On 7/24/15 11:32 AM, David Conrad wrote: > However to my point, regardless of where in the ICANN process the > "IETF" is asked, do you believe those with political/economic > interests in blocking a name would not try to take advantage of that > opportunity, or, upon being refused would not invoke lawyers? Sorry- let's turn that around: where is there any sign that such abuse of our processes has even been contemplated? And this is the concern I have with this whole discussion. The IETF has a legitimate need from time to time clarify the DNS name space. We do not do so lightly, and we do so based on firm technical grounds. If someone were to try to sue us for doing that – AND IF THEY WON – then we could decide at that point to simply close the registry. But the number of IFs there and those implied are so long that I like our chances quite a lot of doing just what we're doing. My understanding about the situation of 6761 is that people are more concerned about having to have lengthy debates about each and every proposed addition, and whether or not that would be a DOS attack on the IETF or dnsops. I'm sympathetic to that argument, by the way. Especially now. But that's an argument for proposing stronger criteria in a 6761bis with which I would likely have no serious objection. Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature