Re: [dnsext] BOF on variants for ICANN San Francisco

Doug Barton <> Sat, 12 March 2011 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1213A6A62 for <>; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:10:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.58
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fe9oCEDrz-5e for <>; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:10:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6A93A6A5B for <>; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:10:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 1649 invoked by uid 399); 12 Mar 2011 23:11:50 -0000
Received: from (HELO ( by with ESMTPAM; 12 Mar 2011 23:11:50 -0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:11:49 -0800
From: Doug Barton <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110304 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Levine <>
References: <20110309221355.45036.qmail@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20110309221355.45036.qmail@joyce.lan>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dnsext] BOF on variants for ICANN San Francisco
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 23:10:34 -0000

On 03/09/2011 14:13, John Levine wrote:
>>> I suspect I disagree with the above claim.  Specifically, I think I
>>> disagree with "well understood".
> I think we understand our technical options pretty well, but not what
> problem we're expected to solve.
> At ICANN you're likely to run into policy types who say (no doubt in
> more words) "spare me the mumbo-jumbo, we just want {set of names}
> to work the same."
> Once you're done gritting your teeth, this is an educational
> opportunity to help people understand the large number of moving parts
> that have to be synchonized to get the consistent user experience that
> is probably the intutive idea of sameness

... or, it's an opportunity to ask the question, "What do you mean by 
'work the same?'"  :)  My experience with the "policy types" at ICANN is 
that generally they are very smart people who are open to discussion 
about where the technical boundaries are. You just have to be ready for 
them to push back on why, and where those boundaries can be moved.



	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)