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

Paul Hoffman <> Wed, 02 July 2008 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07F303A6910; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43BBC3A6859 for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m-tad5CBAKbC for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9133A677C for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m62GQ0NS028975 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:26:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624081cc4915ab876b2@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <105D288AF30DA6D8EE55976A@p3.JCK.COM> <>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:25:58 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

(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 

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
Ietf mailing list