|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Namespaces (was: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlayplay)
On 8 Mar 2001, Sean Donelan wrote: > Other than generating a lot of press, new.net's project doesn't seem to be > anything more exciting than a bunch of AOL Keywords (another flat proprietary > namespace). And being "proprietary" where is the real market for this service? To what extent are registrants properly informed that their "domains" do not function for all Internet users. Sure there's information on their web site that they may only function with some 16M users, but will they be up-front about that as people sign up. It is interesting thought that the registration agreement includes... "IN ADDITION, NEW.NET MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES REGARDING ANY MINIMUM NUMBER OF USERS WHO WILL HAVE ACCESS TO NEW.NET DOMAIN NAMES." I can't imagine suggesting to one of my customers that they rely on a domain that the majority of users can't resolve. So, if they can't rely on it they'll need some other "real" domain (unless they have a specific known target within the cooperating systems). Also, why would someone want a domain with which there is no functional E-Mail. Again, what customer base would be appropriate for this service? I suppose it's possible that I somehow missed the point of all this. Perhaps it's really not intended to be a serious service. Is it possible that this is simply an effort to stir the TLD pot to try to get something moving? In any case, it should be interesting the first time one of my customers proudly informs me of his new domain and wants it implimented. Chuck
|