[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
>
> The failure rate isn't going to be high enough for natural selection
> to take effect. Remember the protocols we use were designed to
> work back when there was only a single flat namespace. Simple
> hostnames will appear to work fine for 99.999% of people. It's
> just when you get namespace collisions that there will be problems.
I would guess that most of these are going to be purchased simply to
prevent someone else from getting them and that most of them will never
actually be placed into production. So it will basically just be a cash
cow for ICANN while people pay their $185K/pop "application fee" to snap
up a piece of real estate they don't want anyone else to have.
- References:
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: ikiris at gmail.com (Blake Dunlap)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: ghira at mistral.co.uk (Adam Atkinson)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: jbaino at gmail.com (Jeremy)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: mike at mtcc.com (Michael Thomas)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)