> On Oct 2, 2016, at 05:37, hellekin <helle...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> On 10/01/2016 07:12 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: >> >> the IETF doesn't have the money for lawyers in that arena. >> >> [snip] >> >> I do not think the IETF should create "Special Names" that conflict >> with the naming process which has been delegated to ICANN. >> >> [snip] >> >> The IETF giving them .onion in itself has been a very risky decision. It >> was based on no Big Corporation having an interest in the string. With >> .gnu people did not feel as sure about that. I think that's part of the >> reason .gnu was not also going to make it like .onion. These decisions >> are quicksand. > > Thank you for verbalizing that. Had it been done earlier, I'd have > joined a commercial letter of interest of the GNU corporation who sells > snowboards to the RFC as an appendix,
I don't think hat would have made people less nervous about it. > in order to make a precedent that > a technical document can be vested or vetoed by private interests based > on legal risk and self-censorship. That hardly matters when serious money gets involved. > > Given the recurrence on this list of the term "squatting" to refer to > real use of a non-ICANN-sanctioned TLDs, TLD's are in DNS name space, so squatting is a perfectly fine term. The term "non-ICANN-sanctioned TLDs" is clearly misleading. > I wonder what kind of court would accept a post-delegation lawsuit > in these conditions. The process of having a lawsuit be thrown out itself can be very prohibitively expensive. > > If this > legal risk argument is the main show-stopper, I suggest it's vaporscare > and *not technical* I disagree it is a vaporscare. Having been involved in a name dispute where I had pgp signed proof and still did not end up with the name, I can tell you it is all about the money you can spend on lawyers. I do agree it is not technical. In fact, that's large been my point all along. The only technical part of this whole discussion are names that would pose a risk to the stability and security of the DNS. And I think those all have been dealt with already (and new ones are self-inflicted foot bullets we don't need to prevent) Paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
