Andrew, On Mar 25, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: > 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.
Sorry, how is it "plain"? Is it plain that (say) GNU is/is not a candidate for 6761? Given https://gnunet.org/gns and the purported interest of folks involved in that project to use 6761, what is supposed to happen if the folks at http://www.gnu.com decided to pursue a brand TLD in the next round? If the folks at https://onion.coop or http://www.theonion.com had applied for a brand TLD in the last round, what would the TOR folks have done? > For we're talking about names that people have had the opportunity to > try to claim, but have not done. I don't think so: this appears to assume a one-time event. At the highest level, perhaps what we're talking about is what characterizes "technical use" sufficient to justify application of 2860 4.3(a). Thanks, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
