[137496] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Feb 14 15:34:51 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D59466A.6070603@nic-naa.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 12:30:31 -0800
To: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 14, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> owen,
>=20
> at several points you assert that gtlds are "global", which i suggest =
is an error on your part.
>=20
TLDs come in two flavors.
GTLD -- Global Top Level Domain -- A domain which contains records for =
entities not restricted
to a particular geographical area.
CCTLD -- Country Code Top Level Domain -- A domain which is under the =
control of a particular
national government represented by the corresponding 2-letter =
ISO country code.
The G in GTLD is Global... I'm not asserting anything, it's flat out in =
the term.
> gtlds are whatever the controlling contract (icann) requires, and that =
currently lacks an external to the point of service performance =
measurement, and whatever the registrants require, with some filtering =
through the marginal interests of registrars.
>=20
Your point being?
> the icann contract for the .cat registry is "sponsored", and the =
interest of the registry, and its registrants, is marginal outside of =
catalonia.
>=20
Interest in .cat may or may not be marginal. Doesn't matter. The nature =
of any policy regarding GTLDs is that it relates to more GTLDs
than just ".cat". GTLDs are, by definition, global in scope on the =
internet and any policy about them should be viewed in that light.
> the icann contract for some municipality or region, assuming the new =
gtld program results in new contracts, may be "standard" or =
"community-based", but the intersts of the registry, and its =
registrants, may also be marginal outside of that municipality or =
region.
>=20
Your point being?
> you can decide for yourself if your preference for the policy and =
profit margins for .nyc are controlling, or if the preferences of the =
city administration, the registry operator, and, using either the .cat =
or the .nl rates of adoption, a quarter of a million or four million new =
yorkers are controlling.
>=20
First, I think giving all of these random things a GTLD to begin with is =
an absurd process fraught with peril to satisfy
ICANN's greed. However, that's not my decision.
If ICANN is going to move forward with this mess, the least we can do is =
try to have consistent policy for all GTLDs.
While I recognize that ICANN lacked the foresight to make it possible to =
apply updated technical requirements
to existing GTLD operators until their contract comes up for renewal, =
that is no reason we should not have
reasonable and current requirements for new GTLDs.
> if there is a registry the operations for which you are familiar =
enough to discuss, we can discuss the necessity and utility of a v6 =
reachibility requirement, though the prior to delegation requirement is =
unique to the proposed contract for new registries.
>=20
All operators should be required to support IPv6. If ICANN had done =
their job properly, this requirement would
be applied to existing operators too. Unfortunately, ICANN dropped the =
ball and the contracts don't allow that.
The fact that ICANN dropped the ball on existing registries isn't a =
reason to drop the ball on new ones.
Owen
