On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Alain Durand <alain.dur...@icann.org> wrote: > Reading section 4.2 and 4.3 of draft-tldr-sutld-ps-00, it would appear you > are in the camp that does believe those “special names” are immune those > socio-economic pressures and/or the IETF can deal with this. Do I get this > right?
I too believe this is implicit in what ted wrote. > If that is the case, then, it is not that one document is better than the > other, there is a fundamental difference between the perspectives of the > authors. this too I agree with. It seems to me that there is a substantive issue which has to be documented as "problem" Is the IETF actually the right SDO to define a label which has to be added to a zone which the IETF gave substantive control over, to another (non-SDO) body? I think that the socio-legal issues which vest inside ICANN cannot be ignored simply because of a technical need/merit argument. Especially when the technology claims a specific label, not just the concept of a reservation for an otherwise unstated label. > > It should follow that this is a non technical issue that is much larger than > DNSop wg. As such, the DNSop wg might want to refrain from adopting one or > the other document until the IETF, as a community, under the leadership of > the IAB, comes to an agreement on that fundamental question. After all, the > interpretation of RFC2860 (ICANN/IETF MoU) is the prerogative of the IAB. And it would come as little surprise that this too, I concur with. I like Ted's document. I liked it a lot. But without recognition of this question of "who decides" I think as a document specifying the problem statement, its incomplete. For me, it is simply not a "given" that the IETF is the right place to determine labels in the top zone. cheers -George _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
