On 23.10.22 10:50, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Eliot, > > On Oct 23, 2022, at 2:15 AM, Eliot Lear <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > On 23.10.22 05:40, John Levine wrote: > It appears that Eliot Lear <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> said: > As a matter of practicality, a registry surely will be form. It is > simply a matter of whether the IANA will host it. If the IANA does not > host it, then by shifting it elsewhere this group is actually weakening > the IANA function, and that would be sad. > But trying to turn IANA and .alt into a junior version of ICANN would > be much worse than sad. > > Nobody is trying to do that. > > > I believe the point is that it would happen if the IETF ran such a registry, > regardless of intent: if the IETF is deciding who gets to use names that look > like domain names, it's at high risk of walking directly into the conditions > that led to the creation of ICANN in the first place. The exception is names > under .arpa, which is explicitly under the administration of the IETF. > Personally, I agree with the comment that several people have now made, that > such an attempt is likely to be fraught with legal and reputation risk. But > for the WG's purposes those comments are somewhat speculative. > We've been told repeatedly that no one wants to engage legal analysis or > liaison communications on a document that doesn't have WG consensus. Any > member of the IAB might be able to correct or add to this assessment, but > it's currently the chairs' understanding that we or the responsible AD should > request any liaison communications and presumably legal review after the WG > process concludes. (I understand frustration with this, but I also understand > the reasoning: if a draft doesn't have at least WG consensus, that > administrative machinery is not necessary.) > > The chairs would like to hear it if anyone has anything new to say about such > a registry on its technical merits, including specific registry policy and > operational challenges with administering it if the non-technical risks could > be managed. >
In my opinion lots of technical justifications were given in the various threads and those were not really addressed or refuted in any way but the mentioned "non-technical risks" and "out of scope for dnsop" highlighted. At the same time it appears to me that those risks do not (?) seem to manifest themselves for .arpa. Is there an explanation or an indication why this would be the case for .alt? BR Martin > > Thanks, > Suzanne > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
