[dns-operations] the real reason for ICANN's gTLD expansion seems to be...

[Mehmet Akcin]

+1 to Paul

Except very few New gTLDs which are used and managed properly - most new
gTLDs bring more harm than good.

Mehmet

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:18 AM David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> For the record and as I suspect you’re well aware, the actual real reason
> for ICANN’s gTLD expansion was to increase competition in the namespace.
> Some folks felt that Verisign had an effective monopoly and “the community”
> felt the best way to address that monopoly was to create additional
> top-level domains.
>
> Note I am not commenting on the correctness or even logic of that position
> — it is water under the bridge at this point.
>
> I strongly suspect you’re preaching to the choir on this mailing list: the
> folks from the registries who participate in DNS-OARC are not likely to be
> found anywhere near the top of Symantec’s list or others like the ICANN
> org’s own DNS Abuse Analytics and Reporting (DAAR) list of abused
> registries.  While preaching to the choir may build a pleasing sense of
> camaraderie, I’m not sure it does all that much to change things. I will
> note there is an ongoing effort to discuss the next round of new gTLDs
> (known as the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process,
> see
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/new-gtld-subsequent-procedures).
> I personally believe it would be important for the operational community,
> in particular both the DNS and security/anti-abuse operational communities,
> to provide input, early and often, that will help that policy development
> process incorporate lessons learned from those communities.
>
> But, as always, YMMV.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
> ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself
>
> On Dec 7, 2017, 3:01 PM -0800, Paul Vixie <paul at redbarn.org>, wrote:
>
> ...that spammers just didn't have enough choices.
>
> https://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/men-black-and-gray
>
> i have occasionally criticized ICANN, which is a 501(c)(3) public
> charity, for acting too often in the interests of their commercial
> constituency, and not asking often enough, "what are the public's
> interests here?"
>
> now symantec has actually quantified that.
>
> you know who you are, probably.
>
> --
> P Vixie
>
> _______________________________________________
> dns-operations mailing list
> dns-operations at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
> dns-operations mailing list
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
>
> _______________________________________________
> dns-operations mailing list
> dns-operations at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
> dns-operations mailing list
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/attachments/20171211/a04774ea/attachment.html>