Ralph, On Mar 30, 2016, at 3:40 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 29, 2016, at 5:23 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> I thought putting a name onto the special use names registries was an >> exercise in informing ICANN (and the rest of the world) that the IETF was >> invoking clause 4.3(a) of RFC 2860. The last paragraph of 4.3 states: >> >> "In the event ICANN adopts a policy that prevents it from complying with the >> provisions of this Section 4 with respect to the assignments described in >> (a) - (c) above, ICANN will notify the IETF, which may then exercise its >> ability to cancel this MOU under Section 2 above." >> >> Are you suggesting you believe ICANN would want to trigger that exercise or >> that using the special use registry is not invoking clause 4.3(a) (or >> something else)? > > David - I've reviewed 4.3(a) and the paragraph you quoted, and I honestly > don't see the connection between invoking 4.3(a), the last paragraph of 4.3 > and any suggestion on Suzanne's part that ICANN would want to cause the IETF > to exercise that option? > > Would you please explain in a little more detail?
I believe Suzanne was asking for a reference as to why ICANN would not just go ahead and delegate a domain name, regardless of whether it was in the special use registry since the AGB does not make any reference to the AGB (not surprising since I believe that registry did not exist when the AGB was written). 4.3(a) states: 4.3. 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. My reading: policy issues associated with (normal) domain names DO NOT fall under the MOU describing the technical work of IANA. Note that (a) assignments of domain names for technical uses (such as domain names for inverse DNS lookup) [...] are not considered to be policy issues, and shall remain subject to the provisions of this Section 4. My reading: if a domain name is being assigned for "technical uses" then it DOES fall under the MOU. In the event ICANN adopts a policy that prevents it from complying with the provisions of this Section 4 with respect to the assignments described in (a) - (c) above, ICANN will notify the IETF, which may then exercise its ability to cancel this MOU under Section 2 above. My reading: if ICANN chooses to come up with a policy that treats a domain name assigned for "technical uses" as a "normal" domain, that would be in violation of 4.3, which means it could trigger cancellation of the MOU. My reading of Suzanne's statement was suggesting that ICANN would knowingly make the choice of treating a "technical use" domain as a "normal" domain, which strikes me as crazy particularly given the efforts ICANN has been taking in relation to the transition. Alternatively, Suzanne might have been suggesting that the special use registry was unrelated to "technical uses" of domain names as defined in RFC 2860. If so, I'd be interested in understanding that viewpoint. Or I could simply be confused. Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
