> On Mar 29, 2016, at 3:50 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote: > >> On 29 Mar 2016, at 8:25, Philip Homburg wrote: >> >> One option would be to have a process that essentially says: >> - The IETF decides whether the proposal is technically sound or not >> - There is a .alt domain with a registry. Protocols can go there first come, >> first served, as long as there is consensus that the proposal is technically >> sound. >> - Any another name, requires approval from ICANN, however the IETF will >> inform >> ICANN about consensus on the technical quality of the proposal. >> >> This way ICANN can create policy on the name part of special names and the >> IETF can focus on the technical part of those proposals. > > This process would possibly work for the IETF, but how would it work for the > developer of the technical protocol? They would not know what name to use in > practice until after the IETF consensus call was finished. However, it is > clear that many people in the community consider part of the technical review > process the question of are there any/many users for the name. In order to > get some, they need to start using a TLD (not .alt) name knowing that, if > they get rejected, they have to change the name in all deployed instances. > Technically, that's feasible; operationally, it is not.
This should be the opposite: start with a name with little perceived value, under .ALT or anything already existing, and then if you are successful apply for something of higher perceived value and change name in deployed code. Seems like regular business model to me. Alain _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
