[NA-Discuss] .GB/gb.com

[Jothan Frakes]

> Why would you expect ICANN's rules to be less opaque and arbitrary than
> Verisign's?

Not challenging any aspect of arbitrary that you're making.

It seems to be that it is the layering of them creating an additional
arbitrary break point at each that seems at issue.

In this case of gb.com, there are more than one layer introduced by
sub-domaining.

There is an agreement between ICANN and VeriSign for .com, one between
VeriSign for .com and the registrar of record of gb.com, one between
ICANN and the registrar of record of gb.com, and one between the
registrar of record of gb.com and the registrant of gb.com.

Then you layer on the agreement where the provider of the subdomaining
service (in this case Centralnic - who are stellar professionals IMHO)
contracts with the registrant of gb.com, and then Centralnic contracts
with the registrant of subdomain.gb.com, possibly having a registrar
and perhaps even a reseller in betwixt.

That's a lot of layers and a lot of arbitrary points.

-Jothan


On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:07 PM, John R. Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
>> Wold seem to be a good argument for new TLDs - at least one doesn't stand
>> the risk of abitrary re-delegation..
>
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------
>