nanog mailing list archives
Re: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner () nic-naa net>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:21:08 -0400
On 6/4/12 3:28 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Well, I note that at least the .secure promoters haven't decided it's a good idea:
the _known_ .secure-and-all-confusingly-similar-labels promoters. the reveal is weeks away, followed by the joys of contention set formation. there may be more than one .secure application, and who knows, perhaps a .sec in the bag, or a .cure, or a .seeker, or .sequre, or ... however, yeah, the requirement bites at contract / delegation time, so about a year in the future. -e
Current thread:
- Re: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD Eric Brunner-Williams (Jun 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD Jimmy Hess (Jun 03)
- Re: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD Jay Ashworth (Jun 03)
- RE: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD Keith Medcalf (Jun 03)
- Re: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD Eric Brunner-Williams (Jun 04)
- Re: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD Andrew Sullivan (Jun 04)
- Re: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD Eric Brunner-Williams (Jun 04)