Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

[David Conrad <[e-mail]>]

John,

> On May 13, 2015, at 1:51 PM, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> The distinction I'm making suggests why corp and onion seem different.  They are, in this
>> fundamental resolution nature.
> 
> I was under the impression that part of the problem with .corp was
> that there were a lot of SSL certificates floating around.

The SSL cert aspect of CORP usage was a component of the concern, but not the sole problem.

> With regard to the theory that ICANN has said they won't delegate
> .corp, .home, and .mail, they've only said they're "deferred"

I believe this is true.

> So this isn't an ICANN issue, it's an IANA issue.

It is neither: it is a DNS operational issue. A "large" number of people are apparently squatting on CORP/HOME/MAIL. Delegation of those TLDs would thus impact that "large" number of people.

> ICANN can't sell
> .corp, .home, and .mail for the same reason they can't sell .arpa or
> .invalid: they're already spoken for.

This is not true.

ARPA is defined in RFC 3172 and the IAB "in cooperation with ICANN" are responsible for it.
INVALID is defined in RFC 2606 which reserves its use.

CORP/HOME/MAIL are not defined anywhere (other than drafts).

But I suspect you know this, so I'm unclear why you claim "they're already spoken for."

ICANN can't "sell" CORP/HOME/MAIL because there are concerns related to security/stability with those TLDs that are, as yet, unresolved.

But I suspect you know that too.

Regards,
-drc