Make the application for .alt actually ask for xn--59g and I'd be there. or even xn--3ve9dwb1a
The application demands .alt? It has the same problems as any other. Its sole purpose should be uniqueness, and choosing a string which has semantic meaning for a large community is confronting the issue up front: It should a symbol-string which has less chance of being asked for as a name in social contexts, has more chance of being justifyable. -G On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > David, > >> On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:47 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: >> >>> FAQ #22 says CORP, HOME, and MAIL have been deferred indefinitely, >> >> Yep. The report on name collisions that ICANN commissioned had the >> following recommendation (recommendation #1 as a matter of fact, see >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-mitigation-final-28oct15-en.pdf, >> top of page 5): >> >> "The TLDs .corp, .home, and .mail be referred to the Internet Engineering >> Task Force (IETF) for potential RFC 1918-like protection/treatment." >> >> Unfortunately, the IETF decided agains this treatment, so those strings >> remain "deferred indefinitely." > > > I suspect it would be helpful to the draft authors and the WG to provide a > public reference for the implied statement here, because it could be > important to mapping the current relationship among different uses of the > namespace. > > You seem to be saying that the fact the IETF hasn’t added those strings to > the special use names registry, per the recommendation of a third party > consultant hired by ICANN, is somehow part of why they’re “deferred > indefinitely” instead of having some other status, but it’s not completely > clear to me what relationship there is among those things. > > I’ve never been able to find any reference to the IETF special use names > registry, or any discussion of its impact on ICANN policy, in the Applicant > Guidebook for the previous gTLD round, or indeed anywhere else. I also > haven’t seen a liaison or other open communication from ICANN containing an > opinion about having the IETF reserve the names you mentioned. > > I’ve always seen people assume that an entry in the special use names > registry means that ICANN won’t delegate the same string in the DNS root. But > given other discussion in this thread, where the claim is being made that any > IETF action regarding strings for “special use” is subject to socio-economic > pressures just as ICANN actions would be, I don’t see the basis of the > assumption. > > Doubtless I’m missing something though….is there a citation we can ask the > draft authors to incorporate in the future? > > > thanks, > Suzanne > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
