> On 16 Jul 2015, at 4:11 am, Francisco Obispo <fobi...@uniregistry.com> wrote: > > >> This was proposed in the working group. It obviously doesn't work, first >> because TOR can't come up with that kind of money, but second because TOR >> doesn't want a TLD (hellekin's erroneous statements notwithstanding). What >> they want is a special-use name. A domain name does not accomplish the >> intended purpose, because it has to be resolved by sending a query to a DNS >> server. A third objection was one Ed raised earlier for an unrelated >> reason: we can't assume that the TOR project will continue to exist as an >> entity that can own a delegation. What happens when that stops? Does the >> Church of Anatman get to buy the domain and start snooping on TOR >> connections? >> > > Well do they want a TLD but they don’t have the money? or don’t want a TLD? > perhaps the problem is in how the TLD program treats them, in which case the > answer should be on the ICANN side.
The ICANN process is designed towards the goal of delegation, and has a
great deal of steps in the process of application that make no sense at all if
delegation is not the goal. Tor do not want delegation, and delegation is not
appropriate for this intended use (the mitigation of privacy leakage that the
Tor Project would be able to provide as delegated register is considerably less
than that proposed in the draft). I do not think there is anything useful in
demanding that ICANN create a slew of separate processes to roughly replicate
Special Use Names that will never deliver what is wanted, when the Special Use
names process already exists, and will.
>> A fourth objection which I don't think was raised is that this doesn't work
>> for .local or any of the other special-use names, and if it doesn't work for
>> them, it doesn't make sense to try to make it work specifically for .onion.
>> Why is .onion special? Should Apple or Microsoft be asked to pay $200k to
>> reserve the .local TLD?
>
> Having this mechanism for reserving special use names, creates two different
> authorities managing the same namespace, this will require tight coordination
> as well as clear and transparent guidelines to make it work.
In this case, there seems to be no reason why we can’t manage the
necessary coordination by having people participating in both spaces, and there
have been several involved, in that several people involved in DNSOP discussion
are also active in ICANN processes. After this case, it may be worth
considering how the process can be improved - we still have several other
potential special use names to consider.
David
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
