[ga-roots] FW: Stability of the Internet?

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 9:22 AM
> To: 'bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com'; Roeland Meyer
> Cc: bc@vicious.dropbear.id.au; nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: RE: Stability of the Internet?
> 
> 
> > From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
> > [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 4:02 PM
> > 
> > > Since INT is for intenational treaty organization, the use 
> > of INT internally
> > > would create a collision. Thereby, masking the entire INT 
> > TLD from the
> > > clueless org that did that. In past /ICANN/DNSO discussions 
> > it has been
> > > suggested, that we reserve a LOCAL or PRIVATE TLD for 
> > internal use only. Let
> > > me know what y'all think and which one y'all prefer. My 
> > personal preference
> > > is for both (three tiered <Internet>/Local/Private). The 
> > next question is;
> > > should this be an RFC?
> > 
> > 
> > 	INT was originally earmarked for multinational 
> > organizations. It 
> > 	was then inclusive of INTernet infrastructure and only 
> > later was 
> > 	the multinational charter clarified to restrict these groups to 
> > 	international treaty organizations.
> > 	
> > 	There is work being done in the IETF to create such a private
> > 	use TLD.
> 
> Where? Also, this may bring on a jurisdiction issue with 
> ICANN/DNSO. It is the ICANN that is recommending new TLDs to 
> the DOC, not the IETF. In order tfor that effort to comply 
> with WIP process, it should make attempts to surface within 
> relevent ICANN activity as well. Otherwise, ICANN doesn't 
> know about it and can't make appropriate recommendations. I'm 
> very much involved in that area and they are invisible to 
> every one, in the DNSO. This effects the open/transparent 
> process and if they don't want to catch a LOT of political 
> flak (consider this fair-warning), they need to widen the 
> visibility of their effort. This effects ICANN policy 
> directly and IETF isn't a policy org. They are a PSO, not a DNSO.
> 
> -- 
> ROELAND M.J. MEYER
> /USG/DOC/NTIA/ICANN/DNSO member
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html