Hi, Since we're making disclaimers, ObDisclaimerPersonalViews.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 08:32:02PM +0000, Alain Durand wrote: > 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. I don't think I understand why. I think it is plain that a name that is actually somehow implicated in the existing root policies (in which I would include names that are excluded under some ICANN policy) are just not candidates for 6761 reservation, and I would expect the necessary consensus involved to ensure that happens. (If we don't believe that the necessary IETF consultations would prevent such a mistake, then we have much bigger problems than 6761. Our entire standards process is in trouble.) It would also obviously include any names that were part of an ICANN application for a new TLD. (This is why I didn't feel comfortable using 6761 to reserve home and corp, without ICANN's explicit decision to reject the applications in question and permanently set the names aside. I agree that we don't want the special-use registry to become a stealth way to solve political problems in ICANN's world.) So the question is whether we have to worry about cases outside those. I don't know what the political/economic/social space is in that case. For we're talking about names that people have had the opportunity to try to claim, but have not done. So what problem do you think you're trying to avoid? On the flip side, if there is some technical use that means a domain needs to have special use, that is a positive reason for the IETF to proceed with its own standards-setting procedures, so long as there is no conflict with ICANN's root zone activities. > 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.” I think you will find that the _very next paragraph_ in that RFC says, Note that (a) assignments of domain names for technical uses (such as domain names for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of specialised address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks), and (c) experimental assignments are not considered to be policy issues, and shall remain subject to the provisions of this Section 4. The question is whether the 6761 cases fall under "assigment of domain names for technical uses". To me, the various questions in 6761 suggest that the answer is "yes", but you might disagree. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
