Discuss mailing list

[Anner van Hardenbroek <dwlnetnl AT gmail.com>]

Hi,

I think we should prioritize the new official registrars because they are a 
(new) fact of life with opening the TLD space by ICANN. Also I think it's 
reasonable to assume that the "official" parties won't respect OpenNIC's 
expiration dates and other policies about the TLD. I'm not saying that 
OpenNIC as a community shouldn't reach out to them and try to make a deal. If 
it's possible it's great, but in the generally I doubt that's the case.

Kind regards,
Anner

> Op 24 dec. 2014 om 05:26 heeft Riley Baird <riley AT openmailbox.org> het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> Thanks, that was exactly how I thought that OpenNIC worked, and I was a
> little confused as to the previous email.
> 
>> On 24/12/14 15:24, Jeff Taylor wrote:
>> OpenNic does not register TLDs with anyone.  We are a separate entity
>> from other root-level zones.  We do not pay for ownership of our TLDs,
>> and we are not an official body on the internet except unto ourselves. 
>> When you visit opennic domains, you have to use opennic DNS servers for
>> your lookups.  If we were a part of the general internet, you would not
>> need to do this.
>> 
>> Opennic domains are free because we maintain our own existence.  All DNS
>> information is created and controlled by ourselves.  This is why we can
>> create our own TLDs as needed.  ANYONE can do what we do. Many companies
>> have their own internal DNS configuration to allow employees to reach
>> company pages.  However because of this, you have to expect that there
>> will be conflicts.  We can use any name we want, but so can everyone
>> else... so if someone else chooses to use the same TLD as us, conflict
>> management has to happen.
>> 
>> Nothing nefarious has occurred here.  Nobody swooped in and stole .ing
>> from us.  This is just the way DNS works.  Nobody has to agree to our
>> standards, and conflicts will happen.  This isn't the first time this is
>> happened.  It won't be the last.  This is just the nature of the project.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 12/23/2014 04:40 PM, David wrote:
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --------
>> 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