On 01/02/2014 09:00 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jan 1, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Christian Grothoff <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Well, my point is that if you expect everybody to first get an RFC >> through to document everything they are doing, expect squatting. > > We do. And squatters should expect that the name that they are using > might eventually be legitimately assigned later, possibly to someone > whose intentions are quite different from the squatters. This is how > the IETF has worked for over 20 years. The purpose of RFC 6761 is > not to say "if you start squatting on a TLD, you will be able to > later get it reserved". It is to say "if there are legitimate errors > in TLD use, those can be dealt with".
Well, let's just say my reading of the intent of RFC 6761 is different. > It seems that one of the themes of your responses here is "the TLDs > are now being used in software and we won't change that software > ever". You need to learn about about free software here, as you're assuming that anyone really is in a position to say that. These are GPL projects, thus anyone can change that software in any way they feel like. I'm merely suggesting that my personal opinion is that such a patch is unlikely to be widely adopted. You're welcome to prove me wrong, writing the patch should be hardly any work, after all. > If that is a correct reading, then there really isn't any reason to > move forwards on these requests. The folks using the names are > squatting, and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome of > the application, much less the outcome of ICANN later allocating > those TLDs to someone else. Didn't Apple squat on ".local" and get it reserved using RFC 6761? I think you're are in total denial of facts that have been discussed in this context on this very list already. > On the other hand, if the software using the currently-squatted TLDs > are willing to change the names, there is room for discussion. One > possibility for RFC 6761 is that an application can specify a use for > a non-allocated TLD, and a random string (short, typeable, but > unlikely to be wanted by anyone in the ICANN space) can be generated > for that. So, instead of ".bit" (which has high value), ".gp4x7" > could be allocated. That gets the community what they want (a string > that ICANN is prevented from later allocating) and follows the > spirit of RFC 6761. Sorry, Hollywood-math about the 'value' of a name has also already been discussed. However, I'm willing to agree that ".bit" has value to society --- because it is already used by Namecoin. A name that is not even used has no established value. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
