Joe Abley <jabley(_at_)ca(_dot_)afilias(_dot_)info> writes:
A better approach, I think, would be for proposed TLDs to pass
technical review through some suitable body who could consider each
case on its merits.
As in https://par.icann.org/files/paris/gTLDUpdateParis-23jun08.pdf,
starting at chart 11?
Also, for TLDs like .local, one could also to some extent just say
"buyer beware". Anyone wanting a TLD that is known to not be useable
in practice (for some deployed software) would get what they
deserve. :-) The folk wanting TLDs presumably want TLDs that can
actually be used...
That said, I would expect requests for TLDs that would cause real
technical or operational problems to be turned down. There is a step
in the process for input of the form "um, bad idea because..."
Brian E Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:
I think all the external evidence is that ICANN is deeply reluctant to
set up mechanisms that require the application of common sense (a.k.a.
judgment) as to whether or not a particular domain name may be
registered.
Perhaps I've had too much of the Kool Aid, but there are steps in
place that are intended to catch potential technical/operational
problems with proposed TLDs. Maintaining DNS stability is a core theme
that appears throughout ICANN.
David Conrad <drc(_at_)virtualized(_dot_)org> writes:
On Jun 30, 2008, at 5:43 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
The other two things that seem to be getting lost in this discussion
is that one can write all of the RFCs one like, but rules like this
are ultimately useless unless ICANN agrees to them
ICANN has already deferred to the IETF on technical matters (see
IDNs). I'm unclear why ICANN would ignore IETF technical input on
this matter.
I'll second that. If the IETF were to say "bad idea" for any
particular TLD (or class of TLDs), I think ICANN would listen.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf