[142185] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sun Jun 19 22:29:16 2011
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <30657.1308535698@nsa.vix.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:26:25 -1000
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 19, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> ICANN could also have an impact on this by having applicants sign =
something=20
Well, yes, ICANN could have contracted parties (e.g., the new gTLDs) do =
this. A bit late to get it into the Applicant's Guidebook, but maybe =
something could be slipped in after the fact. Who is going to lead the =
contingent from NANOG to raise this in the GNSO?
Of course, changing existing contracts tends to be challenging since the =
contracted parties have to agree to the changes and I wouldn't be =
surprised if they demanded ICANN give something up in exchange for =
agreeing to this new restriction. It'll probably take a while.
ICANN can respectfully request ccTLD folks do the same, but whether or =
not the ccTLDs listen is a separate matter. If the ccTLD folks feel =
they gain benefit from having naked TLDs, they'll tell ICANN to take a =
hike.
Not sure what will happen with the IDN ccTLDs since they appear to be =
sort of a combination of ccTLDs and contracted parties.
You probably know all this, but things in the ICANN world probably don't =
work the way most folks think.
Regards,
-drc
