Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
ray,
... only trust ".band" and that ".com" et. al. are "less secure".
"secure" is not a well-defined term. as the .com registry access model accepts credit card fraud risk, a hypothetical registry, say .giro, with wholesale registration at the same dollar price point but an access mechanism accepting less risk than credit card fraud would have less "insecure" registration events. as john levine pointed out, the hstld advisory group attempted to address a property of "zone file(s)." as a member of that advisory group i made public comments on the issues, technical and process, it encountered.
With a $185,000 application fee this tends to really kill small businesses and conditions the public to favor ecommerce with the giants, not to mention a nice revenue boost for ICANN.
Would love to hear the dirt on backroom conversations that led to this decision...
a mainer has been invovled in policy development since, before there was an icann. a vermonter is on the current icann board. when looking for root causes, while the policy recommendation made by the policy development body did not restrict the implementation of the new gtld application process to a single event, staff adversity to law suit risk precluded distinguishing between types of applications based on policy -- say "high policy" applications like the original sponsored applications before "low policy" applications like the original standard applications -- and evaluating one type before the other. i suggest to you that institutional risk adversity (there exists a litigation history with the legacy monopoly operator) is the answer to questions of the form "wny one single, indivisible, wicked expensive, evaluation process for all?"
... there will be enough public outcry to reverse it... but I'm not optimistic.
i would prefer "participation" over "outcry", and the act of "involvment" seems to be more on point than the mental state of being "optimistic", but milage always varies. on thursday there will be a text from the governmental, and the at large, advisory groups, on applicant support from developing economies. -e
I was talking about public perception and the ability to change it through marketing; not any actual security. It's like the difference between ".com" and ".biz", "people" don't understand when something isn't a ".com" and don't trust it. When I say "people" I'm talking about the average non-technical consumer. That is all. I do think that this breaks more than it's worth, and while it will mean a short-term revenue boost, it doesn't seem very scaleable nor in the long-term interest of DNS on the whole. It sounds like we're beginning the process of migrating to AOL keywords; I wonder if AOL has a patent on it... On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:57 PM, <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote:
ray,
... only trust ".band" and that ".com" et. al. are "less secure".
"secure" is not a well-defined term.
as the .com registry access model accepts credit card fraud risk, a hypothetical registry, say .giro, with wholesale registration at the same dollar price point but an access mechanism accepting less risk than credit card fraud would have less "insecure" registration events.
-- Ray Soucy Epic Communications Specialist Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526 Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System http://www.networkmaine.net/
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
I was talking about public perception and the ability to change it through marketing; not any actual security.
It's like the difference between ".com" and ".biz", "people" don't understand when something isn't a ".com" and don't trust it. When I say "people" I'm talking about the average non-technical consumer.
Not even a .CO after all the fuss and misinformation campaign promoting it as the new "dotCOM" charging 3X the price of a .com, they barely reached 1M registrations (many as you can imagine from the same companies that hold the names in .com) when Verisign surpassed the 95M and getting closer for the 100M celebration (without taking in account the ~14M in .net). PS. Eric you are doing a great job !! I admire your patience and persistence. And forget about .INC, it is the airport code for Yinchuan, China. -J
participants (3)
-
brunner＠nic-naa.net -
Jorge Amodio -
Ray Soucy