Re: [DNSOP] In a vacuum, nobody can hear you scream, was On the call for adoption on Special Use Names

hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org> Thu, 06 October 2016 09:52 UTC

Return-Path: <hellekin@gnu.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74AE0129582 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 02:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gCPK9WzHb-ib for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 02:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:4830:134:3::10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0087129581 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 02:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <hellekin@gnu.org>) id 1bs5Lt-0007aQ-9O for dnsop@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 05:52:36 -0400
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:52114) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <hellekin@gnu.org>) id 1bs5Lt-0007Zy-67 for dnsop@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 05:52:33 -0400
Received: from [216.230.148.77] (port=46171 helo=[0.0.0.0]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <hellekin@gnu.org>) id 1bs5Lr-0006cp-Au for dnsop@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 05:52:31 -0400
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20161004031354.11827.qmail@ary.lan> <etPan.57f357f3.551beac5.8936@virtualized.org> <c290f7db-e6e2-3745-1adb-e6f122bd4f40@acm.org>
From: hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Organization: https://gnu.org/consensus
Message-ID: <f497f17f-1317-d19a-402e-d1766e127108@gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:48:35 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c290f7db-e6e2-3745-1adb-e6f122bd4f40@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Hn7MZJBM5Ar1HoH9wTT3k23fVUs>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] In a vacuum, nobody can hear you scream, was On the call for adoption on Special Use Names
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 09:52:40 -0000

On 10/06/2016 09:22 AM, avri doria wrote:
> 
> As for the so-called toxic waste names (i really find that terminology
> problematic)
>

I agree it's a problem to use that kind of vocabulary to convey a
technical context.

> the so called waste pile of usurped names
>

Therefore this is also a problem to call names-used-in-the-wild
"usurped" or "squatted", because it says that there's a central body
that assigns names, and it defines who can use them, with the
exclusivity of any other approach.  I know this idea may sound funny to
a lot of people given the missions of IANA and ICANN, and the existence
of trademarks and so-called 'intellectual property', but to me, having
an authority over who can use what names *in general*--as opposed to
particular, specific cases (e.g., trademarks)--is akin to the Novlang
Committee.

Names in the DNS are sanctioned by IANA/ICANN, and those names are
'legitimate' in the context of Internet names.  That doesn't mean at all
that names not sanctioned by ICANN are illegitimate, or that names
covered by trademarks are more 'legitimate' than 'unprotected' names.
This is all a matter of transactions and legal-firepower.  But from
there to legitimate this transactional-belligerent perspective over any
other (historical, cultural, incidental, ontogenetic, etc.) seems to me
problematic and abusive.

==
hk