On Jun 19, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > ICANN could also have an impact on this by having applicants sign something
Well, yes, ICANN could have contracted parties (e.g., the new gTLDs) do this. A bit late to get it into the Applicant's Guidebook, but maybe something could be slipped in after the fact. Who is going to lead the contingent from NANOG to raise this in the GNSO? Of course, changing existing contracts tends to be challenging since the contracted parties have to agree to the changes and I wouldn't be surprised if they demanded ICANN give something up in exchange for agreeing to this new restriction. It'll probably take a while. ICANN can respectfully request ccTLD folks do the same, but whether or not the ccTLDs listen is a separate matter. If the ccTLD folks feel they gain benefit from having naked TLDs, they'll tell ICANN to take a hike. Not sure what will happen with the IDN ccTLDs since they appear to be sort of a combination of ccTLDs and contracted parties. You probably know all this, but things in the ICANN world probably don't work the way most folks think. Regards, -drc
