[DNSOP] Re: Call for Adoption: draft-davies-internal-tld

[Petr Špaček <[e-mail]>]

On 4/23/25 11:25, Andrew McConachie wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2025, at 15:48, Petr Špaček wrote:
>> On 4/22/25 13:26, Andrew McConachie wrote:
>>> This is an overly creative interpretation of the Board’s resolution. 
>>> It implicitly adds a modifier preceding “delegation” where none 
>>> exists. The Board did not resolve to “reserve[s] .INTERNAL from 
>>> [normal|secure] delegation”. They resolved to “reserve .INTERNAL from 
>>> delegation”. The resolution could not be more clear.
>>>
>>> The fact of the matter is that some people want “no delegation” and 
>>> some people want “insecure delegation”. That ship has sailed, and we 
>>> ended up with “no delegation”. DNSOP can’t change that.
>>>
>>> My suggestion for the people in the “insecure delegation” camp is to 
>>> petition the SSAC to write a document asking for a different name to 
>>> be insecurely delegated. I see the benefits of both camps, so I’m not 
>>> advocating for one or the other. But for .internal this really can’t 
>>> be changed at this point.
>>
>> Just to clarify: Are you suggesting ICANN board cannot ever issue 
>> another resolution on this matter?
>>
> I can’t speak for the Board, I can only read what they publish and 
> interpret it.
> 
>  From the Board paper on the subject:
> “The BTC [Board Technical Comittee] recommends that the Board reserve 
> the string .INTERNAL permanently from
> delegation in the DNS root zone.”[1]
> 
> Or the supporting text in the resolution:
> “
> What is the proposal being considered?
> 
> The Board is considering whether to reserve .INTERNAL from insertion in 
> the DNS root zone permanently. Applicants of the next and subsequent 
> gTLD application rounds will not be able to apply for the .INTERNAL top- 
> level domain.
> “[2]
> 
> There is also the Board’s interpretation of what SAC113 recommended:
> “Along with recommending that the Board identify and reserve in 
> perpetuity a single string at the
> top-level of the DNS, SAC113 Section 4.1 ..“[1]
> 
> So we have at least 2 ‘permanently’s and 1 ‘in perpetuity’. To know 
> definitively whether those words can constrain future Board resolutions 
> would require a time machine, which we don’t have. So the best I can do 
> is point at those words.
> 
> --Andrew
> 
> [1] https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/board-meetings/briefing- 
> materials/briefing-materials-1-29-07-2024-en.pdf
> [2] https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/ 
> approved-resolutions-special-meeting-of-the-icann-board-29-07-2024-en

:shrug: My interpretation of [2] is that term 'delegation' in this opera 
is firmly bound to 'application' process. From that I conjecture SUDN is 
not in scope. But IANAL :-)

-- 
Petr Špaček