There are plausible, if unlikely, circumstances in which a fork, not just of the Tor project software itself, but of the entire project including the specific URL, might happen. While this argument is an attempt at a reductio ab absurdum, I do not think it is - the circumstance described is unlikely, but not absurd. In other words, I agree with Ted. And as a much more active contributor to ICANN processes than IETF ones, I think Ted is right in characterisation of the appropriate interaction here.
David
> On 16 Jul 2015, at 3:53 am, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/15/2015 11:46 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>> What if I copied the onion draft, changed all of the uses of onion to
>> carrot, and then threw in some supporting documents to describe some other
>> system that used carrot as it's base identifier? On the heels of onion's
>> admission to the Special Use Domain Names registry, could I expect to have
>> carrot admitted too?
> 1. Do you seriously think DNSOP would have had consensus to advance such a
> draft?
> 2. If DNSOP did have consensus to advance such a draft, what would your
> objection be?
>
> I think that DNSOP would not advance such a draft unless a lot of reasonable
> people decided that they believed that .carrot was needed. And if DNSOP did
> indeed advance such a draft, I think that it would be the right thing to do
> to go to ICANN and say "what do you guys think about this?" I don't think
> we would be in a position to make demands, but we should be able to have the
> conversation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
