Hi,

Was there as well.

It is interesting to see the IETF point to it as a possible ICANN
questions, when the GNSO seems disinterested in the issue.
Might be safer to leave it in IETF hands as they might be less likely to
define terms as sensitive, and could define it as a null set.

avri


On 08-Nov-15 10:22, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I happen to be in the room when this was discussed at the last IETF
> meeting and I observed that a number of views were of the opinion that
> what the draft is trying to address should not be an IETF issue to
> resolve but that of ICANN. So while it's good to follow-up on the
> IETF, I think it may be good for it to be looked into at GNSO level.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 8 Nov 2015 11:58, "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Thanks for your comments.
>
>     I was specifically thinking of 6.2.3
>
>     > The following questions should be discussed by the IETF:
>     >
>     >       Is there a need to reserve any name, as long as it is
>     unique, or
>     >       is there any technical reason to reserve a particular name?
>     >
>     >       Are non-technical reasons to reserve a "specific" name
>     acceptable?
>     >
>     >       Is demonstrated prior-usage of a specific name a valid
>     rationale?
>     >
>     >    When processing gTLD applications, ICANN has a process to review
>     >    those to check if the proposed names are potentially offensive to
>     >    certain communities, have political ramifications, etc.. It
>     is worth
>     >    asking if the IETF should have a similar process in place to
>     evaluate
>     >    specific proposed reserved names, and, if so, how such
>     process would
>     >    be implemented, and how appeals should be handled?
>
>     I know that NCSG is primarily focused on domain names at ICANN, but
>     wondered whether the statement above was something external to
>     ICANN but
>     related to domain names that we might have a comment on.
>
>     Personally I do, and as an IETF participant do plan to get
>     involved in.
>     So figured it would be good to check and see what this group thought
>     about it.
>
>     But if Sam's view is the prevalent one, that is ok to.
>
>     avri
>
>
>     On 05-Nov-15 01:39, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>     >
>     > Avri has raised the question of whether or not NCSG should be
>     > concerned with the names and resolving protocols questions raised in
>     > the following IETF document:
>     >
>     >
>     https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-00.txt
>     >
>     > Having read the document here is my small contribution. There may be
>     > some issues in the questions raised that might become of interest to
>     > NCSG but given the nature of the issue – reserve names linked to
>     other
>     > (non-DNS) resolution protocols- my advice is to leave it up to the
>     > IETF to ruminate over the issues and, at the appropriate times, that
>     > may toss up issues for NCSG to consider. It does not look like
>     an area
>     > where NCSG mining documents for NCSG-centric issues would be
>     productive.
>     >
>     > Sam L. (NPOC)
>     >
>     > /
>     > //
>     > /
>     > /On 2015-11-04 4:50 PM, Avri Doria wrote://
>     > /
>     >>
>     /https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-00.txt//i
>     >> know the council is not interested in such things, but thought
>     maybe
>     >> the NCSG is. avri/
>     >
>
>
>     ---
>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>     https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus