Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many examples; k12. .us is another.
Except nobody uses the .us tld, but pretty much every every Japanese company is on a .co.jp
> Except nobody uses the .us tld
This is a bug, not a feature.
.name Termination
361–370 of 551 posts
Re: .name Termination
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even that doesn't pass basic scrutiny. The same ambiguity can and always will exist with tim-apple.com and tim.apple.com - there's nothing here that needs fixing.
I can say, as a SysAdmin, I have been taught and tell my users to check the domain to verify a website is real. It's a strange edgecase that the owner of John.Doe.com does not need to own Doe.com In every other case that I know about, to own the Joe subdomain of Doe.com, you would need to own Doe.com edit: I guess I've gotten so used to the government 3LDs I just don't even see them anymore, or just see something lik…
Looking at the threads below, very few people are discussing technical things in dns terms like zone or nameserver.
Yeah. The way how most things on the internet prove ownership make the assumption that the 3ld is owned by the 2ld. Extend it once out for country specific ones and you cover most cases that people have to work with.
Then when you consider DNS is fundamental infrastructure and people build secure things on top of it, (ahem DNS challenges for certs), it's remarkable that anyone would want or desire edge cases.
Re: .name Termination
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many examples; k12. .us is another.
Except nobody uses the .us tld, but pretty much every every Japanese company is on a .co.jp
It used to be that only Japanese corporations could register a .co.jp while anyone else anywhere could register for a .jp. So I had several .jp domains registered through Gandi.net.
The issue is that .jp registered outside of a few Japanese registrars are legally not allowed to offer Whois privacy.
Re: .name Termination
#364I can only assume somebody was asleep on the job when this scheme was approved, because the outcome is in direct contradiction to ICANN’s mission statement: > Its enduring mission is to ensure the stable, secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/about-icann Arbitrary termination of service is not stability. Enabling name hijacking is not security. The answer…
Sorry, I don't understand this rule, would someone kindly explain?
I own lastname.name and use it for email only like this: firstname@lastname.name
I always thought as owner of lastname.name, I'm the only one able to add subdomain.lastname.name. Is this wrong??
1) Can anyone "buy" scam.lastname.name without my authorization on .name??
2) Can anyone owning not.lastname.name then steal my emails going to: firstname@*.lastname.name or even firstname@lastname.name??
BUT: If someone ONLY bought not.lastname.name and doesn't own lastname.name, they'll get terminated. Would that be 'good' as it would stop 1) and 2) ??
I'm really concerned. My family is using first@lastname.name as the personal email, I'm hosting and paying for since many years.
Re: .name Termination
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I understand. How is registering first.last.name not also selecting one name ("first") that precedes last.name, similar to how you register one name that precedes .com? (And yes, I am aware that you can also register last.name by itself, but only if there are no third-level domains using it, so for practical purposes it doesn't change my question above. Plus, when the OP originally purchased his domain,…
Present these two domain names to the average person: 1) benedict.cumberbatch.name 2) drstrange.co.uk I expect the average person would assume that for the domain 1, .name is the TLD, cumberbatch.name is registered by a private entity, and benedict (and any other subdomains associated with cumberbatch.name) is a subdomain fully controlled by that private entity. Whereas for domain 2, I think the average person will v…
The average person doesn’t have the foggiest idea how TLDs, DNS, or domain registration work at all.
The only people who will make the assumptions you state are people who are tech-savvy enough to be familiar with those concepts, but not well-versed enough in them to understand the nuances we’re discussing.
And none of this does anything to advance the argument that .name is somehow nonstandard.
Re: .name Termination
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they're talking about Google or Microsoft, putting more trust in the worst tech companies than in the TLD of your country seems crazy to me.
I think it's pretty reasonable. The percentage of email accounts Google & Microsoft terminate seems far far lower than the chance I misconfigure my email or lose my domain
I trust myself a hell of a lot more than I trust Google (or other big tech companies) to not terminate my account because of an automated process gone wrong. Not only are my own mistakes less frequent than theirs, I actually have recourse if I screw something up. Not so when big tech does.
Re: .name Termination
#367I can only assume somebody was asleep on the job when this scheme was approved, because the outcome is in direct contradiction to ICANN’s mission statement: > Its enduring mission is to ensure the stable, secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/about-icann Arbitrary termination of service is not stability. Enabling name hijacking is not security. The answer…
It's been through the Ombuds and a reconsideration request [1]. ICANN says:
> There will not be any effect on the life cycle of domain names. While the Requestor may disagree with Verisign’s response, the Requestor has not shown that ICANN relied upon false or inaccurate material information. The life cycle of a domain name begins when the domain is registered, then moves through various stages before ultimately coming to a close. Early termination of a domain registration does not impact the life cycle of the domain, as the domain can still go through the various stages of a standard life cycle. Moreover, as stated above, ICANN was aware that discontinuation of these registry services in the .NAME gTLD would result in the termination of approximately 22,000 third-level domain registrations and of email services/addresses.
I don't agree. If I have a domain registered for 10 years the expected life cycle is for deletion to occur 10 years from now, not 90 days from now. They've changed the life cycle by changing the agreed upon deletion date for the current registration term.
I could maybe see if they stop accepting renewals and delete the domains as they expire. It's not a good look, but at least people are getting what they've been promised.
1. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-26-2-s...
Re: .name Termination
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
MagicMoonlight was [dead]ed for not knowing what "dot org scam" refers to. Since I can't reply there right now and it's not reasonable to expect everyone to know what this refers to: ICANN, a 501(c)(3), proposed to remove the price cap on .org registration, commonly used for non profits, so PIR, the 501(c)(3) registrar for .org, could then announce it planned to sell .org operations to private equity investment firm…
MM looks to be shadowbanned, I don't think anyone downed/flagged their comment.
Ah, good catch! I suppose I should check the comment history page before assuming why :)
Re: .name Termination
#369I can only assume somebody was asleep on the job when this scheme was approved, because the outcome is in direct contradiction to ICANN’s mission statement: > Its enduring mission is to ensure the stable, secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/about-icann Arbitrary termination of service is not stability. Enabling name hijacking is not security. The answer…
Sorry, I don't understand this rule, would someone kindly explain? I own lastname.name and use it for email only like this: firstname@lastname.name I always thought as owner of lastname.name, I'm the only one able to add subdomain.lastname.name. Is this wrong?? 1) Can anyone "buy" scam.lastname.name without my authorization on .name?? 2) Can anyone owning not.lastname.name then steal my emails going to: firstname@*.l…
[deleted]
Re: .name Termination
#370It seems like the right thing they should do is discontinue new registrations but continue to honour existing ones (+ continuing to reserve any 2LD that has a 3LD registered on top). It’s a bit insane that they can decide to just terminate all existing 3LD registrations. One would hope that they’d at least continue to reserve the 2LDs for some period to avoid domain squatting, but this isn’t mentioned in the proposal…
Another thing that should be obvious and yet they refuse to do: when there is a single third-level customer for a given second-level, offer them a way to get the second level domain. I've been asking VeriSign this for 15+ years, they always said no, even if at some point they confirmed that there were no other third-level than mine under that second-level domain. They're insane and should not be in charge.
> They're insane and should not be in charge.
I remember back when we had to write mechanize scripts to drive a browser through the renewal process, because if you had dozens, hundreds, or thousands of domains there was no nonmanual way, especially if you wanted extended verification or something silly like that.
So what I'm saying is, agreed and that has always been true.