Re: [wg-c] INT domain

[bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich)]

Not to redirect the discussion, but it is a fact that future
implementations of IPV6 expect to use the .int TLD for purely technical
purposes (not related to any treaty that I know of). 

Or perhaps I misunderstand the following cite from 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-lookups-07.txt :


    "o   A new domain, IP6.INT, is defined to support lookups based on
        IPv6 address."

Bill Semich
.NU domain

At 08:44 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Eric Brunner wrote:
>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.
>
Bill Semich
President and Founder
.NU Domain Ltd
http://whats.nu
bill@mail.nic.nu