00:22:18 Kathy Schnitt: https://docs. 00:22:21 Kathy Schnitt: oops 00:22:28 Kathy Schnitt: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ri9LuGD8Gplz5ooyeVS6GahiiRuPNY80KaXcujopoac/edit#he 00:26:16 Jeff Neuman: Is it also possible to address the questions posed by the SubPro Working Group in its Initial Report? 00:26:55 Matthew Thomas: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Inx_1ndmQOvT3CFpMjhL7JvRcE2iESG1NnCwx-sR6Rs/edit 00:32:51 Justine Chew: My apologies for late arrival, I was held up with another matter of urgency. 00:33:24 Jeff Neuman: I may be missing the why of this question. Are we trying to see what happens when a private entity expects a negative response but because of a delegation no longer gets that negative response? 00:37:56 Jeff Neuman: @matt - I think your answer is much more sophisticated than mine :) 00:38:07 Jeff Neuman: but I understood it, so that is good 00:44:34 Jeff Neuman: yep, some of the crypto strings have been operating alternate roots 00:45:20 Jeff Neuman: and blockchain domains 00:45:30 Jeff Neuman: like .eth 00:46:14 Matthew Thomas: thank you Jeff for those. Yes those were the ones I remember. 00:48:31 James Galvin: @Kathy - scroll down a bit please to keep up with the notes. 00:48:49 Jaap Akkerhuis: There are also people that ignore warnings because they believe it will be fixed in the end (thing about mail boxes at top level domains) 00:49:51 Jeff Neuman: But they do so at their own risk 00:50:12 Warren Kumari: Thank Patrik - couldn't have said it better. 00:51:41 Barry Leiba: Weaponized DNS! 00:52:08 Warren Kumari: Mutually Assured Distruction -- notice the mutual part. 00:52:35 Matthew Thomas: Does Chrome NXD random startup fit that criteria? They are a large percentage of root traffic….. 00:53:33 Jeff Neuman: @Jim - exactly. The only way they "learn" is when what they developed fails 00:54:11 Jeff Neuman: If we do not delegate a string because of someone not following the "rules", then we are incentivizing not following the rules 00:56:04 Jeff Neuman: But Warren, if they don't know enough to know the rule, then how will they know that that name you are setting aside it 00:56:05 Jeff Neuman: is 00:56:18 James Galvin: why can’t Linux or any software distribution (called company.com) have a default name of “default.company.com”? 00:56:29 James Galvin: why does it have to be a TLD? 00:58:08 James Galvin: privacy problem doesn’t go away if you have a default name. 00:58:19 Jeff Neuman: how about .idontlikefollingtherules 00:58:26 James Galvin: you’re just assuming that ICANN or IETF or whoever has that default name doesn’t do something with it. 00:59:56 Jeff Neuman: I will still be around for that meeting ;) 01:06:17 Jeff Neuman: I am disenfranchised by my government, but that does not give me the right to form my own government. If I want to change things, I have to act within the system to effectuate change 01:06:32 Warren Kumari: .omion (ToR) 01:06:38 Warren Kumari: 4.1. The "GNU" Relative pTLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. The "ZKEY" Compressed Public Key pTLD . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Geographically Anonymous pTLDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3.1. The "ONION" Hidden Service pTLD . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3.2. The "EXIT" Client Source Routing pTLD . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.3. The "I2P" Addressbook pTLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4. The "BIT" Timeline System pTLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 01:07:05 Matthew Thomas: Thanks for that list Warren. 01:07:17 Warren Kumari: They tried to participate 01:08:37 Steve Crocker: Jeff, it’s a bit harder than that. The rules are strongly geared toward commercial use of TLD strings. The GNSO controls t he playing ground, but the disenfranchised people are not part of the GNSO and would not be welcome. They are viewed as inherently outside the system. This is a bit mistake. 01:09:41 Jeff Neuman: Then we can work on the costs and establish programs to bring them in. 01:09:46 Patrik Fältström : But Jeff, my point is that JUST working in the ICANN system is just as wrong as not doing so, as the internet architecture is built upon the fact that TLDs should not be added. The default is to NOT add TLDs. 01:10:23 Patrik Fältström : so the request to go to the right place can be directed at you to go to ietf and change for example algorithms for dns resolution. 01:10:38 Jeff Neuman: Then how do we encourage innovation in the DNS? That is what should be our focus 01:11:08 Jeff Neuman: not lets build our system around those that feel like they cant work within ours 01:11:19 Warren Kumari: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00 01:11:39 Warren Kumari: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-12 01:12:14 Warren Kumari: The second reserves a label for no DNS name lookups (like blockchain and similar) 01:12:18 Jeff Neuman: @Warren - I am one of the Co-Chairs of SubPro....and have been asking for years for people to provide information on what rules stand in the way of "innovation". We have processes to change the rules... 01:12:31 Warren Kumari: The former reserves a label for thingies within the DNS 01:12:42 Patrik Fältström : innovation regarding dns as in the protocol is done in the ietf, not icann. innovation regarding businesses is what people like you do in icann. there is a clash there as you innovate by adding tlds which the protocols are not designed for. and that is why we are here. 01:13:03 Warren Kumari: @Patrik: Jah! 01:13:20 Patrik Fältström : I am just saying your claim people should go to icann because that is “the right place to be” is just wrong. 01:13:43 Jeff Neuman: @Patrick - why is that wrong? 01:13:49 Warren Kumari: However, getting work like alt-old done in ICANN is largely a non-starter 01:13:52 Jeff Neuman: WHy should we not be telling people to go to ICANN 01:14:24 Warren Kumari: How does a *tecnical* person enter ICANN? ALAC? 01:14:34 Patrik Fältström : because “ours” can as well be defined as “ours as in ietf”. who are you in icann messing around breaking the ietf protocols? 01:14:48 Warren Kumari: How do they participate without traveling all over the world? 01:14:49 Jeff Neuman: If they don't want to "play" within the system the world has elected to recognize as the authoritative root, then why should we care about them 01:14:50 Steve Crocker: @Jeff, would SubPro support proposed changes to the application rules that provide no cost or very lost cost delegation of a TLD for public interest purposes with the proviso that it not be used for commercial revenue? 01:15:38 Steve Crocker: very low cost 01:15:39 Jeff Neuman: @Steven-We are working on a meaningful Applicant Support program. 01:15:48 Steve Crocker: very low cost 01:16:03 Patrik Fältström : Jeff, once again: the dns standard as defined by the ietf, that icann do follow, do say explicitly search domains is perfectly ok to use. 01:16:03 Warren Kumari: Unless you are a well funded (read commercial) person, and part of a recognized constituency, how do you participate? 01:16:10 Jeff Neuman: I think the WOrking Group would entertain that discussion, yes. But I cant speak for them 01:16:20 Steve Crocker: The previous use of the term Applicant Support Program was not meaningful. This would need to be a different class of applications