Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] TLD policy change discussion

discuss AT

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] TLD policy change discussion

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Jonah Aragon <jonaharagon AT>
  • To: discuss AT
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] TLD policy change discussion
  • Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:48:03 +0000

Now that I think about it, I see these policy changes are a poor idea. We don't need some arbitrarily chosen group of so-called "core team members" deciding what's best for the community. There's a new TLD proposal every few months or so and this list has done a good job at weeding out the ones that need more work all on it's own without these added policies, as evidenced by the fact that we've only added 16 TLDs in the past 17 years. Even ICANN is moving faster than us at this rate.

The last thing OpenNIC needs is some root operator making executive decisions about whether or not to add a TLD, the mailing list vote is final and proof enough it's ready to be added. Either form a non profit and a board of directors or leave the decision making to the individual member.


On Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 8:10 AM Al Beano <albino AT> wrote:
This is true, but it could also result in situations in which the majority is ignored.

Naturally, in any kind of community, there will be people who favour change for better or for worse, and people who prefer to retain an existing (working) system — setting up a voting system which favours the current setup over a new, proposed one begins to seem somewhat undemocratic.

On 27 July 2017 05:45:27 BST, Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT> wrote:
>Specifically for the TLD votes, not for anything else.  The reasoning
>was that a TLD is a pretty big deal, and we should expect a strong
>support behind any such additions.  Having a new TLD pass by a single
>vote does not show a strong interest by the community and probably
>the charter needs to be refined.
>And honestly, if an idea is good then there's usually strong support
>behind it.  If half the group is on the fence or just doesn't like the
>idea, then something is wrong and it needs to be reconsidered.
>On 07/26/2017 12:45 PM, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:
>> That and why do we need a 2/3 majority for such a small community of
>people? That could make things complicated, and possibly result in a
>lot of good ideas (and good people) being thrown out.
>> --
>> -Dan Q
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 04:51:39 +0000, Jonah Aragon
><jonaharagon AT> wrote:
>>> I'd say the voting period should be longer than 7 days, maybe 14
>>> since many people don't check the list too often and we want to make
>>> we get as many people as possible to vote on major things like this.
>>> --------
>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing
>discuss-unsubscribe AT
>You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>You may unsubscribe by emailing
>discuss-unsubscribe AT

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

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page