Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-davies-int-historic-04.txt> (Deprecating infrastructure "int" domains) to Informational RFC

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Kim, Scott

I guess it was and is unclear to me how the responsibility of what goes on inside
a TLD like .int that is run by IANA is or is not subject to ICANN decisions. I
was thinking that the policies where and still are solely regulated by our RFCs
as long as we do not change that explicitly - which this draft does not seem
to intend.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 08:35:10PM -0400, Scott Bradner wrote:
> .int domain is in use - see, for example, itu.int
> 
> the IETF can clearly ask that any .int second level domains that were created by IETF action
> (e.g. tpc.int) be removed but less clearly can the IETF ask that .int second level domains that the IETF had no
> part in creating be removed
> 
> .int is run by the IANA because it has always been run by the IANA - Jon at first
> then the IANA when the IANA came into existence
> 
> well prior to ICANN being formed there was talk about handing management of .int over to the ITU - 
> Jon had proposed that, but told the ITU that he needed some documentation on how .int
> would be run before he would do that (I was in at least two meetings between Jon and an ITU person
> about the topic) - the two documents were
> 	1/ a clear statement on who could register in .int
> 	2/ a document describing how the ITU would actually operate the servers
> 
> but the ITU never produced the documents so the transfer never happened
> 
> I was not "in the room" when Jon agreed to put tpc in .int - but Marshall Rose was and 
> also I assume Carl Malamud - one could ask them what their argument was
> 
> Scott
> 
> > On Oct 19, 2022, at 7:23 PM, George Michaelson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > I agree with what I thik Toerless is saying here.
> > 
> > 1) the wording in the draft appears to (re)open the door to use of the
> > domain. This is despite the intent of the draft and I believe the
> > organisation, to remove dependency and use of the domain. Why is this
> > wording being used?
> > 
> > 2) why does IANA continue to "operate" the domain, if there is no
> > dependency and no forseen use? The proper way to get shot of a burden,
> > is to give it to somebody else. Re-delegate to ICANN and make them
> > responsible for the registrar decisions about what treaty bodies are
> > allowed to have state in .INT
> > 
> > Toerless? Is that a reasonably good take on what you said? It's what I
> > think you said.
> > 
> > -G
> > 
> > -- 
> > last-call mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

-- 
---
[e-mail]