On Jul 24, 2015, at 6:31 PM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, OK. If the plan isn't that we get to look at every name in the next round, what names do we get to look at?
If something like this were to have any hope of working, which I am not
convinced it would anymore, it would have to be a list of names that
came through every so often, and got last called. Any individual name
for which someone raises an objection would have to be discussed.
That's just how the ICANN new TLD program worked. There was a deadline by
which all the applications had to be in, 1900 of them last time, and then
a sequence of deadlines for the various groups doing the various
evaluations. I was on one of the technical panels, and there were
applications that we failed, and had to be corrected. Some of the isues
were unexpected, e.g. the string similarity between .unicorn and .unicom,
eventually resolved by .unicorn withdrawing.
We could have looked at the names and put in technical stability
objections at the same time everyone else was objecting for other reasons.
I think that one of the reasons people are resistant to this is that in
fact it really does suck that it’s either the IETF or ICANN that has to
do this, and it could indeed be a DoS attack on the IETF in theory.
Yes, that's certainly a problem. But it seems that looking at one big
bunch of names every three years would be less of a hit than trickling
them through individually or in handfuls.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxxx, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.