On Mar 26, 2017, at 10:47 PM, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> wrote: > If there is a technical requirement for a label, it has to be > very very strong to require a new reference in the "." anchored > namespace.
But the reason you feel this way is that such allocations would preclude gTLD allocations. gTLD was not anticipated when the MoU was written. The decision by ICANN to go down that route should not suddenly make it a million times more fraught for the IETF to exercise its use of that part of the MoU. I assume that ICANN understood the MoU when they went down the gTLD path, so asking the IETF to now self-censor because of this change of circumstance seems unreasonable. IoW, I do not believe that this is a reasonable test. The test is not that there be a "strong technical requirement" but that there be a technical use. Obviously this doesn't give the IETF the right to demand a name that someone else has already laid claim to. This is why we selected '.homenet.' AFAIK nobody else wants this name. The accusation of squatting is silly. We are going through the correct process. No squatting is occurring. '.home' has been used informally by entities other than the participants in the homenet working group, so you can't even accuse us of squatting on that; rather, it was the intention of the proponents of that name to simply make better use of it than the squatters were, in a way that wouldn't impinge on them.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
