This should not be allowed. It means (a) one TLD does not operate at the most fundamental level like the others; (b) all of the individuals who are using third-level .name domains are left high and dry
I read the PDF, and thought I understood, but you're asking a good question. I did some research, and it turns out that when .name launched in 2001 (under Global Name Registry), it used this really weird shared-SLD architecture where the registry retained the second-level domain (e.g., rpdillon.name) and sold independent third-level domains (e.g. bob.rpdillon.name and jane.rpdillon.name) to completely unrelated individuals through ICANN registrars.
I've managed multiple third-level domains for decades, and didn't realize this distinction between registry-managed domains and having the registry delegate third-level domains to the authoritative servers...the latter I'm quite used to, but this change is about the former.
I've never used .name, and while I was initially skeptical, it seems like this is a pretty reasonable move.
Are there registrants in the third-level today? It doesn't appear so. The application filled in every single blank with "no problem lol" making it appear that zero customers or registrants will be affected, like at all. So, was anyone taking advantage of this service? They will immediately be terminating the service and so, if anyone was renting space thusly, will have a very narrow window to transition service. But yes, registering "N.N.name" without directly registering "N.name" seemed like a bonkers way to run things.
OMG. That is appalling! So the document that Spiridonov submitted clearly shows how Verisign blatantly and repeatedly lied to ICANN on their application. That is absurd. I mean, they are Verisign. To just outright lie like that, about the "life-cycles of domains" and say that there is zero effect, when there are 22,000 customers affected. By Verisign. How can anyone trust them if they blatantly and verifiably lie, in writing, to ICANN? That seems like fraud to me. By Verisign, of all people.
Why? The .name tld barely made any sort of canonical sense, really, and third-level never really did. I mean aside from the fact that some people just 'liked it'.
Instead of registering your.name you would register first.last.name (nobody owned last.name). This was intended to allow more people to have personal domains with fewer conflicts.
Now, years later, they are undoing it and they're even breaking existing domains. ("existing third level domain names will be terminated") This kind of breaking change shouldn't be allowed.
contrary, this is one TLD _ceasing_ a idiosyncratic mode of operation.
I've managed multiple third-level domains for decades, and didn't realize this distinction between registry-managed domains and having the registry delegate third-level domains to the authoritative servers...the latter I'm quite used to, but this change is about the former.
I've never used .name, and while I was initially skeptical, it seems like this is a pretty reasonable move.
(via https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-26-2-s...)
i've been a third level domain customer since 2006 not amused at all
Now, years later, they are undoing it and they're even breaking existing domains. ("existing third level domain names will be terminated") This kind of breaking change shouldn't be allowed.