Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

I wouldn't normally invoke 'the nuclear option'  but the parallels
with good science/bad politics are stark here. Norbert Weiner left the
field and moved into biology and cybernetics because he realized his
personal ethics were totally adrift in the sea of consequence of work
on nuclear physics. I think Condon or somebody said after the trinity
test, he lived on sleeping pills forever. I don't want to be in that
space. (its in richard rhodes' book. i forget where)

Ignoring the social consequences of entirely logical technologically
driven decisions is not just silly, its actually dangerous. This is
what RFC6761 does. It ignores consequence in the world of names as
social constructs.

We're not the gods of the internet. The social consequences of build
outs has to be understood to exist. ICANN is the forum where social
constructs meet, and discuss names. technically motivated internet
names have a social context. It has to be discussed properly by the
people who understand it.

I know John Perry Barlow's statement of independence is very popular,
but I live in the real world. Aspirations are not concurrent with
reality, and I prefer desire and reality to align. I believe Barlow
has more recently said he understands aspiration to be different to
reality, so maybe we're all of one mind here.

The best possible alignment right now of desire and reality, is for
ICANN to be the forum which adjudicates what labels exist or are
special in the top levels of worldwide socially visible naming. The
IETF should be seen to ask them, based on sound technical reasons, to
consider names. Not telling, asking.

This is what I believe. This is what motivates me to discuss this
problem: Lets not pretend we can drive this on technology alone. We
can't.

-G

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 4:08 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/16 3:25 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> Suzanne,
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 7, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since we have this liaison, does anyone know if it was used to inform
>>>> ICANN of this discussion (it seems the right thing to do) and to ask
>>>> them if they wanted to comment?
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1351/
>>>
>>> (DNSOP co-chairs, AD, and IAB collaborated on this, as the IAB has oversight of liaisons for the IETF.)
>>
>> Out of curiosity, since that liaison statement was made about 18 months after RFC 6761 was published and about a 10 months after draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names was submitted, was there any previous liaison communication to ICANN prior to that statement related to RFC 6761?
>
> Afaik there's only one liason statement to icann since the inception of
> liason statement tracking; the basis of inter-organiation collaboration
> is imho largely the RFC series.
>
>> Thanks,
>> -drc
>> (speaking only for myself)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing lis
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>