On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:45 PM, tom p. <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Phillip > > One of the points you make below is that the supervision of a registry > should be determined by its place in the protocol stack, higher means > less. I think that the syntax of an entry should also play its part. > > When the entry is numeric (e.g.port) then the syntax is fairly well > defined and the scope for inappropriate or mischievous entries is > limited. > > When the entry is textual, even if the character set is limited to > US-ASCII, then that scope is considerable so I would argue that any such > registry should have someone keeping an eye on it, to query, perhaps > reject, proposed entries that might be intended to subvert, to malign, > to breach IPR and so on. I would argue this as the starting point for > all registries where the entry is textual and otherwise unconstrained. That is a good point. And a corner case that we don't seem to have faced to date. Though I can imagine we might end up doing so in the future. I think that the issue certainly merits a treatment in any new rules for registries but I don't think the answer is prior restraint. Rather the approach that we have generally encouraged on the Web and managed to get most jurisdictions to recognize is one where anyone can publish anything but they may suffer consequences for doing so and ISPs are required to take down material after being advised it is objectionable. Applying this principle to IETF process, anyone can register anything in a first come first served registry but there would obviously be legal issues if someone other than Twitter registered TWITTER as a well known service with the objective of sabotaging deployment of a planned product. Rather than attempting to anticipate such issues, it is probably best to simply note that assignments can be revoked by IESG decision.