[NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] RE: Top-level Domains for Private Internets IETF draft

[David Conrad]

Jeff,

On Jun 15, 2020, at 8:02 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
> ICANN, as far as I can tell, does not have a consensus policy that states that once ISO-3166 codes are created anyone can use it for any purpose. If there is such a policy, I would love to see it. 

Traditionally  (as long as I’ve been doing DNS stuff, i.e., 1984-ish), 2-letter ISO-3166 codes have been the domain (pun intended) of ISO-3166/MA and the entities to which ISO-3166/MA assigns control. I am unaware that such control is a subject of ICANN consensus policy, and in the lack of such a policy, my understanding has been that previous usage applied. I gather your view is different?

> ISO assigns to character codes, yes.  But ISO does not assign 2 character domains? 

No, but as you know, since around 1984, a 2-letter code cannot be delegated unless it is assigned by ISO-3166/MA. ISO-3166/MA has assigned a set of codes to be “user defined” codes, which means they can’t be delegated by ICANN as there is (by definition) no single entity that has been assigned control, thus it would seem to make sense (IMHO) to use them for private namespaces if you want to avoid potential collision. 

> That is within ICANN’s purview. Yes, we through the ICANN processes have acknowledged the right of ccTLDs to use their assigned codes as ccTLDs,

An interesting perspective.  To be honest, I’m not sure that is a right ICANN has the ability to give or take away, but that’s a probably a different discussion.

> but to my knowledge, ICANN has never discussed the ability to use other ISO code lists for other purposes.

OK, but (a) we’re talking about private namespaces which, by definition, ICANN has no control over and (b) Roy/Ed are not speaking for ICANN in any way.

> Why should anyone be averse to having this discussion within the ICANN community and why did Roy and Ed decide that the right venue to discuss this issue was the IETF.  To me this is policy issue and not a technical issue?

Not to speak for Roy/Ed (I haven’t spoken to them about this), my guess is that they used the technical forum they were most familiar with.  It might also be that they view publishing via the IETF as being more likely to result in the document being read by the folks who would be considering squatting on an “unused” string.  I wouldn’t imagine they’d be against publishing the document elsewhere, after all, the intent of Internet Drafts is to facilitate discussion, regardless of venue.  However, where/how would you propose they publish?

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20200615/645890a2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2546 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20200615/645890a2/smime.p7s>