Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names

Paul Hoffman <> Thu, 02 January 2014 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC051AD75F for <>; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 15:02:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XbTOmGUJuX7W for <>; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 15:02:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72AD71AD73E for <>; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 15:02:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s02N1ui2015174 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:01:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 15:02:00 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Christian Grothoff <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: dnsop <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On squatting and draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 23:02:28 -0000

On Jan 2, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Christian Grothoff <> wrote:

> On 01/02/2014 09:00 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Christian Grothoff <> 
>> wrote:
>>> Well, my point is that if you expect everybody to first get an RFC
>>> through to document everything they are doing, expect squatting.
>> We do. And squatters should expect that the name that they are using
>> might eventually be legitimately assigned later, possibly to someone
>> whose intentions are quite different from the squatters. This is how
>> the IETF has worked for over 20 years. The purpose of RFC 6761 is
>> not to say "if you start squatting on a TLD, you will be able to
>> later get it reserved". It is to say "if there are legitimate errors
>> in TLD use, those can be dealt with".
> Well, let's just say my reading of the intent of RFC 6761 is different.

I'm interested to hear what others think.

>> It seems that one of the themes of your responses here is "the TLDs 
>> are now being used in software and we won't change that software 
>> ever".
> You need to learn about about free software here, as you're assuming
> that anyone really is in a position to say that.

I didn't say you were in a position to say that; I said that it sounded like you were saying you were.

> These are GPL projects,
> thus anyone can change that software in any way they feel like.  I'm
> merely suggesting that my personal opinion is that such a patch is
> unlikely to be widely adopted. You're welcome to prove me wrong, writing
> the patch should be hardly any work, after all.

Quite true, but irrelevant to your request for the names.

>> If that is a correct reading, then there really isn't any reason to 
>> move forwards on these requests. The folks using the names are 
>> squatting, and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome of 
>> the application, much less the outcome of ICANN later allocating 
>> those TLDs to someone else.
> Didn't Apple squat on ".local" and get it reserved using RFC 6761?


> I
> think you're are in total denial of facts that have been discussed in
> this context on this very list already.

Or, we simply disagree about what happened.

>> On the other hand, if the software using the currently-squatted TLDs
>> are willing to change the names, there is room for discussion. One 
>> possibility for RFC 6761 is that an application can specify a use for
>> a non-allocated TLD, and a random string (short, typeable, but 
>> unlikely to be wanted by anyone in the ICANN space) can be generated
>> for that. So, instead of ".bit" (which has high value), ".gp4x7" 
>> could be allocated. That gets the community what they want (a string
>> that ICANN is prevented from later allocating) and follows the
>> spirit of RFC 6761.
> Sorry, Hollywood-math about the 'value' of a name has also already been
> discussed.  However, I'm willing to agree that ".bit" has value to
> society --- because it is already used by Namecoin. A name that is not
> even used has no established value.

And we disagree here as well, but at least it is now more clear what you are thinking in your application.

--Paul Hoffman