On 7/25/15 12:31 AM, John Levine wrote: >> As Ted highlighted, John has thrown up a straw man that nobody would >> ever reasonably propose (the IESG being consulted on every name), where >> that has nothing to do with 6761 or any other existing or contemplated >> process. >> >> Can we please at least stay within the realm of reality? > 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? We don't. Why would we? It's better simply to stick with a list of known problematic names – and keep that list relatively small. For instance... > > It doesn't seem likely that we can prepare a complete set of names > with substantial informal use or other technical problems. Some of > the problems depend on context. For example, there is a lot of old > CPE that leaks queries for .BELKIN. But maybe if a TLD application > were from the same company that made the leaky devices, that would be > OK. > I hesitate to get into a pseudo- 6761 application process, but if it's a problem now, then we should discuss it now and not wait for applications. I don't know if .belkin rises to the level where we should seriously consider it, but I know some people who have some views on that ;-) Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature