![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
At 5:53 PM -0400 7/1/08, John C Klensin wrote:
Pretend I'm a fine, upstanding, citizen who is in the domain names business (I guess that would make me a "domaineer" :-)) and whose business model is based on traffic concentration andredirection.I think I would really like to own "local", although not as much as I'd like to own "example.com" or any other name to which the IETF or various protocol designs provide free advertising and traffic direction. Every leaked name that might reference a web page would drive traffic to my site, as well as every action that led those who didn't know what was going on to open http://www.local./ to figure out what was going on. In a more sane world, no one rational would want to build a business or other activity around a TLD named "local". But this is demonstrably not a sane world.
+1. I was approached by one such fine, upstanding citizen who asked which names "currently reserved by the IETF" would be most valuable for a search page.
This does not mean that ICANN won't listen to the IETF; it means that there will be voices more familiar to ICANN saying things different than we are.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.