The NTIA issued a new notice to ICANN on Tuesday emphasizing it's desire for "functional separation" of IANA http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/FR_IANA_<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/FR_IANA_FurtherNOI_06102011.pdf> FurtherNOI_06102011.pdf<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/FR_IANA_FurtherNOI_06102011.pdf> Larry Strickling spoke about it at the INET New York the same day http://bit.ly/inetnyarchive He also mentioned an extra hurdle- "in the global public interest" - for new gTLDs, surely inspired by .xxx j On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Vixie" <vixie@isc.org>
I believe the root server operators have stated (the equivalent of)
David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> writes: that
it is not their job to make editorial decisions on what the root zone contains. They distribute what the ICANN/NTIA/Verisign gestalt publishes.
yes. for one example, see:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04jan08.htm
other rootops who have spoken about this have said similar/compatible things.
Just to clarify, since I'm responsible for that particular red herring, I had at the time forgotten that the TLD zone don't actually *live* in the root -- I know; silly me, right? -- and that the root wouldn't be affected by the sort of things that previously-2LD now TLD operators might want to do with their monocomponent names...
which as someone pointed out, a 3-digit RFC forbids for security reasons anyway.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -