Discuss mailing list

[Jonah Aragon <jonaharagon AT gmail.com>]

This ML post is from when New Nations went live on OpenNIC: https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss/2011-04/msg00008.html

I'm not sure where the preceding discussion and vote was, it's possible the Mailing List archive that's currently live doesn't go back that far (it only goes back to around 2010).

Jonah

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 3:13 PM <spaesani AT mail.com> wrote:

Can I see the record of the vote on that (new nations) ?

--
Sent from myMail app for Android

Saturday, 03 December 2016, 03:43PM -05:00 from Jonah Aragon <jonaharagon AT gmail.com>:

As far as I can tell, the only person forcing their views on anyone is you. For starters, everything is an OpenNIC votable topic. Yes we conform to the RFCs nearly 100% of the time, but it should be kept in mind that the RFC drafting process isn't a democratic process in the first place and it doesn't always align with our values. We should and do withhold the right to implement any policies we need to ensure the democratic and free operation of OpenNIC.

I'm going to mention this again, even though I've already mentioned it a multitude of times, because you won't acknowledge it in discussions: New Nations.

We peer with all New Nations' TLDs because we agree with their motives and we specifically allow their two letter TLDs as a part of the OpenNIC root because in our eyes (as a community), the TLDs they have represent legitimate nation level organizations, and Liberland (which is what this thread is about) qualifies, in my opinion, as that. If they wish to host the .ll domain for themselves it would violate no OpenNIC policies, and there is even precedent for it.

If you disagree with any of the policies, TLDs, and/or organizations I've mentioned above, please feel free to start a policy discussion on this mailing list calling for the un-peering of New Nations and the enactment of a no-two-letter-domain policy for OpenNIC. Otherwise everything that's been proposed is completely allowable under our current policies as long as a majority of members vote in favor, because OpenNIC is a democracy and not an oligarchy or technocracy. 

My personal opinion is that two letter TLDs should NOT exist for generic purposes, which is why I withdrew my .on proposal in the first place. But if a national organization wants one on the OpenNIC network, it should certainly be allowed.

Jonah

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 2:21 PM <spaesani AT mail.com> wrote:

Check again

--
Sent from myMail app for Android

Saturday, 03 December 2016, 03:05PM -05:00 from Maiyannah Bishop <maiyannah.bishop AT postactiv.com>:

This sounds like an awfully long way of saying "the people disagree with me, so only the people whom are educated and agree with me should count"

Which uh, isn't how democracies work, last I checked.
-mb

On 2016-12-03 14:57, spaesani AT mail.com wrote:

As I said this was covered in August and november both times with reference to and clarification of the RFC which in no way reserves all 2 letter TLDs for countries.
If I add my two cents there are also three letter country codes referred to by the RFC  through it's qualification of country codes being those defined by iso 3166
and as with two letter TLDs 3 letter TLDs are in no way reserved for countries (quite obviously).
The RFC goes further and clearly states that it does not determine what a country code is.
Now,  that's not an opennic votable.
It's what the RFC clearly states and what members have shown multiple times that it clearly states.
As for imposing when obvious falicies in this regard are presented and used to argue opennic votables, eg, tld requests, it can not but come across as an attempt to  impose as falicies are a core constituent, along with force,  of what imposing is comprised of whereas the voice of reason based on facts, and here specifically facts pertaining to the RFC in question, make up Democratic decisions.
I'd continue on and write a book but I'm on my mobile .

--
Sent from myMail app for Android

Saturday, 03 December 2016, 01:55PM -05:00 from Verax <verax AT 8chan.co>:

No one's imposing any views on anyone. If it goes to a vote, we will
abide the majority

However, I don't think ignoring standards (RFCs) is a good idea. The
reservation on 2-letter TLDs exists for a good reason, so unless you
have a better one, I believe it should stand.

That said, I'm fine with New Nations, or anything else representing an
nation level entity getting 2-letter TLDs.

Regards,
Verax

spaesani AT mail.com wrote:
> We went over this for the opennic tld itself whereby you were proposing .on
> We also went over it for .js
> The only conflict are those who are imposing their views on the majority
> which is against opennics own policies and charter.
>
> --
> Sent from myMail app for Android
>
> Saturday, 03 December 2016, 01:14PM -05:00 from Jonah Aragon
> <jonaharagon AT gmail.com <mailto:jonaharagon AT gmail.com>>:
>
> There is a lot of conflict about two letter TLDs, however if you do
> represent a country, even a contested or unrecognized one you may
> have better luck, we do peer with New Nations after all, and they do
> the same thing.
>
> Jonah
>
> On Dec 3, 2016 2:41 AM, <spaesani AT mail.com
> <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aspaesani AT mail.com>> wrote:
>
> Simon I'm going to have an issue with a .II tld as I have been
> attempting to get that going here since at least June 2015.
> I've been designing / developing iinteractive software for some
> time and this is the release venue.
> I haven't put through a tld request as various issues needed to
> be worked out, namely, 2 letter TLDs which was resolves a while
> back.
> If I have to put in a tld request ASAP to "stake a claim " I'd
> appreciate older members letting me know.
>
> --
> Sent from myMail app for Android
>
> Tuesday, 29 November 2016, 09:29AM -05:00 from "Simon Castano"
> <discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3adiscuss AT lists.opennicproject.org>>:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have joined this mailing list not long ago and would like
> to get some
> clarifications with regards to registration fee for domain
> names.
>
> Reading OpenNIC charter, I could not find anything
> preventing one to
> charge registration fee for domain names. On the other hand,
> I feel
> reluctance for approving domain names that would charge a
> registration
> fee.
>
> To me, and to reply to the below, even ICANN domains' are
> free to use as
> one do not pay ICANN when resolving google.com
> <http://google.com> - on the other side,
> running a DNS server or a website is nerver free as one has
> to host
> website and DNS servers.
> On top of that I think there may be semantic issue with the
> term "free"
> in the below; which I'd translate to "libre" meaning it is
> open to
> anyone rather than "gratis".
>
> Could you pelase share your opinion on this?
>
>
> For reference, note that we (Liberland) are planning to run
> OpenNIC
> servers to operate ".ll" TLD with a bridge to decentralized
> DNS and a
> PKI based on Bitcoin blockchain. We are planning to use our
> E-Resindency
> app as an easy entry point to resolve OpenNIC domain.
> In the meantime, we are lobying to have LL added to the ISO
> 3166-1 and
> obtain ICANN delegation to operate this ccTLD so that .ll
> wesites can be
> reached by a broader audience. Note that we would keep on
> operating
> OpenNIC servers.
> To come back on domain registration fee: we were planning on
> some sort
> of auction where domains registration would be free (i.e.
> gratis) unless
> interested parties bid domain up.
>
> More details to follow on the above at a later stage.
>
> Thanks
>
> ---
> Simon J. Castaño Segondy
> Member of the representation of the Free Republic of
> Liberland in the
> Netherlands
>
> On 2016-11-25 15:46, Hunter 9999 wrote:
> > On our website we say "It’s free to use".
> > For me that includes the usage as domain registrar.
> > So we shouldn't charge for domain registrations.
> > And if I remember right, we have already discussed that on the
> > mailinglist before, with the result, that we will never
> charge for
> > registrations.
> >
> >
> >
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > You may unsubscribe by emailing
> > discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=discuss%2dunsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org>
>
>
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> You may unsubscribe by emailing
> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=discuss%2dunsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org>
>
>
>
>
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> You may unsubscribe by emailing
> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3adiscuss%2dunsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org>
>
>
>
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> You may unsubscribe by emailing
> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> </compose?To=discuss%2dunsubscribe 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