Hi,
On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 09:47:08AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Also the ICANN's rule for signed TLD delegation for new gTLD is so
> that delegations from those zones can be signed.
I don't think that it is up to this WG or even the IETF to make any
determinations about why the names community decides the policies it
does for the root zone. But in any case, there are two relevant
policy issues here:
1. We are not the authority for delegations -- signed, unsigned,
emtpy or otherwise -- from the root zone, and if we are going to
seek any kind of entry in the actual DNS root zone then we are
talking about that in entirely the wrong forum. We maybe should
complete the alt draft saying what we want from it, and then
insert that into the correctly-shaped receptical at ICANN.
2. Unfortunately for us, right now, there _is_ no such receptical
at ICANN. For there does not appear to be an ICANN policy for
delegations from the root for special uses. There is a policy for
ccTLD additions, but we are not a country. There is no current
policy for new gTLDs -- the previous round closed, and there has
been no determination of whether a new round will happen nor what
that round might entail if it happens. If you want to shape those
rules, I believe there are some discussions going on within some
constituencies at ICANN.
> signed. There is no reason for ICANN to object other than religious
> arguments. Technically they don't have a leg to stand on.
I'm sorry, but it's not religious. Other communities have rules for
establishing their IANA functions. If we want them to respect our
rules for the IANA registries for which we set the policy, then we
need to respect theirs for the registries for which they set the
policy.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
