HN

Comments (36)

• Menu

  jnwatson
  Can't anyone set up a "registrar" for a subdomain of a domain they already use? They control the DNS record, right? Why is ICANN even involved here?I don't see how this is any different, other than the second-level domain owner delegates their registrar job to the first-level domain owner.There is something weird though if you control smith.name, that you don't control john.smith.name. The DNS system does convey some indirect concept of responsibility.
• Menu

  famfamfam
  I have used a third-level .name domain as my primary domain and email since 2005, and I am in this list of domains affected. This is the first I have heard of this, does anyone have information on _when_ this might occur?In the RSEP it states:> "Have you communicated with any of the entities whose products or services might be affected by the introduction of your proposed service? If so, please describe the communications."> "No. Not applicable."As thankful as I am to OP for bringing this to my attention; I am equally disappointed that my registrar (Fasthosts) has not made any attempt to warn me about this, and that Verisign consider me "Not applicable" to a change that will be extremely onerous.90 days to transition is an extremely short period of time to transition literally every account I have, including email addresses I use for government and medical services.
• Menu

  Communitivity
  This should not be allowed. It means (a) one TLD does not operate at the most fundamental level like the others; (b) all of the individuals who are using third-level .name domains are left high and dry
• Menu

  slartibardfast0
  are there any coordinated plans to protest this?i've been a third level domain customer since 2006 not amused at all
• anigbrowl
  Honestly, fuck Verisign.They want to discontinue this because it's not especially popular or profitable. I take this to mean that they can't get enough money to support the administrative and developmental overhead.Now, it's true that there's only ~100k people using first.last.name type domains, and managing those and their special rules is a time and testing suck for developers and administrators. And likewise the business of getting things done requires offices and other resources. On the other hand, domain name registration is, when you get down to it, a matter of administering a database and keeping things like the DNS in sync with it. It's technically inelegant and annoying, and no doubt a potential source of security problems (isn't everything?), but it's not actually a difficult or dangerous job, and the financial overhead seems like a negligible fraction of their revenue.I get that this is an administrative headache. But administrative problems often do not require administrative solutions, in the sense that the administrative 'solution' is to generate some paperwork declaring the the problems outweigh the benefits and the impact on others doesn't matter and can be ignored. There's a sense throughout the document of people who took on a responsibility just wanting to wash their hands of it without any consideration for those who will be impacted. This is an ongoing cultural antipattern in Silicon Valley and the tech industry in general. There's an air of dishonesty to Verisign's claims 'we talked to a few people verbally and everyone's cool with it, therefore you should approve it because there's no opposition that matters.'istm the best way to resolve this is via Coasean bargaining, that is Verisign pays people to go along with the shutdown, using some sort of objective formula and getting buy-in from a supermajority of registrants. For example they could offer 5 years of free firstname-lastname.com (or .name) hosting and guaranteeing domain forwarding for 2 years, or let people handle it themselves in return for $1000 or whatever. To be sure, some people might argue that their loss is much greater because they've built a big brand around their .name domain, but I think it's probably better to get broad acceptance for a blanket solution rather than turn it into a fight for the most $ that will inevitable end up in protracted arbitration or litigation, costing tens or hundreds of times more than buying people out.
• Menu

  subarctic
  Can someone explain what this is, to someone who has never heard of the .name tld before?
• silisili
  This is rather silly. Third level domains aren't particularly unique or hard to do. It likely costs about nothing to just deprecate new registrations and keep the existing ones around.If I had to guess, they're wanting to auction off the second level domains which will likely bring in more money than the rather unpopular third level registrations.
• jdougan
  So, how can we get this unwound, or at least properly compensated?
• nikanj
  "2.1. What effect, if any, will the proposed service have on the life cycle of domain names?None. There will not be any effect on the life cycle of domain names."Well, aside from deleting all of them. But no other effect on the life cycle."3.6. Have you communicated with any of the entities whose products or services might be affected by the introduction of your proposed service? If so, please describe the communications. No. Not applicable."I guess communication is not applicable when you just cease a service.
• Menu

  nikanj
  As someone cruising under something like silly.domain.name, I'm very stressed if they delete existing domains. I've had mine for over 20 year, so the number of services I've registered under that email are endless
• colincowardly
  Ultimately, this decision provides much-needed clarity for the wider internet community and should be welcomed as such.