+lots. The reason that I initially asked if this would be co-ordinated with Registry Services is that the "usTLD Delegated Manager Agreement" explicitly calls out compliance with RFC 1480: "5. COMPLIANCE WITH RFC 1480, AND ANY SUCCESSOR. As a Delegated Manager, you hereby agree to provide Delegated Manager services consistent with the requirements set forth in this Agreement. In addition, you are responsible for knowing and agree to abide by the requirements for naming structure, registration, and database information specified in the third party document known as RFC 1480 (currently located athttp:// www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1480.txt?number=1480), as supplemented by the rules and procedures on the official .us web site at http://about.us , which may be amended from time to time. In addition, a Delegated Manager that intends to re-delegate a locality name must adhere to the rules located at https://www.about.us/cdn/creative_services/resources/domain-names/us-locality-compliance-report.pdf as may be amended from time to time. In the event that any provision in this Agreement conflicts with any of those contained within RFC 1480, the provisions of this Agreement shall control."
I really don't understand what problem we are trying to solve, nor why we think that fiddling with this, way after Organization" <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2691/>, RFC2860 - "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2860/> is a good idea. Making RFC 1480 historic has policy and contract implications for Registry Services, and ICANN,.... In addition, RS mentions RFC 1480 in multiple places, eg: "Moratorium on New Delegations Registry Services continues to operate the locatlity namespace under RFC 1480 guidelines. In accordance with its current Statement of Work and contract, Registry Services will not authorize any new Delegated Managers in the usTLD locality-based space. While the existing Delegated Managers perform a valuable function that has historical significance, there is little benefit to be gained by adding new Delegated Managers. Registry Services has extensive experience as the default Delegated Manager for several thousand delegations and continues to fulfill that role." usTLD Locality Domain - Name Registration Terms & Conditions "Those policies in RFC 1480 applicable to .us domain name registrants, currently located at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1480 as supplemented by the rules and procedures on the official .US web site at http://www.about.us, which may be amended from time to time; and [...]" W On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 6:17 PM, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Dec 2025, StJohns, Michael wrote: > > To respond directly to John - what would cause confusion is if someone > thought 1480 was live and, where 1480 differed from current policy, tried > to argue for the old interpretation. Let’s not. > > We've had 25 years and I am not aware of that happening ever. > > But in this very discussion, we've seen people who imagine that locality > domains are or perhaps should go away, something that reclassifying 1480 > would only encourage. > > Is it really that hard to do nothing? Surely we have better things to do. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
