On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 12:35, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2019, at 9:16 AM, Matthew Pounsett <m...@conundrum.com> wrote: > > I'm also persuaded by Bill's argument that the IETF has already stated > that ISO 3166 has control over that bit of the namespace, and trying to > take back part of it is confusing, bad form, and risky. > > For those who read the draft, ypu'll see that "trying to take back part of > it" is not there. The same was made clear in the presentation to the WG. > "If you want a private name, here's one to consider; ones like it are > already being used as private names in dozens of other contexts" is far > from "taking" anything. > It's still the IETF stating that it's safe to use for that purpose, which is no longer the purview of the IETF having delegated that responsibility to ISO3166. That is taking back authority over that name.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
