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

Paul Hoffman <> Tue, 01 July 2008 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82AC3A6BD4; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34FD83A6B30 for <>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pA3RHvKFbL6e for <>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86C33A68B3 for <>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m61MQONV038550 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:26:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240808c4905ec8295c@[]>
In-Reply-To: <105D288AF30DA6D8EE55976A@p3.JCK.COM>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <105D288AF30DA6D8EE55976A@p3.JCK.COM>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:26:23 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes?
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 5:53 PM -0400 7/1/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>Pretend I'm a fine, upstanding, citizen who is in the domain
>names business (I guess that would make me a "domaineer" :-))
>and whose business model is based on traffic concentration and
>I think I would really like to own "local", although not as much
>as I'd like to own "" or any other name to which the
>IETF or various protocol designs provide free advertising and
>traffic direction.  Every leaked name that might reference a web
>page would drive traffic to my site, as well as every action
>that led those who didn't know what was going on to open
>http://www.local./ to figure out what was going on.
>In a more sane world, no one rational would want to build a
>business or other activity around a TLD named "local".   But
>this is demonstrably not a sane world.

+1. I was approached by one such fine, upstanding citizen who asked 
which names "currently reserved by the IETF" would be most valuable 
for a search page.

This does not mean that ICANN won't listen to the IETF; it means that 
there will be voices more familiar to ICANN saying things different 
than we are.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
Ietf mailing list