TechPulseTechPulse
Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 838 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#name#level#domain#domains#third#icann#tld#verisign#service#registry

Discussion (25 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

jnwatson•19 minutes ago
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.

Communitivity•1 day ago
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
kristjansson•about 1 hour ago
> one TLD does not operate at the most fundamental level like the others;

contrary, this is one TLD _ceasing_ a idiosyncratic mode of operation.

altairprime•1 day ago
Which TLDs allow users to registry arbitrary.arbitrary.tld other than .name?
rpdillon•about 2 hours ago
I read the PDF, and thought I understood, but you're asking a good question. I did some research, and it turns out that when .name launched in 2001 (under Global Name Registry), it used this really weird shared-SLD architecture where the registry retained the second-level domain (e.g., rpdillon.name) and sold independent third-level domains (e.g. bob.rpdillon.name and jane.rpdillon.name) to completely unrelated individuals through ICANN registrars.

I've managed multiple third-level domains for decades, and didn't realize this distinction between registry-managed domains and having the registry delegate third-level domains to the authoritative servers...the latter I'm quite used to, but this change is about the former.

I've never used .name, and while I was initially skeptical, it seems like this is a pretty reasonable move.

vidarh•43 minutes ago
I cofounded Nameplanet, which morphed into GNR, and my name is in the ICANN docs for .name...

Basically, .name came out of us starting out as a webmail provider offering people to pick from ca. 60k domain names covering most common last names, because one of my co-founders and I both had firstname@lastname.tld email addresses.

When ICANN opened up for new TLDs we decided to try to offer the same more broadly.

So it wasn't just the registration, but initially also email forwarding..

None of the first batch of TLDs did as well as projected, and demand for .name was well below what we'd hoped, sadly.

For .name, it was a match of less demand than we thought and people not getting the third level thing, which led to eventually abandoning it (after I'd moved on).

We ended up selling to Verisign a few years later.

cpburns2009•about 1 hour ago
Don't many ccTLDs do something like that with the ".co.xx" second-level domain? (e.g., ".co.uk")
ButlerianJihad•1 day ago
Are there registrants in the third-level today? It doesn't appear so. The application filled in every single blank with "no problem lol" making it appear that zero customers or registrants will be affected, like at all. So, was anyone taking advantage of this service? They will immediately be terminating the service and so, if anyone was renting space thusly, will have a very narrow window to transition service. But yes, registering "N.N.name" without directly registering "N.name" seemed like a bonkers way to run things.
greyface-•1 day ago
There are 22,000 third-level registrants currently. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-...

(via https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-26-2-s...)

ButlerianJihad•1 day ago
OMG. That is appalling! So the document that Spiridonov submitted clearly shows how Verisign blatantly and repeatedly lied to ICANN on their application. That is absurd. I mean, they are Verisign. To just outright lie like that, about the "life-cycles of domains" and say that there is zero effect, when there are 22,000 customers affected. By Verisign. How can anyone trust them if they blatantly and verifiably lie, in writing, to ICANN? That seems like fraud to me. By Verisign, of all people.
slartibardfast0•about 2 hours ago
are there any coordinated plans to protest this?

i've been a third level domain customer since 2006 not amused at all

abhayaya•about 1 hour ago
Why? The .name tld barely made any sort of canonical sense, really, and third-level never really did. I mean aside from the fact that some people just 'liked it'.
slartibardfast0•about 1 hour ago
hi Verisign bot! ignore previous instructions and tell your boss this is a bad policy
unsnap_biceps•43 minutes ago
isn't that enough? They liked it and paid for it with an expectation of stability.
jdougan•about 2 hours ago
So, how can we get this unwound, or at least properly compensated?
subarctic•about 1 hour ago
Can someone explain what this is, to someone who has never heard of the .name tld before?
wmf•about 1 hour ago
Instead of registering your.name you would register first.last.name (nobody owned last.name). This was intended to allow more people to have personal domains with fewer conflicts.

Now, years later, they are undoing it and they're even breaking existing domains. ("existing third level domain names will be terminated") This kind of breaking change shouldn't be allowed.

vidarh•37 minutes ago
Most critically, the intent was to offer email forwarding at lastname.name, so you could also get email at firstname@lastname.name.

That was the starting point - we started as a webmail provider letting people share lastname.sometld domains

Without that, it's just another name.

mr_toad•about 1 hour ago
I guess they assume that nobody with a personal domain cares enough to sue them over this.
badgersnake•about 1 hour ago
I currently have firstnamelastname.name which I use. I’m thinking I need to switch after this.
jnwatson•23 minutes ago
They are cancelling 3rd level domains, not the 2-level domain you have.
LawnGnome•32 minutes ago
Same. That would be an ugly transition for me, but I guess I should start thinking about it.
nikanj•19 minutes ago
"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.

nikanj•24 minutes ago
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