On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 12:11 PM, Kim Davies <kim.dav...@iana.org> wrote:
> Hi Petr, > > Quoting Petr Spacek on Tuesday April 22, 2025: > > The fact of the matter is that some people want "no delegation" and some > people want "insecure delegation". That ship has sailed, and we ended up > with "no delegation". DNSOP can´t change that. > > Just to clarify: Are you suggesting ICANN board cannot ever issue another > resolution on this matter? > > I don't think that's true. We have a situation where SSAC specifically > stated the domain should not be delegated in the root zone, it is a > constraint that the ICANN Board codified in accepting SSAC's advice, and > thus that is the constraint we have today. > Yes, that's the situation at the moment... I have no insight into SSAC's deliberations but I think a reasonable take > is that the prohibition was intended purely to provide assurance that name > collisions would be avoided between private-use and labels that may be > created inside an actual delegation from the root. A specialized delegation > purely for a technical enablement reason (e.g. breaking the chain of trust) > that is consistent with the intent may still be deemed consistent with the > goal of SSAC's restriction. If that is the case I think superseding advice > could be provided to clarify that aspect and adopted if there was a > consensus that this made sense. > As the person who proposed this initially within SSAC, I believe that this is correct. I think that is entirely reasonable for the SSAC to provide a clarification, and I can ask for time on the SSAC agenda to discuss this. If the board (perhaps prompted by Tale's discussion) were to ask the SSAC, that would likely result in a faster answer… W > kim > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
