Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

David Conrad <> Sat, 01 November 2014 02:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15651A878B for <>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cGzd-HPcMnOG for <>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AD6B1A878A for <>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id fp1so8195158pdb.23 for <>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=LAmihzm0yOkKrhJF5ZFaQZNcohpTU/IolyTURJBxqKg=; b=AGVhHJ0s2BHvrkv4sEdniiOXZLvUwCzcKu+n7jMY/l4uZeYi2vbcp+yLOYbj+Bv6Sf MiCdKY1syqXgtb416gP2c1Ie8pMBN3BL3zQXP+HJyRA+vLyHyCfaOmEkUazu8gp1xxp6 wfBb7NLS5kzN0cJYFrxsBPsdRvIx19EyUqxSGJcIEFcdkgeGRw5aGjJncw+H0J0UKP4H CXweTrXYX6rPXyj/vmoAe/sux91VOnWiOyooi8LEpH7bmyPAvSngUdk9tdrp/vWUicc1 PWIqFWbQyGrdj5IPm64+z2GdV3IfTZ7MW2tcWPOjCUgTu3+woD/Dv9ExowwpEq00/VCK C5Ug==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkJphKlntK8tTAW8N348XPw/LBaaAG2dig9CN8PHJEqze1jwopwKn0BkE94rOqwQ8ZJ1B9+
X-Received: by with SMTP id xz5mr47064pbc.131.1414808117915; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id cc2sm11039776pbd.62.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_90D88B71-4B3D-4180-975C-F0CB563BB8E6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: David Conrad <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:15:14 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 02:15:25 -0000


On Oct 31, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
>> Does ICANN, the names operational community,
>> have anything to say about 6761 TLDs?
> I'm sure they have something to say and that it should be listened to.
> But under the IETF-ICANN MoU the power of decision is with the IETF,
> subject to IETF process.

I suspect this might be too simplistic of a view.

My reading of RFC 2860 section 4.3 suggests that the responsibility for the administration of the domain names is explicitly "outside of the scope of this MOU" unless the assignments are for "technical uses" (the definition of which are undefined, with only inverse DNS lookups being provided as an example).

RFC 6761 allows for the preemption of _any_ top-level domain name. This would appear to go beyond "technical uses" and get into policy issues regardless of how "technical uses" might be reasonably defined or who does the defining.

>> and how does a possibly fragmented IANA(s) deal with the issue?
> By each fragment joining in the IETF process.

This would seem to suggest the IETF process supersedes all other processes and implies that the ICANN naming community should have participated in the discussion related to RFC 6761. This gets into "Beware the Leopard" territory[1].

In another area, I know in the past folks in select portions of the operational and RIR community simply rejected this approach when it came to address policy (I'll also note that historically, the IETF has in fact refused to accept input from the operational and RIR communities related to address policy: TLAs anyone?).

(ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.)