North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Stability of the Internet?

  • From: Roeland Meyer
  • Date: Wed May 23 13:30:13 2001 
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:16 AM
> 
> > > 	There is work being done in the IETF to create such a private
> > > 	use TLD.
> > 
> > Where? Also, this may bring on a jurisdiction issue with 
> ICANN/DNSO. It is
> > the ICANN that is recommending new TLDs to the DOC, not the 
> IETF. In order
> > tfor that effort to comply with WIP process, it should make 
> attempts to
> > surface within relevent ICANN activity as well. Otherwise, 
> ICANN doesn't
> > know about it and can't make appropriate recommendations. 
> I'm very much
> > involved in that area and they are invisible to every one, 
> in the DNSO. This
> > effects the open/transparent process and if they don't want 
> to catch a LOT
> > of political flak (consider this fair-warning), they need 
> to widen the
> > visibility of their effort. This effects ICANN policy 
> directly and IETF
> > isn't a policy org. They are a PSO, not a DNSO.
> 
> 	The IETF work predates much of ICANN & DNSo work. 

Agreed, much of it does. I am proposing to get IETF out of the policy
business and in into the PSO business it is now chartered for.

>     Clearly
> 	there has been too narrow a focus if the DNSo & ICANN do
> 	not believe that others have considered the impact of 
>     entry points in the DNS 

That's not the issue presented. The issues are those of involvement and
communication. IETF is closed and tight-knit. Yet, they do not and cannot
recommend TLDs to the DOC. Evenso, they come up with stuff that the folks
that ARE supposed to recommend these these things, aren't made aware of.
Countervailing recommendations are made, from those that ARE supposed to
make them, and we then have a cat-fight.

>     and that they have exclusive understanding of the 
> 	ramifications of controlling this space.

That's a fairly deep mud-hole. Let's not go there ;)

> 	See RFC 2606

Thanks for the RFC. It will be taken into consideration.