So the problem as you state it (if I understand this right) is that all this draft does, is disclaim subdomains for use by IETF and related bodies, it seeks to make no other alteration to the delegation of authority of the domain, or disclaim registrar functions for the domain. But, it changes language relating to occupancy rules for the domain. To me, that demands a "why" question (and answer) and "on whose authority or request" and "is this actually necessary" I was wrong to suggest it can simply be disclaimed, I didn't realise there were other non-IETF occupants to whom some duty of care remains. Clearly, if I understand that right, IANA should not simply walk away from registrar functions. Do I have this right? cheers (and thanks for the clarification) -George On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:35 AM Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <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
