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

[Jothan Frakes <[e-mail]>]

>
>
> 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.

-Jothan