From the Verisign application [0] for this change:

    > 2.1. What effect, if any, will the proposed service have on the life cycle of domain names?
    > None. There will not be any effect on the life cycle of domain names.

ehhh, how is that possibly true? This change (deleting all third level names) by definition affects the lifecycle of domain names ... by terminating them!

Many years ago I wrote articles bringing attention to the negative effects of Verisign's SiteFinder [1] - if you don't remember this, it's when Verisign hijacked NXDOMAIN by redirecting any unresolvable domain to a site they owned and controlled.

[0] https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/consensus-policies/rsep-2... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_Finder

▲ semiquaver an hour ago | parent | next [-]

That document looks like the change tickets I see at work when investigating internal outages:

   Risk: none
   Rollback plan: N/A

▲ politician 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Well, it doesn't affect the lifecycle of domain names. The lifecycle is defined in some RFC somewhere, and this change doesn't modify that. Now, these particular domain name instances might be adversely affected, but you didn't ask about that." -- lawyers, probably.

	▲	donmcronald 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You're closer than you think. Big companies and institutions just change the definition of words they don't like. In this case, they could argue that a domain's lifecycle is registration, renewal (optional), deletion. Deletion is part of the expected lifecycle, so this doesn't change it. The ambiguity is a feature so they can do whatever they want. We all know it's bullshit, but it gives the parties involved the ability to disenfranchise one group to benefit another while claiming they're following the rules.