[142096] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jun 17 22:06:21 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <E88A94B8-C02A-401F-8261-978C16C89203@virtualized.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:04:19 -0700
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:36 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic =
on
>> point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language,
>=20
> Eric's writing style does take a bit of getting used to, but I usually =
find it enlightening (albeit occasionally in an existential way) :-).
>=20
>> and buried in a thread I'd long since stopped paying attention to by =
that point;
>=20
> It was the third message in the thread.
>=20
>> my apologies to you for not having seen it, since you seem to feel =
that's material.
>=20
> No need to apologize. As I said, I've been in layer 9 too long so I =
figured the whole .brand thing was common knowledge. Sounds like ICANN =
should have a liaison to the NANOG world (perhaps the ARIN region ASO AC =
members can't do that?).
>=20
> Regards,
> -drc
>=20
I really don't think that namespace issues are part of the role for the =
ASO AC.
This is clearly a problem for ICANN's disaster-ridden domain-name side, =
and not
for the ASO/NRO side of things.
Frankly, it hadn't occurred to me that ICANN would actually do this, =
but, now that
it's happening, it doesn't really surprise me. Operationally, it's a =
horrible idea, but,
most of us in layers 1-4 stopped paying much attention to the disasters =
happening
at ICANN for DNS along time ago as we sort of came to believe that we =
didn't have
enough money to bribe^h^h^h^h^hinfluence the right people in a =
sufficiently
meaningful way to make our voices heard.
Owen
