Re: [dns-dir] Draft requesting reservation of special-use domain names

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Just to level set...

On 12/2/13 2:46 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> 
> On Nov 28, 2013, at 5:45 AM 11/28/13, Patrik Fältström
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 28 nov 2013, at 10:46, Olaf Kolkman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 28 nov. 2013, at 01:57, Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Is there some reason to think those names might be delegated
>>>> from the root?  My understanding is that the review process for
>>>> name delegation would identify such names as "not to be
>>>> delegated" if there is significant use now, otherwise, they are
>>>> safe to delegate.
>>> 
>>> At this moment .corp and .home are ‘on-hold’ (indefinitely?).
>>> 
>>> There is also an SSAC recommendation to have some of these
>>> strings permanently reserved, and SSAC is looking towards the
>>> IETF (correct Patrik?)
>> 
>> A few details here:
>> 
>> 1. SSAC do not say exactly what strings are "high risk". .HOME and
>> .CORP can be viewed as "easy", but what about ".MAIL" etc?
> 
> OK.  Presumably SSAC has data on which it has based its
> classification of the various strings?
> 
>> 
>> 2. SSAC do say that "not delegate" is not enough, we do believe
>> some strings should explicitly be for "private use". Which matches
>> quite well what 6762 says.
> 
> OK.
>> 
>> 3. SSAC could have directly pointed at the Appendix G, if it was
>> clear that that was normative, and so could ICANN. But what I heard
>> from at least one person cc:ed is that that is _not_ normative.
>> 
>> Question: Can IESG/IAB make a decision on the appendix "due to
>> widespread use, misunderstanding and unclear situations etc etc we
>> do believe those strings should not be allocated as TLDs"?

Normally, an appendix is not normative unless it explicitly states that
it is so or contains a critical component of the RFC.  I think the use
of an appendix in this case is confusing and unwarranted.

The INT ADs can take an action item to address this issue as a part of
the special-use domain name question.

> 
> I think it would be better to generate a list based on the data from
> SSAC.  The list in Appendix G could be used, but I don't know if the
> evidence supporting the strings on that list is sufficient to mark
> them as "special use".
> 

I would be very interested in seeing a list from SSAC.

>> 
>> Can IESG/IAB even say yes/no to such a question without an appeal?
> 
> I don't think an appeal would be needed.
>> 
>> Is an I-D and RFC needed that clarifies status of Appendix G?
> 
> An RFC is probably the right vehicle to make the designation.  That
> RFC doesn't need to be restricted to just the list in Appendix G.
> 

Correct, but that RFC may want to be tied to 6762 in some way (e.g.,
Updates).

>> 
>> I.e. I think some IETF action is needed. Having ICANN do "too much"
>> instead of referring to IETF -- specifically if we go down the path
>> of "defining some strings to be TLDs for private use" -- would be
>> dangerous.
>> 
>> I think personally IETF is the body that should say not only what
>> subset of IP address space RIRs can allocate things out of but also
>> what subset of the available bitstring space ICANN can use. Which
>> IETF has done with "hostname" definition (cough, cough,...) and
>> IDN2008.
>> 
>> So, $10.000 question: What is the path forward for "allocation of
>> some strings for private use"?
>> 
>> Do IETF need a formal question from ICANN? Would that really help?
> 
> Would it be useful to have a teleconf with the appropriate people
> from ICANN towork through the details?  I don't fully understand what
> ICANN is trying to achieve.

Ted is in the process of discussing with the IAB how to liaise with
ICANN on this issue.

Regards,
Brian