Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Wed, 02 July 2008 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7B33A6BCD; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 07:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F0B3A6BCD for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 07:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.073
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.526, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vwXqDmXtCfqT for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 07:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com (e35.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.153]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E223A6BE5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 07:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m62EHt6p016345 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:17:55 -0400
Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m62EHsSM042758 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:17:54 -0600
Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m62EHssv025021 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:17:54 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-245-164.mts.ibm.com [9.65.245.164]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m62EHkSA024475 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:17:53 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid-new [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id m62EHckw017869; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:17:43 -0400
Message-Id: <200807021417.m62EHckw017869@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
In-reply-to: <105D288AF30DA6D8EE55976A@p3.JCK.COM>
References: <4C0AE13D-4CA6-4989-A6B0-555A014DE464@multicasttech.com> <74E3E26A-FCFB-45C1-989A-DD7EA5752974@virtualized.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20080627121824.02c55340@resistor.net> <A9ACF7FB-BC78-44D9-AA61-4FCACE821677@virtualized.org> <9486A1E5-864F-4B23-9EBA-697C1A7A7520@ca.afilias.info> <200807012051.m61KpLeq021685@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <105D288AF30DA6D8EE55976A@p3.JCK.COM>
Comments: In-reply-to John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> message dated "Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:53:11 -0400."
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:17:38 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> In a more sane world, no one rational would want to build a
> business or other activity around a TLD named "local".   But
> this is demonstrably not a sane world.

Right. I can see the business case for this. :-(

But at least in the first round, the barrier to entry is so high that
I don't see that sort of thing as being viable. The figure $100K for
a TLD application is what is floating around at the moment, though
that number is not nailed down definitively.

For much of the domain tasting related activities, a fundamental
premise was that the cost of using a name was very low (i.e., zero,
while the AGP was being leveraged).

Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf