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

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 4:27 PM joel jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 4/7/16 4:19 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Oddly enough I agree. to quote the liason statement:
>
> ...
> Discussion of these requests under the process established in RFC 6761
> has revealed difficulties in applying its guidelines in practice.
> Under its current charter, the DNSOP working group in the IETF is
> responsible to review and clarify the overlap between (among other
> things) the special names registry from RFC 6761 and the public DNS
> root. This could include consideration of the problem of existing name
> collisions, provision of additional guidelines, or further
> modification to the process in RFC 6761 to reduce the potential for
> collisions in the future. Any changes are to be kept within the
> constraints of RFC 2860 (or any future modification to RFC 2860).
>
> All such discussion and any modification will be open and transparent
> to participation by interested parties, in accordance with established
> IETF processes. We invite participation of interested parties,
> including members of the ICANN community, in this work.
>

Yup.
A number of IETF DNS WG participants *also* happen to participate in the
ICANN SSAC.

Some of use were concerned that the ICANN community might feel blindsided
or that there could be conflict ("What do you mean IETF makes reservations
that impact my ability to apply for a TLD?! Why didn't anyone tell me?!")

We published: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-078-en.pdf,
(and SSAC documents are widely read in the ICANN world.).

There was (largely) a collective shrug. I (personally) may have been more
concerned about the likelihood of conflict between ICANN and the IETF over
this.

W



> ...
>
> > 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> On 4/7/16 3:25 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> >>> Suzanne,
> >>>
> >>> On Apr 7, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 7, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>
> 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
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> DNSOP mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DNSOP mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>