Rather than engaging in a drama that looks from a distance like
"ICANN asserts that they are in charges of everything, including
the IETF" and "IETF asserts they can grab whatever names they
want, whenever they like". why can't we take the Special Names
problem to them, say "look, we understand that these names look
like names in the public DNS root and that confusion that would
have bad effects is a real risk, how about you devise a
procedure for dealing with them that recognizes the importance
of existing deployment and use and considers the low likelihood
that people who are using these names will stop because you tell
them too. Clearly the procedure you use for new gTLD
applications won't work. And, because some of these names won't
wait, if you can't get that procedure together immediately, we'd
be willing to let you delegate things to us on some reasonable
basis until you do."
It seems to me something like that, rather than continual
testing of boundaries, is how two peer organizations led by
adults treat each other. It also allows us to take the position
that we are ICANN's customers for the IANA function but are
otherwise an independent entity that can work with them when
that is in the best interests of both of us and of the Internet,
but that is not, in any respect, responsible for them or their
operational or governance models.
Having been around at the time when the IETF was first engaged in
"policy debates that few people in our community really enjoy and fewer seem
equipped to really understand and engage with.” and actively played in that
space
at the time, I find the reversion of putting the IETF back into the frame
for a repeat play an amazing poor move on the part of all concerned.
FWIW I strongly object to this draft moving forward to a proposed standard.
Furthermore, I appreciate and support John’s analysis and suggested
approach here.
Geoff