Hi DNSOP WG,
The liaison statement has been sent, and can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1821/ Regards, Rob From: DNSOP <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rob Wilton (rwilton) Sent: 08 March 2023 10:30 To: Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca>; d...@virtualized.org; George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> Cc: dnsop@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-...@ietf.org; dnsop-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld next steps Hi Joe, David, George, My impression, from discussions with folks who know a lot more about ICANN that I do, is that the relevant folks in ICANN are likely already aware of this proposal, and if they had concerns that these would already have been flagged either through a formal liaison to the IETF or via individual contributor feedback in DNSOP WG or the ADs. Hence the goal here is not to ask ICANN for any permission or consent to publish, since I think that doing so would be a mistake by potentially mudding the waters around Special Use Domain Names, and potentially creating a new ad-hoc process for approval between the IETF and ICANN. This is clearly outside my remit as the responsible AD for this document. I’m not an expert in this area, but there have been previous liaison statements to ICANN regarding the “Special-Use Domain Name” registry, and my interpretation of that previous exchange is that neither the IETF nor ICANN wants to formalize or create extra process around this, and that maintaining open communication between the two organizations should be sufficient to handle the infrequent cases where this comes up. There are also some who have argued that we don’t need to send a liaison to ICANN at all, which may be technically correct, but letting ICANN know what we are doing seems to be polite and should help maintain a good working relationship between the two organizations. Hence, the aim of the liaison is to politely inform the ICANN Board about what stage the document is at, and to point out the standard IETF procedures that any individuals may use to provide comments during the last-call process. I agree that 4 weeks would not be long enough for ICANN (board or community) to provide a formal response, but we are not asking for that anyway. I do think that 4 weeks would be long enough for the ICANN board to share the liaison with the ICANN community and that should be sufficient time for individual participants in ICANN to absorb the document and provide comments if they wish to do so. I also think that 4 weeks should be enough time for the ICANN board to say, “Woah! We (or the ICANN community) are really worried about this document, can we have more time to think about this please?”, and if that were to happen then of course their response would be considered carefully whilst we figure out the next steps. Given my first paragraph, I’m hopeful that such a communication will not be forthcoming. Finally, it is worth noting, and thanking, the DNSOP WG chairs, Harald, and several members of the IAB, who have helped craft the liaison statement and agree to the approach that is being taken here. Once sent, I will share a pointer to the liaison statement with the DNSOP WG. Hopefully this addresses your questions and concerns. Regards, Rob // Wearing a “Responsible AD for this document only” hat. From: Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca<mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca>> Sent: 07 March 2023 23:48 To: d...@virtualized.org<mailto:d...@virtualized.org>; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com<mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> Cc: dnsop@ietf.org<mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-...@ietf.org>; dnsop-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:dnsop-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld next steps On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 15:56, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org<mailto:d...@virtualized.org>> wrote: 4 weeks for ICANN (which? Organization, Board, Community, all 3?) to provide feedback? (That feels sort of like the ITU asking "the IETF" for feedback on an IP-related protocol document in 4 weeks.) Did the IETF (also which?) provide feedback on this similar request for feedback? https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-procedure-for-selecting-a-top-level-domain-string-for-private-use-13-01-2023 It seems like the answer is no. Perhaps it would be useful for someone to decide whether these ships are intentionally passing in the night or whether more attention to navigation is required. Joe
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
