Discuss mailing list

[<vv AT cgs.pw>]

Rouben, I really like your idea of TLDs starting
independently and then coming to OpenNIC with
an actual user base.

~ Ole


On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 23:42:34 +0000
Rouben <rouben AT rouben.net> wrote:

> Way to think outside the box, Kevin!
> 
> That’s actually a really good idea. From a technical
> standpoint, there’s nothing really stopping anyone to
> start their own TLD, mimicking OpenNIC policy if they
> want to, and then bring it to the table for discussion,
> review and eventual approval.
> 
> This may be such a good idea, I am tempted to say that it
> should be a requirement; that is rather than just invent
> a TLD and hope it sticks, bring a live TLD with an actual
> userbase to OpenNIC that already has some history.
> 
> Granted the above is very much a knee-jerk response. I
> just really like Kevin’s idea. :)
> 
> Rouben
> 
> On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 14:35 kevin <krattai AT gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Been a lot of email activity lately, can't remember who
> > actually suggested an idea of this in the more recent
> > volley.
> >
> > Many / most of us know that DNS itself has been
> > designed to be quite robust and scalable.  Part of why
> > it works so well.  It is not OpenNIC that has created
> > an opportunity for anyone to create their own TLDs.
> > Anyone with a DNS server can, at any time, create their
> > own TLDs.  All that OpenNIC really does, is provide an
> > opportunity for someone to enlist the useage of a TLD
> > by other people, by way of adopting it to a larger pool
> > of general TLDs, co-maintained (as it were) by OpenNIC
> > tier 1 maintainers.
> >
> > It has appeared to me that many people who come to, and
> > eventually go from, active participation in OpenNIC
> > conversations, have had some idea that OpenNIC needs to
> > be more organized than it needs to be.  Seeming to have
> > some idea that OpenNIC needs to function, in some ways,
> > like ICANN, or even operate in some form of
> > co-agreement with ICANN.  As though I might care, as an
> > example, that someone using OpenNIC has access to
> > the .com TLD, or the ICANN version of .com as though
> > ICANN makes a TLD real and valuable.  Obviously .com
> > TLDs are of interest to many people and "blocking" or
> > hijacking that established TLD makes no sense, but that
> > is the reality and prerogative of any independent DNS
> > operator.
> >
> > It's my opinion that the value of OpenNIC is that IT
> > DOES NOT operate like ICANN and is not some over
> > regulated, over-reaching, user pay system that caters
> > to those that have resources that can manipulate a
> > generally valuable, distributed DNS system.
> >
> > It is also my opinion that OpenNIC remains a framework
> > of guidelines for the process of bringing established,
> > or (presumed) popular (and valuable) TLDs to the user
> > base, by way of integrating such TLDs into OpenNIC
> > member's operating tier 1 servers.
> >
> > There is no reason why .front, or planetTLDs, or any of
> > the other previously proposed TLDs cannot be created
> > and used by those proposing them.  Create a TLD on a
> > public facing DNS server if desired, promote those TLDs
> > to the public as anyone can, active users of those TLDs
> > would utilize the DNS servers hosting those TLDs and
> > eventually, promote the integration of those TLDs into
> > the OpenNIC infrastructure.
> >
> > OpenNIC is not likely to be the reason why a TLD gains
> > traction and becomes popular.  What OpenNIC can do is
> > provide a certain amount of longevity and scalability
> > and availability for TLDs that do become popular and
> > useful.
> >
> > OpenNIC need not operate in some presumed box.  Its
> > value, in my opinion, is in its very organic, elastic,
> > and mutually respectful nature.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > You may unsubscribe by emailing
> > discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> >