[105729] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Mon Jun 30 08:36:37 2008
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <5322A84A-F48C-4299-A024-A61A641F07EE@virtualized.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:36:29 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
It seems to me that there are technical reasons to try and
block .local, and maybe some other potential TLDs,
but that for .exe, .smtp, and other choices that confuse current
browser implementations, a warning note is
about all the registrant can expect.
Of course, it would not surprise me if people are right now going
through web logs and search logs and saying, hmm,
.smtp and .exe occur so often, they would make GREAT TLDs.
Regards
Marshall
On Jun 30, 2008, at 8:28 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2008, at 12:36 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>> If my company pays for and registers a new TLD, let's
>> call it "smtp" for grins, and I create an A record for "smtp."
>> in my top level zone file, how will users outside my company
>> resolve and reach that address?
>
> I suspect the assumption is that no one will actually do this since
> it would have operational issues (as you note) and it would be
> challenging to recover costs in the "traditional" manner (i.e.,
> selling names under the TLD). If someone were to try, perhaps it
> would demonstrate the quote "stupidity, like virtue, is its own
> reward"?
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>
