Re: [apps-discuss] CONTEXTJ in TLD DNS-Labels (draft-liman-tld-names-05)

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 20 July 2011 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730F321F858C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rkta6sEus3m8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BCB21F84EE for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.101] (50-0-66-4.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.0.66.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6KEFtSi083577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:15:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <EEB2DD109F02A2A5543D8AA0@PST.JCK.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:16:08 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F99C9BAB-8E7A-44EE-A7F1-E30788A6D2E4@vpnc.org>
References: <B464B2C6607E04FD0572AA74@192.168.1.128> <CANp6Ttw4MaAJy2VRvZ8929oBju9jL3b69PkSyFLi-SC4YaNTnw@mail.gmail.com> <5AC1318B-A219-4056-BD14-C90BEE85669E@frobbit.se> <8159C20D-BF2B-42CB-9529-C870A2AD1572@vpnc.org> <E7E5E31E-89E7-46AF-9FA8-6CFD8F661376@frobbit.se> <C6CF1575-D301-4802-B877-8130781B268B@vpnc.org> <EEB2DD109F02A2A5543D8AA0@PST.JCK.COM>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: apps-discuss Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] CONTEXTJ in TLD DNS-Labels (draft-liman-tld-names-05)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:16:42 -0000

On Jul 20, 2011, at 5:18 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> --On Tuesday, July 19, 2011 12:49 -0700 Paul Hoffman
> <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> "Phishing" in the root
>> zone, given the horrendous weight of the process for getting
>> new names put in the root zone, is not a threat. Which others
>> do you believe that need to be weighed against the value of
>> the characters?
> 
> ICANN has agreed to change the process for getting new names put
> in the root zone.  The new (and approved) model for obtaining a
> TLD as of next year is essentially "pay your application fee
> and, unless a very narrow range of objections occurs, you get
> the name".  All, or substantially all, of the requirements for
> staff or third-party review that carried, in your words,
> "horrendous weight", have been eliminated.  The proposed
> application fee (USD 180000) is high enough to discourage some
> types of applicants, but that does not make the process
> "horrendous" -- one can either decide the TLD is important
> enough pay it or not.


How does buying a domain name for a large amount of money, using a stable corporate address, and doing the hosting using well-known servers constitute phishing? The argument you give here suggests that draft-liman-tld-names should add a new prohibition on TLDs that could be considered confusing; I hope you don't mean that.

--Paul Hoffman