> On Mar 25, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> By design, RFC 6761 makes no >>> statement about a specific WG or evaluation body or process. >> >> Which is, of course, one of the key problems. It results in an undefined >> decision process dependent on the individual subjective evaluation of IESG >> members. Given the economic, political, and social implications of the >> naming hairball, this seems like a really bad idea to me. > > It is certainly a key issue and I hope we can get a focused discussion going > about whether there is consensus that a more well-defined decision process is > needed and, if so, what are the specifics of that process.
Let me speak here solely as a long time (20+ year) IETF participant that has been through successes and failures of this organization. IMHO, a "more well-defined decision process" would not help, as I would argue that the IETF (and the IESG as well) is ill-equipped to wade in the political/economic/social space tied to policies evaluating which names are OK to reserve and which ones are not. My applies to any names, being “special" or not. RFC2860 section 4.3 recognized this inadequacy very clearly: "Two particular assigned spaces present policy issues in addition to the technical considerations specified by the IETF: the assignment of domain names, and the assignment of IP address blocks. These policy issues are outside the scope of this MOU.” At the end of the day, this is the key issue in 6761. Alain.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
