On 27 May 2015, at 20:22, Lyman Chapin <ly...@interisle.net> wrote: >> On May 26, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote: >> I’m against withdrawing/reserving these names. > > Hi Francisco - > > We don't know each other, but if I may assume that you work for Uniregistry > (apologies if I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion from the domain name in > your email address), you have a clear conflict of interest as a gTLD > applicant for "home". Your viewpoint and comments are still valuable, and I > mean no disrespect when I suggest that you have a conflict; but I hope that > when Tim and Suzanne refer to "consensus of the WG" they mean "except for WG > participants who have a clear COI".
Indeed. However IMO the question of what hats Francisco (or anyone else) might or might not be wearing does not matter to the consensus view/determination of the WG and its co-chairs. The usual working definition of consensus is lack of sustained reasonable objection. Francisco has objected but AFAICT has not found support in the WG for his position. The WG should note his objection and proceed. FWIW RFC7282 says "Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated". I think in this case that rough consensus has been reached. All the issues seem to have been addressed even if the above objection has not been accommodated. > Having heard no (disinterested) objection to putting corp, home, and mail in > the special-use name registry defined by RFC 6761, perhaps the WG chairs > would proceed with a call for adoption of > draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02 +1. IMO there's a consensus for that view in the WG. So let's get this out the door and move on. Lyman's instinct to favour operational stability is prudent. I support that PoV. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
