Re: [Ietf] New .mobi, .xxx, ... TLDs?

At 21:04 30/04/04, John C Klensin wrote:
> Jefsey (and others),
> Due to prompt action on the part of ICANN staff once this was called to 
> their attention, the problem is now fixed and, due to some spam-cleaning 
> done at the same time, the posting is now at 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/stld-rfp-general/msg00039.html/.
Dear John
Thank you for that.

> The implication of your posting that this might have been deliberate (at 
> least as I read "singular impeachment") does not appear to me to be 
> justified by anything I have seen.
I only meant (I just checked it in dictionary) "deviating from the usual or 
expected; odd. See Synonyms at strange".  But it is good you understood it 
your way, got the problem fixed and have now your response in the records. 
This will not be implied further on.
> It is hard to realistically blame that problem on some malice or 
> conspiracy at ICANN (or the ITU, or anywhere else in that set of processes).
True. That possible future blame is now defused ...  except that now I just 
loop back in the mail without getting the attachment :-) May be only 
because of my PC?
> People will have to decide for themselves how "most important" this entry 
> is.   Personally, I found it a bit circuitous, asking for discussion 
> (clearly a good idea) rather than really taking a position.  I 
> was,  however, pleased to see the ITU Secretary General recognizing IETF's 
> role in ENUM... that part of the story has sometimes gotten lost.
> And, contrary to your note, the posted note appears to comment directly 
> only on one of the two TEL. proposals and not at all on the MOBI. 
> one.  Whether one can impute a conspiracy to that, or whether the ITU 
> really only sees a significant problem with that one proposal, is 
> something you would have to address with them.
Please understand you are at advantage: you were able to read the document. 
I was not.
Robert's mail says "Applications" (plural).

As you know in intelligence 80% is the fact there was an exchange, and 20% 
the content.
- the fact there is a letter is important (personal readings are less)
- the fact you speak of "conspiracy" is important (even if I don't 
understand about what/by who it could be). It means the matter is touchy.
Let build on that. There is a need to talk says Robert Shaw. Good point: 
you accept to talk. Maybe will you recall that they asked the same in 2000? 
I read positively what you say they said: (a) it means there is a dialog 
(b) this means they do not take position and respect the Internet autonomy 
(c) their 2000's position lead to ENUM. This ICANN / ITU / IETF way was 
positive last time. Why not this time, too?
(BTW, IMHO ITU is no more at ease than ICANN with the current post-WSIS 
global situation ).
All what I fear is that under such circumstances and pressures, someone 
takes a wrong decision he would not have taken otherwise. No one wants to 
harm the DNS and endanger a key thing which works. We all agree with that. 
But a debate is open on propositions which may harm the DNS. This debate 
was open by ICANN, so it rises questions. Basically, why is this debate 
about transport protocol being described in the TLD instead of being 
described in the scheme, happening now? It should have been prevented by 
the wording of the call for propositions or by an ICANN document, proposed 
and discussed by the GNSO, reviewed on technical parts by IETF. It should 
have described what is the DNS semantic and what is expected from 
propositions etc. If I refer myself to ICP-3, I tend to think ICANN failed 
its own precaution criteria for testing, yet here we are not testing.
Actually, I am surprised we have a second TLD round, while the work on the 
evaluation report on the first round is not even started. Why that? Is 
there some pressure on ICANN or is it ICANN putting some pressure? In both 
cases one can nurture some concerns. I have no bad idea about ICANN, but I 
see that .mobi, .tel and .mail would be catastrophes for a global DNS, not 
to speak of political consequences which are not our concern here.
I also see that ICANN still has today the capacity to hurt the DNS in 
accepting them.  What I want is that this technical major threat on the 
global internet stability is removed. And that this kind of matter is 
handled by a world consensus where IETF may have its say.as well as ITU on 
behalf of Govs, Consumers organizations and Lingual organizations like the 
one we created (Eurolinc) with Louis Pouzin, J-L Grange etc.
jfc









_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf