Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

On Saturday, 13 June 2020 21:39:05 UTC Geoff Huston wrote:
> ...
> 
> I believe that the IETF passed responsibility for the determination of
> policy regarding the DNS namespace to what we now call ICANN some decades
> ago, and in line with that transfer of role and responsibility such
> discussions should take place within the open policy forums hosted by ICANN
> (however torturous and dysfunctional that may be), and accepting this
> document within the remit of the IETF DNSOP working group is contrary to
> this earlier IETF action. ...

i understand, but do not share, this point of view. ietf is where protocols 
come from, and dns is a protocol. early on, the decision of what top-level 
domains to create was made outside the ietf, but recorded by iana. later on, 
the iana became a functions contract, currently operated by what we now call 
icann, who then uses a global policy process to get the global economy's input 
on what top level domains to create.

it is for ietf to decide what to reserve directly with the iana, for the needs 
of protocol development. that sets the starting conditions for what icann can 
work with (everything not reserved by the ietf).

we might imagine a new protocol, sdns, which had an extended presentation form 
compared to classic dns, and in which the old namespace was encapsulated under 
some new top level identifier (like .ietf or .iana), and which had a search 
list capability allowing names not found in the sdns namespace to be findable 
in the old namespace. none of this would depend on cooperation from iana, or 
from what we now call icann as the iana functions contractor.

protocol development creates identifier spaces, which have reserved 
identifiers. to me it makes perfect sense that ietf would develop new top 
level identifiers for dns, and instruct iana to reserve them. icann's role in 
that transaction would be as iana functions operator, and their policy 
development process for other parts of the icann corporate mission would not 
be invoked.

i support adoption, and will review.

-- 
Paul