Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

Francisco Obispo wrote:
>
>> On May 26, 2015, at 2:53 PM, John R Levine <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Interisle's report. There's a link to it about three messages back.
>
> Which is my point.
>
> We are making tons of assertions from 1 DITL window, making
> assumptions about how the Internet works with just a slice of the puzzle.
>
> We now know that the major “risks” identified did not occur in
> practice (at least for other TLDs), if something stops working, most
> likely someone (tech) will realize they made a mistake, fix it and
> move on.

francisco, i object, and i also disagree.

i object, because as a tld registry, you are making a self-interested
argument here. i'd prefer you to find someone who makes no money when a
new TLD is allocated and get them to carry this torch. as a senior
member of the uniregistry technical staff, you have a conflict of
interest. as my friend, you have extremely high standards of personal
behaviour.

i also disagree. people don't know when something stops working, it just
makes their experience worse and they don't know why. the most likely
outcome is they'll just live in digital squalor.
DITL happens to be representative. (you've operated f-root; you know
what the root servers see.) my take on the data is, .HOME, .CORP, and
.LOCAL are poisoned for all time, no further discussion needed.

to the extent that the new gTLD programme has any public benefit
purpose, that purpose must be balanced with digital public safety. if
there's a risk, then the risk is too high, because if there's a benefit,
the benefit is too low.

-- 
Paul Vixie