Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 23 July 2014 22:47 UTC
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B40DD1B28BA for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KaS7WMNKK7f5 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E5151B2810 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (dhcp-bcbc.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.188.188]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1977D8A031 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:47:05 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:47:03 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: internetgovtech@iab.org
Message-ID: <20140723224703.GC21760@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <B7163126-31B6-4CC6-A711-F225051C294A@istaff.org> <53CD8F41.9060909@gih.com> <53CD939D.5020001@cisco.com> <9DE8F705-9748-407D-8E77-7B787ACD9873@gmail.com> <53CE4B39.1090202@acm.org> <53D016B6.2020000@gih.com> <53D01E6B.8020606@gmail.com> <53D025F3.5050708@acm.org> <53D02828.1030805@gmail.com> <53D02D53.6070501@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53D02D53.6070501@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/xjib9VEU0I_2AYAOXbQaennnDtE
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community
X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <internetgovtech.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/>
List-Post: <mailto:internetgovtech@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:47:07 -0000
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 05:46:59PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote: > But ICANN is responsible for policy regarding TLDs. It gets to tell > IANA what to do with TLDs. I think, actually, that's not precisely correct. ICANN has responsibility for the root zone. The things we put in the root zone are often called "TLDs", but not every domain name is in fact a name eligible to be in the DNS. The IETF has responsibility for the technical definition and consequences of protocols, and what RFC 6761 establishes is a way to reserve certain kinds of names for technical purposes when that is necessary. This is not new: RFC 2606, published in 1999, establishes some similar reservations. So, ICANN gets to tell IANA when to add an entry to the root zone, provided that is technically acceptable. ICANN cannot, for instance, create a new delegation for com. that is distinct from COM., at least not without violating STD13. That's a consequence of the way the protocols are defined. ICANN cannot, either, create a new delegation for zx--foo. without violating IDNA2008. Note that somewhere around 2000, that latter restriction wasn't the case. But new protocols come along, and they have new rules. RFC 6761 is intended to be used to identify names that need to be handled specially. In the case of such names that might be understood as "top-level domains" (i.e. that are one label plus the null label long), those are names that by definition should _not_ appear in the root. If they should, then part of the standards action or IESG approval needed to approve the entry in the special-purposes registry would detect that and likely reject the registration. RFC 6761 clearly says as much: The specification also MUST state, in each of the seven "Domain Name Reservation Considerations" categories below, what special treatment, if any, is to be applied. If in all seven categories the answer is "none", then possibly no special treatment is required and requesting reservation of a Special-Use Domain Name may not be appropriate. There's no question that the special-use registry for names is a place of overlap, where a slow and careful job of co-ordination will be needed. But we actually have those relationships between the organizations, and this registry requires a fairly heavyweight registration procedure precisely _because_ of the potential for conflict. It just isn't true that RFC 6761 is a unilateral encroaching by IETF on ICANN's area of responsibility. ICANN is responsible for the root zone. It certainly should have policies itself for things that are not permitted to be registered. But I do not buy that ICANN's policy responsibility extends to all labels that could logically-possibly be in the root zone, just because of those cases where a protocol requires a special-use name for technical reasons. The IETF doesn't tread on ICANN's responsibilities when it reserves local. any more than it treads on Verisign's when it reserves example.com. At the same time, the RFC 6761 example militates in favour of leaving the different IANA functions together in a single IANA. It is logically possible, of course, to separate these functions, but it would be a bad idea because IANA is about technical co-ordination that turns out to be useful. It's not Internet Police, and neither are any of the policy bodies that feed it. It's a utility, and making arrangements that maximise that utility is the right thing to do. Quite apart from that, it's not like the adoption of RFC 6761 or the adoption of any future entry (were one to happen) in the special-use registry is going to happen under a barrel. One of the things I've been finding mystifying about this entire discussion is the apparent assumption that if someone is "in" one community that person can't also be "in" another one. We're not arranged with carefully-balanced powers, or spheres of influence, or things like that. I thought one of the supposed advantages of open, bottom-up, transparent, and even multi-stakeholder processes was supposed to be that cross-participation is easy. What have I missed? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
- [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting … Russ Housley
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Avri Doria
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Russ Housley
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Avri Doria
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… John Curran
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Avri Doria
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… John Curran
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Avri Doria
- [Internetgovtech] Cross community (was: Re: ICANN… John Curran
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Eric Brunner-Williams
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Avri Doria
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Eric Brunner-Williams
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community John Curran
- [Internetgovtech] off topic: labels (was Re: Docu… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Internetgovtech] off topic: labels (was Re: … Eric Brunner-Williams
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Eric Brunner-Williams
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Eliot Lear
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community John Curran
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… S Moonesamy
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Avri Doria
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community John Curran
- [Internetgovtech] Policy aspects (was: Cross comm… S Moonesamy
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Policy aspects (was: Cross … John Curran
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… S Moonesamy
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… John Curran
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meet… S Moonesamy
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community John Curran
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Avri Doria
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Avri Doria
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community JFC Morfin
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Eliot Lear
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Russ Housley
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Avri Doria
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community John Curran
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Avri Doria
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community John Curran
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community S Moonesamy
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community John Curran
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community S Moonesamy
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community John Curran
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community John Curran
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community S Moonesamy
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community S Moonesamy
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community S Moonesamy
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Steve Crocker
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Steve Crocker
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Eric Burger
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community Jari Arkko