Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
Submissions for this Proceeding
Proposed Top-Level Domain String for Private Use
View this Proceeding
My Submissions
Search Public Comment Submissions For This Proceeding
To search for keywords within Public Comment submissions documents or pages, type in the keyword and press Enter after each selection.
Submission Summary:
What about .corp, .home, .mail which ICANN have effectively banned anyway ? Why not just formalise them ?
Submission Summary:
There is already a .local domain set up by the IETF for accessing devices on a local area network. Has the .local domain been considered and, if so, why is .internal a stronger candidate? How would .local and .internal work together?
Submission Summary:
Positive aspects:
+ Very good proposal to have a TLD dedicated for private use!
+ Good points on why to prefer .internal instead of .private. No arguments there.
Negative aspects:
- .INTERNAL might be a bit long compared to .private (+1 char), but still acceptable.
Other thoughts:
- Why not also having a shorter, 3-char TLD to serve the same purpose? I guess (just my opinion - I did not...
Submission Summary:
Support proposal as-is
* internal conveys purpose to layman and tech-literate
* private use TLD allows for better support and user-friendliness for home networking (no ambiguity on 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1 etc)
* domains are more widely shared and see vs IPs
* IPv6 addresses may be used and greatly benefit from a TLD
* .internal should not be routed to a public (Internet) resource and should be managed by the i...
Submission Summary:
I suggest to use .lan instead of .internal or .private.
.lan is much faster and easier to type, especially on mobile devices (including numeric keypads, eg. 555266)
.lan shares the same "security risks" with .internal or .private but because it is much shorter, the risk is lower, i.e. using a capital "i" or Cyrillic letters.
.lan is the abbreviation of "Local Area Network" so it would make per...
Submission Summary:
Having private tld's I think are long overdue. There hasn't been clear guidance on what to specifically use when setting up your own private domain. I think using only .internal as the sole English language private tld may provide option
The IETF has a draft RFC that suggests additional tld that should be reserved due to the tld "has been queried and a root name server has responded to the query with a non-existent domain (NXD...
Submission Summary:
These are some of the doain names I type in most regularly, including on rubbish on-screen appliance keybaords. So I feel brevity wasn't given enough weight in this decision. .internal is at best marginally better on that measure than the already existing .home.arpa, and far short of what's available.
I favour (and use) .lan, but would switch to anything up to about 4 characters. There is some benefit to standards on their own...
Submission Summary:
Please consider how the .internal TLD will interact with the certificate authority (CA) system. The current proposal appears to reserve .internal as a TLD without allowing any organization to uniquely own domains. This makes it impossible for a public CA to provide certificates for these domains. Without certificates it's impossible for client software to determine if it is connecting to the correct server (as multiple servers can squat on the...
Submission Summary:
According to the proposal, 35 specific candidate strings have been reviewed and only two strings `INTERNAL` and `PRIVATE` were found to satisfy the four selection criteria described in SAC113. However the proposal doesn't actually describe remaining 33 candidates, which greatly exceed the number of de facto private-use TLDs listed in SAC113. They should be published in public for the better understanding and verification of the process.
...
Submission Summary:
The TLD 'lan' ('LAN', the acronym of Local Area Network) should be considered in addition to the proposed 'internal' TLD for the same use. The 'lan' TLD is already used for private and internal hostnames de facto, and can be preferable over 'internal' due to the lower character count.
Submission Summary:
.lan is .interNAL with fewer keystrokes
Submission Summary:
While ".INTERNAL" is "relatively short", it's still a fairly long domain suffix.
Given the fact that this suffix will likely to be used in multilevel private domain/hostnames, which itself can be quite long (for exaggerated examples, "service1.department1.gateway1.company.routing-software.internal" and "aWt8RCs5TFRYIVQjImt1OWUhQk51cVhEUyVm.ipfs.internal"), it could be beneficial to shorten it's every possible element, including the TLD.<...
Submission Summary:
The proposal should include additional DNS search suffix ".local" which is already widely used (mDNS, default DNS search suffix, DHCP assignments, etc)
Alternatively ".internal" should be replaced by ".local" as existing infrastructures already vastly cover the scope of the proposal (local usage only, no public resolution, etc).
Submission Summary:
Designating some subdomain at "launch" of .INTERNAL, say EXAMPLE.INTERNAL or PRIVATE.INTERNAL (or some other designated subdomain), and then submitting that to the Public Suffix List (PSL) https://github.com/publicsuffix/list would allow for browsers or other internet applications that absorb and use the PSL to use that as a subspace horizon for testing of activities that they would typically request a PSL entry for in order to test or develop...