Discuss mailing list

[<vv AT cgs.pw>]

I vote YES.

I agree that it is highly inappropriate to change the rules
in mid-stream. There are some issues brought up here which
should probably be discussed though.

Regards,
        Ole Juul



On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 21:43:37 +0200
"Jack Ternan" <jackist AT email.com> wrote:

> I vote yes.
>  
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 at 9:45 AM
> From: "Jonah Aragon" <jonaharagon AT gmail.com>
> To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Vote: .cyb TLD
> 
> 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
> >>>> >> > >> > >
> >>>> >> > >> > >
> >>>> >> > >> > >
> >>>> >> > >> > >
> >>>> >> > >> > >
> >>>> >&gt; > >> > > --------
> >>>> >> > >> > > 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
> -------- You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> You may unsubscribe by emailing
> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>