On 29 Mar 2016, at 18:57, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
To that claim I respond that we'd need evidence that we have such a problem.
draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names claimed BIT and ZKEY, both of which are trademarked. The fact that we pretty much told developers to not bother us with name applications while with consider 6761bis should not be used as a tool to suggest non-existence of problems.
But I also fundamentally disagree that "trademarks" are the only naming problem we have. Even untrademarked names can have control issues. During the run-up to the current work, this WG heard claims that there were different digital cash systems that would want names. Does the first of them to get an RFC get "CASH"? During the technical considerations for that first application, if a second system also uses "CASH" as a switch and rapidly becomes bigger than the first, does the IETF consensus process need to take that into account? It is implausible that a IETF consensus review of a name application could *not* consider topics such as term squatting.
Maybe 6761bis will have prohibitions on any consideration of term squatting and trademarks during the technical review, but we have not seen any evidence of such wording.
--Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
