Hi Eliot, On Aug 2, 2022, at 07:59, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) <rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> But what is not reasonable to expect researchers to attempt to enter the > ICANN arena in order to facilitate a the safe use of a new naming system that > doesn't require use of the DNS. This argument (and others) have been discussed extensively in the past. There are many counter-arguments. Again, I have my doubts that rehashing then again will lead to a different outcome. (To this particular point, just for illustration and not intended for discussion, for which see mail archives: suitable anchors for private namespaces can be acquired through the icann system for roughly $10/year, or in the opinions of some for $0/year by using one of the two-letter ISO-3165 code points that are reserved for private use.) If the position of the ISE is to ignore the prior discussion and publish one set of opinions regardless then perhaps it would be more straightforward just to say so. If the position is rather that dnsop should pick this up again, perhaps that's a question for the dnsop chairs to manage? Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
