Hello, RFC 1591 says "Second level names in INT are registered by the PVM at ISI.EDU." So why does the draft say that The IANA shall coordinate the removal of any of the historical "int" domains discussed in this document that are still delegated in the "int" zone? > On 10/19/2022 7:23 PM EDT George Michaelson <ggm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
