> Rather than engaging in a drama that looks from a distance like > "ICANN asserts that they are in charges of everything, including > the IETF" and "IETF asserts they can grab whatever names they > want, whenever they like". why can't we take the Special Names > problem to them, say "look, we understand that these names look > like names in the public DNS root and that confusion that would > have bad effects is a real risk, how about you devise a > procedure for dealing with them that recognizes the importance > of existing deployment and use and considers the low likelihood > that people who are using these names will stop because you tell > them too. Clearly the procedure you use for new gTLD > applications won't work. And, because some of these names won't > wait, if you can't get that procedure together immediately, we'd > be willing to let you delegate things to us on some reasonable > basis until you do." > > It seems to me something like that, rather than continual > testing of boundaries, is how two peer organizations led by > adults treat each other. It also allows us to take the position > that we are ICANN's customers for the IANA function but are > otherwise an independent entity that can work with them when > that is in the best interests of both of us and of the Internet, > but that is not, in any respect, responsible for them or their > operational or governance models. Having been around at the time when the IETF was first engaged in "policy debates that few people in our community really enjoy and fewer seem equipped to really understand and engage with.” and actively played in that space at the time, I find the reversion of putting the IETF back into the frame for a repeat play an amazing poor move on the part of all concerned. FWIW I strongly object to this draft moving forward to a proposed standard. Furthermore, I appreciate and support John’s analysis and suggested approach here. Geoff