No, I won't appeal. No implied appeal pending from me.
I don't believe I have grounds to appeal, and I don't believe an appeal would be allowed on what are essentially political motivations. What others will chose to do I cannot say because I am not part of any other discussion on this: its my personal view, and my personal view alone.
I believe the IETF can decide to do this 'eyes wide open' -I just don't believe it SHOULD, but it obviously CAN.
I believe the inherent risks to TOR users should be solved by the TOR coders. dependencies on the DNS will remain even after this registration, because the beams have inexorably been crossed. There is no going back from what the omnibox does. So I believe the risks to the TOR users will perpetuate even after this documented action.
My personal view only.
-G
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is clearly needed. There are serious technical, privacy and personal safety costs to saying no to this, which supersede any supposed layer 9 considerations. Given that the working group already discussed the layer 9 issues and had consensus to publish this document, I think it would be unfortunate and inappropriate to re-try all of the same issues again on the IETF mailing list. If working group participants feel that the consensus call was made in error, they should appeal the consensus call using the IETF appeals process, rather than re-arguing the same points on the IETF mailing list.
I say this with utmost respect and appreciation for the DNSOP working group participant who has attempted to begin such an argument already. :)