--On Saturday, July 25, 2015 8:03 AM +0200 Patrik Fältström <paf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 25 Jul 2015, at 7:56, John R Levine wrote: > >> ICANN excluded the IETF reserved names last time, and it >> seems certain they would do so next time. The question is >> whether we can update that list to be complete enough to be >> useful, and do so in a timeframe that would keep it useful. >> I have my doubts. More than doubts. > > Agree. And that is, from my point of view, another way to look at the problem. We are not, AFAICT, in the "keep a comprehensive list of applications on the Internet that might use DNS-style names" business. Perhaps some of the operational groups (NOG or otherwise) might be more suitable. Or not. Putting that aside for a moment, suppose we make a list and ICANN treats that as comprehensive (either because the list was there or because we told them to). Something that is significant to some community doesn't make it onto our list. Remember, for example, that our world now includes IDN TLDs, and no one has moved to exclude the translation of "local" into Lower Slobbovian or proposed that all translations of special names should, themselves, be excluded. So, some Lower Slobbovian application is built and becomes widely popular in that country that uses the relevant name. Now assume that, since it is not on the list that we built, ICANN entertains an application for that name. Assuming there were a Lower Slobbovian GAC representative by then (there isn't now) or that someone from another country happens to visit the country and notice the name in use and mentions it in the GAC. "Local" and its translations are not a place or national name in any country that I've heard of, so the GAC doesn't make a strong recommendation, they just say "you'd better watch out for this one" at some appropriate part of the process. Based on the recent AFRICA decision, ICANN decides to ignore that advice as excessively vague and outside the GAC charter. So the name is delegated and 2/3 of Internet service in Lower Slobbovia ceases working predictably (for everyone who is old enough, especially those who recently spent time in Prague, remember what happened when "CS." was delegated from the root). That would clearly constitute a mess, probably a "stability problem" for the global Internet. I believe the following responses are predictable: * ICANN 1: Not our problem, we used the IETF's list and that wasn't on it. * ICANN SSAC: No one asked us that specific question, so we didn't research the name and give an opinion. * IETF: No one told us about that name or usage. Of course, everyone on the Internet is obligated to tell us every time they deploy an application that uses a name. That would be consistent with "permissionless innovation" because they need to tell us, not ask, except, whoops, getting a name on the list requires IETF Consensus and IETF Consensus _does_ imply our giving permission or at least deciding the string is important enough. * ICANN 2: It is the responsibility of all applicants to do due diligence on the name they picked so, if they apply for a name and we allocate and delegate it, and then it causes problems, those problems are their fault; sort it out with them. [1] * Government of Lower Slobbovia (and/or one or more BRIC countries or the ITU or the next WSIS-related or IGF meeting): This proves that IETF and ICANN are US pawns, that the US government doesn't care about Lower Slobbovia or anyone else who is not directly relevant to their short-term political interests, and therefore all DNS name registration (and exclusion) issues should be handled by an International Treaty Organization. There are also race conditions inherent in this (as I think others have pointed out). If I correctly understood him, Steve mentioned that it is probably too late to do anything about the current list of applications -- if there were problems there, their handling would have to be according to the current Applicant Handbook and, unless I've forgotten something, it doesn't say "no names that appear on the IETF's Special Names list at the time of application". So we are now making claims on name reservations for the next round, when and if it happens but, if a name shows up on our list after that round starts and people submit applications and pay money, there is another ambiguity. I don't want to see us go anywhere near there. Dumping this on ICANN and hoping they can figure out a way to handle it without things getting too political or being sold to the highest bidder is almost certainly unfair and probably seems more so to those who believe that it is impossible for ICANN to make a TLD-related decision without its being controlled by politics or "moneyed interests". Perhaps putting them in a position in which they have to give SSAC a more prominent and authoritative role and, independently, get out of the "second-guessing committee" business is unfair too. However, it seems me that they signed up for the job when they were chartered. We didn't. And shouldn't. Should we agree to tell some ICANN-designated entity or process every time we run across a name that should be considered "special"? Definitely. That is just being professional. Should we offer official opinions about names that are tied up with our protocols or that appear especially important to us? I, personally, think that would be a fine idea. But the IETF is not in the business of maintaining authoritative and comprehensive lists of names that should be excluded; we don't have the skills, knowledge, and process appropriate to that activity [2]; and, if we were to go into it on a per-name basis, it would expose us to engagement in finger-pointing and claims the could damage our core mission. I do believe there is one very constructive thing we can do here. That is to sort out some appropriate reserved TLD name with ICANN, possibly even have it delegated to something that generates authoritative NXDOMAIN messages (or worse) and then issue a strong statement to developers of future applications that they should use names in that tree, possibly with courtesy registrations to help them stay out of each other's way, rather than potentially causing Internet instabilities or getting themselves entangled with ICANN. The "ALT" proposal appears to be a good step in that direction but I think this discussion has exposed several issues that future revisions of it should consider. best, john [1] That "due diligence by applicants" argument suggests that this is a huge fuss about nothing. If one reaches that conclusion, I'm not sure why we need to have the discussion or a Special Names registry whose contents stretch beyond IETF protocols and names that are obviously widely deployed in narrowly DNS contexts. [2} I just had a nightmare vision of adding to our IPR statements and requirements of the Note Well and related documents a requirement that all participants in the IETF disclose any name they know about, even names used internally and confidentially by their employers or other enterprises, that might be confused with, or with resolution attempted in, the DNS. Not a good idea.