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

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

At 9:30 AM -0700 7/2/08, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>But it is still the case that an application for say .local would need
>to go through some review process (regardless of price) which would
>include input from the IETF ICANN rep. I see little reason why or how
>a TLD that would be damaging, confusing, or otherwise "bad" for the
>IETF would/could just "slip through" this process.

Fully agree.

>What am I missing here?

That there could/would be others arguing that the IETF is 
over-stating the damage from a particular proposal. Anyone who is 
willing to pay the exorbitant^W application fee obviously is willing 
to defend their choice of name. On something like .local (and, I 
predict, ".1"), the counter-argument to anything the IETF says is 
"that's possibly true, but not likely". We can't prove future harm, 
and they can belittle us for being "too cautious". They have money 
behind them, and we have our reputation. ICANN gets to weigh those 
two against each other. This is somewhat parallel to the political 
process in most capitalist democracies.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf