IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Thu, 30 October 2014 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <avri@acm.org>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417FE1A0022 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.665
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 IqI2Th5Trn2k for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3B11AD0A2 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.205]) by atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9UCPfod028511 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:25:41 -0400
Received: (qmail 21344 invoked by uid 0); 30 Oct 2014 12:25:41 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 1.252.136.14
X-Authenticated-UID: avri@ella.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (avri@ella.com@1.252.136.14) by 0 with ESMTPA; 30 Oct 2014 12:25:41 -0000
Message-ID: <54522E43.5020709@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:25:39 +0900
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <54017E09.8060504@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140830052032.0c96c880@resistor.net> <54047E4A.30503@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140901094544.0b305698@resistor.net> <54059587.8070608@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20141024004255.0b5ef5d8@resistor.net> <4C1255B9-68C3-45D5-A618-2C7553386DF4@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C1255B9-68C3-45D5-A618-2C7553386DF4@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010206070303020202000601"
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 141029-2, 10/30/2014), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/hgjiwXW77WPnlIjYU85iqAvUU00
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:25:44 -0000

On 24-Oct-14 21:50, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> (For example, we'd want input from people intimately familiar with matters ICANN in any process to revisit RFC 6761, whether they were ICANN staff or not.)

I must admit this is one I have been worrying about as a person who
inhabits both spaces.  For me it is the one of stress tests the plans
need to measure against.  Does ICANN, the names operational community,
have anything to say about 6761 TLDs?

>From one perspective, why would they?

>From another, why wouldn't they?

and how does a possibly fragmented IANA(s) deal with the issue?

avri

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email