Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 01 November 2014 03:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D2A1A87BD for <>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MevhCA-vgz0o for <>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9B891A87BB for <>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r10so8340327pdi.17 for <>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yVMcLYISIRaTgFu47sCWufD5YkKwX9fG6hyOEVsu8D0=; b=S0VXKyRWOLAZp+2+MoEd2vjWwTw4/9z90Vinf8nTYZuxuzbmVf574JvaW7yskBpbya T5ImZAeTkF4mJH66flGpoc54S2yWKVGvMBfUAlpvCToLdhZYcI9HqCOV93gR66A8jp2b 2yT0qyzIhNn8WIoRVcLoxR7+KOZ4cI8DIM1LmTtCld5vWXRYcmzfojYyCW1NRrWHcOLK lPYg/NonUjM18JL/kRHjICE3hc1AWQLk9XmfI+gI9hGAN9VQJkrEdxgbaGjV6sCTZxPv PGKOgYCBV26BIGa8aFWo1DmibXuYJO8ZrZxYLG/byR9PsSntz/0nrSk2Pni5CPWosLye 94EA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id uh6mr54859pab.141.1414812111441; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id ir7sm11158919pbc.15.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:21:59 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Conrad <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 03:21:55 -0000

On 01/11/2014 15:15, David Conrad wrote:
> Brian,
> 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.

I agree there is scope for interpretation; mine is that it is
intended for technical uses (where things like "local" and "home"
are technical).

>>> 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].

I am quite unaware of the discussions that led to 6761, but for
technical parameters of IETF protocols, the IETF gets to decide.
If 6761 is (mis)used for non-technical TLD definitions, then yes,
there's an issue.

> 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?).

Right. Personally the TLA business was a learning experience for me.
I hope that RFC 6761 doesn't turn into another one.


> Regards,
> -drc
> (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.)
> [1]