Hi, I’d like it very much if we could park “some people feel institutional arrangements may be ill-suited or ambiguous” as “stipulated as an area to consider in evaluating possible solutions."
I have pushed so hard for so long to have a problem statement, even though that’s not always either necessary or sufficient for progress, because it’s so easy for a discussion of this issue to conflate institutional and other “layer 9” issues with the kinds of architectural and operational questions it seems to me that we should be focused on. Suzanne > On Apr 7, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote: > > On 7 Apr 2016, at 12:17, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >> draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem is full of FUD about how >> ICANN could be pissed off by a decision of the IETF to add .something >> to the Special-Use registry, but did we actually *asked* ICANN about >> it? > > This statement seems like FUD to me. Can you point to which paragraphs in the > document that gives you that feeling? I ask this because, as much as I > dislike some of the words and organization of the draft, I cannot map what > you say to anything in the draft (so that I could suggest an edit). > > --Paul Hoffman > > _______________________________________________ > 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
