4 ms·
The blog post misses the (controversial if you're one of the ex-applicants) decision by ICANN to ban .corp, .home and .mail from ever appearing on the internet.
by traceroute66 5y ago
The blog post misses the (controversial if you're one of the ex-applicants) decision by ICANN to ban .corp, .home and .mail from ever appearing on the internet. So you've got those options too.
Or in ICANN management-speak:
"Whereas, the Board considered that the applicants were not aware before the application window that the strings .CORP, .HOME, and .MAIL would be identified as high-risk, and that the delegations of such high-risk strings would be deferred indefinitely." [1]
[1]https://features.icann.org/addressing-new-gtld-program-applications-corp-home-and-mail https://features.icann.org/addressing-new-gtld-program-appli...
- zamadatix 5y ago"to be not assigned" is generally less safe than "assigned for local use". E.g. 1.1.1.0/24 was first held back too see if bogus traffic would decreased then a ssigned for research purposes then assigned for cloudflare DNS causing a lot of grief for corporate networks that used 1.1.1.1 or 1.1.1.2 for network clustering or portal gateways instead of ones explicitly assigned for internal use.
- traceroute66 5y ago>"to be not assigned" is generally less safe than "assigned for local use" Normally I would agree. But in this case, 5 years (2018-2013), a $185,000 refund, high-profile media coverage and an explicit "deferred indefinitely" statement later ? I don't think any of us will see .CORP, .HOME and .MAIL on the internet in our lifetimes !
- twobitshifter 5y agoIt actually mentioned .home as something not to use (along with .lan and.homenetwork)
- CRConrad 5y agoMaybe the GP meant "missed" as in "was wrong about". [EDIT:] (I'm not saying it is; just that GP may think so.) [/EDIT]
- 3np 5y agoFor non-TLDs, example.com is also good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example.com