Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

S Moonesamy <> Fri, 25 July 2014 07:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C07691AD972 for <>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mh5FW99UKP64 for <>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C581B278C for <>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6P7qhXb019621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1406274781; x=1406361181; bh=dTCY6WYLgtzqknUjLZlaj5Id4FUFWuptXvovYov29RU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=db7l/GcUAZ2D8YQZbLOQX3vDedXP6HZIIL9ShVmD4Bcu0JzFNUOG4po+PQYxaUZfI LUdrI/5ppD1vm3rW8p7WmCfj56sLJ/3e4GaJK6cg8N7sl9QhR9t3ynUnEKeb/P7NY2 ELCxsM9gKzBFN7TFM87vfsI7crU1QQHwFa81H0b0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1406274781; x=1406361181;; bh=dTCY6WYLgtzqknUjLZlaj5Id4FUFWuptXvovYov29RU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=XQwleq93hf7OUueVk0KqfybRGw/MAOxovN6LGV3JXSJE7grxzyq9PxK/7DglqgPke stU9dAT2HVx27UHtdTR46TY5UhwsDTKbsi0nkmPzqHETRTHy6cTU0KWF3KXxU7Am26 xqcQ5AeMaVmWs6FZ0/5QqaGLkZlW879NPPA8abj4=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:26:58 -0700
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <53D016B6.20200> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:53:08 -0000

Hi Martin,
At 19:46 24-07-2014, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>I think that in general, IETF caring about the 
>technical stuff, and ICANN about the political 
>stuff, should work out fine, even where these overlap (i.e. TLDs).
>But imagine the following, somewhat imaginary 
>but not totally improbable scenario:
>The IETF is working on some technology that 
>requires a couple of TLDs to be reserved for a 
>special purpose. The technology is already 
>partially deployed, but not yet extremely 
>widely, and the IETF is standardizing it and 
>fixing some stuff that needs fixing for wider deployment.
>ICANN is working on a new round of gTLDs or some 
>such. Of course they exclude already reserved 
>TLDs, but not stuff that might be coming up (because they don't know it).
>Now assume that at some point rather late in the 
>game, it gets discovered that some names on both 
>sides clash. ICANN already has accepted a 
>(significant) amount of money and made some firm 
>promises. The IETF technology is already well 
>deployed, and fixes may be costly and 
>time-consuming. Each organization and its 
>constituents thinks that they were first and 
>therefore think they have priority, and provide 
>ample material to support their claims.
>What, if any, provisions are there currently to 
>avoid such a problem? What, if any, additional 
>provisions would we need to avoid such a problem in the future.
>Please note that "we can talk to each other" 
>doesn't work here; the example is explicitly constructed that way :-(.

I find it difficult to provide a honest answer to 
the above on a non-IETF mailing list. :-(

S. Moonesamy