Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>

["Patrik Fältström " <[e-mail]>]

On 26 Jul 2015, at 17:36, John C Klensin wrote:

> Given that ICANN, and a number of ICANN-related entities
> (notably some ccTLDs and regional ccTLD organizations) continue
> to cite 1591, "rendered obsolete" may be a little strong even
> though some of its comments are certainly OBE at this point.
> And ICANN did publish an update to 1591 in the form of something
> called ICP-1 [1].  It didn't say much and, IIR, was not
> well-received and has sort of vanished from everyone's radar.  I
> would suppose that the "update" for 1591 is the combination of
> the ccTLD fast track procedure and the Applicant Handbook, with
> 1591 and/or ICP-1 still applying to 3166-1-based ccTLDs and
> redelegations.

If we are having this discussion, which I do not think we should have here, I would be more careful with wording and separate the issues with various different PDPs inside the ICANN Community (most notably ccNSO and gNSO driven ones) and whatever work ICANN staff and Board run processes create. And not only say "ICANN" (although the use of the word "ICANN" definitely show correctly that one of the larger issues that not even people active in ICANN can separate the processes from each other -- and sometimes they can, but they deliberately mix them up).

Now, I agree ICP-1 is not very good, but I am still of the view that IETF could very well update RFC 1591 according to what the IETF view has changed during the years. If nothing else as a historical document, and it would also have made the handoff to the ICANN be much easier than what it has been now.

If nothing else, we see on this discussion how entangled the IETF process and view is with the ICANN process and view, and I still think it would have been better if IETF would have created a box in the namespace within which ICANN could play. Similarly to what the RIRs are allowed to do within the IPv4/IPv6 address spaces.

Too late?

   Patrik