On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 08:51:35PM -, John Levine wrote:
> .corp, .home, and .mail, they've only said they're "deferred" and I
> just don't believe that ICANN has the institutional maturity to say no
> permanently.
The point that I keep trying to make is that, if that's what we think,
we shou
>need therefore not to delegate it." But in the former case, one needs
>a pretty good argument why we need anything stronger than ICANN's
>policy statement that the names are blocked indefinitely -- certainly,
>one needs a better argument than "I don't trust ICANN," because it's
>already got the p
John Levine wrote:
>> ...
>
> I would be much happier with a statement that said "the names are
> blocked indefinitely, and here's the plan for the $4 million in
> application fees we accepted for those names."
+1.
--
Paul Vixie
___
DNSOP mailing li
On May 15, 2015, at 1:40 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Another item for section 7:
>
> DNS operator -- an entity responsible for running DNS servers. For a zone's
> authoritative servers, the registrant may act as their own DNS operator, or
> their registrar may do it on their behalf, or they may use
These comments might be more usefully said in the relevant ICANN forums.
Steve
On May 17, 2015, at 7:07 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
> John Levine wrote:
>>> ...
>>
>> I would be much happier with a statement that said "the names are
>> blocked indefinitely, and here's the plan for the $4 milli
