Stephane, On Apr 23, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote: > Interesting RFC, which introduces officially the TLD .home, without > using the RFC 6761 framework. So, apparently, you can reserve TLDs > without going through the Special-Use Domain registry.
I would agree that it is interesting. Unsurprisingly, it is not in http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml. My gut feeling is that this is a process failure, but will admit that the whole question is quite unclear given the continuing uncertainty about the process described in 6761. > I also note that some people complained that registering .onion was > squatting on ICANN's property. If anyone did complain that .ONION was "squatting on ICANN's property", I think they were being silly. FWIW, I do not believe unallocated names are anyone's "property". There is a process that was developed in an open and transparent manner over a decade in which people can apply for parts of the DNS namespace, and that process went to great pains to try to walk a twisty maze of policy, legal, and economic interests. There is also a process developed within the IETF in which people can ask the IESG for parts of the domain [sic] namespace. Given 7788, it would appear there is Yet Another process within the IETF by which parts of the domain [sic] namespace can be obtained, the rules of which are unclear (that is, it looks like "let's just pick a name"). > But .home was accepted while, unlike > .onion, there are actually people who are candidates to manage it. Why does the fact that there are actual people to manage something matter? Who manages 10.in-addr.arpa? Regards, -drc (speaking only for myself)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
