On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 04:12:42PM -0700, David Conrad wrote: > 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.
Aha. We're tripping over the term "policy". I should have used something else. My point is that ICANN's responsibility extends to those things that are implicated in root zone policy. I think that the implication obviously includes everyhing actually in the root zone, anything ICANN has in fact developed specific policy about (such as, say, everything in https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/ReservedNames.xml, which ain't hardly a short list), and so on. > 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. I agree. I have previously argued that the GNS case is less plausible because it creates a parallel resolution context with no practical difference except that it cuts the IANA-root tree out of the game. In other words, it is a technical solution only to a politico-economic problem, without any additional technical consequences. For that reason, IMO, the registration would be an attempt to abuse the technical functions registry for what are in fact political ends. Were I to be convinced that the GNS use had even a single technical advantage to recommend it over the DNS, I would be pushing hard for the additional registration in the special user registry. Having read the documents, I haven't seen that yet. ate. > 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. I guess my point was merely that your examples seemed only to be arguing from this or that trade or service mark to some conclusion that the IETF had an obvious problem to contemplate. But the registrations in 6761 are, not going to be part of such disputes; or, if they are, it is a problem the IETF will have confronted in its evaluation. Waving around possible trademark cases as things one ought to worry about seems to me not to help the discussion. > 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? I continue to believe that each application should be considered on its merits. As nearly as I can tell, the IESG (disclosure: I am an _ex officio_ member with no decision-making power) previously said it was uncomfortable with the situation and therefore wanted the WG to do something about it. I don't think the result was a foregone conclusion. I believe that some of the proposals I've seen ought indeed to be added to the special names registry. I think some of the others shouldn't. I hope that clarifies your understanding of what I've said. A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
