Discuss mailing list

[Jonah Aragon <jonaharagon AT gmail.com>]

It just seems to make more sense from an organizational perspective. While most TLDs provide registrations and little of anything else (not a bad thing), we're trying to provide more services, more structure, and more organization which doesn't really make sense as a subset of OpenNIC. As far as I can tell the most similar situation would be ".Fur" and FurNIC, it'd end up being like that, we'd still be closely affiliated with OpenNIC. If that makes any sense.

Jonah

On Feb 19, 2017 1:59 PM, "Philip Ostendorf" <philip AT ostendorf.com> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I don't understand, why do you need independence?

On 19.02.2017 17:17, Jonah Aragon wrote:
> There's been a lot of these "gathering opinion" type posts recently
> (one other from myself), but one more can't hurt.
>
> I've been talking with a few people about ".core" and how peering
> agreements work in OpenNIC, and I've been thinking that starting
> something like that is similar to what I have in mind for ".o"
> [...]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJYqfizAAoJEG4G1Hi2cA/ZGW4P/0W3aZeMR6Ci26M/S1MR8fK4
FPH/1Y1WbthEH/0B+pmt2PTwsLNuyDWI0nH0bqNHMyGtv660fcfF47Teg931B+Yc
Efjl4NXUO7T+Vvd5KCvLJm8LKCiUqIULlSDxfG6i736kFd1GmoC4LVQE6yIYU6M0
9gt0HWwnkLgfGMbQAy7qIrPPugUf8LcUpJ31EIxS11drAFazG09bfSVFNz1tp2KC
IQ5urN+eqqvAvRuYGcCTSXWRiMONXDzpQzLqBadeTxaNZArl9wuQwe+uhSJehQo/
418Oq5BUriTFiEjpYdAYoGC9lkCA4pANUzsgCrZXFIkd011Llqo8Mg9Q5YxIT7IJ
G9MhMaE4qSBhc2oJv5QzL3boeS6vWVGt25LSM6iY2pKJDN+XEOrUL1YGmPeeTcOd
70d0dP/37SDagxsPH8sXqF79fdOuIR4rhFvpi8kcirg3Dp7l8+Mz7TFlrh2ADI/N
61m/umoJy0FVH/RY7W5j+DrYkVHRb4NdoMhHcqZZocjt5bfkG926Nj+AjUGHSznP
QxODFE5jR12JEmcJ4ZWpPhuX04bpQnJOJ1tMH8kBPjYoFmCxvdts4839YvhBrpZw
oVj6KdQndR28j4UsPxDIbs0RBlqwp1q1ynTc0mCyty2rKSE7aChAYrhJyMbS0fSX
cDurpY3JzYa8+P5S2iJ8
=QqPv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org