Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On Jul 24, 2015, at 12:15 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Ideally, ICANN ought to give IETF an opportunity to say "no, don't allocate 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.

Yep. In addition, it would probably result in the non-trivial political and economic forces endemic to ICANN interested in blocking a name (for whatever reason) redirecting their energies to the IESG (or whoever the IETF decides "we" are). After all, if they can't legitimately block a name through the ICANN processes, they'd get one last bite at the apple at the IETF.

I'm guessing this probably isn't what folks in the IETF would want.

Regards,
-drc

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]