Re: [DNSOP] draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-04

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

There is no downside to being a Jeremiah, because being proved wrong makes
the world a better place than I fear.

If you can give some positive indications that a well formed IAB request
for delegation gets a smooth path, then I'm all in favour.

Equally, if that can be done, then .LOCAL can be done. And in principle
.ONION but I guess .ALT is about avoiding the land-grab of me-too. The
downside of ALT is that it won't fix the actual concrete problem of .local
or .onion because neither is going to change codebase. I fear. Equally,
welcome to be proved wrong in practice. Delighted even!

-G

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM, David Conrad <[e-mail]> wrote:

> George,
>
> > The politics response is really simple: "this idea is doomed." -I wish I
> felt otherwise, but I think given the context of the debate over ICANN, who
> 'owns' names, $180,000 application fees, IAB directions to IANA, NTIA role,
> this is mired.  I don't want to be a prophet of doom, but this is my honest
> perspecive.
>
> As with most "really simple" answers, the reality is a bit more
> complicated.  My impression of this draft is that it creates a space that
> would avoid some of the risks associated with RFC 6761. Politically, I
> suspect this is desirable, even to all the parties you mention. As for the
> fee, ICANN already defers to the IETF in protocol-related matters, so I
> don't see why a new gTLD fee would be applicable.  With my ICANN hat on,
> I'll look into this and report what I hear back.
>
> > Would it be DNSSEC signed with a well known key?
>
> Sure, why not?
>
> Regards,
> -drc
> (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself)
>
>
>