Actually, I am not even suggesting interacting with IETF process(because I
have a feeling that the draft will not survive IETF process) but rather
wondering whether those interested could take it up through GNSO process
independently if they find it worthy enough.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 8 Nov 2015 14:41, "David Cake" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The GNSO doesn’t seem very interested in it, though, and we probably need
> a clear guideline on how we might interact with the IETF processes before
> we start one.
>
> I’d interested in looking at this issue both as a very new IETF
> participant, and as a quite experienced GNSO participant - if there is
> going to be a GNSO process, I’d be happy to take leadership of that issue
> at Council level, but I want to ensure that such a process is seen as
> cooperative rather than competing by the IETF (specifically DNSOP WG), and
> I don’t think that position is clear yet.
>
> I’ve been trying to keep the council informed, I will continue to do so.
>
> David
>
> On 8 Nov 2015, at 10:22 AM, Seun Ojedeji <[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>> 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]> 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
>>
>
>