On Aug 15, 2022, at 1:22 PM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > I guess we could prevent draft--alt-name-cocacola if we consult the Trademark > Clearing House,
https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:y9m1tz.2.21 <https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:y9m1tz.2.21> :) > but maybe this is a clear signal that we > are turning the IETF into ICANN and it is time to take a step^Wleap > back. My impression is that some folks here believe that the demand for non-DNS namespace partitioning won’t be that great, thus a lightweight IETF-managed mechanism will be sufficient. Perhaps I’ve been in the ICANN world too long, seen far too much gaming, and far, far too many lawsuits resulting in me having a different view: I’m not so confident that a lightweight mechanism will survive, particularly given stuff like https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/27/web3-digital-identity-startup-unstoppable-domains-raises-funds-at-1-billion-valuation/ <https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/27/web3-digital-identity-startup-unstoppable-domains-raises-funds-at-1-billion-valuation/>. ICANN was specifically intended to be a venue in which naming policy was to be made and was explicitly required to include non-technical constituencies because the myriad non-technical implications of that policy. The fact that the ICANN process did not take this particular use case into account suggests to me that that process needs to be fixed, not that the IETF should put itself into the same swamp by providing a way by which that process can be short-circuited. But I’m repeating myself, so I’ll shut up now. Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
