I'm sorry if my point was not clear. My perspective is that, at the end of the day, a name is a name is a name. Being on the 6761 registry or in the DNS root zone is fundamentally irrelevant when it comes to IPR and other related socio-political issues. The same concerns apply.
Alain, speaking solely for myself. > On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:54 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:41 PM 3/28/16, Alain Durand <alain.dur...@icann.org> >> wrote: >> >> Andrew, >> >> This is the very registration in 6761 that makes (or would make) those names >> special, i.e. not ordinary. Those name could as well have been reserved in >> the previous ICANN gTLD round or in the next one for regular DNS purpose. >> The is nothing "non-ordinary" about the strings themselves... > > Let me make the point again that the document that records the Standards > Action or IESG approval is what designates a name as a special-use name. > Therefore, any designation as a special-use name will have IETF consensus. > RFC 6761 only documents the process for recording that designation in the > Special-Use Names registry. > > What do you mean by "reserved in the previous ICANN gTLD round"? Do you mean > "assigned to some entity", in which case it's highly unlikely the IETF would > come to consensus about designating such a name as a special-use name. Once > a name has been designated as a special-use name, it is no longer part of the > DNS namespace available for assignment by ICANN. > > But, I may be misunderstanding your point... > > - Ralph > >> >> Alain, speaking solely for myself. >> >>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 3:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think I've answered these questions before, but in case not, here's >>> what I think: >>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:15:15PM -0700, David Conrad wrote: >>>> In what way is ONION not "ordinary"? >>> >>> The label "onion" indicates that an alternative resolution path is >>> intended. Moreover, an additional underlying networking protocol is >>> expected to be in use. >>> >>>> In what way are GNU, ZKEY, BIT, EXIT, I2P, etc., "ordinary" or not >>>> "ordinary" >>> >>> An alternative (to DNS) resolution protocol is similarly expected. In >>> some cases, additional underlying network protocols are expected. In >>> other cases, it is merely an indication of alternative resolution, >>> with no alternative underlying network technology. (Part of the >>> reason I wanted the different cases separated is because I think it's >>> an open question whether a different naming protocol with _no_ >>> difference in the underlying technology is a legitimate use of 6761.) >>> >>>> Are HOME, CORP, and MAIL "ordinary"? >>> >>> Yes. They're expected to resolve in ordinary DNS contexts, though not >>> necessarily the global one. My own view is that these ought to be >>> outside the 6761 registry unless some ICANN-based PDP were to >>> determine that they should be permanently reserved and that the >>> reservation ought to be sought in the 6761 registry. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> A (as usual, for myself) >>> >>> -- >>> Andrew Sullivan >>> a...@anvilwalrusden.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DNSOP mailing list >>> DNSOP@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
