> On May 26, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > > francisco, i object, and i also disagree. > > i object, because as a tld registry, you are making a self-interested > argument here. i'd prefer you to find someone who makes no money when a > new TLD is allocated and get them to carry this torch. as a senior > member of the uniregistry technical staff, you have a conflict of > interest. as my friend, you have extremely high standards of personal > behaviour. >
You are correct. I do have a conflict of interest in terms of my affiliation which is why I’ve not authored any proposals myself. But I think that having different points of view on the table helps build a solution that could be better than any single one, but please don’t disqualify me because of it. > i also disagree. people don't know when something stops working, it just > makes their experience worse and they don't know why. the most likely > outcome is they'll just live in digital squalor. This is what I would like to quantify. Those people are probable already in a digital squalor and they don’t know it. How can we improve that situation? > DITL happens to be representative. (you've operated f-root; you know > what the root servers see.) my take on the data is, .HOME, .CORP, and > .LOCAL are poisoned for all time, no further discussion needed. > I’m not discarding the DITL, it’s one good slice, but there is more that we don’t see, perhaps you have access to more information and have a more complete picture of it via DNSDB and other systems? Perhaps there is a more room for additional studies / data and analysis ? > to the extent that the new gTLD programme has any public benefit > purpose, that purpose must be balanced with digital public safety. if > there's a risk, then the risk is too high, because if there's a benefit, > the benefit is too low. > There is risk in not doing anything as well, how do balance it? I trust your judgement and respect your contributions, that’s not in question, I'm not against reserving some TLDs for local use (said it in my first email), my main concern is creating the illusion that by reserving those TLDs, we’ve solved the problem and create a false sense of safety. This is a multi-variable/multi-dimensional complex system, where there are pieces that neither IETF and ICANN have control of. Best regards, Francisco Obispo CTO - Registry Operations ____________________________ <http://www.uniregistry.com/> 2161 San Joaquin Hills Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Office +1 949 706 2300 x4202 fobi...@uniregistry.link
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
