John,
I thought your message was quite helpful. With respect to where things stand
on the ICANN side of this, ICANN opened a window for applications for new top
level domains and then closed that window. We have been processing the
applications that came in during that period but we have not accepted *any* new
applications, with the possible exception of IDN ccTLDs. We do expect to open
the window again in the future, but we will go through several steps before we
do so, including evaluating any security and/or stability issues.
Thus, I think we’re actually in a very good position to work out sensible
coordination of the top level of the name space. Everyone involved on both the
ICANN side and the IETF side now have the benefit of seeing what has happened,
and since we’re in a quiet state we can hammer out a sensible process.
As you point out, it would be helpful for our applicants to know ahead of time
if a string they desire is unavailable. Someone should fill in the blanks and
make this work.
Steve
On Jul 23, 2015, at 6:15 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
--On Thursday, July 23, 2015 17:54 -0400 Ted Lemon
<ted(_dot_)lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
Ideally, ICANN ought to give IETF an opportunity to say "no,
don't allocate that name" for any common word or common
abbreviation for a common word (modulo the one-letter, ISO
country code and similar constraints, of course). That would
cover all of the cases we're talking about. I think it's
too late to do that now, but that's what I'd want if it
were possible to do it.
Ted,
At the risk of being pragmatic... ICANN has developed a complex
and expensive application process for new gTLDs. I've heen told
by applicants that the circa $186K (USD) fee isn't even half of
the total application costs. So someone makes one of those
applications, moves a name through the ICANN process, and then
ICANN comes to the IETF and says "is it ok to approve and
delegate that name". I hesitate to think about what would
happen if we said "no", but assume it would involve
organizations trying to get their $300-$400K (each) back and
lawyers.
One could imagine a completely different process, but it
probably is, as you suggest, too late now.
One useful property of the model I suggested is that it would
be, AFAICT, compatible with ICANN's current new gTLD process and
its likely successors. Of course nothing is going to solve the
problem that would exist if ICANN delegates a root-level name
and the IETF (or someone else) comes along and says "whoops,
that conflicts with...".
john