Joe Abley <jabley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > A better approach, I think, would be for proposed TLDs to pass > technical review through some suitable body who could consider each > case on its merits. As in https://par.icann.org/files/paris/gTLDUpdateParis-23jun08.pdf, starting at chart 11? Also, for TLDs like .local, one could also to some extent just say "buyer beware". Anyone wanting a TLD that is known to not be useable in practice (for some deployed software) would get what they deserve. :-) The folk wanting TLDs presumably want TLDs that can actually be used... That said, I would expect requests for TLDs that would cause real technical or operational problems to be turned down. There is a step in the process for input of the form "um, bad idea because..." Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I think all the external evidence is that ICANN is deeply reluctant to > set up mechanisms that require the application of common sense (a.k.a. > judgment) as to whether or not a particular domain name may be > registered. Perhaps I've had too much of the Kool Aid, but there are steps in place that are intended to catch potential technical/operational problems with proposed TLDs. Maintaining DNS stability is a core theme that appears throughout ICANN. David Conrad <drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Jun 30, 2008, at 5:43 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > The other two things that seem to be getting lost in this discussion > > is that one can write all of the RFCs one like, but rules like this > > are ultimately useless unless ICANN agrees to them > ICANN has already deferred to the IETF on technical matters (see > IDNs). I'm unclear why ICANN would ignore IETF technical input on > this matter. I'll second that. If the IETF were to say "bad idea" for any particular TLD (or class of TLDs), I think ICANN would listen. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf