Discuss mailing list

["Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com>]

Wouldn't we have more luck speaking with the EFF?

--

-Dan Q


On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 16:14:51 -0500, Theo B <me AT theos.space> wrote:

> Are we going to say/ask anything to Amazon? Maybe they'd be willing to help
> us out in some way.
> 
> -Theo
> 
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 12/04/2016 01:23 AM, Maiyannah Bishop wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I'm in favour of keeping .free and letting ICANN explain to
> > people why there's collisions.
> > Are we going to just roll over the moment ICANN takes up a TLD that
> > conflicts?  Because if so, then we may as well not even bother with
> > operating, because we'll be dead the moment they reopen gTLD applications
> > next year.
> > -mb
> >
> >
> > I believe we had that exact same discussion the last time they opened up
> > gTLD applications, and a few people bemoaned the end of opennic... yet 
> > here
> > we still are.  There was one other zone that collided -- .ing -- which was
> > added to the root zone in January 2014 but still doesn't appear to be open
> > for domain registration.  It may be that .free follows the same path and
> > doesn't see any actual use for some time.
> >
> > As for ICANN explaining why they have TLD collisions... who do you think
> > they're going to explain it to?  It's not like anything in the opennic 
> > root
> > zone has any affect on ICANN's root, nor on the people who still using the
> > ICANN root.  Nobody is going to complain because nobody except opennic
> > users are even aware of the collision.
> >
> >
> >
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe@lists.
> > opennicproject.org
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org