IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Mon, 30 June 2008 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456943A67B6; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 376463A67B6 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fSd3JOUb-03U for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 076773A63EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 46BA994A02; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:18:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B1E9C1906DF; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:16:07 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:16:07 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Message-ID: <20080630171607.GA31520@sources.org>
References: <4C0AE13D-4CA6-4989-A6B0-555A014DE464@multicasttech.com> <74E3E26A-FCFB-45C1-989A-DD7EA5752974@virtualized.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20080627121824.02c55340@resistor.net> <BBB8E0B4-7E45-4BE9-B9DF-DEBE294585D6@multicasttech.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20080627140118.02a43fd8@resistor.net> <6F1CFDA0-A6E2-4257-8C72-0FCD1E117290@virtualized.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20080628201322.02e43268@resistor.net> <FBBF3BB9-D231-494A-AFBE-7F816DD1180C@virtualized.org> <20080630024615.GA7021@boreas.isi.edu> <649DC89B6513C74E89023E29@[192.168.1.110]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <649DC89B6513C74E89023E29@[192.168.1.110]>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux lenny/sid
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 08:43:28AM -0400,
 John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote 
 a message of 83 lines which said:

> there will be no practical difference between an IDN gTLD and an IDN
> ccTLD other than the ability of the operator to shield itself from
> any potential ICANN enforcement action --even of agreements that
> were signed to get the domain--

Before bashing the ccTLD, wait the final text of the "IDN fast track"
process document. In its current version
<http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-wg-board-proposal-25jun08.pdf>,
it does not mandate agreements between ICANN and the ccTLD, far from
it.

"The GAC also feels that it would be inappropriate for new IDN ccTLDs
to be obliged to enter into contractual agreements with ICANN,"

That's just GAC's opinion but it is apparently the only place where
these agreements are mentioned.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email