Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt> (The .onion S

There are plausible, if unlikely, circumstances in which a fork, not just of 
the Tor project software itself, but of the entire project including the 
specific URL, might happen. While this argument is an attempt at a reductio ab 
absurdum, I do not think it is - the circumstance described is unlikely, but 
not absurd. In other words, I agree with Ted.
And as a much more active contributor to ICANN processes than IETF ones, I 
think Ted is right in characterisation of the appropriate interaction here.

        David

> On 16 Jul 2015, at 3:53 am, Ted Lemon 
> <Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> On 07/15/2015 11:46 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> > What if I copied the onion draft, changed all of the uses of onion to
> > carrot, and then threw in some supporting documents to describe some other
> > system that used carrot as it's base identifier?  On the heels of onion's
> > admission to the Special Use Domain Names registry, could I expect to have
> > carrot admitted too?
> 1. Do you seriously think DNSOP would have had consensus to advance such a 
> draft?
> 2. If DNSOP did have consensus to advance such a draft, what would your 
> objection be?
>
> I think that DNSOP would not advance such a draft unless a lot of reasonable 
> people decided that they believed that .carrot was needed.   And if DNSOP did 
> indeed advance such a draft, I think that it would be the right thing to do 
> to go to ICANN and say "what do you guys think about this?"   I don't think 
> we would be in a position to make demands, but we should be able to have the 
> conversation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail