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

Eliot,

On Jul 24, 2015, at 10:48 AM, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
> As Ted highlighted, John has thrown up a straw man that nobody would
> ever reasonably propose (the IESG being consulted on every name),
Ted said:

'Ideally, ICANN ought to give IETF an opportunity to say "no, don't allocate 
that name"'

and later clarified:

'Of course, the time to ask “does it make sense to allocate this name” is at 
the beginning of the process, not at the end of the process.'

I'd note that Ted did not constrain the names that would be asked nor the 
process that the IETF would be given an opportunity to say "no."

However to my point, regardless of where in the ICANN process the "IETF" is 
asked, do you believe those with political/economic interests in blocking a 
name would not try to take advantage of that opportunity, or, upon being 
refused would not invoke lawyers?

> where that has nothing to do with 6761 or any other existing or contemplated 
> process.
I'd agree that this has nothing to do with 6761.

Regards,
-drc

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail