[cabfpub] ICANN Presentation on Internal Names
Ben Wilson
ben at digicert.com
Wed Jul 24 09:16:35 MST 2013
I thought the same thing when I heard that. Also, that is something that I see as a "disconnect" between the IETF and ICANN. In other words, neither is willing to take action unless brought together by a special task force. I suppose someone (like CABF) could submit a "Petition" to them jointly requesting that they reserve additional namespace.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:52 AM
To: ben at digicert.com
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] ICANN Presentation on Internal Names
On 21/07/13 23:13, Ben Wilson wrote:
> There have been some suggestions over the past few years, particularly
> within the IETF, to in fact permanently reserve some of the strings to
> prevent the name collisions we’ve been talking about from happening.
> That’s a pretty radical step to take, and again, these are options--
> not necessarily things that anyone is going to do, and in particular,
> we don’t, as a result of our study, explicitly recommend that ICANN or
> anyone else follow one of these options.
Does anyone know why Lyman thinks, and assumes, that reserving some names is a "pretty radical step"?
It seems to be like a pretty obvious step that should have been done right at the start of the process...
Gerv
More information about the Public
mailing list