--On Tuesday, 01 July, 2008 16:51 -0400 Thomas Narten
<narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
Also, for TLDs like .local, one could also to some extent just
say "buyer beware". Anyone wanting a TLD that is known to not
be useable in practice (for some deployed software) would get
what they deserve. :-) The folk wanting TLDs presumably want
TLDs that can actually be used...
...
Thomas,
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 and
redirection.
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.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf