[164259] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: .nyc - here we go...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Weeks)
Tue Jul 2 21:45:46 2013
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 18:45:19 -0700
From: "Scott Weeks" <surfer@mauigateway.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: surfer@mauigateway.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--- rubensk@gmail.com wrote:
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com>
> As places like that see $186,000 as small change, I wonder
> what other countries (much less the cities within them)
> like .nu, .sb or .vu will do? For them this is an
> astronomical number. Someone's about to hit a financial
> home run reminiscient of the tech-stock bubble...
>
No countries were obliged to apply. Both country codes and country names
were excluded from the new gTLD process. Actually, they couldn't even
apply, as they are considered ccTLDs.
> I haven't read enough, but what's to stop speculators
> paying the $186,000 then charging the tiny countries
> mors when they are able to make the purchase? Please
> don't suggest arbitration because that only increases
> the cost to those countries.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for explaining this. Again, probably.
So the cities in those countries could buy them (if they could
afford them) but not the countries? So .portvila is available,
but not .vanuatu?
What about places like Singapore? The city name is the same as
the country name.
"I haven't read enough, but what's to stop speculators paying
the $186,000 then charging the tiny countries mors when they
are able to make the purchase?"
s/tiny countries/cities in tiny countries/
Does the speculator issue have to go to arbitration?
scott
