. More likely, it was just a lack of concern for it,
>> perhaps through ignorance.
>>
>> The entity which filed the application for .ing is Charleston Road
>> Registry, which is basically Google, but with a name change to meet
>> ICANN policy.
>>
>> How many .ing domains are there? Do you think that Google could be
>> convinced to "grandfather" the already registered domains?
>>
>> On 24/12/14 09:15, David wrote:
>>> We should stick to opennic should be following the to the letter their
>>> own policy that was establish a long time ago. I smell a big rotten
>>> rotten fish in trying to derail the opennic project.        We should 
>>> support
>>> Our leaders and supporters of opennic. ICANN it is corporate piranha, in
>>> other words Government greed in neutralizing the net..
>>>
>>> On 12/23/2014 11:45 PM, Jeff Taylor wrote:
>>>> In case you forgot, this issue was already discussed on the list earlier
>>>> this year, and the general consensus was that nobody had enough interest
>>>> to put forth the effort of contacting the EFF or anyone else.  If we
>>>> were going to fight for it, that would have been the time -- when ICANN
>>>> first announced the possibility of using .ing.  At this point its too
>>>> late, it's a done deal and any credibility we might have had towards a
>>>> claim is gone through lack of action.
>>>>
>>>> But hey, if you want to hold me personally responsible for the loss of
>>>> the zone, more power to ya.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/20/2014 01:15 PM, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:
>>>>> I really think someone should contact the EFF about this issue. I
>>>>> don't personally care about my .ing domains as they're just redirects,
>>>>> but if everyone caves in like Jeff is, they're eventually gonna go
>>>>> after Julian, and if Julian doesn't fight back, OpenNIC will be gone.
>>>>> -- -Dan Q
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------
>>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
>>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing 
>>>> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------
>>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
>>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing 
>>>> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------
>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
>> You may unsubscribe by emailing 
>> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------
>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
>> You may unsubscribe by emailing 
>> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org