Re: [wg-c] INT domain

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

How can we overlook the fundamental regime rule for internet drafts:

"It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as
    reference material or to cite them other than as 'work in progress.'"

Indeed, when we lose sight of this distinction, we engage in 
omphalokaleptic exercises such as stating "My ownership of .web was
approved by IANA" based on the content of Jon Postel's (long out-dated)
internet draft.



>>> J. William Semich <bill@mail.nic.nu> 03/15/00 09:58AM >>>
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

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************