Discuss mailing list

["Draago D. Bellasys" <info AT bellasys.com>]

Jonah, I have not spoken in awhile, but this is a pivotal point:

The reason you were thinking NOT .onic is precisely why it should be considered! 

1. It is pretty much a pipe dream that you are going to have the gravity of a generic TLD when 99% of your market can’t easily find you. This is not the current position offered by OpenNIC and its dependent TLD’s. This is also not really going to change in the next 10 years either. It may start to cusp around that time, maybe.

2. If you are going to push that ball uphill for the next 10 years (at least) then you WANT it to have a brand that is anchored in something real. Aligning it with OpenNIC (.onic) is at least something tangible. 

I love your .on idea. Not saying anything about that. And I’m not really trying to argue that .onic is the best option. I’m attempting to provide clarity around the reason why .onic is a better choice, perhaps, even than .on. 

I see a role for alternate TLD/DNS systems in the future. That future would begin with VPN’s which aggregate popular DNS alternatives and provide equitable transport. Something like that requires a new way of handling infrastructure, or else the overhead in that would be a problem… and I’m personally working on such technology that facilitates ordinary content while abstracting an authentication and “permissions” layer away from the actual transport of content, or net-neutral transactions. Therefore, the VPN itself is only concerned with the fingernail of the giant, so to speak, and the bottleneck disappears.

But I digress. If I’m thinking along these lines, then so are others, and perhaps the ISP’s of the future as you mention are already working on such schemes.

Either way, imagine a future in which you don’t need to usurp the role or even compete with a generic TLD. You get to call your shot, and you have to call your shot today. Whether that shot reflects .onic or not (perhaps there are more fluid monikers, like .nico ), I think you need to review your aim. 

Sorry if that sounds like criticism. It’s meant constructively. 

Draago D. Bellasys 

Master Diviner of Marketing & Software Systems Architect

info AT bellasys.com

biz: 1.425.922.9976

fax: 1.206.905.2339

On Nov 17, 2016, at 7:40 PM, Jonah Aragon <jonaharagon AT gmail.com> wrote:

I have to be completely honest, I was thinking more like on(line) than OpenNIC so I didn't get what you were saying at first, but it standing for OpenNIC makes a lot more sense so I'm going to pretend that was my idea the whole time...

To answer your question though, I wanted it to be as short as possible *and* a real word people would know that sort of relates to the internet so it could kind of be as ubiquitous as .com is. To be clear however, I am open to changing the TLD to something else, I was just stating before that I didn't think it was an issue at all that .on is 2 characters.

I wouldn't want to use .onic I think, as that sounds both too official (officially relating to the OpenNIC Project itself), and too specific (to non-techy users and ISPs that might want to use OpenNIC in the future). If there was a TLD that fit with being short, generic, and "not weird" (so average users might understand it, simple English words would work) I could change my proposal, if this is a sticking point with people. ".dot" comes to mind immediately as an alternative, but I don't know.

Jonah

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:24 PM kevin <krattai AT gmail.com> wrote:

Out of curiosity, why must the TLD be .on as that is a sticking point.

Could it not be .onic or similar?

Kevin

--------
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