On 12-Sep-16 16:19, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> It seems unlikely that they can be combined, so we simply have to ask
> the WG to choose.
I do not understand this point. Having now read both IDs, I see
relevant points for the ongoing discussion in both of them. I see them
as complementary where bo
On 04-Oct-16 09:19, David Conrad wrote:
> As far as I know, neither ICANN (the organization) nor anyone within
> ICANN (the organization) is asking whether they should delegate such
> names. Forward motion of those names is currently "indefinitely
> deferred" pending _somebody_ (not ICANN staff)
Hi,
Finally had a chance to read all of it. While I understand that it can
be used to create enclaves, I think it can also be used in useful ways
to increase the flexibility of the DNS system, e.g. for example possibly
to avoid some of the problems we see from occasional name collision.
I would
Hi,
Just rereading before the meeting.
Re:
> If there is an IETF process through which a name can be assigned at
> zero cost other than time, this process will be used as an alternative
> to purchasing the name through ICANN.
perhaps just a small thing but it is not really a purchase but more
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
>> If this is acceptable to the WG, we’ll keep the new draft with these
>> changes as a WG draft.
It is fine with me.
avri
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
__
