Would individual submission work? Is it possible the formalism here will send it via DISPATCH back to a dns WG?
G On Sat, 24 Jan 2026, 1:25 pm StJohns, Michael, <[email protected]> wrote: > It’s unclear to me that DNSOP has a dog in this fight. These are > pre-ICANN, legacy policy and engineering documents. DNSOP has a very > limited remit with respect to any TLDs or for that matter the delegation > policies with respect to TLDs. AIRC our remit/ownership is limited to a > few protocol related domains. > > I think it’s appropriate for any of the IAB, IESG or ISE to cleanup those > legacy documents without any input from the DNSOP wg. DNSOP consensus is > not required or even desired. > > Mike > > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 19:39 Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> > On Jan 23, 2026, at 16:34, Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > "John R Levine" <[email protected]> writes: >> > >> >>> ... and I'm explicitly not volunteering; this seems like a bad idea. >> The >> >>> current situation is not broken, and poking at it seems like bad mojo >> to me. >> >> >> >> I have to agree with Warren. Considering all the things on DNSOP's >> >> plate, this strikes me as an extremely poor use of our limited >> >> capacity. >> > >> > Is this going to need consensus to move forward? >> >> Writing the draft is moving forward because our AD said it was. It's not >> clear that the eventual consensus call for that draft will even come to >> this WG. >> >> --Paul Hoffman >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
