5 ms·

Why would they want to drop the possibility of selling some as premium domains? If they have their shells setup right they will probably be able to get a premiu

Why would they want to drop the possibility of selling some as premium domains? If they have their shells setup right they will probably be able to get a premium from some 3rd level domain owners wrongly afraid someone else is interested. The main problem with the Internet today is that we didn't destroy ICANN when they started this TLD sell off crap. A replacement institution may have at least told Verisign a TLD they can't run transfer to someone who can meet its promises can only be destroyed.

abofh 13d ago
Because it's not worth it financially. After icann is the tld registrar, and after that above. So, if anyone is destroying it, it's not the registrar, it's the tld.
- megagpt2 12d ago
  [dead]
- palemoonsinking 12d ago
  >> In light of the fact that Verisign and ICANN are in the process of discussing the upcoming renewal of the .NAME Registry Agreement, ICANN is issuing Verisign this letter in lieu of a contract amendment to the expiring It's clear to me ICANN can say no agreement change or total destruction. You are correct that they could do something else and show every indication that they would never do the right thing and that is why they should be destroyed.
p4bl0 13d ago
The .name predates the TLD well-off crap. The first huge bulk of new TLDs happened in 2014, .name dates back from 2001, just like .info or .coop. Also, .name filled an actual need for general non ccTLD: companies had .com, organizations had .org, Internet related stuff had .net, there was .gov, .edu, .mil, and ccTLDs, but nothing made for individuals. It filled this use case, it actually made sense.
- pbronez 12d ago
  I thought that was the point of .me, but apparently that’s actually the Montenegro national TLD despite widespread use for personal sites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.me
  - devrand 12d ago
    All two letter TLDs are reserved for ccTLDs.
    - syncsynchalt 12d ago
      And some, like Anguilla or Tuvalu, hit the lottery and get a nice income from renting theirs out for general use.
- simiones 12d ago
  > Also, .name filled an actual need for general non ccTLD That's a silly idea. While there are laws that ensure to a decent extent that there is a single company called "Google", so that it's relatively unambiguous who `google.com` should refer to, there is no uniqueness whatsoever to personal names. There are likely hundreds of thousands of people called "John Smith", so the FQDN `john.smith.name.` would not really tell you anything. This is without even going into the fact that "first-name.last-name" is culturally specific (though, to be fair, a large proportion of cultures in the world use this format).
  - vidarh 12d ago
    > While there are laws that ensure to a decent extent that there is a single company called "Google" There aren't laws to ensure that. Within specific jurisdictions, sure, but not globally. A lot of companies also don't trade under their full name. Apple, famously, wasn't founded as Apple but as Apple Computer, and was only able to rename after achieving a deal with Apple Records. The lack of more namespaces also led to things like nissan.com being owned by Uzi Nissan (and now his family, I assume) rather than the car company. While you're right that there are many duplicates, one extra TLD still broadened the namespace a lot, and the most important part of the idea was that by giving people less of a reason to register <lastname>.com or <lastname>.cctld, we'd give far more people the option to get <firstname>@<lastname>.name as an email address. (The cultural aspect is irrelevant - it was not enforcing a specific order. If people wanted to register lastname.firstname.com, nothing would stop that) By the time we applied for .name we actually had experience running a webmail service where people shared ~60,000 domain names, and had ~2 million accounts on that, and we'd done extensive modelling before acquiring those, and as a result at the time we probably had better data than anyone on the distribution of names worldwide. What we seriously overestimated (every applicant overestimated how popular the new TLDs would be, but the generic ones, generally did better) was how many people were in the intersection of people who'd figure out how to buy a domain name and people who wanted firstname@lastname.name as an e-mail address.
naikrovek 12d ago
[dead]

abofh 13d ago

Because it's not worth it financially. After icann is the tld registrar, and after that above. So, if anyone is destroying it, it's not the registrar, it's the tld.

megagpt2 12d ago
[dead]
palemoonsinking 12d ago
>> In light of the fact that Verisign and ICANN are in the process of discussing the upcoming renewal of the .NAME Registry Agreement, ICANN is issuing Verisign this letter in lieu of a contract amendment to the expiring It's clear to me ICANN can say no agreement change or total destruction. You are correct that they could do something else and show every indication that they would never do the right thing and that is why they should be destroyed.

p4bl0 13d ago

The .name predates the TLD well-off crap. The first huge bulk of new TLDs happened in 2014, .name dates back from 2001, just like .info or .coop. Also, .name filled an actual need for general non ccTLD: companies had .com, organizations had .org, Internet related stuff had .net, there was .gov, .edu, .mil, and ccTLDs, but nothing made for individuals. It filled this use case, it actually made sense.

pbronez 12d ago
I thought that was the point of .me, but apparently that’s actually the Montenegro national TLD despite widespread use for personal sites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.me
- devrand 12d ago
  All two letter TLDs are reserved for ccTLDs.
  - syncsynchalt 12d ago
    And some, like Anguilla or Tuvalu, hit the lottery and get a nice income from renting theirs out for general use.
simiones 12d ago
> Also, .name filled an actual need for general non ccTLD That's a silly idea. While there are laws that ensure to a decent extent that there is a single company called "Google", so that it's relatively unambiguous who `google.com` should refer to, there is no uniqueness whatsoever to personal names. There are likely hundreds of thousands of people called "John Smith", so the FQDN `john.smith.name.` would not really tell you anything. This is without even going into the fact that "first-name.last-name" is culturally specific (though, to be fair, a large proportion of cultures in the world use this format).
- vidarh 12d ago
  > While there are laws that ensure to a decent extent that there is a single company called "Google" There aren't laws to ensure that. Within specific jurisdictions, sure, but not globally. A lot of companies also don't trade under their full name. Apple, famously, wasn't founded as Apple but as Apple Computer, and was only able to rename after achieving a deal with Apple Records. The lack of more namespaces also led to things like nissan.com being owned by Uzi Nissan (and now his family, I assume) rather than the car company. While you're right that there are many duplicates, one extra TLD still broadened the namespace a lot, and the most important part of the idea was that by giving people less of a reason to register <lastname>.com or <lastname>.cctld, we'd give far more people the option to get <firstname>@<lastname>.name as an email address. (The cultural aspect is irrelevant - it was not enforcing a specific order. If people wanted to register lastname.firstname.com, nothing would stop that) By the time we applied for .name we actually had experience running a webmail service where people shared ~60,000 domain names, and had ~2 million accounts on that, and we'd done extensive modelling before acquiring those, and as a result at the time we probably had better data than anyone on the distribution of names worldwide. What we seriously overestimated (every applicant overestimated how popular the new TLDs would be, but the generic ones, generally did better) was how many people were in the intersection of people who'd figure out how to buy a domain name and people who wanted firstname@lastname.name as an e-mail address.

naikrovek 12d ago

[dead]