discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] .on TLD Proposal

From: Maiyannah Bishop <maiyannah.bishop AT postactiv.com>
To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] .on TLD Proposal
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:34:14 -0500
Archived-at: <https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arcsearch_id/discuss/2016-11/582F8FF6.8080904%40postactiv.com>
List-archive: <https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss>
List-id: <discuss.lists.opennicproject.org>
Organization: postActiv

I imagine OpenNic's existence to begin with causes ICANN to have 'moments' ;-)

I could support a .o or other single-letter TLD. I'm not sure how popular it would be, but that's no reason not to allow it, and I can find nothing in RFCs or otherwise in the approval track specifically regarding single-letter TLDs. I think this seems "okay" - or at the very least, something they didn't think of - and if it is something they didn't consider, all the better for us.
-mb

On 2016-11-18 18:23, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:

I expect ICANN to throw a tantrum and declare all single-letter TLDs "reserved", but we should not care. I could support a .o. TLD.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re[2]: [opennic-discuss] .on TLD Proposal, (continued)
- Re: [opennic-discuss] .on TLD Proposal, Jonah Aragon, 11/18/2016
  - Re: [opennic-discuss] .on TLD Proposal, Daniel Quintiliani, 11/18/2016
    - Re: [opennic-discuss] .on TLD Proposal, Jonah Aragon, 11/18/2016
      - Re: [opennic-discuss] .on TLD Proposal, Maiyannah Bishop, 11/18/2016
        
        Re: [opennic-discuss] .on TLD Proposal, Jacob Bachmeyer, 11/18/2016
        
        Re: [opennic-discuss] .on TLD Proposal, Maiyannah Bishop, 11/18/2016
        
        Re: [opennic-discuss] .on TLD Proposal, Amunak, 11/18/2016
        
        Re: [opennic-discuss] .on TLD Proposal, Jonah Aragon, 11/18/2016
        Re: [opennic-discuss] .on TLD Proposal, Tim Groeneveld, 11/18/2016