From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
[mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:16 AM> > There is work being done in the IETF to create such a private
> > use TLD.
>
> Where? Also, this may bring on a jurisdiction issue with
ICANN/DNSO. It is
> the ICANN that is recommending new TLDs to the DOC, not the
IETF. In order
> tfor that effort to comply with WIP process, it should make
attempts to
> surface within relevent ICANN activity as well. Otherwise,
ICANN doesn't
> know about it and can't make appropriate recommendations.
I'm very much
> involved in that area and they are invisible to every one,
in the DNSO. This
> effects the open/transparent process and if they don't want
to catch a LOT
> of political flak (consider this fair-warning), they need
to widen the
> visibility of their effort. This effects ICANN policy
directly and IETF
> isn't a policy org. They are a PSO, not a DNSO.The IETF work predates much of ICANN & DNSo work.
Agreed, much of it does. I am proposing to get IETF out of the policy
business and in into the PSO business it is now chartered for.
Clearly
there has been too narrow a focus if the DNSo & ICANN do
not believe that others have considered the impact of
entry points in the DNS
That's not the issue presented. The issues are those of involvement and
communication. IETF is closed and tight-knit. Yet, they do not and cannot
recommend TLDs to the DOC. Evenso, they come up with stuff that the folks
that ARE supposed to recommend these these things, aren't made aware of.
Countervailing recommendations are made, from those that ARE supposed to
make them, and we then have a cat-fight.
and that they have exclusive understanding of the
ramifications of controlling this space.
That's a fairly deep mud-hole. Let's not go there 
See RFC 2606
Thanks for the RFC. It will be taken into consideration.