Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-

Hi,

On 7/24/15 9:21 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Jul 24, 2015, at 12:15 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> 
> wrote:
> > > Ideally, ICANN ought to give IETF an opportunity to say "no, don't allocate 
> > > 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.
> Yep. In addition, it would probably result in the non-trivial political and 
> economic forces endemic to ICANN interested in blocking a name (for whatever 
> reason) redirecting their energies to the IESG (or whoever the IETF decides 
> "we" are). After all, if they can't legitimately block a name through the 
> ICANN processes, they'd get one last bite at the apple at the IETF.
>
> I'm guessing this probably isn't what folks in the IETF would want.
This is ridiculous.

As Ted highlighted, John has thrown up a straw man that nobody would
ever reasonably propose (the IESG being consulted on every name), where
that has nothing to do with 6761 or any other existing or contemplated
process.

Can we please at least stay within the realm of reality?

Eliot

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature