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

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

>Beyond that, does it end up being a cheap way to avoid the ICANN
process of creating a new gTLD. For example, I am not aware that
>anything prevents the ToR project from applying to ICANN for the
>.onion gTLD.

ICANN has a whole bunch of rules that mandate that once you've paid
the $185,000, you have to deploy a DNSSEC signed zone on multiple
servers, implement elaborate reservation and trademark claiming rules,
takedown processes, WHOIS servers, and so forth.  In the recent TLD
application round there was one applicant that only wanted to reserve
the domain (they were apparently concerned that someone else would
squat on .CONNECTORS) but they dropped out early so it's unclear what
would have happened if they tried to move ahead.  I was on one of the
technical evaluation panels and I believe we failed them due to their
lack of any plan to comply with the rules.

THe only special purpose TLD that resolves globally is .ARPA, and
everyone agrees what it does.  The rest of them by design don't
resolve globally.  Some resolve locally (.local), some not at all
(.test .example .invalid.)

In this case, .onion falls on the IETF side of the line since it's
definitely not supposed to resolve globally.

R's,
John