Hello everybody,
-----Original Message----- From: DNSOP [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Suzanne Woolf Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 2:00 AM To: DNSOP WG Cc: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft new charter Paul (and Andrew), On Apr 3, 2014, at 6:42 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 3, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Given that "liaison" is a term of art around the IETF, perhaps the >> latter sentence needs to be phrased another way? I'm not sure >> exactly what you have in mind, or I'd suggest something. > > Let me be more blunt than Andrew: an IETF WG cannot work as a "liaison" to > anyone. The IETF has liaisons to ICANN (and bless them for doing that > somewhat thankless task!). ICANN should not expect that any WG would be a > direct point of contact for ICANN work at all. Understood that wordsmithing is needed, and getting the wording right is an important detail, but I think we're even more interested in whether the item should be there at all: should DNSOP, in appropriate collaboration with all relevant parties by whatever mechanism applies, be taking on special names/RFC 6761 issues? JSo: yes, I think DNSOP should. I think this is one of the major short/medium term issues the IETF should address and I believe DNSOP has the expertise to do it. I also do find the word "liaison" a bit difficult here. I think we should describe what we get done (I think there was another thread on this) rather than the activity. So, my proposal is (maybe somebody can translate this to English, though): "6. Update or replace RFC6761 to specify the usage of the 'special names' registry in a way fitting today's requirements. Gather adequate input from the ICANN community to ensure compatibility with ICANN policies. Specify a solution or solutions to address overlapping name spaces between the public DNS root and the DNS-like names used in the Internet." My feeble attempt is to focus more on the outcome than on the "liaising". I personally believe that we get the right outcome of key people from the ICANN community come to the DNSOP to work on this rather than the WG tries to pull the information from ICANN. This is my experience with working together with different organizations and the IETF - for instance, in the case of 3GPP and IETF in the good old days... (No, they weren't actually that good). Cheers, Jonne. thanks, Suzanne _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
