Andrew, On Mar 26, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 08:29:24PM -0700, David Conrad wrote: >> >> Sorry, how is it "plain"? > > If a name is already somehow implicated in those policies, I should > hope everyone agrees that the IETF and IESG are sane enough not to try > to reserve something in competition with it. If we don't agree about > that, then I think we have big troubles in general.
Sorry, I'm confused. What policies are you talking about? AFAIK, the strings "GNU", "ZKEY", "BIT", etc., all fall within the ICANN policies defined within the current AGB and thus would have been allocatable should anyone have bothered. Similarly, ONION fell within those same policies. >> Is it plain that (say) GNU is/is not a candidate for 6761? > As far as I know, right now ICANN's policies have nothing to say about > the string "gnu" in the top level. AFAIK, ICANN's policies say it is allocatable in the next round if someone (one/all of the number of folks with the GNU trademark in particular) wants to apply for it. > So for that reason, if it were > necessary for some other technical reason it doesn't seem it would be > a problem under 6761. I may be wrong, but I believe the folks behind GNS would argue that pretty much the same reason ONION was put into the Special Use registry would be the reason it should be put into the Special Use registry. >> Given https://gnunet.org/gns and the purported interest of folks involved in >> that project to use 6761, what is supposed to happen if the folks at >> http://www.gnu.com decided to pursue a brand TLD in the next round? If the >> folks at https://onion.coop or http://www.theonion.com had applied for a >> brand TLD in the last round, what would the TOR folks have done? > > It sure sounds to me like the long-ago accession to trademark > interests in the DNS is coming back to bite us, dunnit? I recall back in the IAHC days circa 1996 or so David Mayer stating that "that ship had sailed" when a number of people argued that trademarks shouldn't be mixed with domain names. I don't believe that particular ship has unsailed in the 20 years since then. That spilt milk has long since spoiled, evaporated, and the milk solids have turned to dust and blown away so crying over it isn't going to help. >> At the highest level, perhaps what we're talking about is what characterizes >> "technical use" sufficient to justify application of 2860 4.3(a). > > Yes, I think that's right. It seems obvious to me that both local and > onoin met that test, because they both have a function of triggering > software to do something. If that's your criteria, then how do any of the others that were proposed earlier not fit? Or are you saying they do fit and should be put into the Special Use registry before the next round? Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
