Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

Paul Hoffman <> Tue, 28 January 2014 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722131A026E for <>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:05:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.647
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HKbBafBUwzfW for <>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (Hoffman.Proper.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012451A0269 for <>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:05:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s0SFhggu002377 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:43:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:03:54 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: " WG" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:05:16 -0000

On Jan 27, 2014, at 9:15 PM, George Michaelson <> wrote:

> I like the aspect that this draft has drawn on observations of what leaks into the global space, to suggest what might be wise to withhold. thats at least testable, repeatable.
> As to the decisive qualities? I think the IETF could step over a line very quickly into a place it really doesn't want to be. Inform ICANN? sure. but decide to formally try and exclude a namespace on technical grounds? Thats big. That has implications. You'd want to be on remarkably solid ground.

Yes, and this list seems like the most solid ground possible for either the IETF or ICANN.

> And then theres the future. These are anglo-centric measurements from the current state. At some future point, one can imagine a language group embeds a token in name-lookup logic in some domain of activity, and it winds up hitting the DNS and they come asking for a holdback.

There is a huge, easily-identifiable difference between adding a token *before* the application process that started in 2012 and then later asking for a hold-back, and adding it *after*.

> The jurisdictional qualities around what should or shouldnt be in the DNS just makes me quake in my boots.

Sure. But re-read section 3 of this draft. This is not "Lyman's and Mark's list", it is a list generated by an ICANN standing committee, then validated by empirical evidence.

> BTW, India, Pakistan, South Africa, the Carribean, New Zealand, Australia, Sri Lanka all understand the word "test" to have a meaning in sports, which has very high financial value. The assumption the label .TEST has no financial value in rugby or cricket, when worldwide TV rights negotiate for billions of dollars seems to me to be .. well.. fraught.

The document did not make that assumption. It doesn't talk about finance anywhere. For example, there is even financial advantage to owning almost any common label and seeing what is returned, even if you cannot control what is returned.

--Paul Hoffman