To be clear, while the IESG may have said something about their willingness to entertain further uses of the 6761 process, the 6761 process represents current IETF consensus. If we don't update it, it stands. The IESG does not have the authority to overrule IETF consensus. There's some sense that 6761 is inadequate, and that perhaps were the IETF to be asked for a consensus now, 6761 would not be what that consensus would be. That's why we decided to write a problem statement: to try to figure out if indeed there is a consensus can be reached, and if so, what it is.
(Bear in mind that consensus does not mean "everyone agrees.") On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > > >> On Sep 28, 2016, at 17:24, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:35:00PM -0400, >> Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote >> a message of 16 lines which said: >> >>>> it works (two TLD were registered through it). >>> >>> Are you referring to the two registrations as successes or failures, >> >> In the absence of criteria for defining success or failure of a >> special-use TLD, it will be hard to tell. But the _process_ was a >> success: applications were written, examined, and the registry was >> updated. > > If the process was a success, we would have had the other candidates go > through as well. The process was a failure because it has been rather > arbitrary - which is why it needed to close down as it did. > _______________________________________________ > 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
