George, > The politics response is really simple: "this idea is doomed." -I wish I felt > otherwise, but I think given the context of the debate over ICANN, who 'owns' > names, $180,000 application fees, IAB directions to IANA, NTIA role, this is > mired. I don't want to be a prophet of doom, but this is my honest > perspecive.
As with most "really simple" answers, the reality is a bit more complicated. My impression of this draft is that it creates a space that would avoid some of the risks associated with RFC 6761. Politically, I suspect this is desirable, even to all the parties you mention. As for the fee, ICANN already defers to the IETF in protocol-related matters, so I don't see why a new gTLD fee would be applicable. With my ICANN hat on, I'll look into this and report what I hear back. > Would it be DNSSEC signed with a well known key? Sure, why not? Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
