Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 13 May 2015 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F8761A8AC4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 13:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.664
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24qx8kau_UZ6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 13:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83FB01A8ACE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2015 13:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 37395 invoked from network); 13 May 2015 20:52:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 13 May 2015 20:52:01 -0000
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 20:51:35 -0000
Message-ID: <20150513205135.14395.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <8EEA3B35-64CB-4960-A58A-7D6B62E11CCF@anvilwalrusden.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/hcbrVitlNXRUhfau85XT3wuALmA>
Cc: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 20:52:04 -0000

>The distinction I'm making suggests why corp and onion seem different.  They are, in this
>fundamental resolution nature.  

I was under the impression that part of the problem with .corp was
that there were a lot of SSL certificates floating around.  The
CAs are supposed to have stopped issuing them a while ago, but
who knows.

With regard to the theory that ICANN has said they won't delegate
.corp, .home, and .mail, they've only said they're "deferred" and I
just don't believe that ICANN has the institutional maturity to say no
permanently.  There are still 20 active applications for those three
names, which means that ICANN is sitting on $3.7 million in
application fees which they will presumably have to refund, as well as
five withdrawn applications from parties who got partial refunds and
would likely expect the rest of their money back, so we can round it
to $4 million riding on selling those domains.  Having been to various
name collision and "universal acceptance" events, I have seen way too
many people in and around ICANN eager to brush away technical issues
if they intefere in the least with making money.  You doubtless
recall Kurt Pritz saying with a straight face that all TLD name
acceptance problems could be cleared up in a couple of months.

So this isn't an ICANN issue, it's an IANA issue.  ICANN can't sell
.corp, .home, and .mail for the same reason they can't sell .arpa or
.invalid: they're already spoken for.

R's,
John