On 07/15/2015 10:17 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
But I think the possibility of other reasons for this highlights the
point Ted Lemon was making: to make this work correctly is actually
more in the bailiwick of the root operators than ours. I think that
means we should tread more carefully than the trend lines appear to be.
I think "tread carefully" is the wrong way to think about it. We
understand who has change control for the root zone, and it is not us.
We also have RFC 6761, which establishes a process for things that look
like they belong in the root zone, but are to be reserved for special
uses. I have not heard any pushback from ICANN about 6761, and we did
ask them about it. They are in fact aware of the use of .onion, and as
I understand it have no intention of allocating it. So there is no
conflict here, and hence no need to tread carefully.
So what I would say instead of "tread carefully" is "understand what
role we have." The role we have is to communicate with ICANN about
this, and come to an agreement about what should happen. This document
is us saying what we think should happen. In a sense it is only part
of the conversation, although in practice I think the rest of the
conversation will be fairly simple, because I am fairly certain that
there is no disagreement between IETF and ICANN about what to do.