IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 17 May 2015 22:52 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 56C561A8776 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 May 2015 15:52:07 -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 ztLiGo3gCpnA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 May 2015 15:52:06 -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 33DCC1A876F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 May 2015 15:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 86540 invoked from network); 17 May 2015 22:52:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 17 May 2015 22:52:09 -0000
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 22:51:42 -0000
Message-ID: <20150517225142.52161.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20150517220811.GC8349@mx2.yitter.info>
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/otaEGomeGwpP285HG-jYn9A8uuc>
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: Sun, 17 May 2015 22:52:07 -0000

>need therefore not to delegate it."  But in the former case, one needs
>a pretty good argument why we need anything stronger than ICANN's
>policy statement that the names are blocked indefinitely -- certainly,
>one needs a better argument than "I don't trust ICANN," because it's
>already got the policy token.

I would be much happier with a statement that said "the names are
blocked indefinitely, and here's the plan for the $4 million in
application fees we accepted for those names."

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email