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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

The following message is a hint at some of the discussions that have
been going on in the IETF for some time now.  These relate to RF6761
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6761.txt> on Special Use domain names.

At some point we may want to discuss this issue.  Should not let the
IETF working group have all the fun. We need to remember that because
the IETF determines the protocols and their reserved names, they
determine which names are available to ICANN.

One example of a special use name is currently in last call:
draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt which is in last call until 11 August:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/>

We may decide that this is ok.  Part of me think it may be.  But in any
case, we should probably not let this slip my without a discussion.
RFC6761 slipped by without out noticing it. I think I mentioned it at
the time to various folks but the GNSO did not discuss it in any way.
Perhaps it is time we had some discussions on the issue and perhaps want
to send in a comment as part of the last call.

avri



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call:
<draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>
Date: 20 Jul 2015 19:22:19 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx>
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx


Now that you and Andrew have pointed it out, and after today's dnsop
session, I agree that the trickle of not-DNS domain names is likely
only to become larger, and we need a better way to deal with it than a
two-month all-IETF debate per name.

> why can't we take the Special Names
>problem to them, say "look, we understand that these names look
>like names in the public DNS root and that confusion that would
>have bad effects is a real risk, how about you devise a
>procedure for dealing with them that recognizes the importance
>of existing deployment and use and considers the low likelihood
>that people who are using these names will stop because you tell
>them too.  Clearly the procedure you use for new gTLD
>applications won't work.  And, because some of these names won't
>wait, if you can't get that procedure together immediately, we'd
>be willing to let you delegate things to us on some reasonable
>basis until you do."

That is an excellent question, and I suppose it couldn't hurt to ask.
But I have little confidence that ICANN in anything like its current
form, where it is dominated by people who want to collect rent on
every imaginable TLD, would come up with an answer any better than let
them pay $185K and take their chances.

As a second level issue, we might want to consider whether it's
worth standardizing DNS escapes which are now typically done by
a hacked version of a SOCKS server or DNS resolver.

R's,
John




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus