Hi Ted, On 23 Aug 2019, at 18:05, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I haven’t read the latest version in a few weeks, and I must have missed the
> part about the “alt” TLD. (Actually, I just checked, and my memory was
> correct—it isn’t there.)
Warren is talking about a different document.
> My problem with the “alt” TLD as originally proposed was that there was no
> registry. I think this is nearly useless. It’s fine for experiments, but
> once the experiment is done, you need an allocation. And then you have a
> flag day, which sucks, so why not just have an allocation to begin with?
I don't mean to channel Warren (it's unnecessary because even when he's asleep
he's still reading mail) but I think the whole point of the ALT proposal is not
to have a registry. A registry attracts policy and dispute resolution; an
informal, decentralised understanding that anything goes, please play nicely
with each other is (it is proposed) less likely to lead to friction.
I find this aspect of the proposal quite appealing. I don't think the IETF
wants to have any part in decision-making around who gets to go in an ALT
registry, and I'm pretty sure ICANN already has their own scheme for this ("new
gTLD programme") that they'd rather not complicate with something violently
different. Solving the problem of who gets to make decisions with "nobody"
seems elegant.
As I mentioned, I still have significant doubts that anybody will use this
though.
Joe
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
