Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

[Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>]

While I appreciate the kind words and deference to SSAC, and while we  
would undoubtedly concur with recommendations to reserve names  
like .local, ICANN actually listens to the IETF more directly.   
Moreover, there is a specific slot on the Board of ICANN for a  
Liaison from the IETF.  Thomas Narten does a great job in that role,  
as John Klensin did before him.

Steve


On Jul 2, 2008, at 12:53 PM, John Levine wrote:

> In article <Pine.GSO.4.63.0807020927290.12027 at pita.cisco.com> you  
> write:
> > Paul,
> >
> > But it is still the case that an application for say .local would  
> > need
> > to go through some review process (regardless of price) which would
> > include input from the IETF ICANN rep.
>
> More likely from the SSAC, which would be even better.
>
> In any event, as I said before, although there's a lot not to like
> about ICANN, the chances of them doing anything technically
> destructive remains low.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet  
> for Dummies",
> Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex- 
> Mayor
> "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf