Discuss mailing list

[Rouben <rouben AT rouben.net>]

I think the charter of the proposed .RUS TLD also

reflects this. Perhaps it can be reworked a bit to

focus more on Russian culture.

In summary, I second Ole's comment:

I agree with your outline of problems with
ccTLDs for OpenNIC. However, as you say yourself,
a ccTLD is under the jurisdiction of a country.
This is not the case with .RUS. I can therefore
only conclude that .RUS is not a ccTLD in the
normal sense of that word. 

Looking at the charter in more detail:

http://subnets.ru/rus.www/charter/

Dot RUS is the TLD (Top Level Domain) custom made for Russian people, but still available to everyone. 
Dot RUS is targeted to those who may want a domain with the association with Russia and/or an free alternate to .ru domains.

May I suggest the following edits?

=====

The purpose of the dot RUS TLD is as follows:

- it is a free (as in beer and freedom) alternative to the dot RU ccTLD, which is not free (as in beer and freedom). Specifically:

   - dot RUS domains are free of charge (gratis), i.e. no payment required for registration

   - dot RUS domains can be registered by anyone for virtually any purpose, as long as that purpose does not violate this Charter's and OpenNIC's policies and rules.

- its primary purpose is for providing a DNS namespace for online resources raising awareness of, discussing, celebrating and promoting Russian culture and content.

- the use of the dot RUS TLD is in no way restricted to the members of the Russian community, citizens of any specific country or territory; anyone is welcome to claim a dot RUS domain for themselves or their organization.

=====

Thoughts?

Finally, a hypothetical question for Dmitry: would you be open to someone using dot RUS for registering a domain like wal.rus that has nothing to do with the "primary purpose" of the TLD? For example, what if The Walrus magazine (Canadian publication) wanted to register WAL.RUS as an alternative domain name for their website https://thewalrus.ca/ ? Would you be OK with this, or do you think it's a problem? And if it's a problem, can you please explain why? I'm just trying to get your thinking on this...

Rouben

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:23 PM, <vv AT cgs.pw> wrote:

I agree with your outline of problems with
ccTLDs for OpenNIC. However, as you say yourself,
a ccTLD is under the jurisdiction of a country.
This is not the case with .RUS. I can therefore
only conclude that .RUS is not a ccTLD in the
normal sense of that word. 

I would therefore like to emphasise:
an OpenNIC TLD with the letters .RUS is NOT
a ccTLD, and should not be treated as such.

Regards,
        Ole

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:57:07 +0100
Al Beano <albino AT autistici.org> wrote:

> Hi Dmitry,
>
> Sorry for my sporadic replies — I've been quite busy
> lately and haven't had time to fully catch up with this
> list.
>
> I don't think quantity necessarily equals quantity in
> this situation. OpenNIC doesn't want to offer a
> bewilderingly large array of TLDs, it wants to offer a
> selection of unique ones with passionate people behind
> them.
>
> Alt-ccTLDs then present a couple of issues: firstly, that
> there's no way to decide who should control them: the
> first people to come along might not be the best. This is
> not meant as a personal insult to you; I think you'd be a
> very good administrator of .rus, but this issue could
> crop up in other cases.
>
> On the other hand, the opposite may be true: why should
> only Russia and Australia have alt-ccTLDs? We will never
> have enough T1 admins to cover every country (at least,
> not for the foreseeable future).
>
> ICANN solves this problem by giving each country TLD to
> some government authority, afaik, and letting them do
> what they wish with it. This isn't really possible for
> us.
>
> Secondly, promoting the creation of alt-ccTLDs encourages
> would-be contributors simply to pick a country and start
> a TLD for that. Every proposal would look the same and
> there wouldn't be any way to differentiate the people
> behind them. If people don't have to demonstrate that
> they're willing to put in the time to develop an original
> idea and charter for the TLD they want, I think we may
> see many new TLDs being created and quickly falling into
> disrepair.
>
> I understand that this is harsh criticism to an idea
> you're obviously enthusiastic about, but overall, I don't
> see a real advantage of creating these TLDs. Unless these
> issues are addressed in some way, I will vote no to
> proposals of new ccTLDs.
>
> albino
>
> On 27 September 2017 12:03:20 BST, "Dmitry S. Nikolaev"
> <dn AT mega-net.ru> wrote:
> >Hi.
> >
> >Can anyone else say something about new-nations.net ?
> >
> >Also:
> >
> >On 24.09.2017 17:05, Al Beano wrote:
> >> If we start allowing them, everyone will want one for
> >> their country
> >and people who just want a TLD will be able to get one
> >with relatively little real work (and therefore won't
> >think much of it). On 24.09.2017 20:27, vv AT cgs.pw
> >wrote:
> >> I too am a little confused about the idea of a ccTLD.
> >
> >On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Dmitry S. Nikolaev
> ><dn AT mega-net.ru <mailto:dn AT mega-net.ru>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >    And why not ? What are you afraid of ?
> >
> >So Ole (vv AT cgs.pw) and Al Beano (albino AT autistici.org)
> >can you answer ?
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >With best regards, Dmitry S. Nikolaev
> >virus_net
> >
> >On 26.09.2017 19:18, Dmitry S. Nikolaev wrote:
> >> Hmmm... are you sure ? What a news for me ! Separate
> >> projects but
> >with
> >> obligations to each other ?
> >>
> >> If you sure, so than they can take and other TLD`s
> >> also. I find this post
> >https://www.new-nations.net/en/discussion/show/id/239
> >> about .o TLD
> >>
> >> If I understand right they now have only:
> >> - .uu
> >> - .ti
> >> - .te
> >> -.ku
> >>
> >> Maybe then it is worth combining OpenNIC efforts with
> >> them ? I think it`s better.
> >>
> >> P.S. I don`t see .RUS there or even suggestion of it.
> >> With best regards, Dmitry S. Nikolaev
> >> virus_net
> >> On 26.09.2017 18:31, Amrit Panesar wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Dmitry S. Nikolaev
> ><dn AT mega-net.ru>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>     And why not ? What are you afraid of ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Conflicts with New Nations is one that comes to mind
> >>>
> >>> https://www.new-nations.net/en/about/showpage
> >>>
> >>> Alternative cc-tlds generally go through New Nations.
> >>>
> >>> I could be wrong, but as far as I know, OpenNIC still
> >>> has active peering agreements with New Nations.
> >>> I'm not aware of how active their community is, but
> >>> New Nations
> >seems
> >>> more appropriate for an alternative cc-tld
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Amrit Panesar
> >>> http://amrit.be
> >>>
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >--------
> >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