Hi, I wanted to follow up to the list to try again to make clear what I said in the DNSOP meeting the other day.
In the first place, the point I was trying to make in the "business model" remark is just this: some of the drafts trying to register special-use names that Christian Grothoff talked about hive out of the DNS uses of names that create a resolution system only in some special network context. So, just as local. marks something as to be looked up only with mDNS, onion. and exit. both mark something as to be looked up only under onion routing (or maybe, depending on your view, only using Tor). But others of these proposals, such as bit., mark out a name space and associated protocol that competes with the DNS. It is a fully parallel name resolution universe, applicable to absolutely any network application. My point was that the second class of these basically puts us in the position of approving a special-use registration that is effectively an attack on someone else's business model (ICANN's and that of the various registries and registrars). I believe that draws the IETF into a political battle for which it is unprepared, and that's really why I object to these registrations. In the second place, I only now (while checking the recording to make sure I didn't say anything inconsistent with the above) saw Ted Lemon's remarks in the chat. In response, I don't see what the fact of my being IAB chair has to do with any of this: the IAB chair (and indeed the IAB) has no special power with respect to these registrations. Additionally, in any case I did not get up as IAB chair and I should like to hope it was clear I was speaking only as an individual (but in case it was not, let me emphasise now that I was). While it is true that I have made the argument more than once, I think it is a principled argument and given that these applications continue to be under consideration I see nothing wrong with repeating the arugment. Finally, I don't believe I have ever accused people of being bad actors on this and I should like very much a pointer to an example of my saying that; but in any case, should I somehow ever have said that let me be clear that I do not think _ad hominem_ arguments are valid and I don't think "bad actor" would be a reason to reject an application. I am worried about the consequences for the IETF here, not the moral state of the people who are proposing a registration Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
