Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Lawrence,

If the IETF designates .example or .local as reserved for technical
reasons under the clause of the IETF/ICANN MoU that I cited, the
game is over. That's why we included that clause in the first place.

    Brian

On 2008-06-28 12:27, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
> Hi Brian, folks,
>  Having just recovered from the heat in Paris...
> IIUC, Microsoft would be free to put in an application for .local if it
> is so all-fired important to them.
> Also, if I've decoded the slightly delphic comments correctly, the
> bidding war with Apple might be fun.
> Finally, the lawyers of Thomson Local Directories in the UK might be
> interested and raise an objection.
> 
> I'll believe it has become a problem when the RFP, evaluation and
> objection process have been ->finalised<-, the evaluations have been
> done, and any agreement has been signed. It could take some time...)
> 
> all the best,
>   Lawrence
> (speaking personally)
> 
> On 27 Jun 2008, at 22:39, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I think all the external evidence is that ICANN is deeply reluctant to
>> set up mechanisms that require the application of common sense (a.k.a.
>> judgment) as to whether or not a particular domain name may be
>> registered.
>> I see no reason to expect this to be different now they have opened
>> the floodgates to greed at the TLD level too. So I think that any such
>> technical review process is doomed. The best we can do is proceed
>> under the second paragraph of section 4.3 of RFC 2850, i.e. designate
>> specific TLDs as reserved for technical reasons, and so instruct IANA.
>> Furthermore, I believe this is not only the *best* we can; it's
>> essential that we do so, although translating 'example' into every
>> script and language may be going a bit too far. So I believe that
>> 2606bis is very necessary.
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf