> On Dec 15, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > On Dec 15, 2016, at 3:40 PM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org > <mailto:ma...@isc.org>> wrote: >> The IETF and ICANN are going to need to address this issue. It >> does no one any good to leave it festering. > > Yup. I think that’s the bottom line.
ICYMI…. DNSOP has been considering exactly this set of issues for some time, and has adopted two relevant drafts: * Problem statement for special use domain names: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/> * Proposal for new top-level special use domain name as “TLD” for other special use domains: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/> Update to the roadmap from the chairs soon, but we’re looking towards consensus on the problem statement and proposals for updates/refinements to the registry policy set out in RFC 6761. Comments/reviews on these drafts to DNSOP are welcome. Suzanne (for the chairs)
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
