John, I thought your message was quite helpful. With respect to where things stand on the ICANN side of this, ICANN opened a window for applications for new top level domains and then closed that window. We have been processing the applications that came in during that period but we have not accepted *any* new applications, with the possible exception of IDN ccTLDs. We do expect to open the window again in the future, but we will go through several steps before we do so, including evaluating any security and/or stability issues. Thus, I think we’re actually in a very good position to work out sensible coordination of the top level of the name space. Everyone involved on both the ICANN side and the IETF side now have the benefit of seeing what has happened, and since we’re in a quiet state we can hammer out a sensible process. As you point out, it would be helpful for our applicants to know ahead of time if a string they desire is unavailable. Someone should fill in the blanks and make this work. Steve On Jul 23, 2015, at 6:15 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > --On Thursday, July 23, 2015 17:54 -0400 Ted Lemon > <ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Ideally, ICANN ought to give IETF an opportunity to say "no, >> don't allocate that name" for any common word or common >> abbreviation for a common word (modulo the one-letter, ISO >> country code and similar constraints, of course). That would >> cover all of the cases we're talking about. I think it's >> too late to do that now, but that's what I'd want if it >> were possible to do it. > > Ted, > > At the risk of being pragmatic... ICANN has developed a complex > and expensive application process for new gTLDs. I've heen told > by applicants that the circa $186K (USD) fee isn't even half of > the total application costs. So someone makes one of those > applications, moves a name through the ICANN process, and then > ICANN comes to the IETF and says "is it ok to approve and > delegate that name". I hesitate to think about what would > happen if we said "no", but assume it would involve > organizations trying to get their $300-$400K (each) back and > lawyers. > > One could imagine a completely different process, but it > probably is, as you suggest, too late now. > > One useful property of the model I suggested is that it would > be, AFAICT, compatible with ICANN's current new gTLD process and > its likely successors. Of course nothing is going to solve the > problem that would exist if ICANN delegates a root-level name > and the IETF (or someone else) comes along and says "whoops, > that conflicts with...". > > john > > >