Discuss mailing list

[kevin <krattai AT gmail.com>]

I'm also quite certain this does not interfere with the original
purpose of OpenNIC, rather it expands the development and outreach of
TLDs in a "sandbox" like way.

Just to expand a little as I've thought about this, I would submit that
people who actually DO think a specific TLD is a good idea, could
potentially leverage their combined interest by working together to get
the TLD up and running.  That takes the burden away from OpenNIC proper
to decide whether to say "yay" or "nay" to a TLD at its inception.

I would further submit that the OpenNIC userbase possibly set up a
sandbox discussion area, specifically intended for those who want to
enter the conversation and say, "Hey, I'm going to set up an .XYZ TLD".
 Conversations of those interested can happen there.  It would not
matter the intention of the TLD, commercial, political, otherwise.  It
could also provide an opportunity to combine resources for general
public promotion, such as marketing the TLD to the internet world at
large.  And, it can also be that place where the user base might say,
"Hey, .XYZ TLD already exists in OpenNIC / ICANN / xNIC group", which
could help with conflicting TLDs.

Of course, this also provides an opportunity and place for those to
play, as they may want, by promoting their commercial interests and
services, such as the usual "Hey, I have a DNS server if you want and I
can sell you a time slice on it" that we otherwise see when someone
proposes a TLD.  Market competition and conversations about that, can
happen "over there".

Just putting some of those thoughts out there.

Kevin

On Mon, 2018-01-01 at 15:46 -0800, vv AT cgs.pw wrote:
> 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
> > >  
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproj
> ect.org