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

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 28 June 2008 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 997803A67E4; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC6263A67E4 for <>; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nu7EcIm6VlOY for <>; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0537D3A67B3 for <>; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 27so1028656wfd.31 for <>; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=S9hUlbDQvyu8oVLF+iruGvqwHZ/4+161KyjTFo643K0=; b=RVchHqQIfRxMmrbSVqUlpb4hq8OsCkY8nwWkY4h3TV5BFBPt5geIoknJoASpOaYNK0 9EPpgzqcKE99bDNZuPU8RaepkT1dgiiiLBY6CUsKESZpHXpmV0QztqEiuaiqTFIqsPEh d2vl29PVkrf6Ys2qwCGREnC3juqOINo4LzCic=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=h860WyhCADg0KLEi8XBzWv/ISUvUuTohx6H41vF34zvxmYQMQCgHbS7IzsFxbp7YZg MhyEVcLiurvORPAjeKAtXitIkGc57pw33uoslSMmKpJN1IfbxxAa8066rPx5joGMWaWT uMFSbTHCT+DFvbN0OJaDuyPYTaHA4wumMw4nE=
Received: by with SMTP id n13mr1158762wfb.75.1214691701898; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ? ( []) by with ESMTPS id 30sm6406780wfg.9.2008. (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:21:35 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lawrence Conroy <>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: SM <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


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.


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