Re: [apps-discuss] CONTEXTJ in TLD DNS-Labels (draft-liman-tld-names-05)

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 20 July 2011 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA6EB21F8AFA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1EKs0b6daoUf for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE80021F8AF5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1QjZMS-00066G-3z; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:11:00 -0400
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:10:59 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Message-ID: <EC97FCD11C2B0499D9086505@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <F99C9BAB-8E7A-44EE-A7F1-E30788A6D2E4@vpnc.org>
References: <B464B2C6607E04FD0572AA74@192.168.1.128> <CANp6Ttw4MaAJy2VRvZ8929oBju9jL3b69PkSyFLi-SC4YaNTnw@mail.gmail.com> <5AC1318B-A219-4056-BD14-C90BEE85669E@frobbit.se> <8159C20D-BF2B-42CB-9529-C870A2AD1572@vpnc.org> <E7E5E31E-89E7-46AF-9FA8-6CFD8F661376@frobbit.se> <C6CF1575-D301-4802-B877-8130781B268B@vpnc.org> <EEB2DD109F02A2A5543D8AA0@PST.JCK.COM> <F99C9BAB-8E7A-44EE-A7F1-E30788A6D2E4@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: apps-discuss Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] CONTEXTJ in TLD DNS-Labels (draft-liman-tld-names-05)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:11:06 -0000

--On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 07:16 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

>> ICANN has agreed to change the process for getting new names
>> put in the root zone.  The new (and approved) model for
>> obtaining a TLD as of next year is essentially "pay your
>> application fee and, unless a very narrow range of objections
>> occurs, you get the name".  All, or substantially all, of the
>> requirements for staff or third-party review that carried, in
>> your words, "horrendous weight", have been eliminated.  The
>> proposed application fee (USD 180000) is high enough to
>> discourage some types of applicants, but that does not make
>> the process "horrendous" -- one can either decide the TLD is
>> important enough pay it or not.

> How does buying a domain name for a large amount of money,
> using a stable corporate address, and doing the hosting using
> well-known servers constitute phishing? The argument you give
> here suggests that draft-liman-tld-names should add a new
> prohibition on TLDs that could be considered confusing; I hope
> you don't mean that.

Paul, all I said, and all I meant, is that one cannot assume
that the process of obtaining a TLD involves the complex review
for appropriateness (of the name, the operator, or the planned
use) that was ICANN's norm in the first or second rounds of TLD
applications.  That is simply no longer the case: to a very
large extent, the new model is "pay your money, get your name,
do what you like with it".  My note deliberately did not comment
on whether I thought that was good or bad, much less about
whether it "consistute phishing" or anything else.

   john