Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

.name Termination

neil.fraser.name

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 559 posts

Re: .name Termination

#51

Post by antif »

p4bl0 wrote: post #34
Ecco wrote: post #18

Ok I don’t get it. Why not register `fraser.nameˋ directly? Or pick any TLD and register ˋ a 2nd-level domain (ˋfraser.tld`)? It just feels easier, plus this way you don’t have to pay for any new member of your family?

At the beginning of the existence of the .name TLD you couldn't do that, you were forced to register firstname.lastname.name and provide an ID to justify registering this specific domain. With it you got an email redirection from firstname@lastname.name to the address of your choice. At some point this feature was discontinued (I assume when VeriSign took control of the .name TLD), a bit after it was decided (again b…

This really sounds like VeriSign has no business owning .name … best possible outcome would be transferring it to somebody who will retain the originally intended services.

Re: .name Termination

#52

Post by decimalenough »

I've had a .name domain forever and I had no idea first.last.name was even a thing, meaning that it was possible to register this without owning last.name.

That said, my domain is simply unusual.name, and everybody in my family has email addresses in the form first@unusual.name. So this is a no-op for me, and I gather www.unusual.name will also continue to work, since I own the 2nd level outright.

Re: .name Termination

#53

Post by chrismorgan »

mchesters wrote: post #6

Wow, they were extremely laziest in the request form too. Most answers are just a few words. > 3.6. Have you communicated with any of the entities whose products or services might be affected... > "No. Not applicable."

I think the “not applicable” is to the elided second sentence of the question:

> 3.6. Have you communicated with any of the entities whose products or services might be affected by the introduction of your proposed service? [→ No.] If so, please describe the communications. [→ Not applicable.]

Gotta say that the entire form feels not applicable. The proposed service is the discontinuation of an existing service. I see from their website that other similar things do the same, but it feels broken when so many of the questions become nonsense.

Re: .name Termination

#55

Post by qrobit »

NewJazz wrote: post #22

You might want to write to the CA attorney general. Former AG Xavier Becerra was able to dissuade ICANN from letting the .org fuckery happen, maybe Bonta could try to strong arm ICANN in this case.

What was the deal with .org?

EDIT: seems like Ethos Capital private equity firm wanted the .org registry, and Xavier Becerra (Attorney General of California at the time) wrote a letter that played major role in transaction being rejected

> Dear Messrs. Botterman and Marby:

>

> I urge ICANN to reject the transfer of control over the .ORG registry to Ethos Capital.

> The proposed transfer raises serious concerns that cannot be overlooked.

(from https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/correspondence/becerra-to...)

Re: .name Termination

#57

Post by gpvos »

eleventen wrote: post #5

> Minutes after my daughter was born, I also registered beverly.fraser.name. ...minutes?

I even suspect that the name of the child was dependent on the domain name being free... but then, it shouldn't be too hard to set up the request in advance and just press the button once the child is born. Maybe there was some rule that names could only be registered for living (i.e., born) persons?

Re: .name Termination

#58

Post by decimalenough »

pmdr wrote: post #44

> I had history with Verisign and did not trust them. I don't know what that history is, but did it really make a tld used by only 22k people more appealing?

That's 22k people with third level domains like first.last.name. There are close to 100,000 second level last.name registrations, which are not going anywhere.

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-2014-03-03-en

Re: .name Termination

#59

Post by omnibrain »

akersten wrote: post #25

It kind of seems like an insane TLD structure to begin with, right? I always thought .co.uk was bad (you're just pinning yourself to whoever owns the .co. part, but at least browsers have some suffix list where you can't, I don't know, hijack some login cookie for all of .co.). Joe Smith and John Smith can independently register joe.smith.name and john.smith.name, do browsers have a wildcard suffix list for the 2nd l…

About 20 year ago I registered {lastname}.name and have dozens third level domains below it. So there are "privately owned" second level domains under .name for quite some time...

Re: .name Termination

#60

Post by vidarh »

chanux wrote: post #54

I kind of assumed .name was a product of relatively new TLD explosion [1] [1] https://blog.asmartbear.com/free-markets-bad/ Gotta wonder what other possible disasters introduced with gTLDs.

No, we were in fact part of the very first batch of "new" TLDs
Post reply on HN