Stephane, On Jul 17, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote: >> I agree on the need for less friction, hence my interest in trying >> to find objective criteria. Lack of objective criteria pretty much >> guarantees the same sort of discussion and 'heavy process' you're >> complaining about. > > No, friction comes from the fact that some people see the IETF as a > control center and not as a service, trying to use it to enforce their > own views such as "ICANN should have the right to decide for every > string in the root".
As far as I am aware, the IETF has defined the "domain name" namespace and, via RFC 6761, has implicitly asserted it has control over that name space. To my knowledge, the IETF has delegated policy of creating top-level strings for use in the DNS, that is, the things that go into the root servers, to ICANN. One of the issues I see is that there is no clear criteria by which a particular string can be reserved (or pre-empted) by the IETF (as is the IETF's right) and which is constrained by ICANN's policies and processes. This, of course, has no impact on folks who squat on names (at least until they decide they want/need to interoperate with the IETF-defined namespace). However, trying to understand your perspective, I gather you don't see the IESG approval as a control point? Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
