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

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Joe Abley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On 3 Mar 2014, at 14:19, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>   3.  The root zone nameservers should either return NXDOMAIN
>>       responses, or the ALT TLD should be delegated to "new style"
>>       AS112 nameservers.  (TODO(WK): WK, JA, BD to revive AS112 /
>>       AS112-bis).
>
> New-style AS112 proposes redirection to an empty zone rather than delegation.
>
> There's no machinery currently available to deploy a DNAME in the root zone, as far as I know. Since the IANA uses EPP to submit change requests to Verisign for implementation, and since the implementation ("RZM") has not suffered from rapid development in the past, I suspect (pragmatically speaking) this is a non-starter.
>
> Delegation of ALT from the root zone seems likely to be interpreted as a provocative end-run around the new gTLD process and seems likely to raise eyebrows, if not hairs on the backs of necks.

Yes. Which is why I think that some of this involves us[0] talking to
ICANN and explaining the reason / purpose for ALT, and playing nice.
Explaining that this is not usable as a further delegation (you cannot
register a usable *DNS* name under this), and it should (hopefully)
stop people "squatting" on labels that might otherwise be available as
future TLDs should help ease over some of the uneasiness.  Basically
saying "There's an upcoming problem over here. Here's a mitigation
option, we'd like to do $foo." and not "Mine! Mine! We can do $foo and
you can't stop us, mwahaahha".


W
[0]: Read: The IETF ICANN Liaison / someone involved in both communities.

>
> I don't see an obvious path forward here. We are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike.
>
>
> Joe