[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] INT domain
Huh? what has the Internet's belly button got to do with this query, Kevin?
FYI, ip6.int is an active domain on the Internet, not a "work in progress" :
Query: ip6.int. Query type: Any record
Recursive query: Yes Authoritative answer: Yes
Query time: 16508 ms. Server name: n/a
Answer:
ip6.int. 86400 NS munnari.oz.au.
ip6.int. 86400 NS imag.imag.fr.
ip6.int. 86400 NS ns.isi.edu.
ip6.int. 86400 NS dot.ep.net.
ip6.int. 129600 SOA dot.ep.net.
hostmaster.ep.net.
1925627 ; serial
10800 ; refresh (3 hours)
900 ; retry (15 minutes)
604800 ; expire (7 days)
129600 ; minimum (1 day, 12 hours)
Additional:
munnari.oz.au. 82941 A 128.250.1.21
munnari.oz.au. 82941 A 128.250.22.2
imag.imag.fr. 218592 A 129.88.30.1
ns.isi.edu. 86400 A 128.9.128.127
dot.ep.net. 86400 A 198.32.2.10
Just to keep the record on this straight, and not to digress *anymore* please from the tasks in front of WG-C <smile>
Bill Semich
.NU Domain
At 10:37 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>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
>**********************************************************************
>