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 last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
