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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 02 July 2008 16:25 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 07F303A6910; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:25:59 -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 43BBC3A6859 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 m-tad5CBAKbC for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (properopus-pt.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9133A677C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.162] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m62GQ0NS028975 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:26:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624081cc4915ab876b2@[10.20.30.162]>
In-Reply-To: <200807021417.m62EHckw017869@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.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> <200807021417.m62EHckw017869@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:25:58 -0700
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

(It's always a bummer when ietf-general turns into ICANN-general, but 
in this case it seems like a useful discussion because the IETF will 
probably be asked policy questions for various proposed TLDs.)

At 10:17 AM -0400 7/2/08, Thomas Narten wrote:
>  > 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.

Then you're not being creative enough.

>The figure $100K for
>a TLD application is what is floating around at the moment, though
>that number is not nailed down definitively.

...nor justified financially...

>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).

If that was true, then a domain that was popular but lost its name 
due to negligence in renewal should be able to buy it back from the 
taster for a few hundred bucks. Instead, the price I have heard more 
than once is tens of thousands of dollars.

Without doing a lot of business research and probably some traffic 
capture, you can't estimate the value of .local or a TLD that is a 
typo but not really infringing of a popular search term. We scoff at 
people who say "it would be easy to just add privacy to that 
protocol"; they should scoff at us for making wild guesses about 
values in a huge, unregulated business that is less than ten years 
old.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf