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

Paul Hoffman <> Wed, 02 July 2008 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E27C3A6CAF; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF233A6CA7 for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_101=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fdLGLG9HUXaw for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028773A6C68 for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m62HjRu7035852 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:45:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624081ec4916d89dfac@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <105D288AF30DA6D8EE55976A@p3.JCK.COM> <> <p0624081cc4915ab876b2@[]> <>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:45:26 -0700
To: Ole Jacobsen <>
From: Paul Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Cc: The IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

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