[NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] JAS no-bid on NCAP Study 1

[Paul Hoffman]

On Sep 3, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> I think it would be quite appropriate for ICANN to create a 1918-like protected namespace for local use.  I don't say this lightly.  My first choice, and I assume everyone else's, would be for the IETF to do this.  But "the IETF" doesn't exist in the sense of being a fully coherent and integrated organization with specific people in charge and required to deal with such issues.  (The IAB is a closer fit in terms of being an organized body that might take this on, but it has limited bandwidth and chooses its own agenda.)  Instead, it's a venue for parties interested in a topic to get together and attempt to reach consensus on a specific topic.
> 
> Even if the IETF were to designate some portion of the of the top level namespace as exclusively for local use. it would be up to ICANN to refuse to allocate such names into the root.  (Or, perhaps, to include them in the root in a way that accomplishes the purposes, but that's a topic for later discussion.) . In contrast, because ICANN has complete control of the root zone and because the problem we're dealing arose precisely because there was no 1918-like designation of a portion of the namespace, I'd argue ICANN has both the authority and responsibility to implement JAS's Recommendation #1.  ICANN should, of course, use consensus and it should, of course, maintain communication and coordination with the IETF, but it should proceed.

...

> And I see Warren says there was an attempt within SSAC to do exactly this but it failed for lack of sufficient interest.  From my point of view, this is an ICANN problem.  We now have two attempts to deal this problem to others, i.e. the IETF and SSAC.  But neither is obligated to take this on.  So that leaves ICANN continuing to wrestle with this.  It seems to me that if ICANN has the budget for our NCAP work and for the contracts it expects to fund, there should surely be room to support the development of a 1918-like protected namespace.


Although Jeff's response that was copied to this list said "The one glaring failure and our great disappointment is that the IETF has refused to take-up our Recommendation #1 to clearly create an RFC 1918-like protected namespace for local use.", that's actually not at all what the report's Recommendation 1 said. It said:
   RECOMMENDATION 1: The TLDs .corp, .home, and .mail be permanently reserved for
   internal use and receive RFC 1918-like protection/treatment, potentially via RFC 6761.
Unless I'm totally missing it, I don't see anything in the JAS report that actually calls for a RFC 1918-like protected namespace for local use.

This isn't to say that ICANN org couldn't "create an RFC 1918-like protected namespace for local use", but someone needs to give clear wording for the task before we start. "The IETF tried but failed to embrace this, and SSAC tried but failed to embrace this, but ICANN org is going ahead anyway" does not seem like a good recipe for showing that ICANN org listens to the community.

Maybe the fact that Warren's .alt proposal (draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld) is being revived in the DNSOP WG is sufficient for now.

--Paul