Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

[Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 2:52 PM Doug Barton <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 11/28/19 2:20 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> > - does the growth in observed query traffic for names with non-existant
> > top-level labels really support the idea that squatting on arbitrary
> > undelegated TLDs is on the rise? Is it possible there are other effects?
> > Have we normalised the observed growth against other known causes of
> > growth? If this phenomenon is actually becoming less common, does it
> > need a solution beyond "wait"?
>
> In my experience the practice is so ubiquitous that while these
> questions are good in the abstract, spending time on them would be a
> waste of effort. That said, ICANN's name collision work is relevant
> here, and I encourage anyone with interest in the topic to review that
> at length. It was really well done, and well documented to boot.
>
>
As many of the participants in dnsop were actively involved in reviewing
that work, I disagree.
I think the consensus was, and still is, that the work (done by a third
party under contract) was not particularly well done.

My view of that work is that the parameters given to the third party were
myopic, and the methodology was flawed.
The focus was specifically only on a hard-coded list of prospective new
TLDs, and cannot be generalized.

The follow-up proposal for "tasting" new TLDs was equally flawed, and IMHO
did not adequately address a number of major concerns.

Also, as a general comment, I think you are using too many pronouns or
phrases that are ambiguous or not well defined, in this discussion.
E.g. elsewhere you reference market "demand", but not for a demand for
what. Similarly, "the practice" above isn't clear here.

I think one of the reasons Joe raises study, is that there has been no
analysis of data for top-level queries (possible TLDs),
other than those included in the aforementioned report. That would mean no
study has been done on e.g. ".internal" as a TLD string.
The more general question has to do, not with queries for the big three
non-delegated domains identified in the report,
but for other non-delegated top-level labels: are there distinguishable
sets of popular such labels; has the size of the set of
labels been changing, and is it increasing or decreasing; and what is the
trend and proportional volume on those labels.

This is the kind of information that, at a minimum, should be included in a
proposal for a new "private" non-delegated TLD-like label,
i.e. to justify the choice of label(s), and demonstrate non-collision risk
related to using said label(s).

This is the strength of Roy's proposal; there is solid documentation from
the ISO that says these are really private use things. They can be used
today, even if there is a very small chance that the ISO might change that
at some point.

My opinion on the private use TLDs issue is that it makes sense to move
forward in two directions simultaneously: Roy's proposal; and what you
appear to want (one or more private labels reserved by ICANN based on
coordination between the IETF and ICANN).

The market can choose, and you are free to advocate for your preferred
option, but I don't see any legitimate reason to oppose Roy's proposal if
you can get what you want via your proposal. Suggesting that only one
can/should be used is a straw man, and/or bikeshedding.

I know my intention is to use Roy's scheme, in future work within the IETF,
and that based on what Roy and Jaap have documented, I don't think there is
even a need to wait for publication of an RFC to be safe in using one or
more of these labels.

Those of us not interested in pursuing the ICANN direction can avoid any
delays. I fully encourage you to pursue your approach, but do want to
politely caution you to have reasonable expectations on the speed and
likelihood of success.

Brian