On May 13, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: > > I think you're missing a distinction I was making, however, which is that we > should not be poaching on turf already handed to someone else. Managing > top-level domains that are intended to be looked up in the DNS -- even if > people expect them to be part of a "local root" or otherwise not actually > part of the DNS -- is, I increasingly think, part of ICANN's remit. Managing > things that are domain names that are by definition _never_ to be looked up > in the DNS is different, and we have a legitimate claim (I'm arguing. I > should note I'm not sure I completely buy the distinction I'm making, but I > want to keep testing it). > > The distinction I'm making suggests why corp and onion seem different. They > are, in this fundamental resolution nature.
Right. I agree that it's ICANN's decision whether to do what we say when we make suggestions about how to handle special top-level zones that should be delegated or repudiated. I agreed with you on this earlier, so I saw what you said two messages ago as making a different point. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
