Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

In message <20170204020711.GD67739@mx2.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 09:47:08AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > 
> > Also the ICANN's rule for signed TLD delegation for new gTLD is so
> > that delegations from those zones can be signed.
> 
> I don't think that it is up to this WG or even the IETF to make any
> determinations about why the names community decides the policies it
> does for the root zone.  But in any case, there are two relevant
> policy issues here:
> 
>     1.  We are not the authority for delegations -- signed, unsigned,
>     emtpy or otherwise -- from the root zone, and if we are going to
>     seek any kind of entry in the actual DNS root zone then we are
>     talking about that in entirely the wrong forum.  We maybe should
>     complete the alt draft saying what we want from it, and then
>     insert that into the correctly-shaped receptical at ICANN. 
> 
>     2.  Unfortunately for us, right now, there _is_ no such receptical
>     at ICANN.  For there does not appear to be an ICANN policy for
>     delegations from the root for special uses.  There is a policy for
>     ccTLD additions, but we are not a country.  There is no current
>     policy for new gTLDs -- the previous round closed, and there has
>     been no determination of whether a new round will happen nor what
>     that round might entail if it happens.  If you want to shape those
>     rules, I believe there are some discussions going on within some
>     constituencies at ICANN.
> 
> > signed.  There is no reason for ICANN to object other than religious
> > arguments.  Technically they don't have a leg to stand on.
>  
> I'm sorry, but it's not religious.  Other communities have rules for
> establishing their IANA functions.  If we want them to respect our
> rules for the IANA registries for which we set the policy, then we
> need to respect theirs for the registries for which they set the
> policy.

Given there are no rules for this type of namespace we need to
respect the reasons for the other rules which I did but you choose
to completely cut out of the reply.  This isn't a registry.  It's
a non-registry.  It is different.

Mark

> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org