As an individual, I am generally positive about this development, and I will be trying to support this moving forward in the IETF DNSOP group, where I will probably have some comments. 

Eventually, I think the GNSO should take a look at it, if just to see if they have any objections or not. There may be some issues (for example, there is a draft floating around that considers the possibility of putting .home on that list. As there were gTLD applicants for that TLD (admittedly, I think they’ve been given their money back and given up once it was placed on the name contention problem list), that sounds like the GNSO should at least pay a little attention. 

David

On 5 Nov 2015, at 12:39 PM, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]> 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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
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