Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

On 29 Mar 2016, at 18:57, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> To that claim I
> respond that we'd need evidence that we have such a problem.

draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names claimed BIT and ZKEY, both of 
which are trademarked. The fact that we pretty much told developers to 
not bother us with name applications while with consider 6761bis should 
not be used as a tool to suggest non-existence of problems.

But I also fundamentally disagree that "trademarks" are the only naming 
problem we have. Even untrademarked names can have control issues. 
During the run-up to the current work, this WG heard claims that there 
were different digital cash systems that would want names. Does the 
first of them to get an RFC get "CASH"? During the technical 
considerations for that first application, if a second system also uses 
"CASH" as a switch and rapidly becomes bigger than the first, does the 
IETF consensus process need to take that into account? It is implausible 
that a IETF consensus review of a name application could *not* consider 
topics such as term squatting.

Maybe 6761bis will have prohibitions on any consideration of term 
squatting and trademarks during the technical review, but we have not 
seen any evidence of such wording.

--Paul Hoffman