Re: [wg-c] INT domain

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

Tony,

[Mr. Anthony Judge and whoever is minding the store at the IANA now
 that Josh Elliot has left for tucows and this working group, are cc'd,
 as is the wg-c list.]

We covered some of this ground mid-December, when Milton Meuller's
then-current tangent was that .INT was an examplar gTLD registry
who's sparce population "proved" his point-of-the-moment that policed
registries must of necessity fail. Mike St. Johns was kind enough to
provide WG-C with a history of .INT up to 1996, and as you then pointed
out, the ITU has current and historical information on line.

I want to point out that the Union of International Associations comes
no closer to being an International Treaty Organization, having only
a League of Nations cite, and a liaison relationship with the ESOSOC,
and a roster entry, constructively interpreted (in possible error) by
the Union of International Associations as "observer status" under an
ITU provision, than any number of individual Indian Nations, or sets
of Indian Nations, which a) have LoN cites, b) have modern UN NGO cites,
and operate a bunch of (small) telcos and can find some colorable cite
in the ITU provisions as well.

IMO the UIA doesn't meet the criteria for .INT.

Now what I really wanted to say is how much I admire your elan, making
the threat of getting WG-C's modest minority of nutcases to go along
with cutting the ITU's throat and turn .INT into a DNSO super-political
playground, and attacking the footprint of the International Treaty System
in the DNS. Bravo!

We know that it is antithetical to Network Solutions' long-term interests
to accept the constraints imposed by the United States, a single national
jurisdiction, except as a matter of ongoing expediency. Now I can add, as
others may come to different conclusions, that your client has authorized
you to go after jurisdictions as also antithetical to Network Solutions'
long-term interests. Again Bravo!

Let me suggest that we pass on the subject until after the middle of next
month however, as a) it will keep, and b) it is a attractive nuisance to
the present real agenda of WG-C. No, .INT will never be subject to the
pathological process of WG-C, but suggesting it must have made you smile.

Cheers,
Eric

P.S. For those new to WG-C, Tony and I don't even breath the same air, and
I think Tony's current employer (NSI) should be bought-out of its contract
at nearly any price and promptly forgotten. I think the Tony's former client
(ITU) an occasional pain-in-the-(IETF's)-ass, and the International Treaty
System what ICANN should aspire to be a very minor part of, as opposed to
a aspiring to be a minor country club (a 501(c)(3) California Non-Profit
Corporation with no significant social mission) or a flag of convience for
a cartel of high-cap for-profits.