On Jan 2, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Christian Grothoff <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. I'm interested to hear what others think. >> 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. I didn't say you were in a position to say that; I said that it sounded like you were saying you were. > 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. Quite true, but irrelevant to your request for the names. >> 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? No. > I > think you're are in total denial of facts that have been discussed in > this context on this very list already. Or, we simply disagree about what happened. > >> 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. And we disagree here as well, but at least it is now more clear what you are thinking in your application. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
