I think you're missing a distinction I was making, however, which is that we should not be poaching on turf already handed to someone else. Managing top-level domains that are intended to be looked up in the DNS -- even if people expect them to be part of a "local root" or otherwise not actually part of the DNS -- is, I increasingly think, part of ICANN's remit. Managing things that are domain names that are by definition _never_ to be looked up in the DNS is different, and we have a legitimate claim (I'm arguing. I should note I'm not sure I completely buy the distinction I'm making, but I want to keep testing it).
The distinction I'm making suggests why corp and onion seem different. They are, in this fundamental resolution nature. A -- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums. > On May 12, 2015, at 19:16, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote: > >> On May 12, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> >> wrote: >> This is a bizarre argument. You don't get to kind-of delegate policy >> authority this way. Authority was delegated, and if we don't like the >> outcome we can go pound sand. > > I think the IETF can develop a position on whether we think what ICANN is > doing with the authority we delegated to them makes sense. You are right that > we may not be able to do anything about this position other than state it, > but we could state it, if we chose. But that wasn't the argument I was making. > > The argument I was making is that it's pretty clear that what ICANN has done > is bad for the Internet, and that we should not decide whether or not to > allocate special use names, or how many to allocate, based on an attitude of > deferring to ICANN's greater wisdom on the topic. > > If in fact we have any basis for claiming to be able to allocate special use > names, then we should just do that, not without taking care to avoid creating > unnecessary conflicts, but not with trepidation either. If we don't, then > we should figure that out, and figure out what to do about it, because this > whole conversation appears to be based on the premise that we can in fact > allocate special use names. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
