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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 20 July 2011 12:19 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 EB73121F876A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.474
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 PEjmwj5r6McU for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E91A421F875C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1QjVju-00034f-NQ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:18:58 -0400
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:18:57 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?= <patrik@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <EEB2DD109F02A2A5543D8AA0@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <C6CF1575-D301-4802-B877-8130781B268B@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>
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 <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 12:19:08 -0000

Paul,

I think we are going to need to agree to disagree about several
aspects of this, including especially your apparent impression
of my attitude toward ICANN and the degree to which you
apparently believe that is driving my conclusions.  While I find
many aspects of how ICANN does business extremely frustrating, I
simply do not believe your characterization of my attitude is
correct.

However, one of your comments may deserve some calibration...


--On Tuesday, July 19, 2011 12:49 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

>...
> "Phishing" in the root
> zone, given the horrendous weight of the process for getting
> new names put in the root zone, is not a threat. Which others
> do you believe that need to be weighed against the value of
> the characters?

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.

    john