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

Mon Jun 15 17:58:41 UTC 2020

Jeff, David, et al,

There are at least four distinct groups that have a perspective on how top
level names are assigned and used.  It would be useful all around if we
could assemble their perspectives and also document the decisions and
allocation of authorities.

Jeff, you wrote

The GNSO is responsible for setting all policy with respect to the gTLD
namespace.  This issue is no different that the GNSO Subsequent Procedures
group looking at the policy behind reserving 2 characters for the ccTLDs
which it did in 2008 and again is in the process of reviewing.  It is the
GNSO (and the ICANN community) that decided to reserve the 2 characters for
the use of the ccTLDs using the ISO3166 list.   It is the GNSO community
that will be affirming that in SubPro.

I note that your first sentence says the GNSO is responsible for setting
all policy with respect to the gTLD namespace.  You did not say the TLD
namespace.  Further, it seems odd on its face for the GNSO to be
responsible for reserving 2 characters for the ccTLDs.  As David points
out, the allocation of two character codes for the ccTLDs predates the
creation of ICANN.  Perhaps you meant the GNSO acknowledged the use of two
character codes for ccTLDs and wisely built into its policy that it would
not assign two character codes.

I said there were at least four distinct groups.  I have in mind these
four.  You might choose to divide these further or add others.

   - The gTLD community, represented by the GNSO
   - The ccTLD community, represented by the cCNSO
   - The IETF technical community
   - An unaligned group that views itself outside of both the IETF and
   ICANN.

Another key group, of course, is the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency.  We're
dependent on them, and they're actually fairly respectful of us.  In
particular, after the trouble following the reassignment of CS, they
changed their holding period from five years to (I think) fifty years.
(Jaap Akkerhuis is the expert on this and definitely needs to be included
in creating a document that covers this relationship.)

With respect to SubPro, I can easily imagine reactions from outside the
GNSO, i.e. elsewhere in ICANN as well as outside ICANN, that it's fine for
SubPro to set rules for delegating additional gTLDs but that doesn't apply
to other uses of TLDs.  If you want to encompass *all* allocations of top
level names, it seems to me additional work is needed.  ICANN does have
operational control of what strings are delegated in the root zone, but it
doesn't have the same sort of control over what strings are put into use in
other arenas, and that's what causes a certain number of collsions.

Steve

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 1:25 PM Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
wrote:

> Thanks David.  I have already forwarded this to the Subsequent Procedures
> Policy Development Process working group as we are talking about the issue
> of “Special Use” domains and ensuring that we have a process to (a) ensure
> no collisions with those names and (b) ensure there is a dialogue between
> the ICANN Community and the IETF on future Special Use domains.  Many in
> the ICANN Community were not happy with the way that .onion came about
> without any discussion within the ICANN community.
>
>
>
> Further, I assume in sending this to the NCAP group, it was the intention
> of at least one of the authors’ to ensure that there were no future
> collisions with this name space (e.g., that ICANN not allow the delegation
> of any string reserved for private use).
>
>
>
> Although you are correct that pre-ICANN this stuff was not in the hands of
> any formal domain name authority, since ICANN’s formations, many
> discussions have been held within the GNSO (formerly DNSO) and ICANN in
> general about what to do with the reservation of strings at the top level.
> And you are correct that 2 character codes that correspond to existing
> countries have always been enshrined into our policies to reserve for those
> countries and for potential new countries.  But that was always done with
> the assumption that they would be used by the corresponding countries in
> connection with serving their local Internet community.
>
>
>
> So if we were talking about a new country coming into existence, like most
> recently .ss, we would not have to discuss that because of the agreements
> within the community to allow 2 characters to be used in connection with
> that new country (or at least under the supervision of that country).
> However, when we start talking about a different use of a 2 character code
> other than as a ccTLD, such as for private use (or any other use for that
> matter), that should bring this into the ICANN policy realm.
>
>
>
> *Jeff Neuman*
>
> Senior Vice President
>
> *Com Laude | Valideus*
>
> D: +1.703.635.7514
>
> E: *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
>
>
>
> *From:* David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2020 12:09 PM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> *Cc:* Roy Arends <roy.arends at icann.org>; ncap-discuss at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ext] RE: [NCAP-Discuss] Top-level Domains for Private
> Internets IETF draft
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
> The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the
> intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way
> by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this
> message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the
> email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete
> it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility
> for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this
> email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability
> for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of
> the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes
> Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales
> with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell
> Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in
> England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at
> 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a
> company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its
> registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF
> Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered
> at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan)
> Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at
> Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further
> information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com>
> _______________________________________________
> NCAP-Discuss mailing list
> NCAP-Discuss at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20200615/c17adbd5/attachment-0001.html>