There are plausible, if unlikely, circumstances in which a fork, not just of the Tor project software itself, but of the entire project including the specific URL, might happen. While this argument is an attempt at a reductio ab absurdum, I do not think it is - the circumstance described is unlikely, but not absurd. In other words, I agree with Ted. And as a much more active contributor to ICANN processes than IETF ones, I think Ted is right in characterisation of the appropriate interaction here. David > On 16 Jul 2015, at 3:53 am, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 07/15/2015 11:46 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: >> What if I copied the onion draft, changed all of the uses of onion to >> carrot, and then threw in some supporting documents to describe some other >> system that used carrot as it's base identifier? On the heels of onion's >> admission to the Special Use Domain Names registry, could I expect to have >> carrot admitted too? > 1. Do you seriously think DNSOP would have had consensus to advance such a draft? > 2. If DNSOP did have consensus to advance such a draft, what would your objection be? > > I think that DNSOP would not advance such a draft unless a lot of reasonable people decided that they believed that .carrot was needed. And if DNSOP did indeed advance such a draft, I think that it would be the right thing to do to go to ICANN and say "what do you guys think about this?" I don't think we would be in a position to make demands, but we should be able to have the conversation. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail