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

On 7/24/15 11:32 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> 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?
Sorry- let's turn that around: where is there any sign that such abuse
of our processes has even been contemplated?  And this is the concern I
have with this whole discussion.  The IETF has a legitimate need from
time to time clarify the DNS name space.  We do not do so lightly, and
we do so based on firm technical grounds.  If someone were to try to sue
us for doing that – AND IF THEY WON – then we could decide at that point
to simply close the registry.  But the number of IFs there and those
implied are so long that I like our chances quite a lot of doing just
what we're doing.

My understanding about the situation of 6761 is that people are more
concerned about having to have lengthy debates about each and every
proposed addition, and whether or not that would be a DOS attack on the
IETF or dnsops.  I'm sympathetic to that argument, by the way. 
Especially now.  But that's an argument for proposing stronger criteria
in a 6761bis with which I would likely have no serious objection.

Eliot

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature