Yes, this is not simply a protocol-related matter. Which is why the IAB wrote to the ICANN board alerting them to the issue, and the ICANN board passed this on to the community, specifically inviting interested community members to join this list. Some of us did so. If those of us active in the ICANN names policy community feel that there needs to be a policy response to this issue, we will say so.
I would certainly not assume it is doomed. As David Conrad says, there are many who feel it would serve a useful purpose. Even if there are policy implications, that does not mean that ICANN will not defer to the IETF, we may simply initiate our own internal processes to deal with implications. Regards David (currently vice-chair of the ICANN GNSO Council). On 13 Feb 2015, at 1:45 pm, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > > >> David Conrad Thursday, February 12, 2015 5:38 PM >> 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. > > can we sit back and ponder what it will mean if .ALT becomes an implicit > extra search list for many end users, and then xyzzy.alt is created, and > later, .xyzzy is created. i expect this eventuality to spur considerable > interest from icann, perhaps coming in the form of "since we can't control > what the ietf does with implicit search list behaviour, we're skittish about > allowing something like .ALT to come into existence that would, when combined > with implicit search lists, lead to complete and utter chaos." > > this is not in other words simply a protocol-related matter. > > -- > Paul Vixie > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
