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

[Kim Davies <[e-mail]>]

Quoting Toerless Eckert on Thursday October 20, 2022:
> a) Why does the draft say 
> 
>   "intergovernmental organizations, which are organizations established by
>   international treaties between or among national governments
>   when rfc1591 says:
>   "organizations established by international treaties, (or international databases)"
>   
>   This seems to be an intentional different/refined wording. Why ?

You're right it is refined. I don't view the fragment pertaining to
intergovernmental treaty organizations as materially different, but the
language does better reflects how we describe such organizations in more
recent documentation than RFC 1591.

Bear in mind there is much in RFC 1591 that is no longer accurate today,
which is not surprising as the document represented a snapshot of IANA
procedures at the time of its publication in 1994.

> b) If we are going to want to refine the future use of .int (because
>   we want to be crisp about the purpose before passing it on to some operating
>   registry):
> 
>   Would https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations__;!!PtGJab4!_zJG_TTv237t4E0QAum3p2GatXCmnio1zBGVk8zbTiiphSL2Sfk9Mhxmoru0s712O3ycAe35MxiWo7oIlVLa$  [en[.]wikipedia[.]org] be able to
>   get a .int domain ? The way i read wikipedia, there is no treaty involved,
>   but it is an association and formalized through a declaration
>   and later a statue. Or does this rightfully not deserve a .int domain
>   because it does not have the right (treaty) paperwork (and the DNS has the wrong
>   order for the brits anyhow ;-) ?

It is beyond the scope of this I-D to alter the eligibility criteria for
.INT, that is a matter for ICANN. It was a deliberate intention to limit
the document to clarifying the status of some .INT second-level domains
that were specified for infrastructure purposes but are today defunct.

>   Aka: if we have the freedom to make .int more useful maybe rethink / broaden
>   it permitted use with cases like this considered.

As described in RFC 3172, the applications that had resided in .INT now
righfully belong in .ARPA which was dubbed the "Address and Routing
Parameter Area Domain" and is designated for infrastructure identifier
applications at the direction of the IAB.

>    with explicit text earlier, that these domain names must never be re-used
>    and maybe even instructions how to populate them with some appropriate NULL RR
>    (not sure what the best RR would be).

I believe it is beyond the capability of an Informational RFC to
command such an outcome. With that said, as someone with responsibility
over how the .INT registry is operated today, we have no intention to
recirculate these labels in the future. But I can't preclude future
policy development concluding and requiring IANA do something different
down the road. I trust future policy makers would think long and hard
about the ramifications of reusing these labels.

kim