In a similar spirit to avoiding "be damned" in a doc, I think referring to choice 3 as "squatting" is probably both truthful/accurate, and regrettable. We probably shouldn't formally document (ab)use of a space this way without more considered language and text around what it implies.
I thought your notes were helpful, a good write up of the "pick the least worst" choices we've arrived at. I increasingly tend to think if somebody in a public interest space had the $ and invested the cost of delegating via ICANN process and handed it over for this purpose to a registry, it would avoid all the pain of trying to document a special-use: Simply get the delegation, burn the $200,000, meet the ongoing opex, and turn it into the space through external process compliance. Basically, the IETF has two problems: it's trying to invoke its rights to request a (non)delegation against its better wishes, and it can't entirely agree (achieve consensus?) inside itself on the wisdom of doing it. Getting it through an external application outside of IETF decision logic and then bringing it into the IETF might be easier, if not cheaper. -G _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
