ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

2008-07-02 10:48:06
At 9:30 AM -0700 7/2/08, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
But it is still the case that an application for say .local would need
to go through some review process (regardless of price) which would
include input from the IETF ICANN rep. I see little reason why or how
a TLD that would be damaging, confusing, or otherwise "bad" for the
IETF would/could just "slip through" this process.

Fully agree.

What am I missing here?

That there could/would be others arguing that the IETF is over-stating the damage from a particular proposal. Anyone who is willing to pay the exorbitant^W application fee obviously is willing to defend their choice of name. On something like .local (and, I predict, ".1"), the counter-argument to anything the IETF says is "that's possibly true, but not likely". We can't prove future harm, and they can belittle us for being "too cautious". They have money behind them, and we have our reputation. ICANN gets to weigh those two against each other. This is somewhat parallel to the political process in most capitalist democracies.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>