Suzanne, On Oct 23, 2022, at 3:50 AM, Suzanne Woolf <swo...@pir.org> wrote: > We've been told repeatedly that no one wants to engage legal analysis or > liaison communications on a document that doesn't have WG consensus.
This appears broken. In this specific case, the way forward appears to be predicated on the response to the analysis/communication. That is, if ICANN is asked “would ‘reserving’ .alt (or any other TLD) represent an intrusion into ICANN’s bailiwick” and the answer from ICANN is yes, then moving forward with .alt would be precluded, regardless of WG consensus, no? Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
