Discuss mailing list

[Jonah Aragon <jonaharagon AT gmail.com>]

I'd vote yes. I don't see any reason to exclude people that are just trying to expand OpenNIC and obviously have some very good ideas. We need more people that will take some action around here, and if it takes a few months so be it.

Jonah

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 9:35 AM Daniel Shirley <aditaa05 AT gmail.com> wrote:

I would vote yes , as all the "current" requirements are meet . I would love to see a working register and T1 but as those are not current requirements it should not sway the vote. the vote should be based on the TLD and charter alone.

Maybe we should have a separate vote to update the requirements .... but again that should not affect this vote for a TLD that could expand OpenNIC. 

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Simon Castano <netherland-office AT liberland.org> wrote:

As far as .cyb request is concerned, we have to apply OpenNIC policies at time of request.
And as far as I understand, all requirements are meet and I see no reason why it should be rejected by OpenNIC.

On the other hand I understand and agree that OpenNIC should define some technical requirements for present and future TLDs since reliability is a must for DNS servers. New requirements could be defined whenever voted upon with a grace period before enforcing new rules. We could further imagine that each and every TLD would be bench-marked against requirements on a (bi)yearly basis, where non complying TLD would have, say 3 month to meet requirements.


---
Simon

On 2017-07-21 10:20, vv AT cgs.pw wrote:

I for one would be more likely to accept a TLD that had
the infrastructure in place. It shows some commitment.

To me a "potentially good" TLD is one set up by some
people who are committed and will add something to
the community beyond a couple of letters and a dot.

~ Ole


On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:11:22 +0100
Al Beano <albino AT autistici.org> wrote:

So, supposing a TLD could demonstrate a working DNS and
web setup, would you be more willing to consider
accepting it?

I agree that it's detrimental to have several TLDs in the
'Soon™' stage, but rejecting newer TLDs because a couple
of older ones have not fully finished setting up seems
like it might stop potentially good new TLDs being added
to the network.

albino

On 21 July 2017 02:55:18 BST, Theo B <me AT theos.space>
wrote:
>By working order, I meant a working T1 DNS server, with
>a working online
>registration system (not just a page saying to contact
>the owner).
>
>-Theo B.
>
>On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:18 PM, <vv AT cgs.pw> wrote:
>
>> Are they not all in working order?
>>
>> Also, what constitutes "working order"?
>>
>> It is indeed a problem. There are skills,
>> time, and resources required to to this
>> and they have to be available ALL the time.*
>> Not just for a few months, and then take
>> a vacation or whatever. People who get
>> a domain under a TLD rely on the TLD operators
>> and it's not fair (or appropriate) to let
>> them down. Certainly not without notice.
>>
>> On the other hand, perhaps some churn is
>> appropriate in this case. I don't know. I guess
>> there different missions for OpenNIC DNS
>> servers and OpenNIC TLDs.
>>
>> ~ Ole
>>
>> PS: I imagine that "all the time" would be for
>> the foreseeable future, which might be 2 months
>> for a 20yo and 20 years for an old fart like me.
>> Our community is always going to be a wide mix.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 21:04:28 -0400
>> Theo B <me AT theos.space> wrote:
>>
>> > I honestly think that we shouldn't have any more TLDs
>> > until every one we currently have is in working
>> > order. We don't need "new" until all the "old" is
>> > all working.
>> >
>> > -Theo B
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Jonah Aragon
>> > <jonaharagon AT gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I don't think we can have too many, and diversity
>> > > is a good thing. I'd completely disagree with Theo
>> > > here. Although on the other hand it's gonna
>> > > completely destroy my website layout with the list
>> > > of TLDs :(
>> > >
>> > > Jonah
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 6:06 PM <vv AT cgs.pw> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> That's an interesting point Theo. What does
>> > >> it actually matter how many TLDs OpenNIC has?
>> > >> Perhaps too many and the whole situation becomes
>> > >> difficult to manage? I don't know. I'm just
>> > >> asking. If it's a matter of there being names
>> > >> that are suitable for anything that someone might
>> > >> want, then I'd say we need a whole lot more since
>> > >> not one of the present ones suit my taste.
>> > >>
>> > >> I'd suggest however, that adding a new TLD can
>> > >> have several possible effects on the organization.
>> > >> One is that it just adds more deadwood. Another
>> > >> is that it brings in more enthusiastic people.
>> > >> This .cyb TLD looks like the latter to me.
>> > >>
>> > >> Regards,
>> > >>         Ole
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:10:43 -0400
>> > >> "Theo B." <me AT theos.space> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > I vote no. I do not think we need another TLD
>> > >> > currently.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Jul 20, 2017, 3:39 PM -0400, Daniel
>> > >> > Quintiliani <danq AT runbox.com>, wrote:
>> > >> > > You got my vote!
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > --
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > -Dan Q
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 19:26:05 +0000, Al Beano
>> > >> > > <albino AT autistici.org> wrote:
>> > >> > > > Yeah, this is a small mistake but an
>> > >> > > > important one, thanks for pointing it out.
>> > >> > > > I'm glad our intentions are still clear! :-)
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Here's an updated version of the charter
>> > >> > > > (the only change made was the correction
>> > >> > > > of this typo): https://w1r3.net/JFsBcE.txt
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > albino
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > On 2017-07-20 19:20, Daniel Quintiliani
>> > >> > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > Before I vote, shouldn't "administration
>> > >> > > > > of the domain" be "administration of the
>> > >> > > > > TLD"?
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > --
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > -Dan Q
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 19:00:29 +0000, Al
>> > >> > > > > Beano <albino AT autistici.org wrote:
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > Hello all,
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > It's been over a week now since I
>> > >> > > > > > submitted the proposal for a .cyb TLD.
>> > >> > > > > > There hasn't
>> > >> > > > > > been any further discussion in quite a
>> > >> > > > > > while, so I think it's a good time to
>> > >> > > > > > call for a vote on this. As far as I am
>> > >> > > > > > aware, votes are still carried out
>> > >> > > > > > using the mailing list, but someone
>> > >> > > > > > please correct me if I am mistaken.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > You can read the final copy of our
>> > >> > > > > > charter here:
>> > >> > > > > > https://w1r3.net/PaCdmj.txt
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > Work has already begun on a web
>> > >> > > > > > interface which could be used for .cyb.
>> > >> > > > > > It is not yet
>> > >> > > > > > production ready, but we have made
>> > >> > > > > > significant inroads (approx 1000 sloc,
>> > >> > > > > > although this is not a very useful
>> > >> > > > > > metric).
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > Thank you again for reading our
>> > >> > > > > > proposal.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > Al Beano <albino AT autistici.org
>> > >> > > > > > sy <sy AT zm.is
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > --------
>> > >> > > > > > 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@lists. opennicproject.org
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --------
>> > > 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@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