CircleID

Comments

Ask Vint Cerf: The Road Ahead for Top-Level Domains

• Comment posted Jan 17, 2006 7:16 pm PST — by Christopher Ambler
  Vint, I've been waiting, patiently, since 1996 to compete with .Web. I participated in the IANA process with Jon, the failed IAHC process, the Green Paper, the White Paper, the IFWP, and now ICANN. .Web was not approved in 2000…

Engineers on TLDs: Do You Want Me With Fries?

• Comment posted Dec 22, 2004 4:26 am PST — by Christopher Ambler
  I believe strongly I'm right, as we paid well for studies in the 2000 application phase - something that the other two applicants for .Web didn't seem to do. But I digress. With proper marketing, anything could beat .com. With…

• Comment posted Dec 21, 2004 10:16 pm PST — by Christopher Ambler
  .com cleans everyone else's clocks because it's the dominant player in a market that has seen precious little competition. Info and Biz are, arguably, the only competition introduced. Net and Org are reasonably full, ccTLDs have their own market position,…

• Comment posted Dec 21, 2004 9:09 pm PST — by Christopher Ambler
  Ram, that's pretty easy to say when you make your living from a generic registry, and no new generic registries are allowed to compete. I'm a 30-something engineer. I was a 20-something engineer when I proposed .Web (you remember .Web,…

Reaction to New Top Level Domains

• Comment posted Dec 21, 2004 9:04 pm PST — by Christopher Ambler
  Ten years, and we're still waiting.

Cornucopia: A Radically Different Approach to TLDs

• Comment posted Dec 04, 2004 7:09 am PST — by Christopher Ambler
  That being the case, Brad, how do you propose to remove .NET from the zone? Surely you can't allow one company to run a generic term, yet constrain trade for all other companies that wish to compete on the same…

• Comment posted Dec 04, 2004 2:50 am PST — by Christopher Ambler
  I have no problem with this approach, provided that it is not mandated that this approach be taken to the exclusion of any other (including generic TLDs). This, simply because there are still those who wish to compete (and have,…

• Comment posted Dec 03, 2004 8:14 pm PST — by Christopher Ambler
  I'm not sure I see a compelling economic model for being the registry, especially if you consider that ICANN will continue to allow more specialized (indeed, generic) TLD registries. Who would buy a random-letter-TLD domain when they can get their…

The Accountable Net: Who Should Be Accountable?

• Comment posted Dec 03, 2004 7:48 pm PST — by Christopher Ambler
  Esther, your .safe proposal seems to be functionally the same as the .Mail proposal in this most recent sTLD round. Presuming ICANN approval in the next year, perhaps it may accomplish many of your goals?

New TLD Public Comments: Jumping-to-Conclusions?

• Comment posted Apr 16, 2004 4:22 pm PDT — by Christopher Ambler
  Within the framework of understanding that the new owner will need to be validated, yes. Absolutely.

New Mobile Domain Another Bad Idea

• Comment posted Mar 13, 2004 1:07 am PST — by Christopher Ambler
  "Brad ideas," this time, means bad idea. Come on - you actually think you can get this djinn back in the bottle? You actually think you can get people to migrate away from .com? And until you do so, you…

Questioning Innovation: An Interview with Bob Parsons

• Comment posted Mar 04, 2004 9:37 pm PST — by Christopher Ambler
  Mr. Parsons says that he thinks we have enough TLDs right now. Sir, how can you be so against Verisign as a monopoly, while apparently saying that it is simultaneously allright for ICANN, the monopoly root provider, to exclude new…

Bad Journalism, IPv6, and the BBC

• Comment posted Nov 08, 2003 12:29 am PST — by Christopher Ambler
  Such errors happen on a daily basis. You notice them in articles that pertain to subject matter about which you know something more than the average reader. Imagine all of the stories that you read with subjects about which you…

An Unsanctioned Whois Database

• Comment posted Nov 07, 2003 1:26 am PST — by Christopher Ambler
  The idea isn't new, you're right - and I'd talked to others about it over a decade ago in terms of adding new fields in an anarchaic manner. You'll remember the push to get ICBM targeting data into the DNS…

.Pro Asking for Second-Level Domains (Again)

• Comment posted Nov 05, 2003 7:46 pm PST — by Christopher Ambler
  Indeed. I believe that the approval for .name was wrong, just as the approval for .pro was wrong.

• Comment posted Nov 05, 2003 5:42 pm PST — by Christopher Ambler
  Absolutely, James - once the testbed is over and new competition is allowed. Otherwise, you invalidate the testbed and give more protected-market advantages to existing players. That's hardly fair (and in some markets might even be illegal)

SnapNames: Why the WLS is Better for Consumers

• Comment posted Aug 30, 2003 8:37 am PDT — by Christopher Ambler
  Sure, here's why: A consumer will never have the chance to buy the WLS subscription on dog.com, because the registrar who currently sponsors that name will purchase it if there is any chance of that name dropping. If there is…

• Comment posted Jul 22, 2003 8:22 pm PDT — by Christopher Ambler
  What Snapnames doesn't tell you is that they stand to make a ton of money, along with Verisign, if WLS is implemented. If that happens, the existing services, mentioned above, will all be forced to close. The money that they…