Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Addition to Tagged Names Report
Hi, My inability to call tagged names 'low hanging fruit' is based on an unwillingness to automatically include all names with - in the 3rd and 4th position. I would have no problem saying that reserving xn-- is 'low hanging fruit'. I would probably even be inclined to reserve a sub-section of the space, e.g. all names with x in the first position and - in the 3rd and 4th, but I am uncomfortable with reserving a wider space. i think that over time applications will develop special methods for handling tags. As the report says, ICANN may want to use other tags for other reasons, and I think this is good and hence a possible reason for reserving a sub-section of that name space. But it may also be the case that others will find good uses for tags once there is support for tags in the application architecture. One of the rules that applies to protocols that should apply to policy about protocols is the notion of extensibility - can the protocol, or rather the policy regarding the protocol, reasonably be used for things beyond what we can conceive of today. Tags seem to me to such a protocol element and I think it unwise to reserve all names with - in the 3rd and 4th position. I know my arguments probably don't persuade everyone, or perhaps anyone, but this is why I do not think it 'low hanging fruit.' a. On 8 feb 2007, at 11.37, Patrick Jones wrote: I have added some information to Chuck’s Tagged Names Report. ICANN has 12 ccTLD sponsorship agreements or MOUs, and each one has an identical provision on reservation of tagged names. I have inserted this into Section 5, under ICANN Registry Agreement Requirements. The provision does not appear in the newer form of lightweight Accountability Frameworks.
|