It’s unclear to me that DNSOP has a dog in this fight. These are pre-ICANN, legacy policy and engineering documents. DNSOP has a very limited remit with respect to any TLDs or for that matter the delegation policies with respect to TLDs. AIRC our remit/ownership is limited to a few protocol related domains.
I think it’s appropriate for any of the IAB, IESG or ISE to cleanup those legacy documents without any input from the DNSOP wg. DNSOP consensus is not required or even desired. Mike On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 19:39 Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 23, 2026, at 16:34, Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "John R Levine" <[email protected]> writes: > > > >>> ... and I'm explicitly not volunteering; this seems like a bad idea. > The > >>> current situation is not broken, and poking at it seems like bad mojo > to me. > >> > >> I have to agree with Warren. Considering all the things on DNSOP's > >> plate, this strikes me as an extremely poor use of our limited > >> capacity. > > > > Is this going to need consensus to move forward? > > Writing the draft is moving forward because our AD said it was. It's not > clear that the eventual consensus call for that draft will even come to > this WG. > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > 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]
