Re: [DNSOP] [[e-mail]: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]

[Christian Grothoff <[e-mail]>]

On 12/01/2013 06:53 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> Why was .gnu on that list? 
> 
> The GNUnet top-level was named .gads at a time. I do not know the
> reasons for the change.

The reason was that Jake strongly disliked ".gads" and suggested
".gnu" to Richard at IETF 87 and we all agreed that this would
make sense (shorter, easier to understand / remember, etc.).

>> people can plugin onion.alt, gnu.alt, etc, and are guaranteed that
>> the .alt domain will never actually be delegated by the root.
> 
> Avoiding a collision with an ICANN domain is not the only rationale
> for RFC 6761. The main idea is to have a registry of domains which
> require special handling by software (for instance, "do not use DNS,
> send to mDNS").

... and as I tried to point out, proposing ".alt" merely moves this
problem one level down.

>> But can an RFC even do anything here?  Whether you agree with ICANN
>> procedures for new gTLDs or not, if I write some software that
>> becomes popular using a .paul pseudo domain, when does it become
>> valid for me to request it under RFC 6761?
> 
> RFC 6761 does not say anything about that. Do note a TLD has already
> been registered under RFC 6761, .local. Some people may say that, when
> you are a big US company, just hijack the TLD, deploy the software,
> and the IETF will ruberstamp you. But if you are just ordinary people
> working to improve the Internet, you have no chance of even being
> seriously considered.
>
>> What precedent would tor/gnu/zkey/etc set?
>
> Precedent? And .local, what was it?

Unless of course our draft is excepted, which would show that IETF
is not entirely owned by companies and it willing to work with
free software developers, researchers and document issues for
normal users.  Call me an idealist, but that was my hope when
we wrote the draft.  Some at IETF have also asking the Tor
project to document it's protocols as RFCs, I guess trying to
demonstrate that IETF cares about security and privacy.

>> Does IETF even have any say in such matters? Isn't this up to IANA or
>> ICANN? What about trademarks? What about lawsuits by Gnu Inc or Onion
>> Corp who want their gTLD?
> 
> RFC 6761 "Hence, the act of defining such a special name creates a
> higher-level protocol rule, above ICANN's management of allocable
> names on the public Internet." So basically, RFC 6761 says that IETF
> has the right to create TLD at will. 

I'd say "IETF asserts the right", as I'm personally not sure which German
or EU law gives the IETF (or ICANN) any rights in this matter (and
no, not everybody lives in the US and is subject to US law), but I
do of course agree with the sentiment. Still, I see this primarily
as a technical issue (document! _informational_ RFC), and not a legal
one.


Happy hacking!

Christian