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

Lawrence Conroy <> Sat, 28 June 2008 00:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E2F3A6814; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C824E3A6814 for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:27:38 -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 eceEILXzDnAB for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0CE53A6800 for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,718,1204502400"; d="scan'208";a="6864224"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 28 Jun 2008 01:27:07 +0100
Received: from [IPv6???1] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F11A3F88; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:27:41 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <>
From: Lawrence Conroy <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924)
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:27:41 +0100
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924)
Cc: SM <>,
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"; DelSp="yes"

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,
(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