At 05:39 05-01-2010, Jorge Amodio wrote:
On the table at 2.1.4 you need to add LATNIC that seems to be also
reserved by ICANN, not sure why they missed it on the DAG but it's on
every single Registry Agreement.
PSO might also have to be added then. According to information
published by IANA, these two names are still reserved.
"Transparency, once lost, is hard to regain" [1]. We could reflect
on that as we discuss about reserved names. Some people might argue that:
"The Domain Name System (DNS) provides an essential service on the
Internet, mapping structured names to a variety of different types of" [2]
money making schemes.
I can only hope that the domain name policy makers have read RFC
4367. Defining a registry for reserved names can be a perilous
exercise. There are different viewpoints about whether the authority
to do so is the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet
Architecture Board, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers or the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. There's the
protocol angle where RFC 2860 gets invoked as in BCP 52. There's RFC
2606 which predates RFC 2860. There was a draft in 2005
(draft-eastlake-2606bis) which raised questions similar to the
current draft about reserved names. There was also another draft
(draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds) written in 2008 which was an
attempt to update RFC 2606 based on recent ICANN changes.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4924.txt
2. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4367.txt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf