Re: >>: Re: [dns-wg] retiring old ccTLDs
Hi Dmitry! Yeah, I see the big difference and using double-standards about two domains SU/EU are both not in ISO list :( But hope we can help to move it right way ;) Dmitriy V Menzulskiy wrote:
Hi Max ! Hi everybody !
Now I understand: people who want to destroy Soviet Union - they still want to destroy it comletely :-(((
Maybe, it's time to start CIS TLD ?
WBR,
Dmitry Menzulskiy
----- Переслано: Dmitriy V Menzulskiy/BeeLine дата: 02.11.2006 13:39 -----
dns-wg-admin@ripe.net написано 02.11.2006 13:30:47:
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 11:34 +0300, Max Tulyev wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
This domain grows even it have huge price ( http://www.nic.ru/en/index.html ). So people really need it.
A) Wanting something is not the same as needing it.
The magic is who decides what I need and what I don't need.
That you _prefer_ .su doesn't mean that the TLDs it's been split into can't meet your _needs_.
preferences != needs
B) My feeling is that what you're saying here (substantial registration growth in spite of the high price) speaks more to the motivations of the SU operators for maintaining their domain than it does for the necessity of keeping it in the root.
Nobody push people to buy .SU domains. Only issue they do it - they need it. Am I wrong?
Are anybody pushing people to avoid .su? I.e. how much effort are the .su-maintainers putting into convincing people to use the individual ccTLDs instead? ;-)
--
Per Heldal - http://heldal.eml.cc/
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:50:10PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote:
Yeah, I see the big difference and using double-standards about two domains SU/EU are both not in ISO list :(
But hope we can help to move it right way ;)
... provided "we" != dns-wg, I guess. As David Conrad suggested, the policy issues are best dealt with through ICANN channels. What this WG could address are the operational requirements and consequences: 1) Is there an operational reason to phase out a TLD? 2) If a TLD were to be phased out, what precautions need to be taken? What are cleanup steps and how much name space poison will remain? Both voluntary and involuntary changes of domain name "ownership" do happen already and the question of phasing out the TLD is particluarly interesting only to the extent that the TLD is "different". -Peter
Seems to be reasonable. Could you please advice us a right place (mail list?) to continue discussing political issues? I'm digging iana/icann sites and still can't figure it out... Peter Koch wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:50:10PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote:
Yeah, I see the big difference and using double-standards about two domains SU/EU are both not in ISO list :(
But hope we can help to move it right way ;)
... provided "we" != dns-wg, I guess. As David Conrad suggested, the policy issues are best dealt with through ICANN channels. What this WG could address are the operational requirements and consequences:
1) Is there an operational reason to phase out a TLD?
There is _NO_ operational reasons to phase out at least SU. It is operational now and is growing fast. Is somebody disagree with me? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
Max, On Nov 2, 2006, at 3:14 AM, Max Tulyev wrote:
Seems to be reasonable. Could you please advice us a right place (mail list?) to continue discussing political issues?
You have a few choices. Assuming you want to pursue redefining IANA's ccTLD policy: ICANN's ccNSO: http://ccnso.icann.org wwTLD: http://www.wwtld.org/ CENTR: https://www.centr.org/ If you want to pursue a gTLD or sTLD like .CIS (which I suspect may be easier even despite the fact that the policy for creating new gTLDs has not yet been finalized): http://gnso.icann.org/
There is _NO_ operational reasons to phase out at least SU. It is operational now and is growing fast. Is somebody disagree with me?
What happens when ISO-3166 MA reallocates SU to "South Ulalaville" (as they reallocated CS from "Czechoslovakia" to "Serbia and Montenegro")? IANA has no control over what ISO 3166 MA does and the potential for this sort of reallocation is non-neglible. This would seem to be an operational issue to me. The American colloquialism is "you are living on borrowed time"... Rgds, -drc
Hi, On Nov 2, 2006, at 2:50 AM, Max Tulyev wrote:
Yeah, I see the big difference and using double-standards about two domains SU/EU are both not in ISO list :(
Not sure where you are seeing a double standard. As I believe has been pointed out: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code- lists/iso_3166-1_decoding_table.html If you look up EU, you'll see it is yellow meaning "Code element may be used but restrictions may apply", whereas if you look up SU, you'll see it is grey meaning "Code element deleted from ISO 3166-1; stop using ASAP". Seems pretty definitive to me.
Maybe, it's time to start CIS TLD ?
Why not? After all, we already have .CAT (Catalan) and .ASIA. Rgds, -drc
participants (3)
-
David Conrad -
Max Tulyev -
Peter Koch