Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <status-change-int-tlds-to-historic-00.txt> (Moving TCP.INT and NSAP.INT infrastructure domains to historic)

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 01-Apr-22 03:18, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> 
> Thanks to Brian for the pointer.
> 
> At 02:04 AM 30-03-2022, Joe Abley wrote:
>> For some reason I didn't see the original message, and searching
>> datatracker.ietf.org for "status-change-int-tlds-to-historic"
>> reveals no documents. So I am replying to what I have, but perhaps
>> matters have been overtaken by events.
> 
> I was able to reproduce the problem described above.
> 
>> I suspect the IESG can declare its published documents relating to
>> that domain to be historic which will aid the administrators of the
>> INT domain in making decisions about the remaining delegations. At
>> least some of the names attached to the TPC.INT project are still
>> eminently contactable and it seems entirely plausible to me that a
>> friendly consensus could be reached amongst everybody concerned.
> 
> The documents relating to the domain are not IESG-approved
> documents.  They are not covered by the agreement which supplements
> the ICANN-IETF MoU signed between the IETF Administration LLC and the
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.

That doesn't matter. The domain names concerned are in the category
of "assignments of domain names for technical uses" defined in the
basic MoU, which are explicitly "not considered to be policy issues"
and remain under the IETF's control.

> 
>> It is not uncommon for there not to be an obvious single point of
>> policy administration when the closer you get to the root of the
>> namespace, especially when you stir in ideas and services conceived
>> in a gentler, more informal era.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> I don't think it's necessary for the IESG to claim or try to exert
>> policy control over the INT or TCP.INT domains for a measure such as
>> I imagine this document might be taking to be useful.
> 
> The IESG will be asserting policy control by moving forward.

No, they are "technical uses" and not a matter of policy.
The wording in the MoU was designed explicitly for such cases.
(I was the main document editor as well as a signatory.)
This whole matter is IETF business.

Regards,
     Brian

> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>