On Jan 6, 2014, at 12:46 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 12:00:14PM -0800, > Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote > a message of 16 lines which said: > >> 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. > > Come on, that's completely unrealistic. Can you imagine ICANN > delegating .local to any one, after it has been used massively by > Apple Bonjour, even before RFC 6761 sanctioned it? No, because of the significant technical discussion of .local that happened in the IETF for many years before the new gTLD round. However... > Can you imagine > ICANN delegating .onion to someone, giving the number of collisions it > would generate? Yes, definitely. ICANN acknowledges that many of the new TLDs that are being added right now have collisions. > ICANN did many stupid things but this one seems very > unlikely. We disagree (about the latter part). >> 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". > > But it is exactly what happened with the first actual use of RFC 6761, > .local. If you think that a name that was squatted, extremely widely deployed, and heavily discussed in the IETF is equivalent to a name that was squatted, barely deployed, and not even specified in an RFC, that's fine. Others might disagree for somewhat obvious reasons. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
