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

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

(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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf