Discuss mailing list

[<vv AT cgs.pw>]

Good point Jonah. I don't see any harm either.
However, it does seem like it might be a filter
to weed out those who simply don't understand how
an OpenNIC TLD fits into the general internet.
In other words, a reality check.

~ Ole


On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:06:27 -0500
Jonah Aragon <jonah AT triplebit.net> wrote:

> I don’t think we should prohibit charging for domains.
> Regardless of what everyone thinks about how charging for
> domains won’t ever work, does it really harm anyone if
> someone tries? I don’t see the reason for shooting down
> proposals just because of that. It’s probably a bad idea,
> but should it be prohibited?
> 
> It’d block blockchain based TLDs as well, since they’re
> technically purchased domains. 
> 
> Otherwise I agree, there should be some policies that are
> mandatory for TLD operators to follow. More discussion is
> definitely needed. 
> 
> Jonah
> 
> > On Nov 2, 2017, at 16:53, Jeff Taylor
> > <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Not so much usage enforcement, however I *would* like
> > to open the discussion towards building a common set of
> > rules that should be globally applied to all TLDs.
> > Sort of like a starting point for the charters, things
> > that we as a group believe should be followed but
> > perhaps we haven't actually written any rules on it.
> > For example, let's say we all agreed on a policy
> > against intentionally damaging content (like someone
> > hosting malware that is infecting people's computers)
> > -- in this case such a policy would strengthen the
> > support of spamhaus blacklisting certain .bit domains.
> > 
> > Offhand the sort of global policies I'm thinking of
> > would be along the lines of...
> > - Do not host content which is illegal in the country
> > it is hosted.
> > - All domains will be registered free of charge. (We
> > seem to get a lot of people with the bright idea of
> > making money by charging for new domains, so let's just
> > squash that stupid idea right at the door.)
> > - Domain owners need to keep their contact email up to
> > date.  If the domain owner cannot be reached within a
> > reasonable amount of time, the TLD administrator may
> > terminate the domain.  Domain owners also need to watch
> > the mailing list for any global notices and should not
> > expect a personal notification of every issue.
> > - Registering a domain does not guarantee access to
> > that domain.  Maintainers will do their best to keep
> > DNS services up to date, but shit happens...
> > 
> > And so on.  Just some of the common-sense things that
> > we shouldn't have to explain, and yet we still get
> > asked.  I know there are some very well-written
> > charters out there that would be a good starting point
> > for the rest of us, and I think it would be beneficial
> > to have an umbrella charter for all of opennic which
> > could be modified as needed.  Nothing so restrictive
> > that it might impact the intended content of one of the
> > TLDs, but there are probably a handful of items that
> > really should apply to all TLDs equally.
> > 
> > Anyone else have thoughts on this?
> > 
> >   
> >> On 11/01/2017 05:43 PM, vv AT cgs.pw wrote:
> >> Well that brings a little sanity to this discussion.
> >> Thanks Jeff.
> >> 
> >> On a related note, I'm still scratching my head
> >> over why it's so important to have a TLD be for
> >> specific uses only. There seems no point in that
> >> if there is no one policing usage. And how many
> >> here are in favour of forming a "TLD Usage Policing
> >> and Enforcement Department"? I suspect not many. :)
> >> 
> >> Cheers,
> >>        Ole
> >>  
> >> 
> >> On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 11:46:02 -0600
> >> Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net> wrote:
> >>   
> >>> As the maintainer of .free/.libre, I've been watching
> >>> the threads on this subject with a bit of curiosity.
> >>> I am surprised that not one person actually *asked*
> >>> for my opinion on the subject.  On the other hand I'm
> >>> not surprised at all that there was absolutely no
> >>> discussion on the matter -- personally I believe this
> >>> signifies that most people here feel there is really
> >>> nothing to discuss on the matter.
> >>> 
> >>> So let's discuss two points here.  First off is your
> >>> inference that your repeated suggestions on IRC
> >>> towards the .libre charter were ignored. However you
> >>> failed to mention that the first time I was actually
> >>> online when you made this suggestion, we did have a
> >>> brief discussion on the matter in which I immediately
> >>> told you that I have been planning on reviewing ALL
> >>> of the charters under my purview and updating the
> >>> contents as needed. Unfortunately time has been
> >>> limited lately as I have some paying projects I've
> >>> been working on. That doesn't mean your suggestions
> >>> were ignored or disregarded, it simply means what it
> >>> is... I'll get to it when I have the time.
> >>> 
> >>> The next issue I want to mention is your fixation on a
> >>> dictionary definition of libre and how it supposedly
> >>> changes the meaning of the domains registered under
> >>> the TLD.  Your unwavering commitment to this
> >>> incorrect point of view is what derailed our
> >>> discussion on IRC and prevented any real discussion
> >>> of changes to the charter, so let me reiterate my
> >>> point of view...  The .libre TLD was voted on as a
> >>> *direct* replacement for .free.  It was not voted on
> >>> as "something with a different meaning that needs a
> >>> new charter".  In fact the vote was between .libre
> >>> and .liber, which probably also has a different
> >>> definition if you want to look at the strict
> >>> definitions, however none of that matters.  ICANN has
> >>> registered .free and it's only a matter of time
> >>> before they start officially using it, so the vote
> >>> was for a suitable *direct* replacement for .free.
> >>> At the time of the vote there was no discussion
> >>> regarding changes to the charter, but the members of
> >>> opennic did vote to continue the spirit of .free
> >>> under a new TLD rather than dropping it completely.
> >>> The point is that we could have voted on anything as
> >>> a replacement.  If we had instead chosen to go with
> >>> ".monkey" would you be arguing that the charter needs
> >>> to be changed to require bananas on every domain? You
> >>> were part of the discussion when the vote happened,
> >>> so you know what considerations were made, and you
> >>> are aware that the new TLD was chosen as something
> >>> that is widely recognized to have a *similar* meaning
> >>> as .free (noting that we already knew it was not an
> >>> *exact* replacement).  Again, the dictionary
> >>> definition was never the point, we simply wanted to
> >>> have a replacement for a somewhat popular TLD which
> >>> would take on the same purpose, including the
> >>> existing charter and registered domains.  If you were
> >>> discussing a new TLD with a charter that was still
> >>> being developed then there might be a reason for this
> >>> debate, but my opinion is that since .libre was only
> >>> created as a direct replacement for .free, the only
> >>> discussions we should be having would have to be
> >>> related towards the definition of "free" which was
> >>> the original and true intent of those domains.
> >>> 
> >>> With all of that said, I'll turn back once again to
> >>> your original proposal, which was in regards to
> >>> loosening or better defining the restrictions on
> >>> commercial use of .libre domains.  As mentioned
> >>> above, nobody ever *asked* me what I thought of the
> >>> proposal, and it would have saved you an awful lot of
> >>> trouble if you had.  I actually think it's a good
> >>> idea and would be beneficial in clearing up the
> >>> charter language. The only question here is WHICH
> >>> charter...  The suggestions you have written below
> >>> are ALSO mostly describing the exact purpose of .oss
> >>> domains.  As I am also the maintainer of that TLD,
> >>> this gives me something else to think about -- should
> >>> I still maintain two separate TLDs, or should I
> >>> consider the new name for .free as being more
> >>> inclusive and able to absorb the purpose and intent
> >>> of both TLDs? It's always a tough choice to consider
> >>> the removal of a TLD from opennic, and I have a lot
> >>> of nostalgia towards one of our very first TLDs
> >>> created, but I also recognize that opennic should
> >>> grow and change to meet the needs of our members.
> >>> If .oss already serves the purpose of the potentially
> >>> commercial but free products as described below, then
> >>> what purpose would it serve to also allow the same
> >>> rules under .libre? However if "libre" now
> >>> encompasses the full spirit of what .free and .oss
> >>> were intended to be, then does it really make sense
> >>> to maintain them separately?
> >>> 
> >>> Of course before I make any radical changes I will
> >>> start a new discussion and put it to a vote, but
> >>> hopefully you understand why making any changes to
> >>> the .free charter are not as simple as "the new word
> >>> means this".  There's a lot to think about before
> >>> changing any of the charters, and I need to weigh the
> >>> consequences of those changes and how they might
> >>> relate towards other existing TLDs.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On 10/29/2017 06:15 AM, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:  
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Here are the results of the vote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> YES (4):
> >>>> Daniel Quintiliani
> >>>> Jonah Aragon
> >>>> Al Beano
> >>>> Rouben
> >>>> 
> >>>> NO (1):
> >>>> Christopher
> >>>> 
> >>>> The results are 4-1.
> >>>> Again the vote is a *nonbinding recommendation* to
> >>>> the maintainer of the .libre TLD to add the
> >>>> following to the charter:
> >>>> 
> >>>> "Libre exception to noncommercial use - Commercial
> >>>> use of a .libre domain is permitted if the primary
> >>>> purpose is the hosting of, promotion of, or the site
> >>>> itself is:
> >>>> 
> >>>> 1) Free content released under a license created or
> >>>> approved by the Free Software Foundation, 2) Open
> >>>> source content released under a license created or
> >>>> approved by the Open Source Initiative, 3) Content
> >>>> released under a license or waiver created or
> >>>> approved by Creative Commons, 4) Content in the
> >>>> public domain 5) Content released under a public
> >>>> domain equivalent license."
> >>>> 
> >>>> --
> >>>> 
> >>>> -Dan Q
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> --------
> >>>> 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