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

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

I think you're missing a distinction I was making, however, which is that we should not be poaching on turf already handed to someone else.  Managing top-level domains that are intended to be looked up in the DNS -- even if people expect them to be part of a "local root" or otherwise not actually part of the DNS -- is, I increasingly think, part of ICANN's remit.  Managing things that are domain names that are by definition _never_ to be looked up in the DNS is different, and we have a legitimate claim (I'm arguing.  I should note I'm not sure I completely buy the distinction I'm making, but I want to keep testing it).  

The distinction I'm making suggests why corp and onion seem different.  They are, in this fundamental resolution nature.  

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

> On May 12, 2015, at 19:16, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On May 12, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> This is a bizarre argument.  You don't get to kind-of delegate policy
>> authority this way.  Authority was delegated, and if we don't like the
>> outcome we can go pound sand.
> 
> I think the IETF can develop a position on whether we think what ICANN is doing with the authority we delegated to them makes sense. You are right that we may not be able to do anything about this position other than state it, but we could state it, if we chose. But that wasn't the argument I was making.
> 
> The argument I was making is that it's pretty clear that what ICANN has done is bad for the Internet, and that we should not decide whether or not to allocate special use names, or how many to allocate, based on an attitude of deferring to ICANN's greater wisdom on the topic.
> 
> If in fact we have any basis for claiming to be able to allocate special use names, then we should just do that, not without taking care to avoid creating unnecessary conflicts, but not with trepidation either.   If we don't, then we should figure that out, and figure out what to do about it, because this whole conversation appears to be based on the premise that we can in fact allocate special use names.