Re: [dbound] Requirements for administrative boundary data sources?

[Jeffrey Walton <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Jothan Frakes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> As Martin points out, the most logical way for the owner of zone to say
>> the zone's policy is in that zone or a child of the zone. To me, that's the
>> most important part of the DBOUND work.
>>
> +1 also
>
> As one of the contributing volunteers on PSL I can say this is important to
> us as well - that these policies be defined by the registry for 'top down'
> TLDs that come from IANA delegation (we follow ICP-3 - one authoritative
> root).  Some of the biggest challenges that the volunteers have are A]
> multiple, conflicting requests from the same registry, B] ensuring requests
> are from the authorized source, and C] if a request comes from a third party
> - validating the request with the authorized source.  Having this done in
> the DNS zone would eliminate all three issues for us within the IANA chain.
>
> That said, we also recommend any solution be designed to not discriminate,
> nor have any opinion on innovation below that, such as done by Amazon,
> Microsoft, Google, Github, Centralnic, Dyn or the many others who subdomain
> or what they do - and encourage that if there is a top-down solution that it
> not introduce burdens, walls. fees or gates where such innovation might
> require blessing of the parent in some form.
>
> We record changes the balance between these by maintaining two sections
> within PSL, "Public" and "Private", respectively, as described above.

Thanks.

Forgive my ignorance, but has a centralized vs decentralized model
been decided upon?

Jeff