Hi,
On Aug 2, 2022, at 8:00 AM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>> I came to this group because of concerns that Warren raised, and because the
>> draft sits before me. I have reviewed what discussion I could find in the
>> logs relating to Warren's draft, which amounts to either (a) this is ICANN's
>> p
> On 2 Aug 2022, at 2:15 am, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
> wrote:
>
>
> On 02.08.22 10:35, Joe Abley wrote:
>>
>>> Had I wanted to do so, I would not have approached dnsop in the first place.
>> Had you wanted to which? I'm confused.
>
> I came to this group because of conc
On 02.08.22 10:35, Joe Abley wrote:
Had I wanted to do so, I would not have approached dnsop in the first place.
Had you wanted to which? I'm confused.
I came to this group because of concerns that Warren raised, and because
the draft sits before me. I have reviewed what discussion I coul
On Aug 2, 2022, at 10:26, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
wrote:
> On 02.08.22 09:56, Joe Abley wrote:
>>
>> If the position of the ISE is to ignore the prior discussion and publish one
>> set of opinions regardless then perhaps it would be more straightforward
>> just to say so.
Aaaagain
On 02.08.22 09:56, Joe Abley wrote:
If the position of the ISE is to ignore the prior discussion and publish one
set of opinions regardless then perhaps it would be more straightforward just
to say so.
Had I wanted to do so, I would not have approached dnsop in the first place.
Hi Eliot,
On Aug 2, 2022, at 07:59, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
wrote:
> But what is not reasonable to expect researchers to attempt to enter the
> ICANN arena in order to facilitate a the safe use of a new naming system that
> doesn't require use of the DNS.
This argument (a
Paul:
It is not the ISE that is ignoring RFC 6761, but this group. 6761
envisioned this precise case. For whatever reason, that document didn't
take the next step and actually reserve a TLD. Sometimes it is
reasonable to do things incrementally. But what is not reasonable to
expect research
