On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 01:02:54PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote: > > If you're proposing that the IETF document a list of names that has > change control and authorship homed within ICANN, then I'm not sure > what the benefit of that is. Setting aside the mind-bending metaphysical consequences of the subject line in this thread, I actually think it would be a good idea if there were, somewhere, a list of undelegated top-level names for which change control and (policy) authorship nevertheless lie within ICANN. At the moment, the canonical list of the reserved names from ICANN's point of view is buried inside a document that many people have no reason to consult, because they're not trying to get a new top level delegation. It therefore seems to me to be not a bad idea to have an RFC or IANA registry for the "reserved names", in ICANN parlance. It would also be good if some operational rules about what "reserved names" means were in an RFC somewhere (for instance, are there different classes of "reserved" names? Why? Do they come in and out of existence depending on other states of the world? Can they be resolved on the Internet? And so on. Depending on who was speaking, in my experience, these distinctions were not always made.) I'm actually indifferent to the publication means for this, though -- an RFC, an ICANN document that stands on its own, whatever -- but since we have IANA registries already that seems to me to be the obvious locus for yet another list. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf