Wes, Mumble. I said I wasn’t going to argue the politics further, but…
On Oct 24, 2022, at 10:49 AM, Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> wrote: > David Conrad <[email protected]> writes: >> whether the IETF “reserving” a TLD is intruding on ICANN’s territory. > So, the > decision made at the time was: once the WG has concluded that something > is a good idea (a draft passes WG last call), *then* it seems like the > right time to send a message to ICANN about our plans. There are really 2 questions here, the second dependent on the first: 1) whether the IETF “reserving” a TLD is intruding on ICANN’s territory; and (if not) 2) whether .alt is a good label to reserve. It makes perfect sense to me to ask the second question after WG LC. Not getting resolution on the first question means the risk of wasting everybody’s time if the answer to that question turns out to be “yes.” Another formulation for the first question could be “How or by what process can the IETF and ICANN work together to further partition the domain name namespace to meet bona fide technical use cases that weren’t envisioned under the ICANN generic TLD model?” The IETF/IAB “sending a message” stating “we’re going to do this, do you have any comment” never stuck me as a particularly healthy way to interact. Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
