On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:23 PM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> domains are going to be dotless and three of the biggest dotless domainsI've read the applications for .apple, .microsoft, and .google. None
>>> are going to be called .apple and .microsoft and .google and they are going
of them propose to use dotless names, only the usual 2LDs. At this
pont there is just one application that proposes a dotless name,
Google's .search, and it's far from clear what will happen to that, or
even if that application would beat out the competing ones from
Amazon, Donuts and dot Now, none of which are dotless.
Do you think they are lying when they say they won't be dotless?
R's,
John
PS: The applications are all linked here. The financial info is
redacted, but the technical stuff is all present.
https://gtldresult.icann.org/
I think the people who wrote those applications on behalf of their employers are likely to find that other parts of their organization have a different view after the results are awarded.
There are two parts to the DNS business don't forget. Is Andrew really sure that if dns.com decides to help users out by returning the A record for www.microsoft in response to a request for microsoft. and this turns out to have commercial value that his employer is not going to do the exact same thing even over his objections? Do you think that DNS.com is going to lose business to a competitor?
[dns.com is owned by my employer and we also provide recursive DNS services]
I remember all the squeaking and outrage about sitefinder back in the day. That wasn't my idea but I went along with it as a way to give ICANN a kick up the rear and stop blocking all progress out of fear of lawsuits. How many of the people who complained then now work for companies that deploy the same type of system with the same technical impact? I think you will find that it is actually quite a large number.
Only five years ago the US banks managed to create a trillion dollar meltdown because they didn't understand that the perverse market dynamics they had created would force many of their companies into bankruptcy. And if the banks had come to that realization and explained the situation to the Treasury or the Fed they would have had no difficulty getting a regulatory regime established that would have protected their businesses.
That didn't happen.
Don't expect me to take a stand on your principles. And certainly don't expect me to endorse a statement of principles if I didn't even have the opportunity to discuss it before issue.
Most people are averse to chaos. Don't bet your businesses that others are going to be averse to it.
Website: http://hallambaker.com/